First Church of Cannabis

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 04:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: If they don't legally define what a religion is how do you determine if someone is in fact practicing a religion? Without a definition of religion how can one be denied a right to it?

Also as was pointed out they do have to determine if the person sincerely believes he is in fact practicing a religion. See United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), as they stated the beliefs don't have to be true they jsut have to honestly believe them to be true. So if this guy believes in marijuana,yad, yada,yada he just has to believe it true in his own mind. If it is determined to be a ploy to smoke pot then it in fact can be disregarded.

Also they can outlaw pieces of religions that effect the health, or welfare of the greater good. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878] as they outlawed Polygomy, but obviously did not (and could not) outlaw Mormonism.


It really is a complex case, as is any case that concerns religion.

No one can be denied the right to practice a religion.  In that case, the tenets of his religion weren't in question.  The only question was whether or not he sincerely believes it.  The burden rests with the state to prove one way or the other.  Moreover, the burden rests with the state to prove a compelling interest.  Can't say it is a "health" issue because pot is used as a means to improve health.  In terms of polygamy, I know of no states where it is practiced legally.  

Consequently, I think there is a stronger case to be made for pot at the moment, but I could see polygamist also having their day in court.