Skip to main content

Latest

Blog

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. Last year, 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.
In The Trenches

The Sentencing Project: Disenfranchisement News 9/04/09

Wisconsin: Disenfranchisement Back on the Radar State legislators are once again considering a bill that would restore voting rights to 40,000 residents with felony convictions on their record, Wisconsin Public Radio reported. According to state elections board director Kevin Kennedy, the bill would also save about $13,000 by eliminating the need to produce lists for poll workers to check. State Representative Joe Parisi, who supports the bill, recently chaired an Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts and stated,"We heard convincing testimony that not only are African-Americans incarcerated and charged with felonies at an unacceptably high rate compared to other Wisconsinites, but also that this institutionalized bias robs the African-American community of a voice in our democratic process. The Capital Times applauded his stance, giving him "high, high marks" in an editorial. Parisi further stated: "When you consider the racial disparities built into our criminal justice system, the original implementation of this law smacks of Jim Crow laws which were put into place to deny African-Americans the right to vote." African Americans make up 7 percent of the state's population, but account for 50 percent of the state's prison population. Click here to read a Los Angeles Times blog posting on the issue. Read a thread of comments published on the Daily Kenoshan online news forum. Mississippi: Disenfranchisement Must Be Addressed Before Next Election The Clarion-Ledger published an editorial addressing Mississippi's complicated disenfranchisement policies. Under current provisions, persons convicted of 21 specified offenses permanently lose the right to vote. But for other felonies, including drug offenses, voting rights are not forfeited, including for those in prison. Currently, fewer than 7,000 of the 25,000 people in the state's prisons are ineligible to vote. The editorial board believes that state policy is flawed in two directions, and urges that all felonies should result in the loss of voting rights while serving a sentence, but that voting rights should be restored for all upon sentence completion. - - - - - - Help The Sentencing Project continue to bring you news and updates on disenfranchisement! Make a contribution today. Contact Information -- e-mail: [email protected], web: http://www.sentencingproject.org .
Blog
Blog

Confused Drug Warrior Predicts "The End of Medical Marijuana"

John English at The Examiner has penned an impressive archive of unhinged anti-drug angriness, and although there's a strong case to be made for ignoring him, his piece "The law and the end of medical marijuana" was just too cute to pass up. He really believes medical marijuana is going to go away:

Another issue is that physicians who recommend marijuana as "medicinal" have recently become at risk of lawsuits. This is the issue that will, no doubt, bring doctors' recommendation of "medical marijuana" to an end. It will come as "medical marijuana patients" understand that they have been injured due to marijuana use and seek out lawyers.


Isn't that precious? People "injured" by one of the safest drugs on the planet. I'm afraid if you want someone to get "injured" by medical marijuana and sue their doctor, you might have to do it yourself. In the process, you may inadvertently find a cure for obsessive drug war zealotry.

Medical marijuana makes people healthier and happier, as the massive and growing number of patients will eagerly attest. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it. You see, medical marijuana laws don't mandate that sick people ingest potent cannabis against their will. The whole point here is that patients want this option and they've fought, sometimes literally from their deathbeds, to get it. The failure of medical marijuana's opponents to understand or care what patients want is their central fault and it explains perfectly why their arguments and calculations have served them so poorly.

Blog

Confused Drug Warrior Thinks Drugs Are Legal in Mexico

It's sad how often opposition to simple reforms is characterized by fundamental factual ignorance. Here's T. Michael Andrews, a former senior policy adviser at the Department of Homeland Security, freaking out about something that hasn't actually happened:

Mexico's recent decision to legalize hard drugs, including methamphetamines, cocaine, LSD and heroin, sends the wrong message to its citizen and to the international law-enforcement community.
…

Mexico's recent decision sends up the white flag in its commitment to stopping drugs from imploding in its country and says yes to continued trafficking into the United States. [Arizona Daily Star]

The thing is, drugs aren't legal in Mexico. They're just not. This isn't a matter of opinion. All they did was get rid of criminal penalties for possessing (not selling) very small amounts. It's usually referred to a decriminalization and even the U.N. is down with it.

