Should drugs be legal if you are religious?

Puppycow · 30th April 2012, 05:56 AM

Rasta pot smokers win legal leeway in Italy

Quote:

Italy's Court of Cassation ruled that since the Rastafari religion considers marijuana a sacrament, its members should be given special consideration when it comes to possession -- and how much makes a drug trafficker.

The case before the judges dealt with a reggae musician who was sentenced to 16 months in prison by a lower court in Perugia after being found in possession of enough marijuana to roll 70 cigarettes.

The Court of Cassation annulled his sentence, saying the amount appeared appropriate for personal use considering the heavy amounts that Rastafarians smoke, and ordered an appellate court in Florence to review the case.

So, can anybody just convert to Rastafarianism if they want to smoke pot?

Also, I wonder if you could just start a new religion and make marijuana a sacrament?
I mean, who is to judge another person's religion? Even if I just make up a new one on the spot?

What if I make crack a sacrament? Or heroin? Would that make those legal too? Where do you draw the line?

Bikewer · 30th April 2012, 06:37 AM

'Tis rather odd.. The Rastafari (they don't like the term "Rastafarian" or "Rastafarianism") often don't even consider the movement a religion; more of an ideology...
They worship Haile Selassie as a god or prophet, and want to repatriate to Africa...
The whole thing started up around 1930.

So yeah, it appears that if you invented a religion which featured dope as part of it's structure likely it would be accepted... I know some Amerind groups are allowed to posess and ingest peyote....
And apparently you wouldn't even need a large following....The Wiki says there may only be a million Rastas all told.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 30th April 2012, 06:51 AM

I think that drugs should be legal, regardless of whether you're religious or not.

jiggeryqua · 30th April 2012, 07:44 AM

Drugs should be mandatory if you're religious.

jasonpatterson · 30th April 2012, 07:44 AM

I think that laws should be applied equally, whether you are religious or not. If a society agrees that a particular behavior is harmful, having a belief system that doesn't agree with that should not exempt you from the law. I am not saying that all laws are just or that poor or harmful laws should not be fought by the populace, only that personal beliefs are not a compelling reason for a person to be exempt from them.

A comparable example of a nonreligious belief system in which a person believes something strongly but should not be exempt from the law for holding that belief is the Naked Rambler. For anyone who is unfamiliar with him, he believes that he should be allowed to walk around naked wherever he likes, and the police disagree. He's been in prison for quite some time now for disturbing the peace and contempt of court. I personally think he's been treated rather unjustly and tend to disagree with the type of law that he is opposed to, but I do not believe that his position on that law should provide him with immunity to it.

As an aside, people who hold these positions in the face of the law and who compare themselves with Rosa Parks should be given firm wedgies. For Stephen Gough, I guess we'd need to put some underpants on him first, but still...

Matty1973 · 30th April 2012, 08:14 AM

No need to stop at drugs. All kinds of 'illegal' behaviour could be protected this way.

File Sharing "Church of Kopimism" Becomes Officially Recognized in Sweden

Quote:

For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament, it said in a statement, and adds that information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains, and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore, copying is central for the organization and its members.

Not sure if it will hold up in court!

NewtonTrino · 30th April 2012, 08:29 AM

Yes and they should also be legal for everyone else too.

The fact that people still support and promote prohibition blows my mind.

Lowpro · 30th April 2012, 03:48 PM

They shouldn't be legal due to religious affiliation.

Irony · 30th April 2012, 04:05 PM

Well, for weed at least I see no reason why those laws shouldn't be struck from the books altogether. There's much more convincing evidence for the harm of alcohol and tobacco than marijuana. For drugs in general, illegality should equate to restrictions on sale, manufacture, and distribution without the completely overblown and counterproductive "war" aspect, just like we do with many legal drugs. People abuse prescriptions, but we don't break down peoples doors and shoot their dogs because someone across the street from them was suspected of selling them.

Brian-M · 30th April 2012, 04:20 PM

Should drugs be legal if you are religious?

Holding a belief (religious or otherwise) shouldn't be cause for preferential treatment by the law (whether drug laws, tax laws or anything else).

