Formatting is not perfect. I am not an attorney. The following took 15 total hours to draft. Editing will continue throughout the coming weeks.
Welcome to WeedPress. Subscribe to emails on the right side of this article. Follow WeedPress on Facebook. We’re here for the long haul.
Motion to dismiss draft – Schedule One nullified as a matter of law and not science.
SUMMARY
- 47 state laws defining cannabis as having accepted medical use, all 47 laws being “in the United States,” triggers removal of cannabis from Schedule One classification as a matter of law – not science – in Nebraska.
- Peyote, a Schedule One substance, is exempt from criminal prosecution for religious practitioners. Mr. Karimi, driven by his conscience at great personal sacrifices including job discrimination, courtroom discrimination, and discrimination as a top ten NCAA soccer referee in his home state, is a member of Greenfaith Ministries and long time practicing Rastafarian. Karimi has worked extensively to help get wins with his fellow Rastafarian church brothers through legal religious exemption arguments within his church dating back to 2011, including a former roommate who won an exemption from probation drug testing for THC back in 2011 when Minnesota had yet to accept the medical use of cannabis. As an upstanding member of his church in good standing Mr. Karimi now challenges the constitutionality of Nebraska cannabis laws as applied to him, and seeks a declaration of dismissal of the charge of possession of cannabis in this case.
ARGUMENT
21 U.S. Code § 812 – Schedules of controlled substances
(a)Establishment
There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. Such schedules shall initially consist of the substances listed in this section. The schedules established by this section shall be updated and republished on a semiannual basis during the two-year period beginning one year after October 27, 1970, and shall be updated and republished on an annual basis thereafter.
(b)Placement on schedules; findings required
Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
(1)Schedule I.—
(A)The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B)The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C)There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Cannabis has a currently accepted medical use both as a matter of law since California first accepted the medical use of cannabis in treatment in the United States in 1996 AND as a matter of science as of January 12th, 2024, when HHS released an unredacted 252 page ruling to the public:
Federal health officials said their review found that more than 30,000 healthcare professionals “across 43 U.S. jurisdictions are authorized to recommend the medical use of marijuana for more than six million registered patients for at least 15 medical conditions.” – Marijuana Moment
Nebraska, whose laws regarding the controlled substances act are verbatim copied from this federal statute, has failed to “update and republish” on a regular basis the scheduling of cannabis and, having thus been derelict in upholding the peace, security, and dignity of Nebraska’s public safety laws, today leaves this court no other choice but to rule in favor of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in this case, ordering the removal of cannabis from the Nebraska schedule one classification of Nebraska’s state CSA.
A critical case, Case number A-22-851232-W CANNABIS EQUITY AND INCLUSION COMMUNITY (CEIC), a domestic nonprofit corporation; ANTOINE POOLE, an individual,Petitioners/Plaintiffs,vs.STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. BOARD OF PHARMACY,, updated at the Nevada ACLU website, is summarized as follows and is critical for understanding why Nebraska’s schedule one classification of cannabis is nullified as a matter of law, since 47 states and jurisdictions statutorily define cannabis as having accepted medical use in the United States as a matter of law.
Jason Karimi, defendant, is among millions of Nebraska citizens – or non-citizens in the state for work like Mr. Karimi – who are harmed by the failure of Nebraska to remove cannabis from Schedule One or bother to review cannabis classification as mandated by the federal Uniform Controlled Substances Act which Nebraska’s state CSA is based off of. In order for Nebraska to properly and without impropriety classify cannabis or any other substance as a Schedule One substance, those schedule one substances must have, as a matter of law, “no currently accepted medical use in the United States.” 47 states and territories having defined cannabis as having currently accepted medical use, being in the United States, triggers the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act statutory stipulation that substances cannot be properly classified in schedule one if those substances are found to have an “accepted medical use in the United States.” This fail safe, designed by the genius of Congress, has been overwhelmingly triggered. Cannabis cannot therefore be included in Schedule One.
In the ACLU sponsored case out of Nevada, Nevada’s constitution expressly defines marijuana as medicine as a matter of law, causing the nullifying of Nebraska’s statutory requirement that cannabis have “no accepted medical use in the United States” to be included in Schedule one classifications. Nevada’s constitutional definition of cannabis having “accepted medical use in the United States” is not the only statute or constitutional provision in the United States (emphasis added) defining cannabis as having “accepted medical use.” See citations in footnote HERE and cite to all state statutes in the footnote defining cannabis as medicine
More critically and timely, as of Friday, January 12th, the FDA and HHS released it’s fully unredacted findings determining that cannabis has accepted medical use in the United States in a massive and detailed 252 page ruling.
However, it must be noted two fold: chevron deference to administrative agencies rulings like FDA and HHS is under review and may be scaled back, returning power to the judiciary to interpret and enforce the rule of law instead of agencies; and two, in Grinspoon vs DEA 1988 case CITE HERE, federal administrators cannot overrule state medical laws. See also Gonzales vs Oregon; see further Gonzalez vs. Raich (2005).
19 years ago, the SCOTUS court told a medical cannabis patient, Angel Raich – a personal acquaintance and friend of Jason Karimi – how to resolve the lack of accepted medical use in the United States as a matter of law issue, which was to initiate proceedings with HHS and FDA to review the classification. This advice from SCOTUS 19 years ago has now not only been followed but has resulted in the expected justifiable and proper outcome: a new finding, based on the most recent evidence since HHS last ruled on this issue in 2016, that cannabis has “accepted medical use in the United States” as a matter of science. This is an inferior argument, and is only persuasive evidence, inferior to Karimi’s pointing out that the statutory requirement of cannabis in Nebraska needing to have zero “accepted medical use in the United States” is no longer objectively met due to not only Nevada’s constitution defining cannabis as medicine, nor Karimi’s home state of South Dakota statutorily defining cannabis as medicine, and FDA and HHS now saying cannabis is accepted for medical use in the United States.
The question that was not reached in the Raich decision is a distinction the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned in a footnote in Raich. After reviewing and upholding the statutory scheme, the court noted that marijuana must be correctly classified to pass constitutional muster, citing, “the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule 1.” 545 U.S., at 28 n. 37. The court further noted, “[t]he possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution.” 545 U.S., at 28 n. 37.
And, this is precisely the analysis legal experts have overlooked.
Legal experts, without exception, consistently overlook the “accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule 1.”
It is worth repeating: “Marijuana” cannot be in Schedule 1 if it has “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B) (2018).
The requirements for Schedule 1 are listed in 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1):
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Legal experts will tell you that the required findings are listed in 21 U.S.C. § 811(c):
In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
But, the statute clearly says, “consider.” Nowhere does the statute say any or all of these factors are determinative. Nowhere does the statute say other factors, such as state laws, have no relevance. State law is not explicitly included in the list of findings, but one has to wonder what impact 47 state medical marijuana laws enacted since 1996 might have on a statute that was written in 1970. How could a federal administrative agency make a finding that a state has not accepted the medical use of a controlled substance? Are these state laws just totally irrelevant?
There actually are some federal court decisions that address this question, showing that state law is actually determinative.
First, in 1987, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that solely intrastate medical use of a controlled substance is accepted medical use of a controlled substance in the United States. Grinspoon v. DEA, 881 F.2d 877 (1987):
Congress did not intend “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state or, as the Administrator contends, approval for interstate marketing of the substance.
Grinspoon, at 886. And, as recognized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, “neither the statute nor its legislative history precisely defines the term ‘currently accepted medical use’.” Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
The authority of the DEA is not unlimited. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2006:
The Attorney General has rulemaking power to fulfill his duties under the CSA. The specific respects in which he is authorized to make rules, however, instruct us that he is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law.
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006).
Legal experts are applying federal pre-emption to state laws, when they should be applying state pre-emption to the invalid federal administrative classification of marijuana as a substance without medical use in the States.
To prove the point, the Federal Aviation Administration interpretation of state and federal drug law clearly shows state medical marijuana laws exempt individuals from the enforcement of federal administrative regulations:
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A—General
§91.19 Carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft within the United States with knowledge that narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances as defined in Federal or State statutes are carried in the aircraft.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances authorized by or under any Federal or State statute or by any Federal or State agency.
