cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Now your pecker looks like a Christmas tree angel. Papilloma.
Starting Temples
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
mr sunshine
Well-Known Member
I've learned many things from fin...lol
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
A lot of people do not realize this, but Marijuana is something that has been tied to Hindu culture for around 4,000 years. "Hindu" started in the "Indus Valley", you can still see this is the name "Hindu" it just just "Indus" with an "H" on the beginning and no "S" at the end.
The Indus Valley is where the Rig Veda was written, and the Rig Veda is the oldest Hindu text. The entire book is dedicated to the Gods Indra and Rudra and the many forms they take, and one the main Gods they take the form of is Shiva.
According to Myth, Shiva was walking in a Celestial Desert and he was getting hot and wanted to sleep, so he found shade under a Marijuana plant and slept. Then when he woke, he was so grateful to the plant that he sent it down to live on Earth. The Marijuana plant is in and of itself the very representation of Shiva on Earth. A Marijuana plant is to Shiva what a Crucifix is to Jesus.
The Indus Valley is where the Rig Veda was written, and the Rig Veda is the oldest Hindu text. The entire book is dedicated to the Gods Indra and Rudra and the many forms they take, and one the main Gods they take the form of is Shiva.
According to Myth, Shiva was walking in a Celestial Desert and he was getting hot and wanted to sleep, so he found shade under a Marijuana plant and slept. Then when he woke, he was so grateful to the plant that he sent it down to live on Earth. The Marijuana plant is in and of itself the very representation of Shiva on Earth. A Marijuana plant is to Shiva what a Crucifix is to Jesus.
NEEDMMASAP
Well-Known Member
Just doing some checking , I followed your plant mix post that was in your Blog, ordered everything , got it today but the Hemic Acid wont be here till end of next week , can’t wait to try it . Questions about your Temple and group’s faith . I was raised and taught that we have a creator and his name was “ I AM “ , maybe it was Shiva ? If a person belonged to your group even though the Temple may be in a remote location and he had a Shrine in his home for worship . And he got busted for growing ( No dealing charges , nothing leaving his homestead ) , would he have a defense that would hold up in court ? I have had several people that I’ve done work for and they were Hindu , and the Shrines in their homes reminds me of some things you have posted , I haven’t seen them for years but I plan to go see them and talk to them about their faith . Let me know how this all works .
Drowning-Man
Well-Known Member
They did it with peyote and Ayahuasca there's a precedent.
Drowning-Man
Well-Known Member
I actually did know that. Knowledge is power
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
Anything above a small amount of personal medicine, charges usually entail distribution intent. Most kitchens have packaging materials and a scale for baking. Those items will usually be included among the charges as evidence to create a case. That's how that works. You can look for loopholes but that's never how shit goes down. Perhaps plan more for never crossing a line where probable cause would come into play. This way, with some luck, you'll never come into contact with leo and you won't have to cough up ten thousand, or more, to defend yourself with a religious grounds defense. Not that it wouldn't be an ok back up position, if you legitimately can claim such a thing.
Last edited:
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I know what you are talking about. That is Theosophy, Theosophy is the basis of much of the Religious activity of the early 20th Century (1900s) and late 19th Century. It is basically Eastern and Western Mystery Schools brought together. I AM, if it is the same thing I know about, was started by Guy Ballard.
I would rather it start with a possession case, but yes, it is just like any other Religion, you would have a defense in the law, not outside of the law, in the law. This link provides not only a 1st Amendment Defense, but also presents health facts, the largest studies ever done on Marijuana, etc. Any other health information you can add would be useful, because the argument of say the DEA would be that it is their job to provide for the Public Health and Safety.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/271997415/Hindu-Brief
This also includes quotes from everyone from DEA judges, to Founding Fathers, to Modern Presidents.
After all that the only thing, say the DEA, would have left is the UN Psychotropics Treaty, and you just counter that with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18.
NEEDMMASAP
Well-Known Member
Finshaggy , said he won his case in Texas , would be interesting to know what the charges were ? and as large as the group is I would think some one would have got busted , and if so what would the outcome have been ? Is there anything in the groups teaching that mention marijuana ?
If a guy got busted and could not afford a lawyer , so he defended himself , and pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial , what would his chances be ?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Everyone should read Gonzales V O Centro, that is how a case like this would go.
First they will say that what you are doing is not safe for people to do, so you just have to prove it is safe. And even healthy if you bring all the research.
