Along with cannabis as a central sacrament to their religion, this church also consists of teachings that are largely Christian and they have even obtained a minister, Frances Valerie Rodriguez. In addition to this, they host food pantries, clothing drives, Sunday services, and Bible studies every Wednesday. All of these aspects factor into the sincerity of their faith. To Jah members, the church’s purpose is to help restore people’s relationships with God and if the sacrament of cannabis helps people with this then Mancini wants her church to help that connection. At many cannabis churches, attendees donate money in exchange for marijuana. These churches appear on Weedmaps and other dispensary listings with prices attached to their offerings. The Jah Healing Church has shifted from mandatory donations to voluntary ones on edibles, tinctures, and loose marijuana. Opponents see this as a problem because this type of church avoids the long, expensive process that legal dispensaries endure to open up business.Seaside Church is another cannabis church located in the Los Angeles area where the city voted to ban dispensaries because the church listed prices for marijuana on Weedmaps. Since the church acted as an unlicensed dispensary, the church was closed in June 2019, but reopened as the Sacramental Life Church of Redondo Beach weeks later. Now, the church offers Sunday services, yoga, and has its own tenets, the Nine Epiphanies, but they continue to provide marijuana through donations. Those opposed to cannabis churches believe that this transaction of marijuana for donations is key to the church’s existence and that everyone goes to the church just to purchase marijuana. They bring up a point that the Catholic church does not charge you to drink the wine.
Matthew Pappas is an individual who committed to help protect marijuana distribution after he found that his daughter’s mental and physical health issues were reduced through cannabis. Specifically, he worked as a lawyer to the Oklevueha Native American Church where cannabis is a Native American sacrament, similar to peyote. This was similar to the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith where it was deemed constitutional to deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. The court stated that it is a facially neutral law since no one can use peyote, but only Native Americans use peyote. Since this is an indirect burden, that is not always unconstitutional, especially because they were fired for breaking a criminal law. In response to this, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was created in order to prevent other federal laws from burdening an individual’s free exercise of religion, like religious groups who use marijuana as part of their religious ceremonies. Where Pappas finds his frustration is that recreational and medicinal marijuana is legal but cannot seek protection under the RFRA. For cannabis churches, members believe they would be substantially burdened by any governmental interference with their religious beliefs and practices.
More recently in May 2019, San Bernardino County filed charges against the church because they violated an order to stop dispensing cannabis. An undercover cop visited the church twice in one day and paid for marijuana without needing to attend any religious ceremony, which is not upholding the standards of the church. By being able to get marijuana without participating in a church service, the question is raised about what kind of religious standards the church upholds. Most non-cannabis churches would proclaim church attendance as a standard of conduct for their members, which is not required by this church.
The legal question that follows from this discussion is whether the Constitutional rights to free exercise of religion should protect these churches. Even though I believe that the Jah church is sincere and legitimate since they hold services every Sunday, clothing drives, food pantries, and have created their own tenets, I believe that their rights to free exercise of religion should not protect these churches.
My first reason involves how cannabis churches might operate more like an illegitimate marijuana dispensary rather than a legitimate church. There are two specific examples that defend my point. The first is that an undercover cop visited the church and paid for marijuana without participating in a religious ceremony. This shows that these Jah members can make a transaction for marijuana without staying for the service. In addition to this, I looked online at cannabis churches and they do offer listings of all of their marijuana products. This fact makes the cannabis churches look more like a marijuana dispensary rather than a church both in my eyes and as viewed by the general public. This makes it incredibly easy for individuals who are not members of the church to obtain marijuana, especially with the incentive of avoiding the taxes incurred if purchasing at marijuana dispensaries. In my opinion, as more people start to hear about these churches selling marijuana with no taxes included, it will cause an influx of individuals coming to these churches for obtaining marijuana, rather than for religious reasons.
Although the Jah members seem sincere in terms of their beliefs, I do not believe that they should be allowed to act as a marijuana dispensary this easily with no taxes, while it is a long, hard battle that legal dispensaries must go through to begin their business. Therefore, I believe that the government has a compelling state interest to close these churches, if they are allowing individuals to obtain marijuana without even attending a religious ceremony.