14 C.F.R. § 91.19 (2023).
For further evidence, please note Mr. Karimi has a medical cannabis card, and so does his girlfriend and partner, whose cannabis was left in the car Mr. Karimi was pulled over in, without Mr. Karimi’s knowledge.
In the Nevada ACLU case, the last update was November 17, 2023. From the Nevada ACLU website updates:
“Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community (CEIC) and Antoine Poole are among those Nevadans harmed by the Board’s scheduling determination for cannabis. They sued the Board in Nevada state court, seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the Board to remove its designation of marijuana as a Schedule I substance, along with declaratory and injunctive relief. The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County granted relief. It concluded that the Board’s scheduling designation, which rested on the Board’s conclusion that marijuana has no accepted medical value, was inconsistent with the Nevada Constitution, which expressly recognizes marijuana’s medical use. Further, the court concluded that the statutory regime created by voters when they legalized recreational marijuana use had displaced any authority the Board once had to regulate marijuana. The Board appealed.”
This Nevada case has completed it’s briefings. A date for argument has not been yet set. The FDA and HHS ruling that cannabis has “accepted medical use in the United States” will certainly influence the court’s determinations in the Nevada case.
*************************************************************************************************************
The federal government has also long recognized that cannabis has some level of accepted medical use in the United States. Mr. Karimi is Executive Director of Iowa Patients for Medical Marijuana representing roughly 20,000 medical cannabis patients in his childhood state of Iowa. Two Iowans have received for decades 300 marijuana cigarettes by mail from the federal government as part of a federal IND compassion program that was ended by Bush Sr. They were grandfathered in. Mr. Karimi witnessed personally one of these patients, George McMahon, smoke this marijuana on the news in 2009. This witnessing greatly impacted Mr. Karimi’s sense of justice and fairness – if two Iowans get medical cannabis, on the federal government’s dime, why can’t the other 20,000 Iowans? Mr. Karimi then spent 15 years attending paralegal classes, researching this issue, and trying to find a resolution to the law’s clearly contradictory classification of cannabis as a schedule one drug. Sacrifices were made, including removal as a top ten referee of soccer in his home state being forced on him when forced to choose between doing the right thing – fixing schedule one misclassification – or traveling the country refereeing soccer. No other citizen in any jurisdiction has brought this argument Mr. Karimi is presenting to the court today in any criminal case excepting one case in Michigan with lawyer Neil Rockind, a case Mr. Karimi is unable to locate today and a case that resulted in dismissal of marijuana charges, the argument of which Neil Rockind personally called Mr. Karimi and also credited Mr. Karimi’s Iowa work in being where Neil Rockind came up with the successful criminal defense case – however, Mr. Karimi’s argument is featured on the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an organization of lawyers, here at this URL: https://norml.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf_files/brief_bank/Carl_Olsen_v_DEA.pdf
The argument in the Olsen vs. DEA case presented years ago, and presented prior to the FDA and HHS ruling (a ruling which, again, has NIDA’s concurrence) of January 12th, 2024, was this:
“Whether the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) may lawfully conclude that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C §§ 801-904 (“CSA”), when marijuana’s medical use is currently accepted by 20 states and the District of Columbia?”
Mr. Karimi personally served a lawsuit in 2011 on the state of Iowa addressing this question and documented his efforts on his personal blog.
Although the Nebraska Legislature does not have to listen to the FDA and HHS expert medical opinion, law controls, not science. The state prosecutor and legal experts can, for a while, ignore the FDA and HHS science, but not the law. The law requires that marijuana be removed from schedule I, even if the FDA and HHS had found that marijuana had no medical efficacy whatsoever. On medical determinations, state law preempts federal law.
The totality of these arguments has increased in importance as marijuana has been increasingly found to have accepted medical use in the majority of states in the United States. Additionally, 2.3 million marijuana convictions have been expunged – and the current Biden administration has instructed and advised Governors throughout the country to not only take note, but do the right thing and stop perverting the law. While the United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, a deep dive into the actual crime statistics shows the United States actually under incarcerates violent criminals compared to other developed economies. Thomas Sowell, an exceptional economist worth reading and studying by all citizens of all backgrounds interested in criminal justice effectiveness, points out this issue in his writings.
Prosecutors arguably are more incentivized to get easy wins at any cost while grabbing easy financial revenue for their impoverished counties. This incentivisation, based on a reading of the crime statistics, has lowered public safety when prosecutors prioritize and pursue charges against non-violent citizens, subcontractors, business owners, and sick people seeking medicine, effectively ripping apart families and damaging communities for generations, while simultaneously being incentivized into letting violent criminals off the hook as those cases aren’t as financially rewarding and much harder to pursue, arrest, investigate and prosecute.
The result is a reduction in the respect for the rule of law in this country, as evidenced by the riots of 2020 and the current tragic ongoing crime wave of youths looting stores throughout the country that is common knowledge to anyone paying even a modicum of attention to the latest news reports. This lamentable tragedy does not have to be our ongoing situation and is reversible – and as someone who lived through and documented the 2020 Minneapolis riots, Mr. Karimi emphatically requests all concerned parties take these issues extremely seriously to prevent further loss of life and livelihoods.
In September, a report from the Congressional Research Service determined that the DEA is “likely” to approve the recommendation to reclassify marijuana under Schedule III of the CSA.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) agreed with the FDA and HHS scientific findings; however, even with this extremely persuasive if not conclusive evidence of HHS and FDA ruling marijuana now has “accepted medical use in the United States,” a recent case, AGGARWAL V. UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, No. 22-1718 (9th Cir. 2023), clarifies that the “accepted medical use in the United States” statutory law requirement is not dependent on the opinion of FDA or HHS.
As the court stated on page four, footnote 1 and 2 of the Grinspoon vs. DEA case 37 years ago:
“Moreover, the denial letter’s statement that “[a] prerequisite to transferring a substance from schedule I to schedule II under theCSA is for the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) to determine that a substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in theUnited States” is contrary to 21 U.S.C.§ 812(b)(2)(B), which sets as a prerequisite to transfer to schedule II either “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States”or “a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.” Footnote 2 We therefore do not decide whether the five-part test for “currently accepted medical use” is a lawful interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(2)(B).
“Currently accepted medical use” was defined years before agency administrative science reviews, like the one from FDA and HHS with NIDA concurrence that was finally published in it’s entirety January 12, 2024 – and as a matter of law is now triggered as evidenced by the plurality of states defining marijuana as medicine as a matter of statute.
If the federal government were allowed to overrule state findings that marijuana has “currently accepted medical use in the United States” it would be contrary to the guidance found in Gonzalez vs. Oregon (2006) and Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987):
“The court found that there was no necessary linkage between failure to obtain FDA interstate marketing approval and a determination that the substance in question was unsafe and had no medical use, and as such, respondent erroneously applied an interpretation of the scheduling criteria that directly conflicted with congressional intent.
The Administrator argues correctly that we must review his interpretation of the CSA in light of the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984). In Chevron the Court explained that [HN4] a reviewing court must employ a two-step analysis that focuses initially on the intentions of Congress:First, [**10] always, is the question whether Congress had directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.Id. at 842-43 (emphasis supplied). In the absence of congressional intent, however, the court must proceed to a second inquiry:[*885] If . . . the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.Id. at 843 (footnote omitted; emphasis supplied).It is undisputed that Congress has not directly spoken to the question at issue here, namely, the proper means of interpreting the second and third criteria of section 812(b)(1). The absence of express intent, however, does not compel [**11] us to proceed to the deferential second step of the Chevron scheme. As the Supreme Court indicated in a footnote to its Chevron opinion, “if a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is law and must be given effect.” Id. at 843 n. 9. Recently the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this proposition, holding in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 107 S. Ct. 1207, 94 L. Ed. 2d 434 (1987), that a court faced with a “pure question of statutory interpretation” should rely upon traditional methods of statutory construction in an attempt to determine the intent of Congress. Id. 107 S. Ct. at 1221; International Union, UAW v. Brock, 259 U.S. App. D.C. 457, 816 F.2d 761, 764-65 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (applying “traditional tools” of statutory construction to invalidate agency’s interpretation of statutory language as conflicting with intent of Congress).The Administrator contends that congressional intent favoring his interpretation of the CSA can be gleaned from the language of the statute, its legislative history, [**12] and the language and history of subsequent legislative enactments designed to enhance the regulatory system established by the CSA in 1970. In the alternative, he argues that if the intent of Congress is ambiguous, then his construction of the statute is permissible in view of the statutory scheme. 5 Our review of the sources identified by the litigants convinces us that Congress neither expressed nor implied an affirmative intent regarding how the second and third Schedule I criteria should be interpreted. Nevertheless, these same sources — the language and structure of the CSA and FDCA, the legislative history of the CSA, and the subsequent handiwork of Congress in the area of controlled substance regulation — lead us to conclude that the Administrator’s construction of subsections (B) and (C) of 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1) is contrary to congressional intent. 65 Contrary to the assertions of the Administrator, this is not a situation in which Congress has expressly vested the Administrator with authority to define general statutory criteria by issuing regulations. Were this such a case, such regulations would be controlling unless they were “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44. Here, the CSA expressly delegates to the Attorney General only the authority to make “the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which [a] drug is to be placed.” 21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(1)(B) (emphasis supplied). This explicit delegation of authority to apply prescribed statutory criteria is not equivalent to an explicit delegation of authority to define those criteria.
