CHURCH ARGUES MARIJUANA A SACRAMENT

Parishioners Plan Charter Challenge, Say Current Policy Infringes On
Their Religious Rights

If some religions sip wine at the altar, others should be allowed to
smoke pot. At least according to Rev. Edwin Pearson and Rev. Michel
Ethier, two ordained ministers behind a proposed $25 million class
action lawsuit challenging Canada's marijuana laws.

The ministers, along with lay preacher James Hoad, allege the federal
government is violating the religious freedom of members of the
Church of the Universe, which claims marijuana as a "sacrament."

In a statement of claim filed with the Federal Court of Canada, the
trio accuses the government of harassing church members and
"denuding" them of their dignity, often stopping them as they leave
services seizing "sacramental cannabis" and rifling through parish records.

"The Church Abbott and all reverends of the Church are obliged to use
cannabis for sacramental purposes in all its forms," said Ethier, who
has been convicted six times of marijuana possession since 1998, in
an affidavit filed with the court.

"I have been unable to peaceably meet with parishioners without fear
of losing my freedom."

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of as many as 4,000 church members,
claims $9,000 in damages for each member for various breaches of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the alleged abuse of public office
by unnamed government officials. The plaintiffs are also seeking $25
million in punitive damages.

The case is the latest gambit in the church's long-running battle
against pot prohibitions. The basis of this latest challenge appears
to be the plaintiffs' claim that since 2003, Canada has had no valid
criminal law banning marijuana possession.

That allegation might just "have some foundation in reality," says
Toronto criminal lawyer Paul Burstein, who has no involvement in the
case but extensive litigation experience in the area.

Earlier this month, an Ontario Court judge in Toronto acquitted a man
named Clifford Long, holding that Canada's marijuana possession laws
are unconstitutional. Justice Howard Borenstein's verdict had its
roots in a case decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal seven years
ago. In that case, the court said the criminal prohibition on
marijuana possession was unconstitutional because the law did not
include provisions to allow medical users to obtain the drug legally.

Eventually, the government adopted a policy of supplying marijuana to
people who were too sick to grow their own and allowing co-operative
growing operations.

But Borenstein concluded a policy of merely allowing access to the
drug was hardly an adequate response to previous court findings that
the law was unconstitutional, since government policies can be
changed easily and lack the strength of legislation or even a regulation.