Pubdate: Tue,  2 Apr 2002
Source: News-Sentinel (IN)
Copyright: 2002 The News-Sentinel
Contact:  http://www.fortwayne.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1077
Author: Leo Morris
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

A DRUG APPEAL THAT WILL GO UP IN SMOKE

Balancing the Free Exercise of Religion and the Needs Of Society

Rohi Israel may think he's found a constitutional loophole allowing him to 
smoke marijuana with impunity, but he's just blowing smoke. He says his 
religion - he's a Rastafarian - allows him to indulge despite laws to the 
contrary. U.S. District Judge William C. Lee has ruled that Israel should 
serve 11 months for smoking marijuana in violation of his prison-release 
agreement, but agreed to delay the sentencing pending an appeal by Israel. 
Lee's decision holds out false hope for Israel.

It's true that the Supreme Court has been all up and down the spectrum on 
interpretation of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

In its first ruling in 1878, it interpreted that freedom very narrowly. 
Ruling that the clause protects only religious beliefs, not practices, it 
forbade the Mormons from violating federal anti-polygamy law. But by the 
1960s and continuing through the '70s, the court took a more expansive 
view. Government must accommodate religion unless a "compelling state 
interest" could be cited, and even then actions against religion must be 
the least-burdensome. A Seventh Day Adventist was allowed to refuse a job 
opportunity that included Saturday work. Amish were allowed to keep their 
children out of schools. An Alaskan tribe was allowed to hunt moose out of 
season.

But in the mid-'80s, the court started going back the other way, and by the 
1990s, it had gone full circle. The state, it said, did not have to show a 
compelling interest but merely had to cite "generally applicable criminal 
laws." A road was allowed through a national forest, even though the area 
was considered sacred to a Native-American religion. An Orthodox Jew wasn't 
allowed to wear a yamulke while on military duty. Most ominously for Mr. 
Israel, the Native American Church was not allowed to use peyote.

Israel has two problems. Even under looser Free Exercise interpretations, 
the state would have no trouble showing a compelling interest in enforcing 
anti-drug laws. And the current Supreme Court isn't likely to go back to 
that standard.

Government cannot specifically target a religious practice (animal 
sacrifice practiced by only one religion, for example). But neither can 
religions selectively ignore a specific law that applies to everybody else. 
That's not a bad balance in a free society.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Alex