…
The CSA clearly provides that a substance may not be placed in Schedule I unless it lacks both a “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision.” The FDCA, on the other hand, provides that a substance may fail to obtain FDA interstate marketing approval (or exemption) for any of seven specific reasons. 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(1)-(7). Although approval may be withheld because the substance lacks both “safety”, 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(2), and “efficacy” for a particular use, 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(5), it [**20] is equally possible for a substance to be disapproved for interstate marketing because it lacks only one of these attributes, or because the application fails to contain relevant patent information, 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(6), or even because the labeling proposed for the drug “is false or misleading in any particular.” 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(7). Thus, we find no necessary linkage between failure to obtain FDA interstate marketing approval and a determination that the substance in question is unsafe and has no medical use. Indeed, the FDCA does not even mention the term “medical use.” In short, it is plainly possible that a substance may fail to obtain interstate marketing approval even if it has an accepted medical use.Another possible reason for failure to obtain FDA new drug approval is that the manufacture, distribution, and use of a substance might not involve interstate marketing. 10 Unlike the CSA scheduling restrictions, the FDCA interstate marketing provisions do not apply to drugs manufactured and marketed wholly intrastate. Compare 21 U.S.C. § 801(5) with 21 U.S.C. § 321 [**21] (b), 331, 355(a). Thus, it is possible that a substance may have both an accepted medical use and safety for use under medical supervision, even though no one has deemed it necessary to seek approval for interstate marketing. Indeed, as Dr. Grinspoon argues, there is no economic or other incentive to seek interstate marketing approval for a drug like MDMA because it cannot be patented and exploited commercially. The prospect of commercial development, of course, is irrelevant to one…like Grinspoon.
It appears, instead, that blind reliance on the lack of FDA interstate [**22] marketing approval could cause a substance to be placed in Schedule I, even though one or two of the three requirements prescribed by Congress for placement of a drug in Schedule I have not been proven. Based solely on the language of the CSA and the FDCA, therefore, we find it unlikely that substituting the lack of FDA interstate marketing approval for the statutory requirements that a substance lack both an “accepted medical use” and “accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision” is consistent with the intent of Congress in enacting the CSA.”
– Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987)
So to repeat, as extrapolated upon in the above cited and relevantly quoted Grinspoon vs. DEA case, even though the FDA and HHS (with NIDA concurrence) has now, as of January 12th 2024, released a 252 page critical ruling that marijuana does today now have “accepted medical use in the United States,” this opinion of the administrative agency is a matter of science and is inferior to the laws of the state’s defining marijuana as having “accepted” medical use in the United States.
The matter of statutory construction extrapolated upon in the case informs Mr. Karimi that “currently accepted medical use in the United States” is controlled by a superior matter of law, not science, and that the Nevada constitution, as well as 47 state law statutes defining marijuana as having accepted medical use intrastate, this requirement, ingeniously set out as a fail safe by Congress when first passing the CSA, in order to prevent erroneous, capricious, and mistaken classification of important medical substances that may, like in the case of marijuana, be a treatment to curing cancer. Schedule one as a matter of law once nullified will, Mr. Karimi predicts, lead to an expansion of research proving these initial findings that cannabis medicines can actually cure and prevent cancer – but Mr. Karimi is no doctor, and is merely a legal researcher looking forward to more scientific research once these unconscionable laws on plant medicine research opportunities are thoroughly rectified .
Implications of the laws being enforced, respected, and upheld, have far reaching consequences for the updated and current peace and dignity of our civilizational infrastructures and institutions. Mr. Karimi’s efforts in submitting this brief are intended to show and update this respect for the law and institutions affected by the law.
One particular noteworthy statistic is worth bearing here. Rather than investing our resources in fighting violent crime, thereby protecting families, communities, and business owners, our judicial system is currently opting instead, due to certain incentives, to choose to pursue the ripping apart of families for marijuana crimes in some jurisdictions, and expunging records for marijuana crimes in other jurisdictions to the tune of 2.3 million expungements. This absurdity – and it is an absurdity – was addressed by Justice Clarence Thomas in the case Standing Akimbo LLC v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 20-645.:
“Thomas noted that the Supreme Court had upheld federal prohibition of marijuana even within states in its 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich, on the grounds that allowing local use would undermine a “comprehensive” federal regime.The justice said that reasoning may no longer apply.”Once comprehensive, the federal government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana,” Thomas wrote. “This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism (emphasis added by Mr. Karimi) and conceals traps for the unwary.”
MARIJUANA HAD ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE IN TREATMENT IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE CSA WAS ENACTED
Prior to the enactment of the federal CSA in 1970, marijuana had been accepted for medical use in treatment almost all 50 states in the UnitedStates. James v. City of Costa Mesa, 700 F.3d 394,409 (9th Cir. 2012) (Berzon, J., dissenting):
First, while California in 1996 became the first of the sixteen states that currently legalize medical marijuana, the history of medical marijuana goes back much further,so that use for medical purposes was not unthinkable in 1990. At one time, “almost all States … had exceptions making lawful,under specified conditions, possession of marihuana by … persons for whom the drug has been prescribed or to whom it had been given by an authorized medical person.” Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 17, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L. Ed. 2d 57 (1969).
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Pub. 238, 75thCongress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), included an exemption for medical use. Leary v. United States,395 U.S. 6, 15 n.10, 16-18 (1969). As noted by in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 11 (2005):
[D]octors wishing to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes were required to comply with rather burdensome administrative requirements.
* * *
Thus, while the Marihuana Tax Act did not declare the drug illegal per se, the onerous administrative requirements, the prohibitively expensive taxes, and the risks attendant on compliance practically curtailed the marijuana trade.
Marijuana is the only substance in Schedule in which the National Commission on Marihuana andDrug Abuse, Act of October 27, 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, § 601, 1970 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News (84 Stat.) 1280-1281, recommended be decriminalized.
Interference with state authority to regulate in the interest of the health and welfare of its citizens isa question of constitutional law, not a scientific and medical inquiry. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243,270 (2006):
[C]ongress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood. Beyond this,however, the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally.The silence is understandable given the structure and limitations of federalism, whichallow the States “ ‘great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons.’ ” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518U.S. 470, 475, 116 S. Ct. 2240, 135 L. Ed. 2d700 (1996) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 756, 105 S. Ct.2380, 85 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1985)).
The federal CSA must be interpreted as a whole,not piecemeal. United Savings Ass’n v. Timbers ofInwood Forest Associates, 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988):
Statutory construction, however, is a holistic endeavor. A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme — because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, see, e.g., Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U.S.851, 860 (1986), or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law, see, e. g., Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux,481 U.S. 41, 54 (1987); Weinberger v. Hynson,Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609, 631-632 (1973); Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367U.S. 303, 307-308 (1961).
The intent of Congress was to create harmony between state and federal law, not discord. Gonzales V. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 264 (2006), specifically identifies 21 U.S.C. § 823:
As for the federal law factor, though it does require the Attorney General to decide“[c]ompliance” with the law, it does not suggest that he may decide what the law says.Were it otherwise, the Attorney General could authoritatively interpret “State” and “local laws,” which are also included in 21 U.S.C. §823(f), despite the obvious constitutional problems in his doing so.