9 comments:
I understand Alexandra’s concern regarding the possible illegitimate use of these cannabis churches, but I do believe free exercise of religion should protect these churches. I cite the precedent set in U.S. V. Ballard to support my argument, when the court decided religion is determined by sincerity of the belief not by its validity. These cannabis churches have been found to act in a sincere manor to uphold their faith. The importance in upholding this precedent is that if the church of cannabis is questioned on the validity of their beliefs, then all religions must be subject to that same routinization for the government.
I agree with the author. Although I understand Bess's point, I don't think that the church is treating marijuana as the sacred sacrament that they believe it is. If the church were to give out the marijuana during a religious ritual then it would support their argument more. But the fact that a stranger would have the accessibility to buy marijuana without taxes or government tracking does place their legitimacy in danger.
The church is sincere in its Sunday services and other religious activities but it can not be overlooked that they are acting like weed dispensary to its members and the strangers who pass by.
Donations should also be given with a different type of form of appreciation such as a calendar or a rosary, not a baggie of marijuana. The act of giving a "donation" in exchange for weed makes it seem more like a weed dispensary once more.
This church is legitimate but their actions must reflect what they are representing.
I primarily agree with the author and with Evelin. I think that the the precedent set forth in U.S. v. Ballard protects the sincerity of the churchs' beliefs, but not all their practices. While they may find cannabis to be a sacred sacrament and use it in a sacred manner, I do not think the churches should be putting prices on the cannabis and dispensing it to anyone who walks through the church doors. This act does not seem related to the religious beliefs and services that the churches hold. In this way, it does seem like the churches are unconstitutionally acting as dispensaries and abusing their tax exemption status. I think accepting "donations" is better than charging an explicit price, but it still seems unconstitutional since the customers are not using the cannabis within the church at a service; they are simply buying it at a church for a lower price than they would buy it for at a dispensary.
I agree with Alexandra. I believe that the church has the right to have their beliefs but I do not agree that they should be able to give out weed as a scared sacrament. According to the Free Exercise Clause, one has the right to have a certain belief but not to act our that belief. This translate to the churches are also acting as dispensaries which abuses their tax exemption status.
I agree with the author. These churches are basically acting like underground dispensaries. I think one of the strongest points is that catholic and many other christian churches do not charge attendees for sacraments of faith. When transactions are required for the person to partake in a sacrament, courts should question the validity of the religions "sincere beliefs." Additionally, the fact that the church is advertising their sacraments online should be a red flag. I've never seen a church advertise it's choice in wine for Sunday Services.
I agree with the author in this case. The fact that people can come here and only receive marijuana, not having to stay for any religious activity changes the circumstances. I do believe they should have the free exercise of their religion but because people do not have to stay for any ceremony, this does not make it a religious issue anymore, it is just an excuse to sell and purchase marijuana easier. Because of these other issues involved, they should not be able to sell marijuana in their church.
I agree with the author. It seems as though the church is sincere in their belief with the use of Sunday services, Wednesday studies, and the use of a pastor. However, that does not give them the right to use their services as a dispensary and sell marijuana without taxes going to the state. As Meghan said in her comment, the Free Exercise Clause allows people to believe what they want, but not to act out that belief.
The Jah Healing Church should not be granted the tax exemption on marijuana to use it for sacramental purposes. Allowing this could set a dangerous precedent, as the government indeed would not be able to intervene or monitor the usage of marijuana. One could argue the same for Christian church wine, however, I'll appeal to a history of safe usage for this. One does not simply serve wine at a Christian religious service: it must be sacramental wine, which typically has lower alcohol content than other wines. Given the fact that marijuana has only recently been legalized in this state, I argue that there is significant state interest in this case which cannot be ignored.
My only concern here is that churches are listed as non-profit organizations. By selling weed, you are inherently gaining profit. If you're recieving profit, I believe that you should be required to pay taxes on it regardless if you are religious or not. The fact that people go to these churches in order to buy marijuana and not stay for any religious service reinforces this point. Even though it is hard to judge how sincere a person's beliefs are, I think this is an explicit case where the belief is insincere.
Post a Comment