Guide for medical cannabis ministers
and medical marijuana ministers

    This is a Guide for medical cannabis ministers and medical marijuana ministers.

    This Guide outlines some of the topics you may need to prepare for in order to have a successful legal defense in both federal (U.S.) and state (California) court for working as a medical marijuana minister or medical cannabis minister in a California medical cannabis collective, dispensary, or cooperative.

    Exact material will vary greatly by religion. I provide examples from my own religion, although many of the examples may not apply to your religion. You will want to prepare your own defense, probably with the help of a lawyer skilled in first amendment and criminal law.

Cannabis Clergy Guide

basic defense

    The basic religious defense is that the law in question either (1) is clearly biased against or for a particular religion or religions and therefore against the first amendment (applied by the 14th amendment to the states) and the California state constitution or (2) is law of general applicability that places a burden on a sincerely held religious belief and therefore against the RFRA (federal) and the RLUIPA (federal and state).

    The RFRA is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The RLUIPA is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

    The Ayahuasca case, February 21, 2006, Gonzales v. Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), affirms that the RFRA applies to religious use of a Schedule I drug that is banned by federal law.


    The RFRA is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

    The RFRA first requires that the defendant prove through a preponderance of evidence that an otherwise neutral law of general applicability places a substantial burden on a sincerely held religious belief that an act is required by the religion.

    The government must then show that it has a compelling interest in criminalizing the religious act for the specific instance. It is not enough that the government merely claim that the act is dangerous. It must prove it is dangerous.

    Then the government must prove that it has applied the least restrictive method possible for meeting the government’s compelling interest.

ayahuasca case

    In the February 21, 2006 case of Gonzales v. Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), Chief Justice C.J. Roberts writing for the 8-0 majority (Alito didn’t participate because he didn’t hear the case) claimed regarding the religious use of DMT-containing tea:

  1. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the controlling law for this matter.
  2. The Government must prove that it has a compelling interest in criminalizing the religious use of this tea for this specific instance.
  3. Just because the Government says that a drug is dangerous in legislation (DMT is Schedule I) does not relieve the government of its obligation to show that it is dangerous in this specific case.
  4. The Government bears the burden of showing actual harm and the evidence the Government presented about actual harm caused by using DMT-containing tea did not meet its standard.
  5. The government failed to provide a clear compelling interest which would override the default assumption of religious freedom as spelled out in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  6. The Supreme Court never even got to considering whether the ban on the tea was the “least restrictive means” available to meet the governmental interest because the Government failed to show a compelling interest in the first place.


    Being arrested pretty much automatically constitutes a substantial burden.


    The government can question the sincerity of beliefs.

    The three basic tests to qualify for protection under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) are: (1) the government burdens a (2) sincerely held (3) religious belief.

    While the government seems to normally challenge whether or not your beliefs are religious, they can also challenge the sincerity of your beliefs. There is a Supreme Court case (I will add the citation later) involving two different people challenging (under completely different laws, not the RFRA) Florida’s requirement to vaccinate their children. The Supreme Court protected one family because the court decided their religious beliefs were sincere and rejected the other family’s protection because the court decided that their religious beliefs were clearly faked.

    You have to sincerely believe that the divine has called you to be a medical marijuana minister or medical cannabis minister.

    You can’t fake this to try to pull something over on the government.

    Your religious beliefs have to be sincere and real.

    This blog is about how to be a medical marijuana minister or medical cannabis minister. Anyone with sincere religious beliefs that their religion requires them to minister to and help those who need medical marijuana can become a medical marijuana minister or medical cannabis minister.

    I am emphasizing that your religious beliefs must be sincere and real.

    I have already pointed out several easy ways to get written documentation (including my own religion [external link], Universal Life Church [external link], and The Hawai’i Cannabis Ministry (THC Ministry) [external link]).

    I can help you learn the details of being a minister. Come back and read this web page daily.

    And let me again emphasize that I am offering free in-person lessons that can apply to any religion.

    Free in-person medical cannabis minister lessons offered Monday nights near the border of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, California. Send your email address or a self addressed stamped envelope to Milo, PO Box 1361, Tustin, California, USA, 92781 if you plan to attend (I don’t show up if I don’t expect any students; I will reply to your letter with the exact time and location). I check the post office box once a month (late in the month). I checked the mail for the end of January 2015.

valid religion

    The government can question whether or not the beliefs are religious (non-religious beliefs don’t have this protection).

    The government is not supposed to be able to question the validity of beliefs, just whether or not they are religious.

