THC - Cannabis - Ministry :: Community Forum Index
Michigan cases dismissed!
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    THC - Cannabis - Ministry :: Community Forum Index -> Testimonials
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
izzy2000ad
getting into high spirits
getting into high spirits


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:17 am    Post subject: CLAP CLAP Reply with quote

but what i dont get is this...

5. Congress specifically approved the International Convention on Psychotropic Drugs, 21 U.S.C. 801a (2006), which includes an exemption for any plant being used for religious purposes. Article 32, Section 4,of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances states, “A State on whose territory there are plants growing wild which contain psychotropic substances from among those in Schedule I and which are traditionally used by certain small, clearly determined groups in magical or religious rites, may, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, make reservations concerning these plants, in respect of the provisions of article 7, except for the provisions relating to international trade.”

Where in the states is there landrace strains, if so what are they..
_________________
Taking a ride on the crazy train
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Pepper
Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Cannabis Sacrament Minister


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 525
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The exemption was written so that wild plants (like Peyote) could be collected from the wild. This exemption does not allow for cultivation.
_________________
We will succeed unless we quit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rev. Joshua Snider
Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Cannabis Sacrament Minister


Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 83
Location: On the shores of Gitche Gumee, Of the shinig Big-See-Water,... Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One Love Brothers and Sisters!

I posted these as emergency templates and aside from the Bible exhibts they can be adopted to any religious exercize by changing the wording in the assertations. On issues like treaties as well as everything else they will fight you tooth and nail unless and untill they give up or you win your case. These templates are somewhat out of date and more up to date materials can be found at
http://www.firstchurchmagi.org/Modules/NewsManager/ShowCategories.aspx and http://www.ethiopianzioncopticchurch.org/Federal/Default.aspx
For Olsen's Cases I specificaly recomend the original 2007 complaint, the memorandum of law in support, The State of Iowas motion to dismiss with memorandum, Olsen's response to the states motion to dismiss with memorandum, Federal motion to dismiss with memorandum, and Olsen's response to federal motion to dismiss with memorandum.

One thing that I would ammend here, especialy for states that do not have their own RFRA, is that, I would argue any charge involving a states CSA involves a statutory application of the federal CSA so there is the application of federal law activating the federal RFRA.

The Bauer case from 1996 was decided under the specific language of the original Federal RFRA which stated the activity of the religious exercize had to be centrall to the religion and that importation was not central to the Rastafarian faith. This portion of the RFRA has been ammended by RLUIPA, and in so much as the Guerrero case relies on the bauer case in these matters it is bad law (that does not mean that it is not worth studying).

Navajo Nation v. Forest Service, No. 06-15371, No. 06-15436, No. 06-15455 (9th Cir. March 12, 2007), pages 12-17:
In 1997, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S. Ct. 2157, 138 L. Ed. 2d 624 (1997), the Supreme Court held RFRA unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments because it exceeded Congress's authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 529, 534-35. The Court did not, however, invalidate RFRA as applied to the federal government. See Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210, 1220-21 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding RFRA constitutional as applied to the federal government). Three years later, in response to City of Boerne, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). Pub. L. No. 106-274, 114 Stat. 803 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.). RLUIPA prohibits state and local governments from imposing substantial burdens on the exercise of religion through prisoner or land-use regulations. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, 2000cc-1. In addition, RLUIPA replaced RFRA's original, constitution-based definition of "exercise of religion" with the broader definition quoted above. RLUIPA §§ 7-8, 114 Stat. at 806-07. Under RLUIPA, and under RFRA after its amendment by RLUIPA in 2000, "exercise of religion" is defined to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4), 2000cc-5(7)(A).

In several ways, RFRA provides greater protection for religious practices than did the Supreme Court's pre-Smith free exercise cases. First, as we have previously noted, RFRA "goes beyond the constitutional language that forbids the 'prohibiting' of the free exercise of religion and uses the broader verb 'burden': a government may burden religion only on the terms set out by the new statute." United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1558 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended). Cf. U.S. Const. amd. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."); Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439, 451, 108 S. Ct. 1319, 99 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1988) ("The crucial word in the constitutional text is 'prohibit': 'For the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.'" (quoting Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 412 (Douglas, J., concurring))).