But drugs are legal. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, codeine, pseudoephedrine and many more can be legally purchased and consumed without even requiring a prescription.

Perhaps your question should have specified exemption for prosecution over possession of illegal drugs.

The Dark Lord · 30th April 2012, 05:11 PM

Religions shouldn't be given special permission to do drugs any more than they should to perform human sacrifice. It would be real easy for me to just invent a religion where LSD is a sacrament. And who is to say what a real religion is? They are all nonsense.

That said, drug prohibition is stupid.

Halfcentaur · 30th April 2012, 05:49 PM

They also can use peyote and there is a Brazilian sect of Catholics who can use DMT legally in the US. Drug prohibition should be ended. I don't think religions should be exempt from what is legal based on personal belief.

epepke · 30th April 2012, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Drugs should be mandatory if you're religious.

I think the non-religious are in greater need, as we have to put up with the religious.

AvalonXQ · 30th April 2012, 06:02 PM

Yeah, I don't see any point to a religious exemption for drug use. Either drug use should be legalized, or not; the religious shouldn't get a special exemption regarding health and safety laws.

Darth Rotor · 30th April 2012, 08:37 PM

Please don't conflate "pot" and "drugs" like that, Puppycow. Makes you too much like the War on Drugs policy champions.

I believe that aspirin should be legal for use in religious ceremonies.
It is a drug.

There are so, so many drugs, not all of which give you a rush, some of which are meant to be just medicine, others, like LSD, apparently are just for recreation ... but weren't originally.

Rasta man smoking Pot in Jamaica, good idea.
Why should Swedish law, if it forbids pot smoking, make for a loophole?

When in Sweden, and all that.

Andrew Wiggin · 30th April 2012, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Drugs should be mandatory if you're religious.

Literally the opiate of the masses...

Brian-M · 30th April 2012, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

There are so, so many drugs, not all of which give you a rush, some of which are meant to be just medicine, others, like LSD, apparently are just for recreation ... but weren't originally.

I was surprised when I read up on LSD a while ago. Apparently there's never been a death from overdose, it's non-addictive, with little or no harmful effects. Which makes me wonder why it was banned in the first place.

And apparently sub-psychedelic amounts can be used to treat cluster headaches, pain and alcoholism.

ddt · 1st May 2012, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Literally the opiate of the masses...

Wins thread.

I agree there should be no religious exemption on drug use - or for that matter, on any other issue.

And FWIW, I'm also in favour of more liberal drug laws. Our current government does not agree, as it has introduced that so-called coffeeshops must have membership cards as if they're restricted clubs.

Brown · 1st May 2012, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

And apparently sub-psychedelic amounts [of LSD] can be used to treat cluster headaches...

As one who used to suffer from cluster headaches, I can say that, if there had been literature to support LSD as a treatment and if the drug had been available, I would have tried it. Hallucinogenic effects be damned, clusters HURT, and standard drugs (1) did not alleviate the pain and (2) had nasty side-effects of their own. Legal drug after legal drug was prescribed for me, and none worked. It is quite possible that I would have considered illegal drugs fro relief.

In the end, I found that the literature reported that inhaling pure oxygen at a fairly high flow rate aborts the headache completely. After an immense effort to secure oxygen for myself (this was far more difficult to do than to get pharmaceuticals), I found that the literature was correct. Oxygen works. With this hard-won knowledge, I would NOT use LSD today... but I cannot say that what worked for me would work for others, nor can I find it in my heart to condemn someone who resorted to a controlled substance to relieve the agony.

jiggeryqua · 1st May 2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Literally the opiate of the masses...

Well, if opiates are your drug of choice. For many it's the amphetamines of the masses, or the cannaboids of the masses. If I was prescribing for the irredemably religious, I'd probably go for cannabis, or perhaps one of the new 'designer drugs' that get retailed as bath salts.

I wouldn't normally be so pedantic but when you start a sentence with 'literally'...

Finster · 1st May 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yeah, I don't see any point to a religious exemption for drug use. Either drug use should be legalized, or not; the religious shouldn't get a special exemption regarding health and safety laws.

