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.

RFRA

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:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the controlling law for this matter.
The Government must prove that it has a compelling interest in criminalizing the religious use of this tea for this specific instance.
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.
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.
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.
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.

burden

Being arrested pretty much automatically constitutes a substantial burden.

sincerity

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).

topics

burden on religious beliefs
sincerity of religious beliefs
religious beliefs
religious requirement
Meyers’ Test
IRS guidelines
age of beliefs
numbers of believers
divinity
Goddess of Cannabis
Diana
ultimate ideas
comprehensiveness of beliefs
philosophy
mathematics
numbers
science
metaphysical beliefs
creation
after life
ethical system (now includes Rasta info)
external signs
accoutrements of religion
statues
the Sphinx
prophet or teacher
sacred writings
Ancient Egyptian proverbs
Rastafari Bible verses
music
gathering places
temples (now includes Rasta info)
pyramids
tomb at Qurna
Tomb of Userhet
sacred gardens
keepers of knowledge
sesh per ankh
ritual or ceremony (now includes Rasta info)
marriage and weddings
circumambulation
tarot
organized structure
discipline
education
holy days (now includes Rasta info)
diet or fasting (now includes Rasta info)
tabouli
appearance
clothing
propagation
distinct and separate existence
general applicability
strict scrutiny
defense
Witch Hunt
blood libel
time line
illegal bias
What is religion?
pharmacy and sorcery
potions
false claims
false claims of non-existence
Satanic claims
supposed danger
disease
bad weather
agricultural failure
crop failure
chicken eggs failure
milk cow failure
racism
laughter
law against cannabis Witchcraft
Exodus 22:18
other verses against Witches
Witch of Endor
Papal Bull of 1484
Malleus Maleficarum
Martin Luther
separation of Church and State
Controlled Substance Act (CSA)
conspiracy
borders and Customs
arrest
fabricated evidence
torture
bruloirs
pressing
Elizabeth Bathory
mobs
death penalty
hanging
drawn and quartered
beheading
burning
burning stake
burning in Hell
sealed records
book of antiquity
United States
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

major cases

Young Life Campaign v. Patino (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 559, 561
Sherbert 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965
Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)
Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical
Malnak v. Yogi
Meyers November 5, 1996, 95 F.3d 1475

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

warning:

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 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.

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 Cannabis Clergy		next page resisting Christianity

CannabisClergy.com Guide for medical cannabis ministers and medical marijuana ministers