A nonprofit in Philadelphia called Safehouse tried to open a facility to safely use opioids under medical supervision. The purpose for this facility was to allow people to use these drugs in an environment that would have clean needles and drugs to prevent overdoses available. The facility would not provide the illegal drugs itself, only a safe environment which would further offer legal counseling, and information about rehabilitation and housing. Safehouse thought that this would allow trust to be built between the users and the workers so that they would eventually seek treatment and make it to recovery. William McSwain, the U.S. attorney for eastern Pennsylvania, fought against the opening of this facility along with the Trump administration saying that it is illegal to own property where illegal drugs are used and that this strategy to combat drug use is crossing a line.
Safehouse has defended themselves saying that they should be exempt from the law around owning property because first, they are a medical facility, and second that it is their free exercise of religion to own this facility. Safehouse is a Judeo-Christian group who believes in preserving life and cites the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This act prohibits the government from burdening anyone’s exercise of religion. The act specifically states that the government may burden one’s free exercise only if it furthers a compelling governmental interest. Safeway’s lawyer, Ilana Eisenstein, said their board of directors have, “core tenets preserving life, providing shelter to neighbors, and ministering to those most in need of physical and spiritual care”. McSwain wants the facilities to close to bring, “order, reason, and fairness to a potentially explosive situation.” Is it a compelling governmental interest to not allow these facilities to be open because of illegal drug use or is it Safehouse’s religious freedom to have these facilities? Thomas Jefferson in “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia”, states his belief that the civil government can only interfere with religious freedom when it disturbing ‘peace and good order’. Is having these facilities open disturbing peace and good order in Philadelphia? Or is it helping with an epidemic that is already disturbing peace and good order?
In an early U.S. Supreme Court case, Reynolds v United States, the court unanimously decided to not make an exception for a man named George Reynolds to participate in bigamy based on the fact that polygamy is considered to be a threat to ‘peace and order’ and that marriage is a civil contract that is under the jurisdiction of the state. And that when George Reynolds entered into his second marriage, he did so with knowledge of the law, meaning he had criminal intent. The Crack House Statute Law that William McSwain referenced states that it is a “felony to knowingly open, lease, rent, use of maintain any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance." Like George Reynolds, Safehouse had knowledge of the law that prohibited their actions, but thought that they should be exempt because the facility was medical in nature and their purpose was to preserve life which is a Judio-Christian belief. Would not opening these facilities then go against their beliefs? Anytime one does not actively help preserve life, are they betraying their Judeo-Christian beliefs? As Thomas Jefferson also references in his "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom", I believe that the civil magistrate is not equipped to judge when an individual or group is prohibited to practice their religion or what their religion is.
In a similar instance in Arizona, a man named Scott Warren fought a law prohibiting people from leaving behind aid, such as water, for immigrants crossing the United States-Mexico border because of his religious belief of helping people. Warren is part of the non-profit ‘No More Death’ which is affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Church. The judge in this case, allowed Warren to continue giving aid. Should the same be given to Safehouse? In this case, based on the religious freedom argument, Safehouse should be allowed to open these facilities. For Safehouse, allowing these facilities to run is exercising their free exercise of religion in preserving life. It goes against their core religious belief to not help. It is further not going against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 because the overall purpose of the facility is not to encourage drug use but to stop drug use. Helping with the opioid epidemic in America is a compelling governmental interest. Safeway is helping prevent the spread of disease with clean needles, stopping overdoses with drugs onsite, and offering people information about treatment. If Safehouse were to be promoting drug use, then opening the facility could then be seen as violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However, their religious beliefs lead them only to help preserve life that they saw harmed by drug use in Philadelphia. Their goal does not go against the government’s because both want to end drug use and Safehouse’s specific strategy should be legal in part because of their free religious exercise to do so.
9 comments:
I agree with your argument. I think that Safehouse should be allowed to open and run these facilities as they see fit since they have religious motivations and intentions behind their purpose of doing so. They have genuine intentions to preserve life by reducing overdose fatalities, reducing public drug consumption, and not increasing drug crime, which is evident by the operation of the Safehouse itself. These safe spaces are improving peace and good order in the midst of an opioid epidemic, which has the nation’s interest and security in mind.
I agree with the arguments you presented. Government intervention against Safehouse would be a clear violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I found your point regarding Jefferson's belief of "peace and good order" particularly interesting. Legal precedent has established that the government cannot act against religious exercises if it does not harm the well being of society. If Safehouse is providing a safe environment for rehabilitation and therapy as an established medical facility, they would be contributing to the peace and good order of society- not upsetting it. The act of preserving life is how Safehouse exercises its religion and prohibiting that right would not contribute to a compelling government interest.
