0 votes

Federal Drug War rethought - Bob Barr


Barr critic Anthony Gregory praised Barr on this article and insights:

Barr simply had a difference in strategy with Paul. All should chill out and see the issue in perspective. Mistakes have been made and I am sure Barr and Paul will sort it out. The "problem" seems to be more between aides and staffers of Barr and Paul than between themselves. Both only have the best intentions, and I personally think Dr. Paul's strategy is the wisest, though this is also not clear to all, like Richard Spencer with Takimag. I do think both will come out stronger afterwards. Remember I read a few weeks ago Barry Goldwater Jr. endorsed John McCain, thinking he can be pulled to the right position once elected.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

According to statutory procedure It Must be Re-Scheduled...

Cannabis has to be re-scheduled. The DEA cannot make the determination of what is acceptable medical use. Since, the states and Fed govt does have medical marijuana laws and patients then cannabis does have medically accepted use and must be rescheduled..

Besides, Marijuana is already "legal" for most Americans..
The FEd, state, and local govts refuse to follow the law..

1993 Religious Freedoms Restoration Act. (RFRA) ~ restored strict interpretation of compelling interest and least restrictive means tests. Overturned Employment Div v. Smith

Gonzales V O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal Et Al. (UDV) ~ Religious Freedom Unequivocally Trumps Drug Laws.

Religious Use Law Review.


No. 04–1084. Argued November 1, 2005—Decided February 21, 2006

The Court was presented with the question: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., requires the government to permit the importation, distribution, possession, and use of a Schedule I hallucinogenic controlled substance, where Congress has found that the substance has a high potential for abuse, it is unsafe for use even under medical supervision, and its importation and distribution would violate an international treaty.

In 2006 in a unanimous decision (8-0), the Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom is more important than the drug laws. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), the United States Supreme Court recognized the drug laws must provide exceptions for religious use under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.

In United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1559 (9th Cir. 1996), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that under the RFRA the marijuana laws must give way to religious freedom. This was confirmed again in 2002 in the case of Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002).

A lot has happened since United States v. Bauer was decided in 1996. In 2000, Congress expanded the protection of the RFRA by enacting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., expanding the meaning of "religious exercise."

42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(A) states, "The term 'religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to the RFRA in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 (2005), to mean the standard in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965) ("courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them 'incomprehensible.' Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.")

Several United States District Court rulings have recognized a fundamental right to use marijuana under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: United States v. Valrey, No. CR96-549Z (W.D. Wash. February 22, 2000), finding a fundamental right of a criminal defendant to use marijuana while on supervised release; United States v. Forchion, No. 04-949-ALL (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2005), finding the defendant's rights under the RFRA had been violated because the magistrate did not consider the impact of six of the conditions of release on the defendant's right to use marijuana; Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari v. Gonzales, No. C-06-4264 (N.D. Cal. February 2, 2007), recognizing the plaintiffs could make out a prima facie case under the RFRA for the religious use of marijuana.

Reform Judaism and the Women of Reform Judaism have officially embraced marijuana as a mitzvah for the sick.

Marijuana Mitzvah Study Guide

Union of Reform Judaism 2003 Resolution on Medical Marijuana

Kaneh Boshem Study

Furthermore, a wide scope accounting of Jewish scriptures, mystical traditions, historical records and scientific medical studies leaves no other conclusion other than Cannabis has been set aside as a special plant, set aside for holy use and the alleviation of suffering. This is a tenant of faith protected by the first amendment, RFRA and UDV.

The RFRA and UDV affirmed First Amendment Rights trump the drug laws. The "Strict Scrutiny" standard of compelling interest must be applied to any statute that regulates religious practitioners use of the scheduled drug cannabis.

The State must prove that there was an immediate physical threat to someone other than the person involved in the religious practice that they had to restrict first amendment rights. This is an impossibility concerning cannabis use..

In addition the "Least Restrictive Means" (LRM) or regulation must be found. This test can't be met and this question has been settled in 2007 in a supreme court decision.

There is not only a prima facie case but a deeply compelling case for the sacramental and religious use of cannabis for spiritual healing. The state is effectively banning prayer for the sick and holy sacrament for the suffering. RFRA and UDV said the drug laws must give way to First Amendment Rights and apply the strict scrutiny test for compelling interest in cases where statutes conflict with free exercise of religion.

Challenging misdemeanor cases is the least harmful is a opportunity to stop unjust prosecution of religious users. A plan of action would be to get a injunction against the state for prosecution in a currently active misdemeanor case. ;-)..