Particularly illustrative of state autonomy to decide if and when to use a particular controlled substance in medical treatment is the RevisedUniform Controlled Substances Act, 9 U.L.A. Part II (1994) (“USCA”). In the prefatory comments to the1990 amendments, the Commission states,“Legitimate use of controlled substances is essential for public health and safety, and the availability of these substances must be assured.” Prefatory Note For Uniform Controlled Substances Act (1990), at page2, 9 U.L.A. Part II 5 (1994). Section 201 of the UCSAgives states the option of accepting the medical use of controlled substances regardless of their placement inSchedule I of the federal CSA. Id., at pages 13-14, 9U.L.A. Part II 42-43 (1994). See also, Comments on §201 of the UCSA, id., at page 16, 9 U.L.A. Part II 44(1994) (“appropriate person or agency within theState … should have expertise in law enforcement,pharmacology, and chemistry”). Section 201 of theUCSA is essentially the same as it was in the 1970 version of the USCA. Id., at page 18, 9 U.L.A. Part II 53 (1994) (“the requirements for placing substances in the various schedules are being retained insubstantially the form contained in the 1970 UniformAct”). The USCA makes it clear that states have not ceded any authority to the federal government to decide if and when substances can or cannot have accepted medical use within their borders.
21 U.S.C. § 903, as noted by this Court inGonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 251 (2006), provides evidence that Congress envisioned a significant role for the states in the federal CSA:
The CSA explicitly contemplates a role for theStates in regulating controlled substances, as evidenced by its preemption provision.
And see, Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, Walters v. Conant, 540 U.S. 946(2003):
Our decision is consistent with principles of federalism that have left states as the primary regulators of professional conduct. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 603 n. 30, 51L. Ed. 2d 64, 97 S. Ct. 869 (1977) (recognizing states’ broad police powers to regulate the administration of drugs by health professionals); Linder v. United States, 268U.S. 5, 18, 69 L. Ed. 819, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925)(“direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government”). We must “show[] respect for the sovereign States that comprise ourFederal Union. That respect imposes a duty of federal courts, whenever possible, to avoid or minimize conflict between federal and state law, particularly in situations in which the citizens of a State have chosen to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Oakland Cannabis, 532 U.S. at 501 (Stevens, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The federal CSA must be interpreted by theRespondent to create harmony between the states and the national government, not discord.
************************************************************************************
REMEDIES REQUIRED
The court may only remove schedule one. Replacing cannabis into a separate schedule, or leaving cannabis fully unscheduled, is the sole jurisdiction of the Executive and Legislative branches of the state of Nebraska.
Having failed to regularly review cannabis scheduling in Nebraska – scheduling that Nebraska state code takes from the federal government – the court is left with little alternative but to dismiss all cannabis charges and declare cannabis unscheduled in the state of Nebraska. This is not the court’s fault that the legislature and the Executive branches health agencies have been derelict in their duty to dutifully update the Nebraska scheduling laws to protect Nebraska’s peace and dignity.
Diving deeper into the 252 page ruling from FDA, and HHS, and approved by NIDA, exceptionally important findings from the 252 page ruling are highlighted in this brief for purposes of further illuminating the court.
As part of the 252 page ruling, included is an August 28, 2023 report prepared by FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) entitled “Considerations for Whether Marijuana Has a Currently Accepted Medical Use in the United States for Purposes of Section 202(b) of the Controlled Substances Act.” This report takes up the bulk of the 252 page ruling released January 12th 2023 and is found on pages 99-252.
Nebraska has failed to recognize or respect 47 other state laws finding cannabis has accepted medical use in the United States – and as such, this court should dismiss these charges on cannabis today, and direct the other two branches of government to do their duty with diligence and integrity to update the outdated classification of cannabis and determine the proper scheduling or lack thereof moving forward. Any other ruling would be to find that schedule one as a matter of law does not need to take into account the other 47 state laws and will strain the basic principles of federalism that Justice Thomas so eloquently described. Again, are these laws defining marijuana as medicine irrelevant?
The first 99 pages of the HHS and FDA ruling (concurred by NIDA) are also extremely instructive. Page 58 of the HHS report states:
“The risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for ED visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths. . . . For overdose deaths, marijuana is always in the lowest rankings among comparator drugs. These evaluations demonstrate that there is consistency across databases, across substances, and over time and that although abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of a risk to public health, that risk is relatively lower than that posed by most other comparator drugs.”
Page 46 of the HHS report states:
“The most notable conclusion from an evaluation of various epidemiological databases related to the medical outcomes from abuse of selected drugs is that for all measures that were evaluated from 2015 to 2020, the rank order of the comparators in terms of greatest adverse consequence typically places alcohol, heroin, and/or cocaine in the first or immediately subsequent positions, with marijuana in a lower place in the ranking. This pattern was also observed for PC data with regard to serious medical outcomes, including death, where marijuana was in the lowest ranking group.”
Page 10 of the HHS report states:
“The most notable“Epidemiological data indicate that marijuana has the potential for creating hazards to the health of the user and to the safety of the community. However, as a relative finding on abuse liability, when comparing marijuana to heroin, oxycodone, hydrocodone, fentanyl, cocaine, ketamine, benzodiazepines, zolpidem, tramadol, and alcohol in various epidemiological databases that allow for some or all of these comparisons, marijuana is not typically among the substances producing the most frequent incidence of adverse outcomes or severity of substance use disorder.”conclusion from an evaluation of various epidemiological databases related to the medical outcomes from abuse of selected drugs is that for all measures that were evaluated from 2015 to 2020, the rank order of the comparators in terms of greatest adverse consequence typically places alcohol, heroin, and/or cocaine in the first or immediately subsequent positions, with marijuana in a lower place in the ranking. This pattern was also observed for PC data with regard to serious medical outcomes, including death, where marijuana was in the lowest ranking group.”
Page 7-8 of the HHS ruling states:
“Evidence shows that some individuals are taking marijuana in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community. However, evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others.”
HHS “updated” its approach to assessing “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” recognizing a new two-part standard.
In it’s 252 page ruling on pages 80 and 252, HHS asks whether “[t]here exists widespread, current experience with medical use of the substance by Health Care Providers operating in accordance with implemented jurisdiction-authorized programs, where medical use is recognized by entities that regulate the practice of medicine.”
HHS Assistant Secretary of Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health (OASH) found that more than 30,000 HCPs are certified to recommend cannabis for more than six million registered patients. OASH found this “constitut[ed] widespread clinical experience associated with various medical conditions recognized by a substantial number of jurisdictions across the United States.” OASH pointed out that “[f]or several jurisdictions, these programs have been in place for several years, and include features that actively monitor medical use and product quality characteristics of marijuana dispensed.”
Additionally, Mr. Karimi respectfully points out that the federal government has never once sued any single of the 47 state laws defining marijuana as having currently accepted medical use in the United States to overturn their medical marijuana statutes, an arguably tacit acceptance of state laws defining marijuana as having accepted medical use. “Taken together,” OASH “the findings from Part 1 warrant an FDA assessment under Part 2 of [HHS’s] currently accepted medical use approach to determine if there exists credible scientific support for the use of marijuana for at least one of the medical conditions [OASH identified during the Part 1 investigation].”
FDA concluded that “some credible scientific support for at least one of the medical uses for which Part 1 [was] met.” FDA assessed cannabis’s use as medicine for seven indications, “based in part on OASH’s findings under Part 1 of the CAMU test and in part on FDA’s own analysis of the landscape in which marijuana is currently used medically, including information from state-authorized programs on how and to what extent marijuana is being utilized for medical purposes.”
