COM 0102.036 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

edito~~apiuc.org, dlafhiCdnagsense.org, subu~issions@cauuabisaaews.corcu, O`~:~2 P1VI O1 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 afour-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 We agree with the editorial opinion that the cannabis laws are outdated and undeniable evidence exists for dc: criminalization. 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 ~riaited for "rev. I3eaa~is shields" <lcouagold(a~lconacoast.coan> ~