The Colorado Court of Appeals Unanimously ruled against a Mesa County resident who claimed he was growing marijuana for religious purposes. As an Ordained Minister in the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry, Aaron Torlines argues that it is his ministry that incorporates the use of marijuana in its prayers, rituals, and sacraments. Torlines was arrested in 2016 when law enforcement spotted him and another person loading garbage bags into the back of a truck from a garage. In the garage, they found 115 plants. As a ‘Ganja Minister’, he provided cannabis for around 30 people in his congregation. Though marijuana is legal in Colorado for recreational use, the state still has the right to regulate its use. Torlines' attorney argued that the charges against him were in violation of his “free exercise rights”. Convicting him as charged, the judges wrote in the ruling that the right to belief will always be protected, while the right to conduct will not always be. Judge Navarro wrote, Colorado law does not penalize such conduct because of its religious character. The Free Exercise Clause does not excuse people and organizations from complying with (marijuana laws).” The appellate judges did not reject Torline’s argument easily, as religious protections are not something the state takes lightly.
The question that arises here is, should the free exercise protect this minister's right to grow, distribute and ingest cannabis? Does it matter that the substance is required to be monitored for use within that state? In the 1990 case, Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, where two men were fired for inhaling an illegal hallucinogen, peyote, at their place of work. When denied unemployment benefits, the two men fought the state, claiming that they did it for sacramental religious purposes. The supreme upheld that decision, finding that the court has never excused a person from a valid law because of their religious beliefs. The law is facially neutral, because peyote is illegal for all uses, not just religious ones. The ruling in this case came from the idea that if the court made an allowance for this, it will cause a slippery slope and set a precedent to allow exemptions for other civic obligations.
However, in 1993 Church of Babalu v. Hialeah, where a law was made to prohibit the Santeria Church in Florida from practicing animal sacrifices. The Supreme Court ruled that this was unconstitutional because the law was narrowly tailored to restrict the practices done by the church. Slaughtering animals was allowed, but as soon as it became a ritual, there was a problem. Similar to the situation in Mesa County in Colorado the use of Cannabis in Colorado is legal for recreational use, but not for a minister to grow and distribute. For a person 21 years and older, it is legal for a person to possess one ounce of marijuana at a time for recreational purposes and two ounces at a time for medical purposes. The law also allows for a person to grow six plants, three of which can be in the flowering stage. The ‘Ganja Minister’ was caught with 115 plants, each of which contained two ounces of marijuana. There is a major inconsistency with the law in this case and the minister. How can the state restrict him from providing a legal drug to his congregation? Does his religious affiliation give him a pass on the restrictive guidelines predetermined in the state?
In this instance, I side with the Court of Appeals in Colorado. Unlike the Church of Babalu, Aaron Torlines is breaking a law that is neutrally applied to all people and was not narrowly tailored to restrict the use of cannabis within his church. Similar to the Smith case, if the state makes an allowance for this instance, what’s to stop them from making allowances for all instances. It sets a dangerous precedent with the law and religion. At the end of the day, the law restricts the amount of marijuana a person can have in Colorado and religion cannot be used as an excuse to break that. The state regulates it for religious and secular purposes, making the law facially and inherently neutral. I think that the church is a legitimate religion, and by not allowing Aaron Torlines to grow and dispense cannabis to the congregation, does not prohibit the church from practicing legally. As long as the members are 21 years old, they can legally purchase marijuana from a dispensary where they can then use it for their ceremonies. The law is not stopping the ceremonies from happening, it is simply prohibiting Aaron Torlines from providing it to the whole church. Upholding the law in this case does not restrict the religion or violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
7 comments:
I agree with your presentation and analysis of this case. In addition to your points, I would also add that there is no substantial burden on Torlines or his ministry. Like you mentioned, the rituals themselves are not being prevented, it simply makes it slightly more inconvenient to obtain the marijuana. Though cases are disputed, the precedent of Braunfeld v. Brown shows that if the religious action itself is not prevented and it just forces one to work around an obstacle, it is constitutional. I also agree with your argument that the law here was neutral and did not target certain religions or religious actions.
Abby, I agree with your analysis of this case and the points you make in favor for the Court of Appeals in Colorado. What swayed me about this case is that in Colorado, it is legal to use and grow marijuana, just in moderation, as the state has the power and the interest to regulate it. Just because Aaron Torlines cannot grow 115 plants and distribute it to his congregation does not mean that members of his congregation cannot provide and use marijuana themselves for religious practices, which is why I do not believe the state is infringing upon any religious beliefs, or creating a substantial burden on Torlines and members of his congregation. There are other ways for the congregation to obtain and use marijuana for religious purposes that do not come from Torlines himself.
Again, I find myself agreeing with Abby on this one. As Jenny said, the context here is really important. As far as I can see, the state regulating Torline's marijuana distribution is simply telling the church's followers they must find their marijuana elsewhere than the pastor. Weed is legal for recreational use in Colorado, therefore, there are many other legal ways to obtain the drug. However, if the church claimed that there was a religious or sacred element to Torline's weed specifically, or that their church required its followers to use marijuana grown by the pastor, then maybe this would be a different case. But, it's not, and we saw in Braunfield v. Brown that cases where religious individuals are forced to get creative but are not completely barred from "worship" are constitutional.
I think that the most important fact of the case is that although marijuana is legalized for recreational use in the state of Colorado, the state is entitled to regulate its growth, distribution, and ingestion. Therefore, I believe that the “Ganja Minister”’s argument is invalidated because he did not notify the state of his conduct. I agree with your appraisal of the case, and your application of the Church of Babalu-- the cannabis laws are neutral and not narrowly tailored to inhibit a religious practice. He was not criminalized because of his religious affiliation, but rather because of his failure to notify the state. I also found your conclusion compelling because the state is not stopping the use of marijuana for the religious ceremony, but is just limiting Torlines from providing it to the entire congregation; members can purchase a legal amount from a dispensary and use it for the service.
I agree with your argument, Abby, and the point of your argument that I found particularly strong was the idea that the law that Torline violated a neutral law. The restriction was not intended to target Torline's religion and were laws directed towards a greater compelling state interest. Giving Torline a religious exemption to this law would set a dangerous precedent that if he got an exception, it begs a question of why every other type of religious organization can't get one. The fact that cannabis is legal within Colorado for recreational use is not enough of a reason for the church to assume their rights are being infringed upon as the use of cannabis in Colorado is still subject to government regulation.
I agree with your final conclusion and also what the state of Colorado decided. It seems like the State of Colorado made it clear that the only reason they would not allow Torline to grow so much cannabis was because it was heavily against the law. It had nothing to do with the fact they wanted to stop or prevent this church from worshipping the way they wanted to. Just like Abby said, if you are of 21 and legal, you are able to go and buy cannabis for yourself and use it for religious purposes. But allowing one man to grow so much Cannabis and have it not be regulated, is something that the state just could not allow. Abby recognized the fact that the state said they would just have no way of knowing whether the cannabis that was being grown was only being used for religious purposes or if it was being used and sold elsewhere to make more profit.
It seems that this man claiming he was growing marajuana for a religious purpose brings into question the slippery slope of is it viable for us to let everything slide, as long as whoever broke the law says it was religious purposes. I agree with you that this should not be the case, and anything that is illegal, even if done in the façade of a religion, is still illegal. there are certain things people can go through to try and get exempt from the law when practicing their religion, and this is their best bet.
Post a Comment