It's possible, of course, that Andrews is merely trying to sensationalize the issue by conflating decriminalization with the more-controversial concept of legalization. But he straight-up insists that "Mexico will now become the vacation destination for all drug users," as though they're on the verge of opening coffeeshops for heroin.

I honestly doubt whether this guy even understands how Mexico's new drug law works, which means the Arizona Daily Star made a bad call by giving him a forum for complaining about it. You can send them a polite note by clicking here.
Blog

What Would You Do If You Found a Giant Bag of Weed at the Beach?

I'm sure the readers of this blog could all be counted on to do the right thing:

Satellite Beach police are asking beachgoers to report any suspicious packages found along the shore following the weekend discovery of a brick of marijuana near Hightower Beach Park.

"Just report it, leave it alone and call the police," said Cmdr. Jeff Pearson of the Satellite Beach Police Department. [FloridaToday]

Yeah right. I'm sure they get calls all the time from concerned surfer dudes who found huge bags of weed and don’t know what to do. Apparently, the ocean is filled with random drugs:

Police say illegal drugs washing up on the beach happens occasionally as smugglers dump their illicit cargo into the Atlantic Ocean to escape detection from authorities.

"It's pretty common. We live on the beach in Florida and it happens," Pearson said.

And you can bet that authorities never even hear about a lot of it, because quick-thinking citizens take responsibility for disposing of the drugs on their own. Heroes.

Really though, this is just another one of those mind-numbingly absurd phenomena that would never occur if our drug policy didn’t completely suck. It requires an epic and sustained campaign of monumental idiocy to create circumstances under which events like this take place routinely. If a smelly dead fish floats ashore, that's one thing, but when large stashes of illegal drugs are just bobbing around in the ocean, it's perfectly symbolic of the enormous mess the drug war has left in its wake.
Event

Cannabis Health Fair

The Cannabis Health Fair is a full-day patient outreach event designed to answer all your questions about cannabis as medicine and how to become a legal patient in Colorado.
Blog

10 Rules for Dealing with Police

Many of our readers are familiar with the widely-viewed film Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters, produced by the organization Flex Your Rights. The next Flex movie, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police, is set to come out before the end of the year. Filming took place in Baltimore a couple of weeks ago, and it is now in editing. Click here to check out photos; it really is looking pretty nice. narrated by the famous attorney William "Billy" H. Murphy, Jr.
Blog

Pain Activist Facing Fines in Free Speech Case

The government's war against pain doctors hit a new low last spring, when federal prosecutor Tanya Treadway, busy prosecuting Kansans Steve and Linda Schneider, subpoenaed pain control advocate Siobhan Reynolds for information on the Pain Relief Network's (PRN) public advocacy in support of the Schneiders. Despite ACLU efforts to quash the subpoena as an attempt to shut down free speech, judge US District Judge Julie Robinson allowed it. Friday, according an update from Jacob Sullum on Reason, Robinson imposed a $200/day civil contempt fine on both Reynolds and PRN, to begin in 10 days if she does not comply with the subpoena. An appeal is planned -- stay tuned. Earlier in the week, Boston-based civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate criticized Treadway in a column in Forbes magazine. We reprint a few paragraphs, also via Sullum:
When Reynolds wrote op-eds in local newspapers and granted interviews to other media outlets, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tanya Treadway attempted to impose a gag order on her public advocacy. The district judge correctly denied this extraordinary request. Undeterred, Treadway filed on March 27 a subpoena demanding a broad range of documents and records, obviously hoping to deter the peripatetic pain relief advocate, or even target her for a criminal trial of her own. Just what was Reynolds' suspected criminal activity? "Obstruction of justice" is the subpoena's listed offense being investigated, but some of the requested records could, in no possible way, prove such a crime. The prosecutor has demanded copies of an ominous-sounding "movie," which, in reality, is a PRN-produced documentary showing the plight of pain physicians. Also requested were records relating to a billboard Reynolds paid to have erected over a busy Wichita highway. It read: "Dr. Schneider never killed anyone." Suddenly, a rather ordinary exercise in free speech and political activism became evidence of an obstruction of justice.