Freedom of religion?

[420 Warrior]

Ok, our united states constitution clearly states that we have a freedom of religion in America, does it not?

I've never been what some might call a "holy roller" or a "bible thumper" in my life, but my personal convictions lead me to believe in God and that all natural things are created by God in which cannabis happens to be one of those creations (unlike alcohol) I also believe that when I use mj I feel more focused on God's creations of beauty all around me, so that means mj helps feel closer to him...that's just my way of feeling about it.

Now...that being said, would it not be concidered a violation of my religious rights for the government to tell me how I want to acknowledge my God the way I feel fits my personal beliefs?

The Jamacan rastafarians use mj as part of their religion as well.

Could not a freedom of religion defense give you any legal stance in a court room?

Just food for thought


God made marijuana, man made alcohol...who you gonna' trust?

 

[onPOT]

In this interview Alfred Adask speaks directly to your inquiry 420 Warrior!

He explains the fact that we are viewed of as animals to the ruling elite and in their eyes chattel have no rights.

The Elites Philosophy with Alfred Adask - YouTube

and here is the excerpt from the Texas Health and Safety Code that Alfred references!

(14) "Drug" means articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary, or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, articles, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in this subdivision. The term does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories. A food for which a claim is made in accordance with Section 403(r) of the federal Act, and for which the claim is approved by the secretary, is not a drug solely because the label or labeling contains such a claim.

 

[420 Warrior]

That was totally interesting onPot and mad props to you for the good lookin' out!!!

Man or other animals hu? And a weed charge defended on the premise of "freedom of religion"?

We need some lawyers to look into this for us as we need a loophole in the system to make them overturn these unjust laws.

We need to unravel they're system using their own wording against them.

This wordage is blatantly unconstitutional and their should be an inquiry as to look further into this to see if these unjust mj laws are in turn unconstitutional as well.

We need some lawyers here at 420 magazine as this is exciting stuff!!!

 

[budbro]

Sorry, this has been tried many, many times and federal law trumps religious rights in America.

 

[420 Warrior]

Sorry, this has been tried many, many times and federal law trumps religious rights in America.

I guess rattle snake handling is much safer, right?

Like I've said before; "I guess our United States Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper anymore huh?"

 

[onPOT]

Did you watch the interview budbro? Alfred's case was dropped using this argument which proves that it can be done.

Where in our Constitution does it say that Federal law trumps religious rights? It does not. This is what is contained in the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[420 Warrior]

Check out what I just started a thread for The United States Constitution & Cannabis

 

[budbro]

Did you watch the interview budbro? Alfred's case was dropped using this argument which proves that it can be done.

Where in our Constitution does it say that Federal law trumps religious rights? It does not. This is what is contained in the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

hmmm, yes, but his case involved colloidal silver, not marijuana and I was answering a question relating to marijuana specifically.

It doesn't specifically say in our constitution that federal law trumps religion, however, the courts (established by the Constitution) have ruled in many cases (Oregon v. Smith, for one) that religious beliefs cannot be used as a defense if an existing law has been violated, and I happen to agree with them in this case. You might remember that couple that went to prison last month for denying their children medical attention because their religion did not allow for modern medicine, as well. I feel confident that our founding fathers didn't put that in the constitution for us to hide behind a law so we could smoke marijuana, sacrifice babies on the altar, or this guy to produce colloidal silver for religous beliefs. The solution is to change the existing laws, not trying to circumvent them under the guise of religous freedom.