|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Legal Marijuana is Possible
by Marc Perkel
Dear Church of Reality Members,
I have some bad news and some good news. The bad
news is that the DEA
has denied our request for an exemption for the
use of Marijuana for the
Church of Reality. The good news however is that
they made a decision
finally and that we can, and will, proceed to
the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to get this decision overturned. I have
read their opinion which
is 47 pages long and this is something we can
win. But - I'm going to
need some help. Not asking for money because
that isn't an issue. But I
need some people who have legal skills to help
me with some of the details.
First - I need to get a good scan of the decision.
I'd like to get it in
PDF form. Need to find some place near San Bruno
California where I live
that can do the scan. Could use a recommendation.
Like to get that done
today so that I can get it online for you all
to read. It would be
especially good if I can get a good OCR so we
can cut and paste.
Second - I need to file some sort of notice of
appeal (from
administrative decision of DEA) with the Ninth
Circuit. Need someone to
find the form I need to file. This has to be
done within 30 days. The
document is dated Oct. 1st but I didn't get it
till Oct. 10th and then I
left town for a week. I'm conservative about
time deadlines so I want to
get this filed by Nov. 1st. So - need the right
form.
Third - representation. My legal skills are excellent
and I'm inclined
to make the arguments myself. But even though
I am the founder of the
Church of Reality I may be required to get a
lawyer. I need someone to
determine if I can do this or if the CoR will
need an attorney. If we
get an attorney I want a smart one. I get really
frustrated when I have
to hire a lawyer who is dumber than I am.
Fourth - Legal research on the issues. I'm already
formulating good
arguments to deal with the issues raised by DEA.
I'll post as soon as I
can so you can read them. I need some help researching
the following items:
a) DEA takes the position that the CoR isn't a
religion but rather a
philosophy. A philosophy doesn't have the same
constitutional
protections as a religion. Remember that these
definitions are based on
legal precedent so the IRS 501(c)3 status doesn't
make any difference at
all. In case law the definition isn't specific
but generally relies on
certain characteristics commonly found in religions.
One of our problems
is that we are a new religion and because of
our (lack of) age. Thus we
don't have a huge infrastructure, ancient legends,
rituals, holidays,
special clothing, clergy education, weddings,
funerals, etc. However the
web site has nearly 700 pages of material and
that's pretty good for a
religion not quite 10 years old.
We also lack a belief in the metaphysical and
supernatural. If we threw
virgins into volcanoes we'd be a religion. DEA
is taking the position
that we are just science, philosophy, and politics.
At issue is whether
there can be a reality based religion at all.
I have some interesting
arguments regarding that but looking for new
ideas.
I think the analogy is Buddhism. Suppose Gautama
Buddha, who is a real
person who lived around 400 BC were alive today
and he was 10 years into
the creation of Buddhism and he was going to
court to assert a religious
right under RFRA. How would he prove Buddhism
was a religion and not a
philosophy? For all practical purposes, I am
the Buddha of the Church of
Reality in that I am a real person and founder
of a new religion that
hopefully will be around for centuries to come.
b) Burden on law enforcement - Unlike the UDV
case that dealt with a
Schedule 1 drug not widely abused, we are asking
for Marijuana which is
widely used (technically abused for the purpose
of this proceeding). So
we have to address the issue of if the government
has a compelling
interest that overcomes a religious right. However
the issue needs to be
narrowly focused on the impact on law enforcement
that will change if
the CoR is allowed to use Marijuana. In other
words, will the drug abuse
problem get worse because of us? One good thing
I did in the application
is that I stated the CoR wasn't going to obtain
and dispense pot to the
membership and that we were asking for immunity
from prosecution if
members were caught with personal use quantities.
So I think that we can
make a good case that crime isn't likely to increase.
c) Scope of request - The CoR is making a religious
use request under
RFRA that applies to members only. This is not
about if pot should be
legal or if Pot is a dangerous drug. Those issues
are not before the
court in this case. The assumptions here, for
better or worse, is that
Marijuana is one of the most highly abused and
dangerous drugs on the
planet, and that it has, in the opinion of DEA,
no medical use
whatsoever. This is a religious use case only.
Anything else is off
topic. We are asking basically for 3 things,
1) The religious use of Marijuana for the purpose
of furthering our
religious goals of understanding reality as it
really is.
2) For the religious right to give Marijuana
to the sick and dying as a
religious right under the Sacred Principle of
Compassion.
3) For the religious right to receive Marijuana
for medical purposes
under the religious right of self ownership and
to preserve one's
existence so that one can contribute to the Tree
of Knowledge so that
their life story is remembered.
It is important that all reasons must be religiously
based because that
is the only issue before this court.
Fifth - Membership - If we win this - what is
a member? Who doe this
apply to. I need some help on this. The CoR is
not a license for
non-members to get high on pot. This is in fact
a religious act and
there needs to be a connection to one of the
above reasons for the
exemption. The DEA has raised the issue and I
don't yet have a clear
answer. There are a number of issues involved.
1) It may not be our problem. If someone gets
arrested for possession
and claims an exemption as a CoR member ten it
is up to them and the
courts to figure out if they are on an individual
basis. We are after
all just a religion and it's the court's job
to figure that out. Should
we issue membership cards? Christian don't have
to carry membership
cards to assert a religious right - so why should
we? But even if the
CoR gets that right - what constitutes "membership".
I need some legal
research on this issue.
Also - this is in the context of a religious act.
A Catholic drinking
wine (the blood of Christ) for communion and
a Catholic getting drunk on
a bottle of Mad Dog isn't that same thing. Both
are drinking wine. But
only one is a religious act.
So - that's a lot to start with. I'll send you
more information later.
Right now I need to get the appeal filed and
then figure out if we need
a lawyer. So first things first.
Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality
"Through us reality becomes aware of its own
existence"
Perkel can be reached at marc@perkel.com
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog