Viewpoint

FREEDOMS PRESCRIBED BY FOUNDERS ARE ABSOLUTE

The editorial Jan. 4 drew several false conclusions e.g. the
religious use of cannabis is wrong but the traditional religious use
of peyote is OK. Tradition is not in the First Amendment, nor is
tradition the criteria of Hawaii case law. If tradition were a
criteria for religious freedom, then many newer religions like
Bahais, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Scientologists would not meet
this standard. The First Amendment was created to prevent this kind
of false standard from being applied to any religion.

Many members of the Religion of Jesus Church state their reason for
joining our church is that the religious use of cannabis increases
spiritual receptivity and enhances their creative imagination. These
religious experiences are real and rightfully constitutionally
protected. Rather than an end-run, we seek to secure constitutional
protection for a God-given liberty.

Many of us would have remained agnostic or atheist, were it not for
the religious experiences gained through the use of this miracle
herb. We would not have obtained the personal relationship we now
share with God and Jesus without it. One may disagree with our
religious views and experiences, but the First Amendment guarantees
no one can deny this inalienable right and mandated church practice.

Many of our members have faced religious persecution and arrest. Some
have gone to jail for obeying the command of Jesus to "heal the sick
in accordance with the will of my Father in Heaven." Since it is
evident that cannabis heals, and that God created it, our right to
use it for religious purposes including healing, has always been
inalienable.

The determining criteria is set by Hawaii case law, which has a
four-prong test to justify the burdening of religion: Is the
religious belief sincerely held; is the religion in question
legitimate; is the religious practice an essential element of the
faith in question and does the state have a compelling state interest
to burden the religion and is such by the least restrictive means

The debate as to the religious use of cannabis is settled. The state
has stipulated to three of the four-pronged test found in State
versus Blake. One issue remains: Can the state demonstrate a
compelling interest such that the least restrictive means of
burdening religion is total prohibition of cannabis use, even
invading the home to prevent religious and medicinal faith healing or
requisite cultivation.

Such a demonstration has never been made and is impossible given
cannabis use in faith as a component of healing and the Legislature's
endorsement of the medicinal cannabis use.

We agree with the editorial opinion that the cannabis laws are
outdated and undeniable evidence exists for decriminalization.
However it doesn't make sense to say editorially these laws don't
work and should be changed and also deny the religious freedom to do
so.

We believe this contradiction is caused by a prejudice directed at
the antics of one outspoken, and often childish member of our church,
currently on trial. We understand why the newspaper media on both
sides of the island have even mocked our cause in reaction to this
individual. For years many of us have expressed frustration directly
to this individual. We are frustrated that such good works, as
testifying and helping patients testify for medicinal use before the
Legislature; giving medicine or plants to qualified patients with
nowhere else to turn; giving council to those in need where to get
scarce medical approval; and other acts of good will done in private
and in quiet are overshadowed because of the revulsion created by
this one individual.

We would agree, were the editorial opinion this individual is the
worst case scenario to be on trial and religious freedom be dependent
on such character, however, even the worst case example deserves
religious freedom for that is the tide which raises all boats.

We agree with the point that if an opium church were to fulfill this
test then such church would have religious rights.

We disagree this would be a bad thing, when the drug war only
perpetuates the constant population of junkies burglarizing our homes
and businesses, to satisfy a $500 dollar a day habit worth only five
cents if more humanely regulated. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war
is worse. Hard drug addicts need humane medical care not judicial
punishment adding salt to raw wounds.

The thought that everybody would be free to try it and would is a red
herring, anyone can buy gasoline legally, sniff it get intoxicated
until their brain hemorrhages, yet few do so.

We offer the opinion that such a church would be a welcome relief to
this failed war on drugs; which is more harmful to society than is
drug abuse; sanctuary is a historical even traditional role of the
church against similar and once legal blasphemies like slavery.

Currently there is no claim of religious sanctuary for opium use
being made, so this is another red herring, which implies falsely the
harm from opium to the relatively harmless cannabis. It is both
illogical and wrong to deny the religious use of a harmless herb
because a different herb is considered harmful.

A far better target for editorial angst is the river of corruption
polluting the police departments both here, and nationally; the
headwaters of this malignancy is the cesspool known as the drug war.
Law enforcement double dips even locally; after all if $50,000 is
stolen directly from the Kona evidence room how much is stolen before
it ever gets there? Why are so many eradication missions flown at
peak harvest times when the most profitable contraband could be
ripped off? If police have a moral culture where they will cheat
themselves out of promotions, then what will the public be cheated,
and to what extent? Given recent events one wonders if there is a
higher crime rate per capita among Hawaii police, than among the
general population? The evident corruption of the police is a far
greater harm to society than will ever come from someone offering
cannabis in worship.