RASTAFARIANISM NO DEFENSE TO IMPORTING MARIJUANA TO GUAM

SAN FRANCISCO -(AP)- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a man
accused of importing marijuana to Guam cannot invoke religion -
Rastafarianism - as a defense.

The 3-0 decision overturns the Guam Supreme Court, which had said marijuana
use was fundamental to the practice of Rastafarianism. The territory's
Supreme Court also ruled that Guam's drug prosecution of a Rastafarian
violated his right to freely exercise religion.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying Guam could
prosecute Benny Guerrero for allegedly importing marijuana.

Guerrero, whose chosen name is Iyah Ben Makahna, was arrested in 1991 after
he allegedly was found with about 7 ounces of marijuana at A.B. Won Pat
International Airport. He claimed he is a member of the Rastafarian
religion, and that use of marijuana is a required canon of his faith.

The appeals court has acknowledged in the past that Rastafarianism is a
legitimate religion in which marijuana "operates as a sacrament with the
power to raise the partakers above the mundane and to enhance their
spiritual unity."

The San Francisco-based appeals court also has ruled that Rastafarianism is
no defense to selling marijuana, and on Tuesday said it was not a defense to
importing it, either.

"We are satisfied that Rastafarianism does not require importation of a
controlled substance, which increases the availability of controlled
substances and makes it harder for Guam to control," Judge Diarmuid
O'Scannlain wrote.

Guam, a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean, is about 3,700 miles southwest
of Hawaii.

One of Guerrero's attorneys, Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties
Union, said he would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review what he termed a
"bizarre" ruling.

"The court is saying it's OK for you to possess and cultivate yourself as a
Rastafarian, but not to bring it in from outside of Guam," Boyd said.

The Guam attorney general's office, which appealed the case to the circuit
court, was not immediately available for comment.

The case is Guam v. Guerrero, 00-71247.