RFRA Changes The Cannabis Game; Fulfills My Prediction Religious Cannabis Constitutional Claims

 Prior to RFRA state laws, I argued the first amendment right to religion would bring constitutional rulings for individuals protecting religious access to cannabis in private prayer. I think this is still the inevitable end result of cannabis litigations.

There are several things to note about the RFRA.

1. You don’t need a criminal defense to file a civil complaint.
   Before RFRA, constitutionality of the law was limited to defense (like the attorney you mentioned).
   You almost had to get arrested, or have your property stolen by the government to make a constitutional complaint.
   You could sue a person for acting under the color of law, but you could not sue the government itself.
   Every civil case I have filed has been from an administrative decision, because I could not sue the government directly.
   I had to sue the administrators.
   In other words, I want to sue the state law for being unconstitutional.
   There is no administrator I can sue, because the state laws were created by legislators who cannot be sued for enacting stupid laws.
   The RFRA directly addresses the problem by creating a direct remedy for it.
   The RFRA allows you to sue the state government itself.
   The RFRA makes possible what has never been possible.
   Sure, it can be used as a defense, but you could always do that before using the constitution.
   The RFRA really does not add anything at all on the criminal defense side.
   The RFRA is all about the civil side, which is new and has never existed before.
   
2. The RFRA requires a person to show their religious practice is burdened by the state.
   The RFRA has been applied to controlled substances by the federal courts, and I have a well-documented religious claim that goes back to the 1970s.
   I don’t think the RFRA requires a claim as strong as the one I have, but I have one.
   I just want privacy, so simply stating I use cannabis while I pray should be sufficient.
   Can the government actually pry into your private affairs and ask for details?
   It’s private.
   
3. Most of my previous claims were for a church, not just for me.
   That is a fatal flaw created by a common misunderstanding of the peyote exemption.
   We know establishment of religion is forbidden.
   Rights do not come from being a member of an organization.
   Rights belong to the person, the individual.
   That means the Native American Church, the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, Rastafari, etc., are divisive (not inclusive).
   An exemption for a church is exclusionary, because you’re not included unless you join that church.
   Church affiliations may establish sincerity, but everyone has a right to religious beliefs without joining some organization.
   How can the government ask if you are sincere?
   It’s a simply answer.
   I’m sincere.
   Prove I’m not.
   But, someone needs to settle this with the government and nobody else is even thinking about it.
   I’m it.
   
4. Finally, the state cannabis laws have changed dramatically.
   Starting in 2014, the state of Iowa is making a total mess of it.
   Religious use will not be a federal racketeering scheme like the state cannabis programs.
   Religious use is protected by both a state RFRA and a federal RFRA.
   It’s easy to mis-understand that cannabis programs are not protected by the RFRAs.
   Cannabis programs should be federally exempt under 21 USC 822(d) just like peyote, but nobody will bother to do the legal work to get one.
   The constitution forbids favoring religious activity over non-religious activity.
   Theoretically you could argue the RFRAs protect secular activity, but let’s save that for another day since nobody but me has even thought about it.
   Or, like the dissent in Boerne v. Flores said, the RFRA is unconstitutional because it favors religious activity over secular activity.
   I would turn that around and say it includes secular activity (like state cannabis programs), but I have enough stuff on my plate for now.
   I’ll save the constitutionality of RFRA for another day, unless the government wants to challenge it as being unconstitutional.
   You know these Republicans are in control here and I seriously doubt they will try to nullify the RFRA they just created.
   I think all the Republicans voted for it and all the Democrats voted against it, and our attorney general is a MAGA Republican.
   We’ll be selling gold RFRA sneakers soon with MAGA on them.