    The two most common tests for being a legally valid religion are the Meyers’ Test and the IRS test, both of which are highly biased in favor of Roman Catholic beliefs.

    The California state Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has already ruled that my religion is a legally valid religious creed subject to state protection, although this ruling may or may not have applicability for a criminal prosecution.

    There are numerous specific court cases that address the question of what constitutes a legally valid religion or religious creed. These court cases give specific standards (or tests) based on the Roman Catholic Church.

    Currently there is a six judge majority of the U.S. Supreme Court who are active members of the Roman Catholic Church (John Roberts, Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor).

    In theory, no court should question the validity of any religious beliefs.

    In reality, I assume that facing a hostile judge I must prove through preponderance of evidence that my religion is substantially, qualitatively, and quantifiably more legally valid than the officially established Roman Catholic Church of the U.S. Supreme Court.

strict scrutiny

    U.S. District Chief Judge Vaugh R. Walker struck down Proposition 8 using two standards of the law.

    One standard Judge Walker used was that the law was based on so many unfounded claims that there was no rational basis for the law. This could be used against the federal law placing cannabis as a Schedule I drug. Francis Young, a DEA administrative law judge, ruled in 1988 that cannabis had no known danger (Docket # 86-22).

    The other standard that Judge Walker used to strike down Poposition 8 was strict scrutiny.

    Strict scrutiny is a test in discrimination cases holding laws to a higher standard when they adversely affect certain minority groups.

    To meet strict scrutiny a law must be justified by a “compelling government interest” and must be “narrowly tailored” to meet that interest.

    The tests for whether a minority is within a “suspect classification” are: (1) been historically targeted by discrimination; (2) a “discrete” and “insular” community; (3) be a minority for an unchangeable characteristic; and (4) lack the power to protect themselves using the political process. A qualifying group does not have to meet all four standards and other factors may be considered.

    This obviously doesn’t apply to Christian medical marijuana ministers, but it certainly applies to Pagan and Witch medical marijuana ministers (including my own religion).


  1. burden on religious beliefs
  2. sincerity of religious beliefs
  3. religious beliefs
  4. religious requirement
  5. Meyers’ Test
  6. IRS guidelines
  7. age of beliefs
  8. numbers of believers
  9. divinity
  10. Goddess of Cannabis
  11. Diana
  12. ultimate ideas
  13. comprehensiveness of beliefs
  14. philosophy
  15. mathematics
  16. numbers
  17. science
  18. metaphysical beliefs
  19. creation
  20. after life
  21. ethical system (now includes Rasta info)
  22. external signs
  23. accoutrements of religion
  24. statues
  25. the Sphinx
  26. prophet or teacher
  27. sacred writings
  28. Ancient Egyptian proverbs
  29. Rastafari Bible verses
  30. music
  31. gathering places
  32. temples (now includes Rasta info)
  33. pyramids
  34. tomb at Qurna
  35. Tomb of Userhet
  36. sacred gardens
  37. keepers of knowledge
  38. sesh per ankh
  39. ritual or ceremony (now includes Rasta info)
  40. marriage and weddings
  41. circumambulation
  42. tarot
  43. organized structure
  44. discipline
  45. education
  46. holy days (now includes Rasta info)
  47. diet or fasting (now includes Rasta info)
  48. tabouli
  49. appearance
  50. clothing
  51. propagation
  52. distinct and separate existence
  53. general applicability
  54. strict scrutiny
  55. defense
  56. Witch Hunt
  57. blood libel
  58. time line
  59. illegal bias
  60. What is religion?
  61. pharmacy and sorcery
  62. potions
  63. false claims
  64. false claims of non-existence
  65. Satanic claims
  66. supposed danger
  67. disease
  68. bad weather
  69. agricultural failure
  70. crop failure
  71. chicken eggs failure
  72. milk cow failure
  73. racism
  74. laughter
  75. law against cannabis Witchcraft
  76. Exodus 22:18
  77. other verses against Witches
  78. Witch of Endor
  79. Papal Bull of 1484
  80. Malleus Maleficarum
  81. Martin Luther
  82. separation of Church and State
  83. Controlled Substance Act (CSA)
  84. conspiracy
  85. borders and Customs
  86. arrest
  87. fabricated evidence
  88. torture
  89. bruloirs
  90. pressing
  91. Elizabeth Bathory
  92. mobs
  93. death penalty
  94. hanging
  95. drawn and quartered
  96. beheading
  97. burning
  98. burning stake
  99. burning in Hell
  100. sealed records
  101. book of antiquity
  102. United States
  103. Alabama
  104. Alaska
  105. American Samoa
  106. Arizona
  107. Arkansas
  108. California
  109. Colorado
  110. Connecticut
  111. Delaware
  112. District of Columbia
  113. Florida
  114. Georgia
  115. Guam
  116. Hawaii
  117. Idaho
  118. Illinois
  119. Indiana
  120. Iowa
  121. Kansas
  122. Kentucky
  123. Louisiana
  124. Maine
  125. Maryland
  126. Massachusetts
  127. Michigan
  128. Minnesota
  129. Mississippi
  130. Missouri
  131. Montana
  132. Nebraska
  133. Nevada
  134. New Hampshire
  135. New Jersey
  136. New Mexico
  137. New York
  138. North Carolina
  139. North Dakota
  140. Northern Mariana Islands
  141. Ohio
  142. Oklahoma
  143. Oregon
  144. Pennsylvania
  145. Puerto Rico
  146. Rhode Island
  147. South Carolina
  148. South Dakota
  149. Tennessee
  150. Texas
  151. Utah
  152. Vermont
  153. Virginia
  154. Virgin Islands
  155. Washington
  156. West Virginia
  157. Wisconsin
  158. Wyoming

