When i heard this on the news last night, they said something about the Judge agreeing that restriction of use of a substance religiously is unconstitutional as it is religious discrimination, but that did not apply to the trafficking side... I took that as meaning that laws against possession and personal religious use are unconstitutional, anyone know more about this ruling? I have a feeling that even though the judge agreed that the laws were wrong was not part of the ruling, and nothing has changed.
The reason they ended up with charges is strictly because of trafficking. IF they "gave" or "donated" this "sacred" herb they probably would not be found guilty because they are making no profits of this "religious" sacrament.
The judge ruled that their religion does not give them the right to consume or distribute Cannabis, regardless of whether it is considered trafficking or not. A shame really, the crown is just bullying these people Edit: Also, they did just give the pot away and only charged a membership fee which is common for specialty churches, ex. Scientology, certain Mormon churches (the one next to me charges a membership fee) and many religions that are not considered mainstream by the masses. Larger churches don't have to do this since the donations from members usually are large enough to cover all operating costs, but with smaller churches usually a membership fee is asked to offset operation costs. From other thread: Church's push to legalize pot dismissed - Canada - Canoe.ca TORONTO - A Toronto church's judicial bid for exemption from Canada's marijuana laws went up in smoke Monday. But after a Superior Court judge's ruling against his constitutional challenge, "Reverend-brother" Peter Styrsky said he will open a cafe on Queen St. E. this week. "Let's start with coffee," he said, grinning outside the 361 University Ave. courthouse. As supporters lit joints, he vowed the G13 Beaches Mission of God -- a branch of the Church of the Universe -- will be resurrected. Madame Justice Thea Herman concluded anti-pot laws have not usurped the constitutional religious freedom guarantees of Styrsky. She found Styrsky's testimony about his religious beliefs in pot more "credible" than that of co-defendant Shahrooz Kharaghani. \t Styrsky, 53, and Kharaghani, 31, were charged in 2006 with trafficking after undercover cops accused them of selling them cannabis. Lawyers Paul Lewin and George Filipovic argued their clients believe marijuana is sacred and brings them closer to God. Prosecutors Nick Devlin and Donna Polgar called the church a sham. Members paid $25 to join and received weed -- sometimes unmeasured and "high quality," but only about 40 to 60 of the 1,800 members attended services, Herman said. Limits are justified since officials would have difficulty weeding out recreational users from believers, she said. Despite permitted medical use of marijuana, the judge said laws protect "vulnerable people" by keeping marijuana illegal. She will meet both sides Feb. 25 to discuss options for the pair's trials. Their lawyers said they must consult their clients after reading Herman's 66-page judgment before deciding whether to appeal. "We're disappointed," Lewin, Styrsky's lawyer, said. "Their rights are being denied. "We're not talking about heroin or cocaine," he said, adding "it's mild, not dangerous" and many Canadians smoke marijuana. "Cannabis-consciousness awakens me," Kharaghani said. "When it comes to sharing, we do not consider it selling."
Yeah, i had a feeling that was what it was. The news just worded it differently, like use and possession is fine under religious freedoms, but trafficking is not.