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.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
I'm glad he lost. Sensible
I'm glad he lost. Sensible use of marijuana does NOT include while driving any more than the sensible use of alcohol allows for driving. This kind of stuff gives the movement a bad name and I hope that legitimate organizations come out in agreement of this ruling...Geez.
Agreed
Any real and sensible drug policy reformer would not support the right to be intoxicated and operate a motor vehicle. It strikes me as quite odd that this person was used as a test case in the first place considering there are better choices -- must be a personal crusade. Still, Dan and Mary Quaintance should be let out of prison and their right to use marijuana should be protected under religious freedom.
- George
The headline is somewhat
The headline is somewhat misleading based on the details (or key detail) in the story, at least in my opinion.
Sounds like he tried to play the ___________ card (religion, race, my woeful upbringing, etc…).
There are a whole lot of things one should not do while driving, or even just waiting for the lights to turn. Just a few days ago I watched as a woman, in the next lane, at the front of the line picked a scab on her elbow for at least 15 seconds after the light had turned, and everyone after her was stuck, once the car behind her honked, she drove, but the light only lasted another few seconds after that.
And I'm reminded of a bit of a scene from a movie I didn't see. But from what I recall Steve Martin and his on-screen wife were trying to re-invogate their marriage and she decided to do something while he was driving, thus seriously distracting him and causing an accident. The officer asks, "what were you doing during the time of the accident?" Steve Martin replies, "Yes honey, why don't you tell him what you were doing at the time of the accident." (Think Otto the inflatable autopilot in the movie "Airplane.")
In my opinion there are a ton of people who should not even be allowed to drive without anything extra in their system, or at least they should go back to driving school, they suck at driving. Period.
However, in the realm of science vs. sound-bites and organizations issuing statements:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_lega...
The more people demand sound-bite statements from organizations, the more we've tended towards condemnation and self-righteous posing, at the expense of reality.
Post new comment