FDA concluded that “the totality of the available data,” supports a finding “that, for purposes of the drug scheduling criteria in 21 U.S.C. 812(b), marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in the United States for: anorexia related to a medical condition; nausea and vomiting (e.g., chemotherapy-induced); and pain.” Furthermore, Mr. Karimi’s girlfriend has used cannabis for years with a lawful medical cannabis card to successfully reduce reliance on prescription medications that, if you would believe the HHS and FDA ruling (with concurrence by NIDA) is drastically more dangerous than cannabis for chronic pain, a great success approved by her doctors. FDA has concluded that cannabis has a currently accepted medical use for purposes of section 812(b)(1)(B) of the CSA, but FDA emphasized this factual finding of accepted medical use in the United States does not mean that FDA has approved cannabis as safe and effective for marketing as a drug in interstate commerce under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which is consistent with the ruling in Grinspoon vs. DEA that stated as quoted in this motion that accepted medical use and approved marketing in interstate commerce were two entirely separate issues and a finding, which FDA just made in the HHS ruling report, that a substance can both have accepted medical use in the United States – nullifying as a matter of law Schedule one classification requiring removal from the Schedule One in the courts as a matter of law and not science– can be implemented as a matter of law, even though there is yet to be found an approved interstate marketing ruling from that very same FDA.
This is the beauty of our institutions of law, that things are done orderly, timely, and thoughtfully without emotion or hyperbolic hysteria, hysteria which for years various state and prosecutors would frequently rely on to obfuscate and even in some case outright censor the current legal status and validity of the controlled substances act from objective and hypothetically unemotional finders of facts, or more precisely, judges and juries.
HHS also emphasized the importance of the 2018 Farm Bill to the scope of its 252 page analysis, explaining that because that statute descheduled “hemp,” its analysis does not apply to hemp products or to “[p]roducts containing predominantly plant-derived CBD or marketed with the intent of offering consumers a plant-derived, CBD-containing product.” The HHS federal agency added, however, that “[i]t should be noted some hemp-derived CBD products may containΔ9-THC or other cannabinoids in amounts sufficient to produce drug effects more associated with marijuana, and may or may not be legally within the definition of marijuana.” As a result, “their widespread use may contribute to the epidemiological data on marijuana use that is discussed in Factors 4, 5, and 6 of this scientific and medical evaluation.”
As described at a legal blog: “In other words, unregulated intoxicating hemp products may, to some extent, be skewing the analysis to make the harms associated with cannabis abuse appear worse than they actually are.”
HHS emphasized the “variability” of cannabis, explaining that “[l]ike any other botanical substance, marijuana plants are heterogeneous in nature and contain a complex chemical profile.” In the past, HHS has treated this “variation in forms for [cannabis] consumption, composition of biologically relevant constituents, potency, and contaminants” as a barrier to assessing the appropriateness of rescheduling cannabis as a whole, encouraging petitioners to seek removal of a single strain instead. In this most recent review, however, HHS acknowledged the issue but chose to address it by “focus[ing] to greatest extent possible on wide-ranging cannabis plant derived substances that are vehicles for the self-administration of Δ9-THC as the key biologically active substance on which the CSA’s current definition of marijuana is based.”
HHS also lamented the lack of uniformity among state-level cannabis regulations and the total lack of regulation of the illicit market, describing it as a “safety” and “quality” problem. Nebraska is clearly, by failing to regulate cannabis and leaving it decriminalized instead of properly and safely regulated, leaving a monopoly power in the hands of black market actors. The court’s anticipated ruling on this motion to dismiss Schedule One classification of cannabis will force the Nebraska lawmakers to increase the peace and dignity of Nebraska by removing this public safety danger and begin properly regulating cannabis, rather than empowering criminals.
Currently, the state of Nebraska is neglecting to update both the latest science, and, refusing to acknowledge that it’s Nebraska’s Schedule one classification – modeled after the federal government’s laws – is void and nullified as evidenced as a matter of law the 47 state statutes defining cannabis as having accepted medical use in the country.
How legal experts have missed this issue has long been a source of confusion to Mr. Karimi, and the only explanation given by law firms so far is that it would cost millions of dollars to research this issue and would take years of full-time legal research for law firms to engage in, thereby making it financially unfeasible for law firms to resolve this issue, leaving it to people like Mr. Karimi to figure this out during their free time instead.
*************************************************************************************
RELIGIOUS USE OF CANNABIS ENTITLED TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS
The issue of whether the use of cannabis by Rastafari amounts to a bona fide religious practice has already been conclusively determined. R. at 8-11; see Olsen et al. v. State of Iowa, 1986 WL 4045 *3(S.D. Iowa Mar. 19, 1986) (finding “Olsen is a member and priest of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church. Testimony at his trial revealed the bona fide nature of this religious organization and the sacramental use of marijuana within it.”); see also State v. Olsen, 315 N.W.2d1, 8 (Iowa 1982) (noting “[w]e assume, without deciding, that the religion practiced by Olsen is one which is protected by the free exercise clause and that Olsen’s belief in the marijuana sacrament is “sincere and central to the religion”).
Mr. Karimi finds it intriguing that a former first lady of the United States, Mrs. Laura Bush, also claims to be a practicing Rastafarian. This interesting religious practice – and religious practice and membership of religious organizations is obviously a pro-social and positive thing for society as members of religions who sincerely practice the precepts of religions tend to be more contributive towards the communities they reside in – was last broached in 2017 during Megyn Kelly’s discussion with a Bush daughter. This is noteworthy to Mr. Karimi and is worth mentioning in this brief as evidence that Rastafarians are successful and hard-working citizens and no danger to their communities, in spite of religious discrimination sometimes leveled at Rastafarians by certain people ignorant of Rastafarian society.
Mr. Karimi is a member of Greenfaith Ministries, a non-profit based out of Colorado Springs, Colorado, with affiliated groups operating in various jurisdictions around the world. One such jurisdiction is Madison Wisconsin. Currently, a member and leader of the Greenfaith Ministries affiliated branch in Madison, Wisconsin, Ras Jesse Schworck, has been awarded an exemption to conditions of bond to exempt him from UA drug testing for THC. Wisconsin like Nebraska does not have medical cannabis, but does have decriminalized cannabis. Both states are similar in their situation. Mr. Karimi has filed a motion for his bond in this Nebraska case demanding an exemption from THC testing being a violation of his bond in this Nebraska case.
This motion is brought pursuant to the 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; article I, sections 1-3 (due process of law; equal protection) and I-4 (Religious Freedom) as well as section I-5 (Freedom of speech; “prayer” being a form of speech) of the Nebraska Constitution; and Nebraska Statute Code § 29-744 Bail; bond; conditions.More specifically, this motion addresses the United States Constitution’s guarantee that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As well as Nebraska’s, Article I, Bill of Rights, Section I-4 – Religious Freedom; which provides in pertinent part:
All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. (…) Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.
Mr. Karimi’s former roommate and father figure, Jamison Arend, won a religious exemption from probation drug testing for THC in 2011. This story, which went international, was first broken by Karimi on his personal blog. Years later, this same Rasta family’s eldest son also won an exemption that made it’s way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, not for religious exemptions to probation drug testing but for possession of a sacramental chalice for performing required rituals in ceremony as proscribed by church mandate:
The district court concluded that Rastafari is a true religion and that J.J.M.A. has a sincerely held belief in the general tenets of the religion. But the district court held that J.J.M.A. failed to satisfy his burden of establishing a sincerely held belief that the Rastafari religion requires that he carry his pipe with him at all times. As a result, the district court did not reach the issue of whether the state met its burden of showing a compelling government interest in prohibiting the possession of drug paraphernalia. The district court adjudicated J.J.M.A. delinquent on all three charges. This appeal follows…
Once an individual has demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief intended to be protected by section 16, the burden shifts to the state “to demonstrate that public safety cannot be achieved by proposed alternative means.” Hershberger II, 462 N.W.2d at 398. In order to carry this burden, the state must establish that the interest is overriding or compelling, and that the regulation uses the least-restrictive means to accomplish the state’s interest. Hill-Murray Fed’n of Teachers, 487 N.W.2d at 865.We noted in Pedersen that the state could not rely solely “on the legislature’s enactment of statutes prohibiting the possession of marijuana to defeat a claim under article I, section 16.” Id. at 377. Even if we assume a compelling interest in enforcing controlled-substance laws, the state must provide “evidence that its compelling interest in 11 public safety could not be achieved by less restrictive means.” Id. In this case, the state has not demonstrated that applying the drug-paraphernalia law to an individual with a genuinely held belief in possessing a cannabis pipe is the least-restrictive means of enforcing controlled-substance laws.
