scigirl

Not sure if this is current:
<a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg28.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg28.htm</a>

If I am interpreting this right, states have the right to make peyote illegal (I.e. the fact that it is a part of certain religions does not supercede the state's right to either prohibit its use, or allow employers to fire users). However, it still could be legal in certain states.

So. . . . smoke away!

scigirl

Toto

Don't be so confident you can smoke away. The Smith case held that states could outlaw the use of peyote, despite its use in religious ceremonies. They probably saw the implications of a contrary ruling - that the Church of Marijuana would be next. This was a very unpopular decision, and the feds passed a law allowing the sale of peyote to persons of certifiable Indian descent. This law has not been challenged in spite of its racial and religious favoritism. (See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000201&p=" target="_blank">previous thread on Religious Use of Peyote</a>. The Smith decision also led Congress to pass RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) in an attempt to overturn it, which was shot down by the Supreme Court, and the more recent RLUIPA, which is being challenged now.

The Ninth Circuit has held that RFRA allows Rastafarians can smoke marijuana on Federal land. So check your jurisdiction before you light up.

RufusAtticus

Just another example of Ashcroft taking direction from 1984.

Unless the officers have a warrent or a crime has been commited, they cannot stay on private property if asked by the owners to leave. They might walk into a mosque to watch, but they must leave if asked to by the mullah (?). Same thing goes if they want to park a deputy in the offices of the ACLU or the Democratic National Convention.

~~RvFvS~~