I agree with this argument, not only because I think the Safehouse initiative is important, but also because the author did a really good job of highlighting that there is a precedent established that would allow it to remain open. The main goal of this establishment is to aid people in fighting their drug addict, so it does not require the government to interfere to maintain "peace and good order." If anything, it is upholding those values on its own when the government insists upon criminalizing addiction. Additionally, a religious group should not be penalized for using practices that work toward bettering their community.
I agree with your argument to an extent. I think the idea of the Safehouse initiative is an important resource that should be available to those struggling with abuse. However, I think this creates a blurry line that, if left undrawn, could cause major issues in the future. The intentions of the facility I think are in good spirits, but at the end of the day drugs are still illegal and having illegal drugs on your property is a crime, no matter what your intentions are. I think that something like the Safehouse initiative needs to exist, but allowing a religious group to own one sets a precedent that illegal drug use is okay as long as your getting help from a religious group. Personally, I do not think that one of these facilities would disrupt the peace, but citizens may cause a disruption in peace once they discover one being built in their community.
It's important to draw a distinction between this case and the Church of Cannabis, two situations that I feel are somewhat related since they both deal with the use of illegal drugs. The Church of Cannabis would be actively violating federal and state law by owning property in order to use illegal drugs in an organized way. The focus is on those who own the property using the drugs, which is not the case with Safehouse. Those running Safehouse aren't running this organization with the intention of using drugs on the premises themselves, it's so that others can do so in a safe way with the ultimate goal of saving lives and curbing addictions to drugs. Not only is this a valuable social program that acts in the interest of the spirit of the federal laws prohibiting the use of illegal drugs (that being to stop people from dying of illegal drugs, to curb addiction, etc.), it is also a valid expression of free exercise of religion. Those running Safehouse are running it with the intention to save lives, a central tenant of their religion. Safehouse's ultimate goal is not to be a place where people shoot up, but rather to save and change lives. This is not only a valid instance of free exercise and affords an exception to federal and state law, it also acts within the interests of the government.
Yes, I agree with the arguments made. In its essence, Safehouse is formally identified as a religious organization, specifically a Judeo-Christian group with established core tenets which preserve life, provide shelter and care for those in need of physical and spiritual care. Protected under the free exercise of religion of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Safehouse has the right to practice its religious affairs as it sees fit. Further, the government’s interest is not compelling enough to meddle into religious affairs, they are simply promoting the moral high ground. They are only concerned about Safehouse and these facilities because they are selling illegal drugs, but in actuality, they have a logical reason for selling them in the interest of the common, good and the public safety, and welfare of the community. By providing a supportive and clean atmosphere, Safehouse intends to reduce overdose deaths and decrease public drug use.
Yes, I agree with the arguments made. In its essence, Safehouse is formally identified as a religious organization, specifically a Judeo-Christian group with established core tenets which preserve life, provide shelter and care for those in need of physical and spiritual care. Protected under the free exercise of religion of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Safehouse has the right to practice its religious affairs as it sees fit. Further, the government’s interest is not compelling enough to meddle into religious affairs, they are simply promoting the moral high ground. They are only concerned about Safehouse and these facilities because they are selling illegal drugs, but in actuality, they have a logical reason for selling them in the interest of the common, good and the public safety, and welfare of the community. By providing a supportive and clean atmosphere, Safehouse intends to reduce overdose deaths and decrease public drug use.
I have to agree with the arguments in your post and the addition of noting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act strengthened your argument. It is clear that Safehouse has the right to practice their religious beliefs under the protection of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The goal of Safehouse is to reduce drug overdoses in the city of Philadelphia and saving lives. Even though saving lives falls under their religious beliefs, it is also apart of the government’s interest in reducing and ultimately preventing drug overdoses. Safehouse will be using illegal drugs in their medical facilities to aid in the prevention of overdoses, while cases such as the Church of Cannabis use illegal drugs recreationally by those who own and attend the church. With this clear difference in mind, it becomes clear that the Safehouse should not be prohibited from following their mission on the basis of religious reasons under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In addition to the author and almost everyone else, I also agree with the points being made in this particular case. Safehouse has the right to practice their religion, which as we know, is protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Safehouse just so happens to practice their religious beliefs by helping aid people who may be struggling with addiction. The Religious Freedom Act of 1993 also supports Safehouse's initiatves and even states that "the government may burden one's free exercise only if it furthers a compelling governmental interest." Safehouse is not disturbing peace and good order of Philadelphia; if anything, is providing aid and care to its citizens.
Post a Comment