major cases

    Courts have upheld the right of Native Americans to use the hallucinogenic plant peyote in religious rituals, e.g., State v. Whittington, 19 Ariz. App. 27, 504 P.2d 950 (1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 946, 94 S.Ct. 3071 (1974); People v. Woody, 61 Cal.2d 716, 394 P.2d 813, 40 Cal. Rptr. 69 (1964); Whitehorn v. State, 561 P.2d 539 (0kl. Crim. App. 1977); contra State v. Big Sheep, 75 Mont. 219, 243 P. 1067 (1926); State v. Soto, 21 Or. App. 794, 537 P.2d 142 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 955, 96 S.Ct. 1431 (1976).

worker summary owner summary today’s topic

daily topics


next chapter

return to Cannabis Clergy

previous page   next page
previous page
Cannabis Clergy
  next page
resisting Christianity


    The courts have already ruled in multiple cases that a person who starts preparing a religious defense (including gathering certificates and other paperwork) after arrest loses all chance to use the late religious defense. It is essential that you prepare your defense before you are arrested. Adequate preparation may even prevent arrest.

    This website is concerned with religious matters and only obliquely discusses the law. I strongly recommend that medical marijuana ministers rely on a high quality lawyer.

    I (Milo) use my own religion as an example, because this is the religion I know well. I strongly urge people to get together with their lawyer and prepare a similar discussion for their own religion. Again, my religion is only an example.

    Good news: Many people over the years have successfully used Pr Ntr Kmt religious cannabis certificates. The author of this website has personally several times over more than a decade shown various police Pr Ntr Kmt documentation and the police have politely returned the religious cannabis. There are at least two Pr Ntr Kmt cannabis ministers who have been released after the police discovered several pounds of religious cannabis (although the police kept the cannabis). There are numerous real world successes.

    Reality: If the government decides it wants to “get you”, then your only chance is if you can afford a really, really good lawyer.

    The law is whatever the government decides the law is.

    The rights you heard about in grade school only apply if you can afford a great lawyer. Public defenders are under-budgeted and only want to process paperwork for plea bargains. They simply don’t have the time or money for trials.

    We don’t want to discourage anyone from worshiping with cannabis, but we do want to strongly warn everyone that you have a significant risk of long term imprisonment or worse, especially outside of major industrialized nations.

    Please act responsibly. Please hire a lawyer if you can possibly afford to do so.


    The courts have already ruled in multiple cases that a person who starts preparing a religious defense (including gathering certificates and other paperwork) after arrest loses all chance to use the late religious defense. It is essential that you prepare your defense before you are arrested. Adequate preparation may even prevent arrest.

    Get a Pr Ntr Kmt certificate as proof that your cannabis religion is real.

    These web pages contain religious advice. These web pages are not professional legal or medical advice. Nothing on this website should be considered as a substitute or replacement for professional medical, health, or legal advice. All persons should seek the advice of qualified medical, health, or legal providers.

    If you spot an error in fact, grammar, syntax, or spelling, or a broken link, or have additional information, commentary, or constructive criticism, please contact Milo at PO Box 1361, Tustin, Calif, 92781, USA.

previous page   next page
previous page
Cannabis Clergy
  next page
resisting Christianity

Copyright © 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014 Milo.

Created: July 14, 2010

Last Updated: April 20, 2014

May Goddess Bast grant YOU love, peace, joy, bounty, and wisdom.