Reversed.
Mr. Karimi accompanied both Jamison and J.J.M.A. to the Minneapolis police department evidence room during the adjudication of the matter of J.J.M.A., where police, in 2014, returned the evidence bag with the two sacramental cannabis chalices that the court determined was exempt from criminal interference of the Rastafarian family and blogged a picture of him standing with the victorious Rasta eldest son at his blog for historical posterity.
This victory was the subject of a front page article in City Pages Minneapolis titled “Holy Smoke.” Pictures of the sacramental chalice were documented on the WeedPress blog as well as the cover photo of the City Pages article in the WeedPress article.
As documented in the WeedPress article’s textual reprint of the court discussion, another Rastafarian friend of Mr. Karimi’s explained the required ritual practices entailed by members of the Rastafarian community to perform to connect them during prayer with Jah:
J.J.M.A.’s testimony was supported by K.H., a Rastafarian with a background in religious studies. K.H. testified that Rastafarians use the pipe—which he also called a “chalice”—to smoke during “reasoning circles” and that “it’s part of the actual sacramental process itself to be using a pipe [as] opposed to using any other device.” He testified that the cannabis plant is “something that we should use throughout our entire day. . . . [T]here is a large variety of uses, but definitely the use of it in a pipe in a sacramental setting is an essential component of that usage.” According to K.H., there are no set times for reasoning circles or other gatherings, but the “religious tradition, this chalice or this pipe is something that can be self-administered,” and that “everyone is deemed to be able to instigate a gathering.”
Currently in Wisconsin, a member and leader of Karimi’s long-maintained church of Greenfaith Ministries is currently out on bond – court case number 2019cf001228 Dane County Circuit – and has won and is currently exercising his right to use state and federally legal cannabis hemp while out on bond without being punished for THC presence in urinalysis tests as a Rastafarian legal under the 2018 Farm Bill Act. Details of this current religious exemption for Karimi’s fellow church member are available at Karimi’s blog. Ras Schworck is willing and able to testify as to this matter in person if need be as an expert witness.
Other exemptions for Rastafarians have been denied in the past. One example is United States v. Jefferson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Ind. 2001). The court reasoned that as a Schedule One substance, the government could restrict religious freedom. This case was decided 23 years ago, and the record in 2024 clearly shows that the federal government has determined Schedule One is no longer valid as evidenced by the FDA and HHS ruling (with NIDA concurrence). So, even if Nebraska finds that as of this date that Schedule One is somehow not invalidated by 47 state laws, and that those state laws are somehow not relevant to the question of whether marijuana has “accepted medical use in the United States,” then the dismissal of Karimi’s pending misdemeanor cannabis possession charge should be grounded on the grounds that as a sincere religious practitioner and member of the Greenfaith Ministries rastafarian group he is exempt from Nebraska’s outdated laws. Peyote exemptions being granted by the federal government, in all 50 states, regardless of state laws, strengthens this argument for Karimi’s exemption demand as a matter of equal protection under the law.
While the CSA includes the power to prohibit local use of controlled substances, the CSA also includes the power to grant exemptions. An exemption exists for schedule I peyote, 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31, for a church. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 906(1990) (O’Connor, J., concurring).
This argument is an Equal Protection /Establishment Clause analysis (General Applicability, as in Smith) not the constitutional claim rejected in Raich.
“The Establishment Clause generally prohibits the government from granting certain preferences to religions or religious adherents which are not available to secular organizations for nonreligious individuals. E.g., Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)”, PeyoteExemption for Native American Church, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice,Tuesday, December 22, 1981, at page 410.
Calling special attention to 21 U.S.C. § 903, which indicates an intent by Congress not to interfere with the states strengthens Karimi’s assertion in this motion to dismiss that cannabis has “accepted medical use in the United States” and is not subject to being preempted by federal legislation. See also Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 271(2006) (“regulation of health and safety is ‘primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern’”).
See the Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum (1981) for an explanation of how the federal exemption for peyote was created because of state laws and state court decisions recognizing a state right to use peyote for religious purposes, and why an administrative exemption was chosen for the federal exemption instead of a statutory exemption.
Considerations of requests for exemption are required by the CSA. Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 432-433 (2006):
This conclusion is reinforced by the Controlled Substances Act itself. The Act contains a provision authorizing the Attorney General to “waive the requirement for registration of certain manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers if he finds it consistent with the public health and safety.” 21 U.S.C. § 822(d). The fact that the Act itself contemplates that exempting certain people from its requirements would be “consistent with the public health and safety” indicates that congressional findings with respect to Schedule I substances should not carry the determinative weight, for RFRA purposes, that the Government would ascribe to them.
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT HAS CHANGED
Since 2014, Congress has recognized state medical marijuana programs each year in the federalJustice appropriations acts. Public Law No: 117-103, § 531, Consolidated Appropriations Act,Drug Enforcement Administration, Page 3 of 5, March 27, 20222022 (H.R. 2471); Public Law 116-260, § 531, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (H.R.133); Public Law 116-93, § 531, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 1158); Public Law116-6, § 537, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.J. Res. 31); Public Law 115-141, § 538,Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625); Public Law 115-31, § 537, ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 244); Public Law 114-113, § 542, Consolidated AppropriationsAct, 2016 (H.R. 2029); Public Law 113-235, § 538, Consolidated and Further ContinuingAppropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 83).
INTERNATIONAL INTENT HAS CHANGED
In 2020 marijuana was removed from Schedule IV of the Single Convention because it has medical use. And, as Karimi previously pointed out, the Single Convention contains an exception for domestic law. We have such an accepted use in the United States domestic law here in Karimi’s home state of South Dakota. Article 36(2), Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, May 25, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 1407, 30T.I.A.S. No. 6298, 520 U.N.T.S. 151
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
Zero accommodation is not reasonable. State intent, U.S. Department of Justice intent, Congressional intent, and international intent have all evolved since 1970 and all after 2005 when Raich was decided. The scale should tip toward cooperation between the federal government and the states rather than interference, especially since as of January 12th, 2024, FDA and HHS (with NIDA concurrence) finds cannabis to no longer be subject to Schedule One restrictions. This finding further lessens both the compelling interest argument of the government and the least restrictive means applications afforded to Mr. Karimi by his constitutional rights to raise grievances of his religious first amendment protections being assaulted by Nebraska’s outdated and tyrannical attempts to stop the inevitable, namely, the safe regulation of cannabis. Nebraska’s interest in regulating the peace and dignity as well as public health and safety does not comport with it’s politically motivated policy of decriminalization, a policy that endangers patient safety, provides no testing for cannabis products, and ensures a strong black market full of unscrupulous criminal minded distributors with zero accountability to legitimate patients.
THE CASE RECORD DEVELOPMENTS ARE CLEAR: AS OF JANUARY 12 2024 THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE SCHEDULE ONE IS NULLIFIED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NOT SCIENCE AND THAT RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FOR RASTAFARIANS PERSECUTED FOR RELIGIOUS PRACTICES ARE LONG OVERDUE:
1961 Single Convention, March 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407, 30 T.I.A.S. No. 6298, 520 U.N.T.S. 151:
“… a generally acceptable international convention replacing existing treaties on narcotic drugs, limiting such drugs to medical and scientific use …”
1970 Controlled Substances Act, Section 101(7), PUBLIC LAW 91-513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 STAT. 1236, 1242:
The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (18 UST 1407), and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.
1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Article 7, February 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, T.I.A.S. No. 9725, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175:
“… [p]rohibit all use except for scientific and very limited medical purposes …”
1977 NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 749 (D.C. Cir. 1977):
several substances listed in CSA Schedule II, including poppy straw, have no currently accepted medical usemarihuana could be rescheduled to Schedule II without a currently accepted medical use
1977 NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1977):
cannabis and cannabis resin could be rescheduled to CSA Schedule II consistent with the Single Convention
United States Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel Peyote Exemption for the Native American Church, December 22, 1981 page 406:
“Two court decisions have been rendered in this area in recent years. One, a decision by Judge Yale McFate in the case of Arizona v. Attakai, No. 4098, in the superior court of Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona, July 26, 1960; and a California decision, People against Woody, decided August 24, 1964, in the Supreme Court of California. Both these cases held that prosecutions for the use of peyote in connection with religious ceremonies was a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution.”
