CALIFORNIA CAREGIVERS UNION, CORP
 

Cannabis Legal Sacrament For Sick

Cannabis is a legal sacrament for the sick.

For Reform Jews it is a Mitzvah. The Talmud tells us that 1 Mitzvah has all the weight of the commandments. Cannabis is a religious sacrament for the sick and has been for all of recorded history in every society

The bible is clear that if you give the prophet a glass of water you share in his reward. The idea of non-cooperation with evil is a sacred idea in Judaism. Now that the election is over here in Texas my religion prohibits me from cooperating with the Republican party or voting republican in any election because of the platform and leadership ideas.

After observing the election and seeing all the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) look paraplegics in the eye and tell them they would continue to raid medical marijuana clinics and hearing the statements at the senatorial convention, it is clear the party leadership professes to be representatives of G-d but deny the compassion and graces in the scriptures they proclaim guide them.

Current law allows for cannabis use by suffering Reform Jews and non radical christians. Here is the history of my legal claim.

Religious Use Law Review.

GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL ET AL. (UDV) (2)

No. 04–1084. Argued November 1, 2005—Decided February 21, 2006

The Court was presented with the question: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., requires the government to permit the importation, distribution, possession, and use of a Schedule I hallucinogenic controlled substance, where Congress has found that the substance has a high potential for abuse, it is unsafe for use even under medical supervision, and its importation and distribution would violate an international treaty.

In 2006 in a unanimous decision (8-0), the Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom is more important than the drug laws. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), the United States Supreme Court recognized the drug laws must provide exceptions for religious use under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.

In United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1559 (9th Cir. 1996), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that under the RFRA the marijuana laws must give way to religious freedom. This was confirmed again in 2002 in the case of Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002).

A lot has happened since United States v. Bauer was decided in 1996. In 2000, Congress expanded the protection of the RFRA by enacting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., expanding the meaning of "religious exercise."

42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(A) states, "The term 'religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to the RFRA in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 (2005), to mean the standard in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965) ("courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them 'incomprehensible.' Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.")

Several United States District Court rulings have recognized a fundamental right to use marijuana under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: United States v. Valrey, No. CR96-549Z (W.D. Wash. February 22, 2000), finding a fundamental right of a criminal defendant to use marijuana while on supervised release; United States v. Forchion, No. 04-949-ALL (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2005), finding the defendant's rights under the RFRA had been violated because the magistrate did not consider the impact of six of the conditions of release on the defendant's right to use marijuana; Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari v. Gonzales, No. C-06-4264 (N.D. Cal. February 2, 2007), recognizing the plaintiffs could make out a prima facie case under the RFRA for the religious use of marijuana.

Reform Judaism and the Women of Reform Judaism have officially embraced marijuana as a mitzvah for the sick.

Marijuana Mitzvah Study Guide

Union of Reform Judaism 2003 Resolution on Medical Marijuana

Kaneh Boshem Study

Furthermore, a wide scope accounting of Jewish scriptures, mystical traditions, historical records and scientific medical studies leaves no other conclusion other than Cannabis has been set aside as a special plant, set aside for holy use and the alleviation of suffering. This is a tenant of faith protected by the first amendment, RFRA and UDV.

The RFRA and UDV affirmed First Amendment Rights trump the drug laws. The "Strict Scrutiny" standard of compelling interest must be applied to any statute that regulates religious practitioners use of the scheduled drug cannabis.

The State must prove that there was an immediate physical threat to someone other than the person involved in the religious practice that they had to restrict first amendment rights. This is an impossibility concerning cannabis use..

In addition the "Least Restrictive Means" (LRM) or regulation must be found. This test can't be met and this question has been settled in 2007 in a supreme court decision.

There is not only a prima facie case but a deeply compelling case for the sacramental and religious use of cannabis for spiritual healing. The state is effectively banning prayer for the sick and holy sacrament for the suffering. RFRA and UDV said the drug laws must give way to First Amendment Rights and apply the strict scrutiny test for compelling interest in cases where statutes conflict with free exercise of religion.There are many far reaching implications for being on the cutting edge of research and development in medicines and more. Framing cannabis in the context of Mitzvah is a more responsible and peaceful way of keeping kids off of recreational use of drugs and fulfill the mandate of the controlled substances act.

It is a step in making the world a better and more tolerant place and ending much injustice perpetrated on the needy and sick in society by the religious Christian right. Hypocrites perpetrating evil so completely and cheerfully because they do it from religious conviction.

"Woe to those who decree unjust statutes and to those who continually record unjust decisions; to deprive the needy of justice, and to rob the poor of My people of their rights...." Isaiah 10:1,2

What is needed is a Federal Injunction against the State for prosecuting those who practice this Mitzvah.

The question is one of how much money needs to be raised to challenge the unjust enforcement of unconstitutional statutes that even violate the 6th article of the Texas constitution?

Texas Constitution Sec 6.

SEC. 6. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. …..No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of worship.

Many innocent people are being jailed and financially assaulted by officials under the color of law by right wing Christian religious zealots enforcing unlawful statutes and evangelical sharia laws.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No one is bound to obey a unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

Not only are law enforcement and court officials not bound to enforce unlawful statutes, knowingly doing so makes them liable for damages under common law, It is an act of perfidy, crime under the color of law.

Jurors must find all accused innocent accused of cannabis "crimes" on the basis that the statutes are unlawful.

"Woe to those who decree unjust statutes and to those who continually record unjust decisions; to deprive the needy of justice, and to rob the poor of My people of their rights...." Isaiah 10:1,2


"A Union of the people for the people, created to fight sides with the people"                             (The sick, the ill and the strong will withstand to the end, unified and fearless)

                                                                                                      501(c)(3) non-profit corp.
 Corporate Office 6765 Westminster Blvd Suite C, Westminster CA 92683

Powered by Wild Apricot. Try our all-in-one platform for easy membership management