Indiana pro-discrimination law opens door for Church of Cannabis

[ZiprHead]

The Pope Of the Church of Cannibus

Show

 

[Malintent]

How would my smoking cannabis have any effect on others' freedoms?

Do you have any idea how much it would cost the pharmaceutical industry if highly addicting pain killers were replaced with locally grown medicinal cannabis? Forget what it'd do to the tobacco industry!

I see absolutely no connection between having the freedom to smoke pot and the freedom to manufacture and sell prescription drugs... and it is the cotton industry that would feel the economic impact of wide spread cannabis cultivation, not the tobacco industry (duh). It was the cotton industry lobbyists that got pot restricted / made illegal in the first fucking place... arguments like, "our slave niggers in the fields will go crazy on that stuff", when in reality it was, "Cannabis is a cheaper and superior natural fiber than cotton... save our profits from this superior product!"

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you have any idea how much it would cost the pharmaceutical industry if highly addicting pain killers were replaced with locally grown medicinal cannabis? Forget what it'd do to the tobacco industry!

I see absolutely no connection between having the freedom to smoke pot and the freedom to manufacture and sell prescription drugs... and it is the cotton industry that would feel the economic impact of wide spread cannabis cultivation, not the tobacco industry (duh). It was the cotton industry lobbyists that got pot restricted / made illegal in the first fucking place... arguments like, "our slave niggers in the fields will go crazy on that stuff", when in reality it was, "Cannabis is a cheaper and superior natural fiber than cotton... save our profits from this superior product!"

Let's be fair, it wasn't just the cotton industry. It was also the paper industry, conveniently dominated by the same guy who owned all the printing presses. Conveniently around the same time that the newspapers started printing pulp about the devil weed.

 

[dismal]

Does one have to be a Hemp Truther to join the Cannabis Church?

Or will there be some sort of radical fundamentalist wing?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, violent arguments over dogma would help prove it's a sincerely held belief, just like other religions...

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, violent arguments over dogma would help prove it's a sincerely held belief, just like other religions...

Not really feasible. For stoners to become violent, you've got to add alcohol and/or serious mental illness to the mix, and even then it's not guaranteed.

Hunger strikes are also pretty much a no-go in this case.

 

[ronburgundy]

Well pot does make people say really stupid shit and often to be paranoid, so it has that part of religion going for/against it.

In seriousness, there is no objectively agreed upon definition of religion and no objectively valid criteria for determining what is a sincerely held belief. That is why any and all laws or court rulings that allow religious exemptions are inherently unconstitutional government endorsement of some religious views and rejection of others. The only thing the courts can determine is whether a viewpoint is widely held, which means they can only rule a view is "not religious" on the basis of how mainstream and or historical it is.

 

[dismal]

Well pot does make people say really stupid shit and often to be paranoid, so it has that part of religion going for/against it.

In seriousness, there is no objectively agreed upon definition of religion and no objectively valid criteria for determining what is a sincerely held belief. That is why any and all laws or court rulings that allow religious exemptions are inherently unconstitutional government endorsement of some religious views and rejection of others. The only thing the courts can determine is whether a viewpoint is widely held, which means they can only rule a view is "not religious" on the basis of how mainstream and or historical it is.

And yet courts have been walking exactly these lines for decades. Even before the RFRA, which was in response to a court coming up with an answer no one on either side liked.