1987 Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987):
Congress did not intend “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state
1988 Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, DEA Docket No. 86-22, Sept. 6, 1988, pp. 58-59:
Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.
1989 Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 249, Friday, December 29, 1989:
The Administrator finds that the administrative law judge failed to act as an impartial judge in this matter.
1991 ACT v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1991):
“three of the factors in the Administrator’s eight-factor test appear impossible to fulfill
1994 ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994):
The Final Order discards the earlier formulation and applies a new five-part test for determining whether a drug is in “currently accepted medical use”
2006 Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006):
The Attorney General has rulemaking power to fulfill his duties under the CSA. The specific respects in which he is authorized to make rules, however, instruct us that he is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law.
2006 Gonzales v. Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 433 (2006):
an exception has been made to the Schedule I ban for religious use
United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Sixty-sixth session, Vienna, Austria, 13-17
March 2023
International Narcotics Control Board, 2022 Annual Report, March 16, 2023
Analysis of the trend to legalize the non-medical use of cannabis, pages nine and ten:
Page 9: Both provisions contain safeguard clauses which make reference to States parties’ domestic constitution and legislation.
Page 10: Even if a party, in application of a safeguard clause, is precluded by its Constitution from the obligation to carry out measures under article 36, paragraph 1 or 2, of the 1961 Convention as amended or article 3, paragraph 2, of the 1988 Convention
January 12, 2024: HHS and FDA 252 page unredacted ruling released ruling cannabis has “accepted medical use in the United States” (with NIDA concurrence)
Under the CSA, the HHS evaluation and recommendations with regard to scientific and medical matters are binding on the DEA. 21 USC 811(b). However, the DEA may consider “all other relevant data” in making its final determination. This means that while the DEA does have the ability to deny marijuana rescheduling, the release of the HHS Letter makes this more challenging because the DEA would need to identify factors that outweigh the scientific and medical data and determinations thoroughly outlined in the HHS Letter. the HHS Letter does expressly account for one basis upon which the DEA may reject HHS’s findings and justify marijuana’s Schedule I status:
“We acknowledge that the DEA, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, may ultimately implement any changes in the federal control status of marijuana pursuant to section 201(d)(1) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1)), due to the control of cannabis and cannabis preparations internationally in Schedule I of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (hereafter, the Single Convention), and the requirement for the United States to be compliant with control measures stipulated for drugs controlled under the Single Convention.”
While the U.S. is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, that does not necessarily mean that its obligations under international law will be enough to justify a DEA rejection of HHS’ recommendation. Canada is also subject to the Single Convention and has legalized marijuana nationwide.
CONCLUSION
Wherefore Mr. Karimi respectfully prays that the courts throw out this misdemeanor charge for cannabis possession on the grounds that cannabis can no longer be properly classified as a Schedule One substance as a matter of law, notwithstanding the additional persuasive evidence of the recent scientific update from the federal government.
FOOTNOTES
1. Alaska Statutes § 17.37 (1998); California Health & SafetyCode § 11362.5 (1996); Colorado Constitution Article XVIII,Section 14 (2000); Hawaii Revised Statutes § 329-121 (2000); 22Maine Revised Statutes § 2383-B (1999); Montana CodeAnnotated § 50-46-101 (2004); Nevada Constitution Article 4 §38 – Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated § 453A.010 (2000); NewMexico Statutes Annotated § 30-31C-1 (2007); Oregon RevisedStatutes § 475.300 (1998); Rhode Island General Laws § 21-28.6-1 (2006); 18 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 4471 (2004); RevisedCode Washington (ARCW) § 69.51A.005 (1998). Arizona RevisedStatutes, Title 36, Chapter 28.1, §§ 36-2801 through 36-2819(2010); Connecticut Public Act No. 12-55 (2012) (not yet codified);Delaware Code, Title 16, Chapter 49A, §§ 4901A through 4926A(2011); D.C. Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code, Title 7, Chapter16B, §§ 7-1671.01 through 7-1671.13 (2010); Michigan CompiledLaws, Chapter 333, §§ 333.26421 through 333.26430 (2008); NewJersey Public Laws 2009, Chapter 307, New Jersey Statutes,Chapter 24:6I, §§ 24:6I-1 through 24:6I-16 (2010).Massachusetts, November 6, 2012 (effective January 1, 2013),and New Hampshire, July 23, 2013 (effective July 23, 2013). Karimi has not updated his notes on statutes since 2013; since 2013 an additional 27 states have “accepted the medical use of cannabis in the United States.”
2. Id.
3. weedpress.wordpress.com/2022/03/21/wisconsin-judge-modifies-pre-trial-release-terms-to-allow-for-religious-use-of-marijuana/
4. weedpress.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/minnesota-judge-grants-rastafarian-exemption-from-probation-drug-testing/
5. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812
6. Canada has legalized marijuana entirely and is not in violation of international treaty controls; furthermore the international treaty controls explicitly stipulate that the controls do not usurp the sovereignty of countries such as Canada or the United States. Mexico and Argentina’s Supreme Courts have both independently ruled that personal possession of plant medicines like cannabis, and dangerous substances, are not constitutionally allowable to be criminalized and these Supreme Court rulings are not in violation of international treaty controls.
7. United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, opened for signature December 20, 1988, 28 I.L.M. 493. The United States ratified the1988 Convention in 1990, with the following exception:Understandings: “(1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States ofAmerica prohibited by the Constitution of the United States. https://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1988_en.pdf the international treaties covering control of substances are subject to constitutional limitations. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (UN 1961), Article35(preamble), Article 36(1), Article 36(2), Article 38.2 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 (UN1971), Article 10(2), Article 21, Article 22(1), Article22(2). United Nations Convention on Illicit Traffic inNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988(UN 1988), Article 3(1)(c), Article 3(2), Article 3(10).
8. http://www.marijuanamoment.net/feds-release-marijuana-documents-confirming-schedule-iii-recommendation-based-on-accepted-medical-use/
9. NE Code § 28-401 (2022), cited as “Uniform Controlled Substances Act,” is taken directly from the federal Uniform Controlled Substances Act
10. http://www.aclu.org/cases/cannabis-equity-inclusion-community-v-nevada-board-of-pharmacy
11. NE Code § 28-437 (2022) provides: 28-437. Uniformity of interpretation.The Uniform Controlled Substances Act shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of the act among those states which enact it. 47 jurisdictions and the federal government (FDA, HHS, with NIDA concurrence) have all uniformly decided that cannabis has accepted medical use in the United States.
12. Case A-22-851232-W CANNABIS EQUITY AND INCLUSION COMMUNITY (CEIC); ANTOINE POOLE, vs.STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. BOARD OF PHARMACY
14. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
15. http://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-A/section-91.19
16. https://www.aclu.org/cases/cannabis-equity-inclusion-community-v-nevada-board-of-pharmacy
17. weedpress.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/lawsuit-filed-against-state-of-iowa-yesterday-weed-all-about-it/
18. The Vision of the Anointed, Intellectuals and Race, A Conflict of Visions, Discrimination and Disparities, four books by Thomas Sowell, are the sources for this factual assertion.
19. https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/bernell-trammell/?fbclid=IwAR3iHdvSf7GJ8eLYw18M82oAEdWWEFACy2b-DIMkJrv4IiFoladGSElPoJM Bernell Trammell was a member of Mr. Karimi’s rastafari church before his murder in Milwaukee transpired, a murder that apparently was due to his speaking out on his political beliefs, and greatly impacted Mr. Karimi’s concerns about the rise in political extremism, division and political violence that has apparently not abated yet.
20. The Drug Enforcement Administration is “likely” to approve a recommendation from the Biden administration to reclassify marijuana under the nation’s drug laws, according to a report issued by congressional researchers. The report was released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajherrington/2023/09/15/congressional-report-predicts-dea-likely-to-approve-marijuana-reclassification/?sh=4c907db11d42
21. Full case of Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987) found at Mr. Karimi’s WeedPress blog at https://weedpress.wordpress.com/legal/important-cases/grinspoon-v-dea-828-f-2d-881-1st-cir-1987/
22. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#_7 see section titled “Antitumor effects”
23. https://www.webmd.com/cancer/rick-simpson-oil-for-cancer-overview reads “early studies on using THC to treat cancer have been encouraging, though.In animals and in the lab, studies have found that THC and other cannabis chemicals can stop the growth of tumors. These lab studies have looked at cells related to lung, skin, breast, prostate, and other cancers. They’ve found that cannabis can in some cases stop the cancer cells from spreading.Other research on THC and other cannabis compounds shows that they may kill off cancer cells while sparing healthy cells.”
24. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#_7 reads in part under “Antitumor Effects“: “Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.[9-12] Two reviews summarize the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.[13,14] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. For example, these compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats, while they protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[9]The effects of delta-9-THC and a synthetic agonist of the CB2 receptor were investigated in HCC.[15] Both agents reduced the viability of HCC cells in vitro and demonstrated antitumor effects in HCC subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice. The investigations documented that the anti-HCC effects are mediated by way of the CB2 receptor. Similar to findings in glioma cells, the cannabinoids were shown to trigger cell death through stimulation of an endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway that activates autophagy and promotes apoptosis. Other investigations have confirmed that CB1 and CB2 receptors may be potential targets in non-small cell lung carcinoma [16] and breast cancer.[17]An in vitro study of the effect of CBD on programmed cell death in breast cancer cell lines found that CBD induced programmed cell death, independent of the CB1, CB2, or vanilloid receptors. CBD inhibited the survival of both estrogen receptor–positive and estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer cell lines, inducing apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner while having little effect on nontumorigenic mammary cells.[18] Other studies have also shown the antitumor effect of cannabinoids (i.e., CBD and THC) in preclinical models of breast cancer.[19,20]CBD has also been demonstrated to exert a chemopreventive effect in a mouse model of colon cancer.[21] In this experimental system, azoxymethane increased premalignant and malignant lesions in the mouse colon. Animals treated with azoxymethane and CBD concurrently were protected from developing premalignant and malignant lesions. In in vitro experiments involving colorectal cancer cell lines, the investigators found that CBD protected DNA from oxidative damage, increased endocannabinoid levels, and reduced cell proliferation. In a subsequent study, the investigators found that the antiproliferative effect of CBD was counteracted by selective CB1 but not CB2 receptor antagonists, suggesting an involvement of CB1 receptors.[22]Another investigation into the antitumor effects of CBD examined the role of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1).[12] ICAM-1 expression in tumor cells has been reported to be negatively correlated with cancer metastasis. In lung cancer cell lines, CBD upregulated ICAM-1, leading to decreased cancer cell invasiveness.
25. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-marijuana-ban-may-no-longer-be-necessary-justice-thomas-2021-06-28/ is the source for this quote
26. This act was overturned in 1969 in Leary v. United States, and was repealed by Congress the next year. For repeal, see section1101(b)(3), Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and ControlAct of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, 1292 (Oct. 27, 1970) (repealing the Marihuana Tax Act which had been codified in Subchapter A of Chapter 39 of the Internal Revenue Code of1954).
27. Marihuana: a Signal of Misunderstanding, First Report of theNational Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C. 20402, Stock Number 5266-0001, at page 152
28. Uniform Law Commission, The National Conference ofCommissioners on Uniform State Laws. https://uniformlaws.org/home
29. https://ondrugs.substack.com/p/the-unredacted-hhs-docs
30. Page 58, HHS ruling
31. Full HHS ruling unredacted found at 13. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pw3rfs9gm6lg80ij9tja6/2023-01171-Supplemental-Release-1.pdf?rlkey=v5atj0tcnhxhnszyyzcwdcvvt&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&dl=0
32. HHS ruling page 46
33. HHS ruling page 10
34. HHS ruling, pages 7-8
35. https://ondrugs.substack.com/p/the-unredacted-hhs-docs
36. HHS ruling page 83
37. HHS ruling page 83
38. HHS ruling page 83
39. HHS ruling page 83
40. HHS ruling page 112
41. HHS ruling page 112
42. HHS ruling page 116
43. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pw3rfs9gm6lg80ij9tja6/2023-01171-Supplemental-Release-1.pdf?rlkey=v5atj0tcnhxhnszyyzcwdcvvt&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&dl=0
44. HHS ruling, page 3-4
45. HHS ruling page 3-4
46. https://ondrugs.substack.com/p/the-unredacted-hhs-docs
47. HHS ruling, page 20 and page 252
48. See, e.g., 81 Fed. Reg. 53688, 53698 (Aug. 12, 2016) (explaining “all Cannabis strains cannot be considered together because of the varying chemical constituents between strains”); id. at 53700 (“However, if a specific Cannabis strain is grown and processed under strictly controlled conditions, the plant chemistry may be kept consistent enough to produce reproducible and standardized doses.”)
49. HHS ruling page 22 and page 252
50. HHS ruling page 22 and page 252
51. https://people.com/celebrity/jenna-bush-outs-her-mom-as-secret-rastafarian/
52. https://jezebel.com/megyn-kelly-today-today-in-which-barbara-bush-reveals-1819801925 transcript: Megyn Kelly said, “I have got to ask you about Laura Bush being a closet hippie. Rastafarian even!”
53. weedpress.wordpress.com/2022/03/21/wisconsin-judge-modifies-pre-trial-release-terms-to-allow-for-religious-use-of-marijuana/
54. weedpress.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/heres-my-motion-to-amend-bail-conditions-to-remove-thc-drug-testing-condition-in-nebraska/
55. Full ruling available at https://weedpress.wordpress.com/legal/important-cases/arend-v-minnesota-2010/
58. STATE OF MINNESOTAN COURT OF APPEALS A13-0295 In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. J. M. A.Filed September 23, 2013 Reversed Halbrooks, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-JV-12-2907 documented for historical record at Karimi’s blog: https://weedpress.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/minnesota-court-of-appeals-15-year-old-rastafarian-has-religious-right-to-possess-cannabis-pipe see especially pertinent discussion at the blog: “the state could not rely solely “on the legislature’s enactment of statutes prohibiting the possession of marijuana to defeat a claim under article I, section 16.” Id. at 377. Even if we assume a compelling interest in enforcing controlled-substance laws, the state must provide “evidence that its compelling interest in 11public safety could not be achieved by less restrictive means.” Id. In this case, the state has not demonstrated that applying the drug-paraphernalia law to an individual with a genuinely held belief in possessing a cannabis pipe is the least-restrictive means of enforcing controlled-substance laws.”
59. weedpress.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/minnesota-cops-return-cannabis-pipe-to-15-year-old-rastafarian-following-ruling-by-supreme-court/
60. Id.
61. Psalm 68: Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him.2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.3 But let the righteous be glad; let them rejoice before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice.4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah, and rejoice before him. This psalm is sang by Rasta prophet Bob Marley in his song “Jah Live.” February 14th, 2024 in theaters everywhere, the movie “One Love” explaining Bob Marley’s life is being released. Bob Marley was what the Bush family credited for being an inspiration to Laura Bush’s rastafarian lifestyle, as she raised her children listening to Bob’s music, every song of which refers to Scripture and teachings of the Bible.
62. weedpress.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/minnesota-cops-return-cannabis-pipe-to-15-year-old-rastafarian-following-ruling-by-supreme-court
63. weedpress.wordpress.com/2022/03/21/wisconsin-judge-modifies-pre-trial-release-terms-to-allow-for-religious-use-of-marijuana/
64. United States v. Jefferson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Ind. 2001) available at URL https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/175/1123/2418867/
65. Convention on Psychotropic Substances, opened for signature February 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175 (1971 Convention). The United States ratified the 1971 Convention in1980, with the following exception: “In accord with paragraph 4 of article 32 of the Convention, peyote harvested and distributed for use by the Native American Church in its religious rites is excepted from the provisions of article 7 of the Convention onPsychotropic Substances.”
66. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/peyote-exemption-native-american-church
67. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/peyote-exemption-native-american-church
68. 21 U.S.C. §822(d) (“consistent with the public health and safety”)
69.
70. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/peyote-exemption-native-american-church
71. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/session/66_Session_2023/66CND_Main.html
72. https://www.incb.org/incb/en/publications/annual-reports/annual-report.html
74.
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment