Ninth Circuit: Religious Freedom Not A Defense For Marijuana Charges
On June 14th, in US v. Christie, No. 14-10233 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction of two ministers of the “Hawaii Cannabis Ministry” for violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Reverend Roger Cusick Christie founded the “Hawaii Cannabis Ministry,” envisioning the congregation as “a community wherein cannabis could be celebrated as a sacrament.” See US. v. Christie. True to his word Christie passed out the ‘holy sacrament’ during bi-weekly ceremonies where members of the congregation would pay a suggested ‘donation’ in exchange for cannabis in various forms. Additionally, Christie distributed marijuana to members who came in-person to the Sanctuary, again in exchange for a suggested ‘donation.’
A grand jury indicted Rev. Christie, and several of his associates, inter alia numerous Controlled Substances Act violations. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 846, and 856(a)(1). Christie was convicted and sentenced to sixty months in prison. On appeal, Christie alleged violations to his right to freely exercise his religion, as guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.
The 9th Circuit disagreed:
We have little trouble concluding that the government has a compelling interest in preventing drugs set aside for sacramental use from being diverted to non-religious, recreational users. A risk of “diversion,” after all, simply means the threat that cannabis—an illegal, Schedule I controlled substance—will wind up in the hands of people whose use is disconnected from any sincere religious practice. Such illegal, non-religious use, by definition, finds no protection under RFRA.
Moreover, the panel reasoned:
The Ministry’s distribution protocol required those who wished to obtain cannabis during the week to appear in person and to present a membership card or a state-issued medical marijuana card. Prior to the Spring of 2009, recipients were also required to meet privately with Rev. Christie. By April 2009, the Ministry was distributing more than half a pound of cannabis among approximately sixty to seventy people daily via their express service. Id.
A preliminary hearing is the ostensible first stop in the system of supposed checks and balances embedded in the concept of criminal prosecution and justice
You or someone you care about was just arrested for a felony in Pima County. This article will give you an overview of what to expect
Three things you can do where the prosecutor has failed to timely disclose important evidence related to your case.
Today we’ll talk about how victims may also influence the final outcomes of domestic violence criminal proceedings in Arizona, particularly in relation to a putative offer of “diversion.”
We discuss herein how the Arizona Victims’ Bill of Rights may be in some cases helpful to defendants whose victims do not want the defendant prosecuted.
About Michael Harwin
Michael’s skill and experience have been recognized repeatedly. He holds an A-V 5/5 preeminent rating by Martindale Hubbell. He has been named one of the top lawyers in Arizona by Southwest Superlawyers, and one of the best lawyers in Tucson by Tucson Lifestyle Magazine. He also has been named one of the best lawyers in the United States by BestofUS.com , and given the highest rating possible by AVVO, 10/10 Superb. Amazon Books