COURT TO RULE ON POT'S USE IN RELIGION

The Arizona Supreme Court Agreed Tuesday To Decide Whether There Is A
Religious Right To Possess Marijuana.

Without comment, the justices granted to hear the arguments of Daniel
Hardesty who contends the First Amendment protections of free
exercise of religion entitle him to use marijuana as a "sacrament" of
his church. Both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals
rejected those arguments.

If the high court decides otherwise, it would be the first time in
Arizona that judges have concluded there is a legal defense for those
who use marijuana.

Hardesty was arrested in 2005 after being stopped by police while
driving in Yavapai County.

At trial, Hardesty testified he had been a practicing member of the
Church of Cognizance since 1993. And a church official said that the
religion, founded in 1991, is based on "neo-Zoroastrian tenets" and
that marijuana provides a connection to the divine mind and spiritual
enlightenment.

Prosecutors never challenged the status of the church but convinced
the judge to exclude the religious freedom claim. Hardesty was
convicted and placed on probation for 18 months.

The appellate court, in rejecting Hardesty's argument, concluded that
while he has an absolute right to believe what he wants, the First
Amendment does not give him a right to perform or abstain from
certain acts for religious reasons.

Appellate Judge Sheldon Weisberg, who wrote that ruling, also said
the Legislature has a legitimate interest in the outright ban on the
possession and use of marijuana. Weisberg said courts are not in a
position to second-guess those laws.

Attorney Daniel DeRienzo, who represents Hardesty, said there is no
evidence that allowing church members to use marijuana would result
in serious harms. He called that "the 'Reefer Madness' argument,"
referring to a 1936 propaganda film which showed high schoolers lured
into marijuana use engaging in manslaughter, suicide, rape and a
descent into madness.

There is a precedent for what Hardesty wants. Arizona courts have
allowed the possession of peyote for religious use by the Native
American Church. But Weisberg said that is different, as prosecutors
in that case never showed that peyote was addictive or being used in
quantities that was harmful to the health of the participants.

And Weisberg said the long and continuous use of peyote by a
"discrete and well-defined group" makes it different than drug use
claims by other religions.