Marijuana: Arizona Supreme Court Rejects Religious Freedom Claim
Arizona's law protecting religious freedom does not apply to a man convicted of smoking marijuana while driving, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday. The ruling came in Arizona v. Hardesty.
In that case, Daniel Hardesty was arrested while driving in Yavapai County and charged with marijuana possession. At trial, he testified that he was a member of the Church of Cognizance, an Arizona-based religion that says it embraces neo-Zoroastrian tenets and uses marijuana for spiritual enlightenment. He argued that Arizona's 1999 law limiting the state's ability to "burden the exercise of religion" meant he could not be prosecuted because he was exercising his religious beliefs.
The trial judge disagreed, and Hardesty was convicted. He appealed to the state Supreme Court, and has now lost there, too. In a unanimous opinion, the justices held that while the state religious freedom law mandates restrictions on religious practices only if it shows a compelling interest and that the restrictions must be the "least restrictive means of furthering that interest," the state does have a compelling interest in regulating marijuana use and Hardesty's claim that the Church of Cognizance allows him to use marijuana anywhere or any time, including driving, made it clear that the "least restrictive means" was an outright ban on marijuana.
Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch, who authored the opinion, made a distinction between federal laws that allow Native American Church members to use peyote without fear of prosecution under state law and the religious freedom claim made by Hardesty. There was an "obvious difference" between the two situations, Berch said. "Members of the Native American Church assert only the religious right to use peyote in limited sacramental rights. Hardesty asserts the right to use marijuana whenever he pleases, including while driving," she wrote.
Monday's ruling was the second defeat in as many years for the church. Church founders Dan and Mary Quaintance were convicted of marijuana possession and conspiracy to distribute marijuana after being stopped with 172 pounds of pot in New Mexico. A federal judge in New Mexico rejected their religious freedom arguments. Dan Quaintance is currently serving a five year prison sentence, and Mary Quaintance is doing two to three years.
digg
reddit
Should have been DUI case, not one religion v. another religion
Comment posted by Rural WA on Sun, 11/08/2009 - 5:17amI've read the opinion and think nobody is in the right. DUI is a legitemate public safety law and Hardesty doesn't have a right to endanger other peoples lives by driving while impaired. But he wasn't even charged with DUI (or it wasn't an issue in the case) and the court's opinion is absolutely irrational. The bottom line is that the court is enforcing a state religion against against minority religions.
States (and individuals) do have some compelling interests that override some acts by people who are acting from sincere religious beliefs. If I recall correctly, Son of Sam murdered people because he sincerely believed his dog was relaying orders from God to murder those people. New York had a perfectly legitemate power to interfere with that religious conduct to protect the public safety and the rights of people not to be murdered outweighed Son of Sam's right to kill them for religious reasons. I don't think many people will dispute such an extreme example.
If Arizona had sufficient evidence to arrest Hardesty for impaired driving, he should have been arrested and gone to trial for DUI or plead out to the charge like anyone else. That would be a compelling interest and least restrictive means of enforcing it.
Instead the court barely made passing reference to impaired driving and went off on a crazy rant about marijuana and the need to enforce a state religion against heretics.
"To arrest you they advise, such fury they devise
But the Devil in them lies, and hath blinded both their eyes"