COURT OKS USE OF RELIGIOUS POT ON FEDERAL LANDS

Appellate Ruling Applies To 9 Western States, Territories

If you're a Rastafarian who considers marijuana holy, it's legal to light up
in Guam -- and maybe in any national park on the West Coast.

At least that seemed to be the conclusion of a federal appeals court in San
Francisco, which said Tuesday that a 1993 religious-freedom law puts limits
on prosecutions in the "federal realm" -- specifically in a U.S. territory
like Guam, or potentially within any other federal property.

A conservative three-judge panel said a Rastafarian -- whose Jamaica-based
religion regards marijuana as a sacrament that brings believers closer to
divinity -- could not be federally prosecuted for merely possessing
marijuana, a decision that upheld a portion of the 1993 Religious Freedom
Restoration Act.

The same reasoning would apply to drug prosecutions on other federal
property, such as national parks, said Barry Portman, the federal public
defender in San Francisco. He said marijuana possession for personal use is
prohibited by federal law but is rarely prosecuted.

The ruling did not help the defendant in the Guam case, however, as the
court said he could be prosecuted for importing marijuana.

"Rastafarianism does not require importation of a controlled substance,
which increases (its) availability," the court said.

That distinction doesn't make sense, said Graham Boyd, the American Civil
Liberties Union lawyer who argued the case and plans to seek review by a
larger appellate panel.

"It's equivalent to saying wine is a necessary sacrament for some Christians
but you have to grow your own grapes," he said.

The religious freedom law protects religious practices from legal
interference unless the government can show a compelling need for
enforcement. It was prompted by a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing
Oregon to enforce an anti-drug law against a Native American who used peyote
for religious purposes.

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal statute was an
unconstitutional interference with states' authority to enforce their own
religiously neutral laws -- but that ruling applied only to state
prosecutions.

On Tuesday the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the
1993 law was a valid restriction on the federal government, reasoning that
Congress had the power to create religious exemptions to laws it had
originally passed.

The ruling, which follows decisions by two other appeals courts, applies to
California, eight other Western states, and the Pacific territories of Guam
- -- where the case originated -- and the Northern Mariana islands.

If it became a nationwide standard, it would also cover such federal
enclaves as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, defense lawyers said.

The case involved Benny Toves Guerrero, a Rastafarian arrested at the Guam
airport with five ounces of marijuana and 10 ounces of seeds. He was charged
with importing the drugs from Hawaii.

Guam's Supreme Court ordered the charges dismissed, saying Guerrero's
religious practices were protected by Guam's "fundamental law." The appeals
court disagreed, saying the fundamental law was passed by the U.S. Congress
and contained no religious rights beyond those of federal law -- and that
importing drugs wasn't a protected religious practice.