The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the drug conviction of Shawn Fluewelling, who claimed he used marijuana as a religious sacrament. The high court ruled that the state’s drug law didn’t violate his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.
Fluewelling is a member of THC Ministry, a Hawaii-based organization that believes cannabis, the active ingredient in marijuana, is a fundamental right protected by God and the U.S. Constitution. Last week, the Idaho Supreme Court unanimously rejected Fluewelling’s appeal that his religious rights were being violated.
THC Ministry formally stands for The Hawaii Cannabis, according to the group’s website. THC is also the abbreviation for the psychoactive substance found in marijuana.
In his decision, Chief Justice Dan Eismann quoted an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case stating how the government can regulate religious acts. “Laws are made for the government of actions; and, while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices,” the court wrote in Reynolds v. United States, which Eismann quoted.
Fluewelling had argued that the state’s exemption for the sacramental use of peyote, which applies to members of Native American tribes, applies to his church and marijuana, but the court disagreed.
According to Eismann’s ruling, Meridian police found a third of an ounce of marijuana in Fluewelling’s residence in 2008, but he pled guilty to intention to distribute marijuana, which is a felony and carries stiffer punishment than mere possession. Fluewelling argued the state law is vague, letting prosecutors decide whether to prosecute for possession or intent to distribute drugs, but Eismann rejected that argument, saying Fluewelling told police he would share the marijuana with friends as a sacrament.
Please, get your facts straight…
The ‘journalist’ that wrote this article said, “Fluewelling is a member of THC Ministry, a Hawaii-based organization that believes cannabis, the active ingredient in marijuana, is a fundamental right protected by God and the U.S. Constitution.”
Ummm… No. You se, “THC” & “cannabinoids”, are the “active ingredients” of Cannabis…
The word, “marijuana”, is actually a potent form of tobacco that grows in the high desert in northern Mexico… William Hearst vilified hemp to discredit it, because he wanted to use his vast forest holdings to make paper with, rather than the hemp plant… It was purely a propaganda/psy-op against the people of this nation… Remember “Reefer Madness”?
Do some darn research & fact checking, will you please?
And I bet the Rastafarian’s would beg to differ with the ‘high’ courts’ ruling! LoL!
Go back about 100 years to a place in Europe and a person named Sula Bennet (sp) an entomologist (sp) (Language scientist) who discovered that the word calamus in the bible was a mistranslation and should have been rendered as cannabis. What if that is true and cannabis is the active ingredient in Moses’ holy anointing oil referred to in Exodous? Would consuming it then be a protected act?
How is it the churches were able to still use wine in their outer practices all through alcohol prohibition?
Its illegality is unconstitutional no matter how you slice it.
Logos
QuietBear: To quote a National Institutes of Health website: “The main active chemical in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC for short.”
Logos: If you’re interested in the wine in churches during prohibition issue, I’d recommend Daniel Okrent’s book on prohibition called “Last Call.” Here’s an interview he did w/ NPR’s Fresh Air.
The 1st Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, THE SMOKING OF MARIJUANA, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
At least this is the way some people read the 1st Amendment I guess.
Apparently prohibiting the free exercise of religion is OK if you just lie about what the constitution really says.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
So to say that the government has the right to interfere with religious practices shows that the judges are openly violating the constitution that they are sworn to protect.
Some people believe in a father, son and a ghost. Some people believe in reality and the divinity of a miracle plant. My religion is my religion; no matter what the government does to establish Christianity as the national religion and prohibit the free exercise of mine.
Apparently the constitution is not worth the hemp paper it was written on.