A grass roots publicity and legal defense fund campaign. Willie Nelson, Kinky Friedman, the entire Ron Paul grass roots organization having a money bomb / rally. As well as the various political action committees. I would hope goes into the main stream media and national. If done correctly 10 million or more could be raised.

There are many far reaching implications for being on the cutting edge of research and development in medicines and more. Framing cannabis in the context of Mitzvah is a more responsible and peaceful way of keeping kids off of recreational use of drugs and fulfill the mandate of the controlled substances act.

It is a step in making the world a better and more tolerant place and ending much injustice perpetrated on the needy and sick in society by the religious Christian right. Hypocrites perpetrating evil so completely and cheerfully because they do it from religious conviction.

"Woe to those who decree unjust statutes and to those who continually record unjust decisions; to deprive the needy of justice, and to rob the poor of My people of their rights...." Isaiah 10:1,2

What is needed is a Federal Injunction against the State for prosecuting those who practice this Mitzvah.

The question is one of how much money needs to be raised to challenge the unjust enforcement of unconstitutional statutes that even violate the 6th article of the Texas constitution?

Texas Constitution Sec 6.

SEC. 6. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. …..No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of worship.

Many innocent people are being jailed and financially assaulted by officials under the color of law by right wing Christian religious zealots trying to enforce evangelical sharia laws.


"No one is bound to obey a unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491


There are several cases going on now you can keep up with them at www.cannabischurches.net , It would be fair to say that all the churches listed are involved in current cases as various levels. The saddest are those at the state level such as green earth ministries, the abuses by the state courts have been intolerable.

www.firstchurchmagi.org has legal reviews and Carl Olsen www.Ethiopianzioncopticchurch.com has all the relevant cases, statutes and up to date law reviews on the subject.

Marijuana Mitzvah

Navigation Bar Placeholder

1993 Religious Freedoms Restoration Act. (RFRA) ~ restored strict interpretation of compelling interest and least restrictive means tests. Overturned Employment Div v. Smith

Gonzales V O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal Et Al. (UDV) ~ Religious Freedom Unequivocally Trumps Drug Laws.

Donate to Legal Defense Fund.

Reform Judaism Religious Action Center www.rac.org

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Dale Legan

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." - Plato

One Voice, One Vision, One Love ~ Liberty.
Good Thoughts, Good Words , Good Deeds.
That is the Ron Paul rEVOLution Creed.

One Louv. ;-)..


Why would he ask the DEA to re-evaluate and reschedule pot if he is truly going to get the Federal government out of the drug war? Why would there even BE a DEA? Why would there BE a Federal schedule of controlled substances?

Why would he even HAVE a drug czar?

His statement is internally inconsistent. He is a poser.

Goldwater Jr. endorsing Johnny?

That's like battered-wife syndrome. You keep taking the beatings hoping that some day from the goodness of his heart that he will change. Meanwhile, us RP'ers are trying to make a stand and hiding at a shelter.

I love it!

I am going to use that. I have so many friends with this problem. Let's call it "Battered Voter Syndrome". You keep voting for losers because you believe in your heart that they really want to do what's right and if you just have faith and give him one more chance, he'll come through for you. Ahahahaha!

Oh, why am I not surprised?

Another flip-flop by Barr, just like the Dem. and Repub. politicians who say what's necessary to get elected. He already flip-flopped on global warming, now he's flip-flopping on the "War on Drugs". Obviously, one can't believe anything he says! Barr is done....

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond


critisizing the war on drugs is not really an issue to get elected, as a matter of fact most politicians in the R, D, CP etc. would not touch the subject with a ten foot pole. It is not really a popular theme.
So think again.... btw, he did not change his mind on global warming, simply saying there is global warming, but not saying it is man-made and certainly no big govt. "solutions" for it.

didn't he also fip flop on the patriot act?

? The waffle man...waffle...waffle...waffle

do you know the difference

between flip-flop and seriously changing your mind? You do not want a politician to change his/her mind to the right position, e.g. someone with the guts to be self critical and say I was wrong. He has been combatting the Patriot Act actively for the past 4 years plus FYI.

sorry to ruffle your feathers, speculor

But when one waffles too often, you wonder if he has set any guidelines for anything. What does he use as his "guidelines"? Was the patriot act ever constitutional? Maybe he should be more astute in his research before he takes a stand or vote for anything. Asking yourself Is This Constitutional(?), isn't too hard a task!!!!

Yep..thermometer just

Yep..thermometer just reached the mark for poultry when stuck in its breast...