Ä [8] NORML (1:375/48) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ NORML Ä
 Msg  : #5349 [121]                                                             
 From : Carl Olsen                          1:290/2         Thu 07 Apr 94 18:04 
 To   : All                                                                     
 Subj : REPLY TO HIGH TIMES                                                     
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
April 7, 1994
THC Letters
235 Park Avenue South, Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10003
Dear High Times,
        I appreciate the coverage of my sacramental marijuana case in the
article Congress Passes Freedom of Religion Act by Gabe Kirchheimer.  The
article quotes me as saying, the only people whove been successful in taking an
argument about sacramental use of controlled substances throught the courts
basically have been the Native American Church and the Coptic Church.  This
statement is a little misleading, unless taken in context, because my case was
not successful.  Prior to the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that
sacramental use of peyote is not constitutionally protected, the lower courts
had developed a three element test: (1) the religion must be bona fide; (2) the
use of the illegal substance must be central and essential; and (3) the church
must have a significant history of continuous religious practice.  In 1979, the
Coptic Church became the first church, other than the Native American  Church,
to establish all three of these elements when the Florida Supreme  Court upheld
these findings from a Dade County Circuit Court case finding  the Coptics in
violation of a zoning ordinance (operating a church in a residential zone).
Janet Reno was the Dade County attorney at the time.   The U.S. Supreme Court
has never ruled on the validity of the three part test, but, in 1990, when the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled the sacramental use  of peyote constitutionally
unprotected, the three part test became meaningless.  The U.S. Supreme Court
said that if the sacramental use of peyote were constitutionally required,
sacramental use of other drugs (marijuana) might be required as well, citing my
case as evidence.  The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed my case without a hearing
the next week.  Although the Religious Freedom Restoration Act restores the law
back to the way it was prior to the U.S. Supreme Courts 1990 ruling, possibly
revitalizing the three part test, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, the last court to rule on my case in 1989, added a new fourth
element to the previous three element test: (4) the difficulty of enforcing the
general ban on the substance if a religious exemption were granted.  Anyone know
a good lawyer?
        Sincerely, Carl E. Olsen

--- Tabby 3.0
 * Origin: _ZSys_BBS_515/279-3073_D.M.,IA_Silicon_Prairie_v.32 (1:290/2)