See, Arizona has a law called the Free Exercise of Religion Act, which protects "Arizona's citizens' rights to exercise their religious beliefs free from undue government interference." Under FERA, the government can restrict someone's religion, but it can use only the "the least restrictive means" to do so.
The state argued in Hardesty that the "least restrictive means" of burdening Hardesty's religious beliefs was a total ban on pot. The Arizona Supremes agreed.
Interim ADC Director Charles "Darth" Ryan gets a thumbs-up from the Arizona Republic and his empress-for-the-moment, Governor Jan Brewer, despite all the incompetence and inhumanity displayed in the Marcia Powell affair.
Related Content
More About
"Hardesty claims an unlimited right to use marijuana when and where he chooses, and in whatever amount he sees fit," wrote Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch. "In the context of this case, no means less restrictive than a ban will achieve the state's conceded interests."
As Berch points out, one of these compelling interests is the "public safety concern posed by unlimited use, particularly by those driving motor vehicles."
And this is where the chief justice is dead wrong. The "least restrictive means" in the case of marijuana use by a religion, would be the same as for alcohol use by a religion, or anyone else for that matter: a ban on driving while intoxicated.
Since the end of Prohibition, the government has regulated the sale, production, distribution, and use of alcohol in myriad ways, short of an outright ban.
Driving drunk is illegal. So's public intoxication. But if you're of age, you can pretty much get snockered all you want otherwise.
So why can't marijuana be treated the same way?
Wouldn't this be the "least restrictive means" of regulating the use of pot? Remember, many Christian churches use vino in their services. And you could, hypothetically, belong to a religion that allows you to imbibe 'til plastered. That is, as long as you don't get in your four-runner and decide to roar up the freeway.
Sure, Hardesty was not the perfect test case by any means, but as marijuana use becomes more accepted, regulated, and permitted — the treatment of groups such as the CoC, and people like the Quaintances and Hardesty, will come to seem more and more backward, heavy-handed, and regrettable.
Senger informed me that Hardesty (who received only probation with his conviction) has exiled himself to a more civilized part of the country — California. He's become part of what Senger calls the "green rush" of folks relocating to Cali to take advantage of the state's liberal medical-marijuana laws.
"Everybody's going out to California right now because anybody can get a card, a recommendation from a doctor [to ingest marijuana] — for writers block, insomnia, you name it," Senger said.
Local activists are gathering signatures to put a medical-marijuana initiative on the Arizona ballot in 2010, though Senger laments that the proposed law's not nearly as lax as California's and so will probably be of no use to someone like him, who is in good health.
Maybe marijuana ain't the cure-all for the world's ills — like certain stoners, hippies, and guys like Senger think it is. But in a state where nearly every nitwit can own a handgun, why can't people be allowed to possess pot? Seems like having the latter makes you less likely to use the former — whether you use it for worship or just for doing your own private Cheech and Chong impersonation.
