Model Legal Arguments & Proposed Legislative Language for Rastafarian Religious Cannabis Protections in South Dakota

---

I. Model Legal Arguments for a RFRA Defense

A. Establishing a Substantial Burden on Religious Exercise

1. Sincerity of Belief

• Rastafarians adhere to the Holy Piby and Kebra Nagast, which frame cannabis as a sacred sacrament for meditation, healing, and communion with the divine.
• Affidavits from Rastafarian elders or scholars (e.g., testimony from the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church or Nyabinghi elders) can establish doctrinal legitimacy.

1. Prohibition as a Substantial Burden

• Denying access to cannabis for religious purposes forces Rastafarians to choose between obeying their faith or complying with state law—a classic RFRA violation (Sherbert v. Verner, 1963).
• Even under South Dakota’s medical cannabis program, restrictions on communal use (e.g., in Nyabinghi ceremonies) may still infringe on religious practice.

B. State Fails Strict Scrutiny Test

1. No Compelling Interest in Banning Religious Use

• Since South Dakota already permits medical cannabis, the state cannot argue that all cannabis use is harmful.
• The state must prove that religious exemptions would undermine public health/safety—difficult when medical patients already legally consume cannabis.

1. Less Restrictive Alternatives Exist

• The state could:
  • Allow registered Rastafarian places of worship to administer cannabis under religious-use permits.
  • Apply the same possession limits as medical cannabis (avoiding diversion concerns).

C. Precedent Favoring Religious Exemptions

• Cite Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita (2006): If the federal government must allow ayahuasca under RFRA, South Dakota cannot ban cannabis for Rastafarians when it’s already legal medically.
• Reference State v. Pedersen (MN, 2009): Dismissal of charges against a Rastafarian under state RFRA.

---

II. Proposed Legislative Language for Religious Cannabis Protections

A. Amendment to South Dakota Medical Cannabis Law (SDCL 34-20G)

Add a new section:

“34-20G-XX. Religious Use Exemption

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a bona fide member of a recognized religious organization that sacramentally uses cannabis (e.g., Rastafarianism) shall not be penalized for possession, use, or distribution of cannabis if:

• The amount does not exceed [X] ounces, consistent with medical cannabis limits;
• The use occurs in a designated place of worship or private ceremony.

1. The Department of Health shall establish a religious-use registry for qualifying organizations, subject to verification of sincere religious practice.”

B. RFRA Clarification Amendment (SDCL 1-1-23)

Add interpretive guidance:

“For purposes of this chapter, ‘substantial burden’ includes laws that prohibit the sacramental use of entheogenic plants or substances, including cannabis, when such use is central to a bona fide religious practice.”

---

III. Advocacy Strategy

1. Test Case Litigation

• A Rastafarian defendant charged with possession could file a motion to dismiss under RFRA, forcing courts to rule on the issue.
• Partner with groups like the ACLU or Becket Fund for expert legal support.

1. Legislative Outreach

• Draft a “Religious Freedom and Sacramental Cannabis Act” bill (modeled on New Mexico’s 2019 protections for religious peyote use).
• Seek sponsors in the South Dakota legislature (e.g., libertarian-leaning lawmakers).

1. Public Education

• Highlight parallels with Native American Church peyote exemptions to build public support.
• Frame the issue as government overreach into religious liberty.

---

Conclusion

South Dakota’s RFPA and medical cannabis laws create a strong legal foundation for Rastafarian religious protections, but proactive litigation or legislation is needed to secure explicit rights. Would you like assistance drafting a mock motion to dismiss for a hypothetical case