I don't see any point to a religious exemption for anything. The religious shouldn't get a special exemption regarding any laws.

geni · 1st May 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Also, I wonder if you could just start a new religion and make marijuana a sacrament?
I mean, who is to judge another person's religion? Even if I just make up a new one on the spot?

You would need to convince the judge that you do actual use larger than normal amounts for personal. Religion is just one argument. A case could be made for unusualy cronic pain or whatever.

Also italian courts are somewhat notorious for ah interesting rulings.

geni · 1st May 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Finster

I don't see any point to a religious exemption for anything. The religious shouldn't get a special exemption regarding any laws.

But thats not what is going on here. Its an argument over wether or not the person would use that amount of the drug themselves and their belief system has been entered as evidence of that.

Brown · 1st May 2012, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Also, I wonder if you could just start a new religion and make marijuana a sacrament?
I mean, who is to judge another person's religion? Even if I just make up a new one on the spot?

It's been tried. Several times.

Cooked-up religions have been long been a favorite of tax-dodgers, and several folks got the idea of adding in pot as a "sacrament." Some of these guys went to elaborate lengths to develop "scriptures" and formulate "rites" and formalize modes of "prayer" and create a "liturgy" and elevate "saints" and identify things "holy" ... but in the end all they really wanted to do was smoke grass (and avoid taxes), without getting tossed in klink.

Of course, arrests get made anyway, and then the religious defense is offered. Most of the time, it fails.

Basically, when one of these religious defenses ends up in court, the judge usually sees through all the nonsense and disallows the religious defense. Usually one of the reasons the defense is disallowed is that the "religion" seems to have been invented relatively recently for questionable purposes. This has led some people to try to latch on to religions that have used intoxicants for a long time, so as to avoid the notion that the religion have been invented relatively recently.

ddt · 1st May 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by geni

Also italian courts are somewhat notorious for ah interesting rulings.

Is this an oblique reference to she-who-shall-not-be-named? (And yes, it's the same city and court).

Tricky · 1st May 2012, 01:12 PM

While this thread seems to be about recreational drugs, it should also be noted that the witholding of medical drugs should be the same for all religions. Like jasonpatterson et. al., I agree that whatever laws we have, right or wrong, should be enforced the same without regard to religious affiliation. This includes charging Christian Scientists with child abuse for denying vital medical treatment to their children.

No religion should give you an exemption to the law.

geni · 1st May 2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

Is this an oblique reference to she-who-shall-not-be-named? (And yes, it's the same city and court).

No a case involving a judge ruling a women wearing tight jeans couldn't have been raped was the first that came to mind.

godless dave · 1st May 2012, 02:02 PM

Pot and hallucinogens should be legal for the religious and non-religious alike.

Brian-M · 1st May 2012, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Brown

As one who used to suffer from cluster headaches, I can say that, if there had been literature to support LSD as a treatment and if the drug had been available, I would have tried it. Hallucinogenic effects be damned,

Supposedly it's effective for this in amounts too small to induce hallucinogenic effects. (According to Wikipedia, which is my source of information. I don't know what the actual medical literature says about using LSD for cluster headaches.)

Originally Posted by geni

But thats not what is going on here. Its an argument over wether or not the person would use that amount of the drug themselves and their belief system has been entered as evidence of that.

Ah, for some reason the OP gives the impression that the court was ruling that it was legal for Rastafari to smoke pot. (But it seems to be ruling on how much can be found in their possession before they're charged with drug trafficking.)

Beerina · 1st May 2012, 04:55 PM

IIRC some religion wanted to use peyote or something, and it went to the US Supreme Court, who did not support it.

I don't know if was an honest historical use or just a ginned up one. I would like to think the latter. If the former there's a definite constitutional issue.

MG1962 · 1st May 2012, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

What if I make crack a sacrament? Or heroin? Would that make those legal too? Where do you draw the line?

Why don't you choof off to Italy and find out

30th April 2012, 05:56 AM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,743	Should drugs be legal if you are religious? Rasta pot smokers win legal leeway in Italy Quote: Italy's Court of Cassation ruled that since the Rastafari religion considers marijuana a sacrament, its members should be given special consideration when it comes to possession -- and how much makes a drug trafficker. The case before the judges dealt with a reggae musician who was sentenced to 16 months in prison by a lower court in Perugia after being found in possession of enough marijuana to roll 70 cigarettes. The Court of Cassation annulled his sentence, saying the amount appeared appropriate for personal use considering the heavy amounts that Rastafarians smoke, and ordered an appellate court in Florence to review the case. So, can anybody just convert to Rastafarianism if they want to smoke pot? Also, I wonder if you could just start a new religion and make marijuana a sacrament? I mean, who is to judge another person's religion? Even if I just make up a new one on the spot? What if I make crack a sacrament? Or heroin? Would that make those legal too? Where do you draw the line?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

30th April 2012, 06:51 AM	#3
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,258	I think that drugs should be legal, regardless of whether you're religious or not.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

30th April 2012, 07:44 AM	#5
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,180	I think that laws should be applied equally, whether you are religious or not. If a society agrees that a particular behavior is harmful, having a belief system that doesn't agree with that should not exempt you from the law. I am not saying that all laws are just or that poor or harmful laws should not be fought by the populace, only that personal beliefs are not a compelling reason for a person to be exempt from them. A comparable example of a nonreligious belief system in which a person believes something strongly but should not be exempt from the law for holding that belief is the Naked Rambler. For anyone who is unfamiliar with him, he believes that he should be allowed to walk around naked wherever he likes, and the police disagree. He's been in prison for quite some time now for disturbing the peace and contempt of court. I personally think he's been treated rather unjustly and tend to disagree with the type of law that he is opposed to, but I do not believe that his position on that law should provide him with immunity to it. As an aside, people who hold these positions in the face of the law and who compare themselves with Rosa Parks should be given firm wedgies. For Stephen Gough, I guess we'd need to put some underpants on him first, but still...
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

30th April 2012, 03:48 PM	#8
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	They shouldn't be legal due to religious affiliation.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

30th April 2012, 04:05 PM	#9
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Well, for weed at least I see no reason why those laws shouldn't be struck from the books altogether. There's much more convincing evidence for the harm of alcohol and tobacco than marijuana. For drugs in general, illegality should equate to restrictions on sale, manufacture, and distribution without the completely overblown and counterproductive "war" aspect, just like we do with many legal drugs. People abuse prescriptions, but we don't break down peoples doors and shoot their dogs because someone across the street from them was suspected of selling them.
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872

30th April 2012, 06:37 AM	#2
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,525	'Tis rather odd.. The Rastafari (they don't like the term "Rastafarian" or "Rastafarianism") often don't even consider the movement a religion; more of an ideology... They worship Haile Selassie as a god or prophet, and want to repatriate to Africa... The whole thing started up around 1930. So yeah, it appears that if you invented a religion which featured dope as part of it's structure likely it would be accepted... I know some Amerind groups are allowed to posess and ingest peyote.... And apparently you wouldn't even need a large following....The Wiki says there may only be a million Rastas all told.

30th April 2012, 07:44 AM	#4
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,897	Drugs should be mandatory if you're religious.

30th April 2012, 08:14 AM	#6
Matty1973 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: London Posts: 253	No need to stop at drugs. All kinds of 'illegal' behaviour could be protected this way. File Sharing "Church of Kopimism" Becomes Officially Recognized in Sweden Quote: For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament, it said in a statement, and adds that information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains, and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore, copying is central for the organization and its members. Not sure if it will hold up in court!

30th April 2012, 08:29 AM	#7
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,782	Yes and they should also be legal for everyone else too. The fact that people still support and promote prohibition blows my mind.

30th April 2012, 04:20 PM	#10
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,264	Should drugs be legal if you are religious? Holding a belief (religious or otherwise) shouldn't be cause for preferential treatment by the law (whether drug laws, tax laws or anything else). But drugs are legal. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, codeine, pseudoephedrine and many more can be legally purchased and consumed without even requiring a prescription. Perhaps your question should have specified exemption for prosecution over possession of illegal drugs.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

30th April 2012, 05:11 PM	#11
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Religions shouldn't be given special permission to do drugs any more than they should to perform human sacrifice. It would be real easy for me to just invent a religion where LSD is a sacrament. And who is to say what a real religion is? They are all nonsense. That said, drug prohibition is stupid.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

30th April 2012, 05:49 PM	#12
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,946	They also can use peyote and there is a Brazilian sect of Catholics who can use DMT legally in the US. Drug prohibition should be ended. I don't think religions should be exempt from what is legal based on personal belief.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,946

30th April 2012, 05:55 PM	#13
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Drugs should be mandatory if you're religious. I think the non-religious are in greater need, as we have to put up with the religious.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

30th April 2012, 06:02 PM	#14
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Yeah, I don't see any point to a religious exemption for drug use. Either drug use should be legalized, or not; the religious shouldn't get a special exemption regarding health and safety laws.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

30th April 2012, 08:37 PM	#15
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,256	Please don't conflate "pot" and "drugs" like that, Puppycow. Makes you too much like the War on Drugs policy champions. I believe that aspirin should be legal for use in religious ceremonies. It is a drug. There are so, so many drugs, not all of which give you a rush, some of which are meant to be just medicine, others, like LSD, apparently are just for recreation ... but weren't originally. Rasta man smoking Pot in Jamaica, good idea. Why should Swedish law, if it forbids pot smoking, make for a loophole? When in Sweden, and all that.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 30th April 2012 at 08:39 PM.

30th April 2012, 09:17 PM	#16
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Drugs should be mandatory if you're religious. Literally the opiate of the masses...
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

30th April 2012, 10:06 PM	#17
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,264	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor There are so, so many drugs, not all of which give you a rush, some of which are meant to be just medicine, others, like LSD, apparently are just for recreation ... but weren't originally. I was surprised when I read up on LSD a while ago. Apparently there's never been a death from overdose, it's non-addictive, with little or no harmful effects. Which makes me wonder why it was banned in the first place. And apparently sub-psychedelic amounts can be used to treat cluster headaches, pain and alcoholism.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

1st May 2012, 04:37 AM	#18
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,322	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin Literally the opiate of the masses... Wins thread. I agree there should be no religious exemption on drug use - or for that matter, on any other issue. And FWIW, I'm also in favour of more liberal drug laws. Our current government does not agree, as it has introduced that so-called coffeeshops must have membership cards as if they're restricted clubs.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

1st May 2012, 08:32 AM	#19
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,150	Originally Posted by Brian-M And apparently sub-psychedelic amounts [of LSD] can be used to treat cluster headaches... As one who used to suffer from cluster headaches, I can say that, if there had been literature to support LSD as a treatment and if the drug had been available, I would have tried it. Hallucinogenic effects be damned, clusters HURT, and standard drugs (1) did not alleviate the pain and (2) had nasty side-effects of their own. Legal drug after legal drug was prescribed for me, and none worked. It is quite possible that I would have considered illegal drugs fro relief. In the end, I found that the literature reported that inhaling pure oxygen at a fairly high flow rate aborts the headache completely. After an immense effort to secure oxygen for myself (this was far more difficult to do than to get pharmaceuticals), I found that the literature was correct. Oxygen works. With this hard-won knowledge, I would NOT use LSD today... but I cannot say that what worked for me would work for others, nor can I find it in my heart to condemn someone who resorted to a controlled substance to relieve the agony.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

1st May 2012, 08:59 AM	#20
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,897	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin Literally the opiate of the masses... Well, if opiates are your drug of choice. For many it's the amphetamines of the masses, or the cannaboids of the masses. If I was prescribing for the irredemably religious, I'd probably go for cannabis, or perhaps one of the new 'designer drugs' that get retailed as bath salts. I wouldn't normally be so pedantic but when you start a sentence with 'literally'...

