Pubdate: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 Source: West Hawaii Today (HI) Copyright: 2002 West Hawaii Today Contact: http://westhawaiitoday.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/644 Author: Rev. Dennis Shields Link: http://www.TheReligionofJesusChurch.org Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n023/a05.html Viewpoint FREEDOMS PRESCRIBED BY FOUNDERS ARE ABSOLUTE The editorial Jan. 4 drew several false conclusions e.g. the religious use of cannabis is wrong but the traditional religious use of peyote is OK. Tradition is not in the First Amendment, nor is tradition the criteria of Hawaii case law. If tradition were a criteria for religious freedom, then many newer religions like Bahais, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Scientologists would not meet this standard. The First Amendment was created to prevent this kind of false standard from being applied to any religion. Many members of the Religion of Jesus Church state their reason for joining our church is that the religious use of cannabis increases spiritual receptivity and enhances their creative imagination. These religious experiences are real and rightfully constitutionally protected. Rather than an end-run, we seek to secure constitutional protection for a God-given liberty. Many of us would have remained agnostic or atheist, were it not for the religious experiences gained through the use of this miracle herb. We would not have obtained the personal relationship we now share with God and Jesus without it. One may disagree with our religious views and experiences, but the First Amendment guarantees no one can deny this inalienable right and mandated church practice. Many of our members have faced religious persecution and arrest. Some have gone to jail for obeying the command of Jesus to "heal the sick in accordance with the will of my Father in Heaven." Since it is evident that cannabis heals, and that God created it, our right to use it for religious purposes including healing, has always been inalienable. The determining criteria is set by Hawaii case law, which has a four-prong test to justify the burdening of religion: Is the religious belief sincerely held; is the religion in question legitimate; is the religious practice an essential element of the faith in question and does the state have a compelling state interest to burden the religion and is such by the least restrictive means The debate as to the religious use of cannabis is settled. The state has stipulated to three of the four-pronged test found in State versus Blake. One issue remains: Can the state demonstrate a compelling interest such that the least restrictive means of burdening religion is total prohibition of cannabis use, even invading the home to prevent religious and medicinal faith healing or requisite cultivation. Such a demonstration has never been made and is impossible given cannabis use in faith as a component of healing and the Legislature's endorsement of the medicinal cannabis use. We agree with the editorial opinion that the cannabis laws are outdated and undeniable evidence exists for decriminalization. However it doesn't make sense to say editorially these laws don't work and should be changed and also deny the religious freedom to do so. We believe this contradiction is caused by a prejudice directed at the antics of one outspoken, and often childish member of our church, currently on trial. We understand why the newspaper media on both sides of the island have even mocked our cause in reaction to this individual. For years many of us have expressed frustration directly to this individual. We are frustrated that such good works, as testifying and helping patients testify for medicinal use before the Legislature; giving medicine or plants to qualified patients with nowhere else to turn; giving council to those in need where to get scarce medical approval; and other acts of good will done in private and in quiet are overshadowed because of the revulsion created by this one individual. We would agree, were the editorial opinion this individual is the worst case scenario to be on trial and religious freedom be dependent on such character, however, even the worst case example deserves religious freedom for that is the tide which raises all boats. We agree with the point that if an opium church were to fulfill this test then such church would have religious rights. We disagree this would be a bad thing, when the drug war only perpetuates the constant population of junkies burglarizing our homes and businesses, to satisfy a $500 dollar a day habit worth only five cents if more humanely regulated. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse. Hard drug addicts need humane medical care not judicial punishment adding salt to raw wounds. The thought that everybody would be free to try it and would is a red herring, anyone can buy gasoline legally, sniff it get intoxicated until their brain hemorrhages, yet few do so. We offer the opinion that such a church would be a welcome relief to this failed war on drugs; which is more harmful to society than is drug abuse; sanctuary is a historical even traditional role of the church against similar and once legal blasphemies like slavery. Currently there is no claim of religious sanctuary for opium use being made, so this is another red herring, which implies falsely the harm from opium to the relatively harmless cannabis. It is both illogical and wrong to deny the religious use of a harmless herb because a different herb is considered harmful. A far better target for editorial angst is the river of corruption polluting the police departments both here, and nationally; the headwaters of this malignancy is the cesspool known as the drug war. Law enforcement double dips even locally; after all if $50,000 is stolen directly from the Kona evidence room how much is stolen before it ever gets there? Why are so many eradication missions flown at peak harvest times when the most profitable contraband could be ripped off? If police have a moral culture where they will cheat themselves out of promotions, then what will the public be cheated, and to what extent? Given recent events one wonders if there is a higher crime rate per capita among Hawaii police, than among the general population? The evident corruption of the police is a far greater harm to society than will ever come from someone offering cannabis in worship. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh