No “one” or “group” is religious enough to qualify for religious cannabis (aka marijuana)!!!
The bona fide religious use of cannabis is legal. The problem that is systematically arising is no one religious person or religious group is believed, buy the DEA, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, to be religious enough to qualify for legal status. This largely stems from Christian Imperialism.
Christian Imperialism is systematically responsible for the prejudice and discrimination of spiritual religions that use plants to connect with the Divine for purposes of enlightenment. Christian Imperialism believes there is no other way to enlightenment or heaven except through the church or Jesus. Any other way is an abomination. Christian Imperialism is responsible for many bias judgments by the DEA and all government branches concerning the equal protection of minority religious beliefs.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
The United Nations INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS Article 18. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
TITLE 42 >CHAPTER 21B—RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION § 2000bb. Congressional findings and declaration of purposes (a) Findings The Congress finds that (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The DEA claims to have absolute authority to approve or deny individuals and groups the right to religious use of cannabis as a sacrament. They also claim the right to take it away. All branches of government point to them as the sole decider in the religious use of cannabis as a sacrament. Where does this power come from and who gave it to them? Does any government agency have power over our universally given inalienable rights such as religion?
The DEA is in charge of the regulation of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) passed by our government in 1970. CSA is a listing of drugs in order from most harmful to least harmful. CSA listing is determined by high potential for abuse, accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Cannabis along with many other entheogenic sacraments are scheduled as a number one having a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical value in medicine in the United States, and no accepted safety for use under medical supervision.
Honorable Francis J. Young an administrative DEA law judge said, “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” The American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Medical Association (AMA) both recognize cannabis’ medicinal value. There are currently fourteen states in the United States that have passed medical marijuana laws recognizing the medicinal use and allowing doctors to write prescriptions. It seems the DEA and all branches of government are the only ones that fail to recognize cannabis’ medicinal properties along with its low level of toxicity.
It only takes morons or liars to continue to say cannabis has no safe medicinal use. If the DEA and all government branches admit that cannabis has medicinal value, then they would have to allow religious cannabis without restrictions. If cannabis is safe enough for medical reasons, then it is safe enough for religious practice. The only time government can interfere with religion according to all the laws small and great that protect our inalienable right to free exercise of religious practice is when there is a health and safety issue. If there are no health and safety issues the DEA and all branches of government have no right to interfere with religious practice.
The DEA and all government branches are sending a message to everyone that it is okay to lie. When you teach people it is okay to lie, then you are responsible for the downfall of the morals and ethics of your society.
Alcohol and tobacco are the two most dangerous substances on the planet yet the DEA and all branches of government see no need to add them to the CSA. The two substances combined kill well over 500,000 people a year in the United States. Alcohol and tobacco are highly addictive. It is morally and ethically wrong to tax addiction. That is why the government calls the tax on alcohol and tobacco a sin tax.
There are civil rights laws that protect our constitutionally protected rights from prejudice and discrimination on all levels even against government and its agencies that conspire to violate any of our civil rights. Protection against religious or denominational discrimination: Section 2(b)(2) of RLUIPA prohibits discrimination “against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.” RLUIPA provides in Section 8 that “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”
The DEA and all branches of government believe this definition is to broad and have tried to narrow the definition of “free exercise of religion” to mean that an individual or group must rise to the level of organized religion and organized church to qualify for religious defense, thus denying any other exercise as merely non religious or a mere philosophy and way of life.
Ironically religion is a way of life built around or on a philosophy or theory pertaining to achieving enlightenment from or through a higher power or through a spiritual connection to the Divine. The DEA and all government branches that say all individuals or groups beliefs concerning cannabis as a sacrament does not constitute religious use is in violation of the very laws that protect religious freedoms.
Cannabis as a sacrament has been used for thousands of years by sub-sects of all major religions as well as many religions based around the spiritual use of cannabis. Christians has Gnostic/Rastafari, Islam/Muslim has Sufi, Hindu has Sadhus, and Buddhism has Tantric Buddhism. There are many other main stream and smaller sects that use cannabis for spiritual use. Cannabis as a sacrament has a wide and very broad use in religious practice. To restrict cannabis as a sacrament to indigenous peoples would also be in violation of religious freedoms laws.
The DEA and all government branches that continue to deny the sacramental use of cannabis are committing crimes against the people and the people have the right to appropriate relief. Prosecuting religious practitioners as criminals is a crime. Human Rights, Civil Rights, and constitutional laws are being violated by the DEA and all branches of our government. This is a clear violation of the "WALL OF SEPARATION" that should clearly exist between the "CHURCH'' and the "STATE".
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Color of Law Abuses
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:
•False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
•Deprivation of property; and
•Failure to keep from harm.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
Filing a Complaint
To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:
•All identifying information for the victim(s);
•As much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and agency employed;
•Date and time of incident;
•Location of incident;
•Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
•A complete chronology of events; and
•Any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.
You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written complaint to:
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:
•Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;
•Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;
•Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and
•Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.
Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.