1st May 2012, 09:51 AM	#21
Finster Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 464	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Yeah, I don't see any point to a religious exemption for drug use. Either drug use should be legalized, or not; the religious shouldn't get a special exemption regarding health and safety laws. I don't see any point to a religious exemption for anything. The religious shouldn't get a special exemption regarding any laws.
Finster Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 464	__________________ "You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP

1st May 2012, 10:06 AM	#22
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,559	Originally Posted by Puppycow Also, I wonder if you could just start a new religion and make marijuana a sacrament? I mean, who is to judge another person's religion? Even if I just make up a new one on the spot? You would need to convince the judge that you do actual use larger than normal amounts for personal. Religion is just one argument. A case could be made for unusualy cronic pain or whatever. Also italian courts are somewhat notorious for ah interesting rulings.

1st May 2012, 10:16 AM	#23
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,559	Originally Posted by Finster I don't see any point to a religious exemption for anything. The religious shouldn't get a special exemption regarding any laws. But thats not what is going on here. Its an argument over wether or not the person would use that amount of the drug themselves and their belief system has been entered as evidence of that.

1st May 2012, 10:27 AM	#24
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,150	Originally Posted by Puppycow Also, I wonder if you could just start a new religion and make marijuana a sacrament? I mean, who is to judge another person's religion? Even if I just make up a new one on the spot? It's been tried. Several times. Cooked-up religions have been long been a favorite of tax-dodgers, and several folks got the idea of adding in pot as a "sacrament." Some of these guys went to elaborate lengths to develop "scriptures" and formulate "rites" and formalize modes of "prayer" and create a "liturgy" and elevate "saints" and identify things "holy" ... but in the end all they really wanted to do was smoke grass (and avoid taxes), without getting tossed in klink. Of course, arrests get made anyway, and then the religious defense is offered. Most of the time, it fails. Basically, when one of these religious defenses ends up in court, the judge usually sees through all the nonsense and disallows the religious defense. Usually one of the reasons the defense is disallowed is that the "religion" seems to have been invented relatively recently for questionable purposes. This has led some people to try to latch on to religions that have used intoxicants for a long time, so as to avoid the notion that the religion have been invented relatively recently.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

1st May 2012, 10:38 AM	#25
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,322	Originally Posted by geni Also italian courts are somewhat notorious for ah interesting rulings. Is this an oblique reference to she-who-shall-not-be-named? (And yes, it's the same city and court).
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

1st May 2012, 01:12 PM	#26
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	While this thread seems to be about recreational drugs, it should also be noted that the witholding of medical drugs should be the same for all religions. Like jasonpatterson et. al., I agree that whatever laws we have, right or wrong, should be enforced the same without regard to religious affiliation. This includes charging Christian Scientists with child abuse for denying vital medical treatment to their children. No religion should give you an exemption to the law.

1st May 2012, 01:47 PM	#27
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,559	Originally Posted by ddt Is this an oblique reference to she-who-shall-not-be-named? (And yes, it's the same city and court). No a case involving a judge ruling a women wearing tight jeans couldn't have been raped was the first that came to mind.

1st May 2012, 02:02 PM	#28
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,126	Pot and hallucinogens should be legal for the religious and non-religious alike.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

1st May 2012, 03:23 PM	#29
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,264	Originally Posted by Brown As one who used to suffer from cluster headaches, I can say that, if there had been literature to support LSD as a treatment and if the drug had been available, I would have tried it. Hallucinogenic effects be damned, Supposedly it's effective for this in amounts too small to induce hallucinogenic effects. (According to Wikipedia, which is my source of information. I don't know what the actual medical literature says about using LSD for cluster headaches.) Originally Posted by geni But thats not what is going on here. Its an argument over wether or not the person would use that amount of the drug themselves and their belief system has been entered as evidence of that. Ah, for some reason the OP gives the impression that the court was ruling that it was legal for Rastafari to smoke pot. (But it seems to be ruling on how much can be found in their possession before they're charged with drug trafficking.)
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 1st May 2012 at 03:26 PM.

1st May 2012, 04:55 PM	#30
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	IIRC some religion wanted to use peyote or something, and it went to the US Supreme Court, who did not support it. I don't know if was an honest historical use or just a ginned up one. I would like to think the latter. If the former there's a definite constitutional issue.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

1st May 2012, 05:03 PM	#31
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Puppycow What if I make crack a sacrament? Or heroin? Would that make those legal too? Where do you draw the line? Why don't you choof off to Italy and find out