Second, as the Supreme Court noted in City of Boerne, RFRA provides stronger protection for free exercise than the First Amendment did under the pre-Smith cases because "the Act imposes in every case a least restrictive means requirement -- a requirement that was not used in the pre-Smith jurisprudence RFRA purported to codify." 521 U.S. at 535.

Third, RFRA provides broader protection for free exercise because it applies Sherbert's compelling interest test "in all cases" where the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b). Prior to Smith, the Court had refused to apply the compelling interest analysis in various contexts, exempting entire classes of free exercise cases from such heightened scrutiny. Smith, 494 U.S. at 883 ("In recent years, we have abstained from applying the Sherbert test (outside the unemployment compensation field) at all."); see, e.g., O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349, 107 S. Ct. 2400, 96 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1987) (not applicable to prison regulations); Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 707, 106 S. Ct. 2147, 90 L. Ed. 2d 735 (1986) (Burger, J., for plurality) (not applicable in enforcing "facially neutral and uniformly applicable requirement for the administration of welfare programs"); Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 506-07, 106 S. Ct. 1310, 89 L. Ed. 2d 478 (1986) (not applicable to military regulations).

Finally, and perhaps most important, Congress expanded the statutory protection for religious exercise in 2000 by amending RFRA's definition of "exercise of religion." Under the amended definition -- "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief" -- RFRA now protects a broader range of religious conduct than the Supreme Court's interpretation of "exercise of religion" under the First Amendment. See Guru Nanak Sikh Soc'y v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 995 n.21 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting same). To the extent that our RFRA cases prior to RLUIPA depended on a narrower definition of "religious exercise," those cases are no longer good law. See, e.g., Bryant v. Gomez, 46 F.3d 948, 949 (9th Cir. 1995) (burden must prevent adherent "from engaging in conduct or having a religious experience which the faith mandates" and must be "an interference with a tenet or belief that is central to religious doctrine" (quoting Graham v. Commissioner, 822 F.2d 844, 850-51 (9th Cir. 1987)); Stefanow v. McFadden, 103 F.3d 1466, 1471 (9th Cir. 1996) (no substantial burden because prisoner was not prevented from "engaging in any practices mandated by his religion"); Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1299 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiffs failed to establish "a substantial burden on a central tenet of their religion"). The district court in this case therefore erred by disregarding the amended definition and requiring Appellants to prove that the proposed action would prevent them "from engaging in conduct or having a religious experience which the faith mandates." 408 F. Supp. 2d at 904 (quoting Worldwide Church of God, Inc. v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000), decided before RLUIPA's passage) (emphasis added).

To answer another issue there is evidence to suggest that Cannabis existed on the North American continent prior to Collumbus and many tribes have historically used Cannabis in there religious exercise. One example is the Yurok tribe of Callifornia (see the Federal Defendants motion to dismiss in Olsen's ongoing 2007 case in Iowa).

Peace, One Love and All the Best!
Rev. Joshua Snider


Last edited by Rev. Joshua Snider on Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rev. Joshua Snider
Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Cannabis Sacrament Minister


Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 83
Location: On the shores of Gitche Gumee, Of the shinig Big-See-Water,... Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One love Brothers and Sisters!

If you Follow Carl Olsen's injunction that was dismissed (don't fret about that because now he appeals to a higher court) you will see that the U.S. Courts are saying that the international laws and treaties do not give standing to individuals in U.S. Courts. No problem, we just take them out of our claims and submit them instead as evidence for trial. Here is a more recent look at some of the problems in trying to fight a religious case here in the U.S. http://www.thc-ministry.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3882

One love,
Joshua
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    THC - Cannabis - Ministry :: Community Forum Index -> Testimonials All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Public forum Public Forum Members only Members only forum Members Group Members Group

THC-Light skin designed for Amsterdam Cannabis Ministry by JuggoPop
phpBB Group | THC Ministry Members | Cannabis Religion | Sacrament | Forum html archives | Site Map | RSS Feed |
ScriptWiz.com phpbb HTML Archiver - Created by ScriptWiz.com and released by Skinz.org