Supreme Court oks illegal tea
Rudolfensia
11-12-2004, 08:42
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/10/scotus.religious.tea.ap/index.html
just another decision saying that illegal drugs are legal if they are used for religious reasons.
Well my religion says cocaine is okey dokey.
What will the government say to that?
(And I didn't know Native Americans got to use peyote...lucky bastards)
Cannot think of a name
11-12-2004, 08:56
Hmmmm.....stick to my guns or pay lip service to a religon to get the cool goodies......dilema........ah, I think they'd find me out pretty quick.
I wonder where I can get that tea......
If I join the Native American Chirch I am still not allowed to take peyote--because I am not Native American--however this church doesnt seem to require Brazilian Heritage--I mean if you grew up your entire life with that as your faith---and you are no threat ot anyone I see nothing wrong with it.
I say good--one more chip in the Armour of the fallacy of the drug war.
Smeagol-Gollum
11-12-2004, 10:18
Confusing statement for a poor Aussie.
I would have thought that if your Supreme Court says that something is legal under set conditions, then it is legal.
Yet you persist in describing it as illegal.
Does this make you an outlaw (i.e. outside the boundaries set by the law)?
Should you be prosecuted for disputing a High Court decision? Is there a contempt of court ruling in the US?
Cannot think of a name
11-12-2004, 10:27
Confusing statement for a poor Aussie.
I would have thought that if your Supreme Court says that something is legal under set conditions, then it is legal.
Yet you persist in describing it as illegal.
Does this make you an outlaw (i.e. outside the boundaries set by the law)?
Should you be prosecuted for disputing a High Court decision? Is there a contempt of court ruling in the US?
At best it gets an illegal with a *
*except in these conditions.
But it's still illegal to the vast majority.
Smeagol-Gollum
11-12-2004, 10:36
At best it gets an illegal with a *
*except in these conditions.
But it's still illegal to the vast majority.
As I said, legal under set conditions.
Much like the use of some pain killers for the terminally ill.
I still mauintain that the item should therefore not be referred to as illegal.
And, of course, letsd not confuse illegal with immoral or dangerous - nicotine and alcohol are both legal.
As I said, legal under set conditions.
Much like the use of some pain killers for the terminally ill.
I still mauintain that the item should therefore not be referred to as illegal.
And, of course, letsd not confuse illegal with immoral or dangerous - nicotine and alcohol are both legal.
Will I be arrested and charged with breaking the law if the substance is in my possesion?
Yes.
Then yes smeagol-for me it is very Illegal.
So my use of the term Illegal makes far more sense then pretending it is legal when it is actually not--legal implies legal for the general public.
The "grey" word here is "controlled"--which is actually "illegal except under special circumstance"
SO your confusion is your own fault for refusing to see that since it is illegal for most--most will call it illegal.
Gnostikos
11-12-2004, 23:06
just another decision saying that illegal drugs are legal if they are used for religious reasons.
As wonderfully orgasmic as the First Amendment is, the Framers really should've written the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in a way so that we could decide more easily when they conflict...
You have to wonder sometimes...just why are hallucinogens illegal at all?
Most of the "Coke/Heroin" arguments fall flat.