Then they might try to claim it is not a Religion, so you just have to bring evidence of that. Ex: The Rig Veda, Pictures of Sadhus smoking Chillums with Bhang and Charas, and as much information on the history of Bhang and Charas as you can. To support this further you could add City of Hialeah V Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye.
Then at the end you might want to add a case like Church of the Holy Trinity V The United States, or Burwell V Hobby Lobby.
First they will say that what you are doing is not safe for people to do, so you just have to prove it is safe. And even healthy if you bring all the research.
Then they might try to claim it is not a Religion, so you just have to bring evidence of that. Ex: The Rig Veda, Pictures of Sadhus smoking Chillums with Bhang and Charas, and as much information on the history of Bhang and Charas as you can. To support this further you could add City of Hialeah V Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye.
Then at the end you might want to add a case like Church of the Holy Trinity V The United States, or Burwell V Hobby Lobby.
WeedFreak78
Well-Known Member
Doesn't Elohim mean something like that, or one of the other older names for God?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
My case was Possession and Violation of a term of my Deferred Adjudication. I presented a Memorandum of Law stating that both the Original Charge and the Deferred Adjudication were against my Religion as per Sherbert V Verner, and it was not dismissed upon motion to dismiss, but it was ultimately dismissed.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Elohim is the plural for God I believe, and it is what Mormons point to. Christians will say it means God and Jesus, Jewish people will say that it means God and the Angels, or something like that. Mormons say it means many Gods.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And a lot of people miss what Burwell V Hobby Lobby did. This is from the Supreme Court
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
Congress responded to
Smith
by enacting RFRA.
“[L]aws [that are] ‘neutral’ toward religion,” Congress
found, “may burden religious exercise as surely as laws
intended to interfere with religious exercise.” 42 U. S. C.
§2000bb(a)(2); see also §2000bb(a)(4). In order to ensure
broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule
of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).
2
If the Govern
mental interest.” §2000bb–1(b).
3
As enacted in 1993, RFRA applied to both the Federal
Government and the States, but the constitutional author-
ity invoked for regulating federal and state agencies dif-
fered. As applied to a federal agency, RFRA is based on
the enumerated power that supports the particular agen-
cy’s work,
4
but in attempting to regulate the States and
their subdivisions, Congress relied on its power under
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the
First Amendment. 521 U. S., at 516–517. In
City of
Boerne
, however, we held that Congress had overstepped
its Section 5 authority because “[t]he stringent test RFRA
demands” “far exceed[ed] any pattern or practice of uncon
-
stitutional conduct under the Free Exercise Clause as
interpreted in
Smith
.”
Id.
, at 533–534. See also
id.
, at
532.
Following our decision in
City of Boerne
, Congress
passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C.
§2000cc
et seq
. That statute, enacted under Congress’s
Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the
same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category
of governmental actions. See
Cutter
v.
Wilkinson
, 544
U.
S. 709, 715–716 (2005). And, what is most relevant for
present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of
the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb–2(4) (importing
RLUIPA definition). Before
RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition
made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb–
2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exer-
cise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA,
in an obvious effort to effect
a complete separation from
First Amendment case law, Co
ngress deleted the reference
to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of reli-
gion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not
compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”
§2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this con-
cept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of reli-
gious exercise, to the maximu
m extent permitted by the
terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc–
3(g).
5
-
ment substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion,
under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from
the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that appli-
cation of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of
a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least
restrictive means of further
ing that compelling govern
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
Congress responded to
Smith
by enacting RFRA.
“[L]aws [that are] ‘neutral’ toward religion,” Congress
found, “may burden religious exercise as surely as laws
intended to interfere with religious exercise.” 42 U. S. C.
§2000bb(a)(2); see also §2000bb(a)(4). In order to ensure
broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule
of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).
2
If the Govern
mental interest.” §2000bb–1(b).
3
As enacted in 1993, RFRA applied to both the Federal
Government and the States, but the constitutional author-
ity invoked for regulating federal and state agencies dif-
fered. As applied to a federal agency, RFRA is based on
the enumerated power that supports the particular agen-
cy’s work,
4
but in attempting to regulate the States and
their subdivisions, Congress relied on its power under
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the
First Amendment. 521 U. S., at 516–517. In
City of
Boerne
, however, we held that Congress had overstepped
its Section 5 authority because “[t]he stringent test RFRA
demands” “far exceed[ed] any pattern or practice of uncon
-
stitutional conduct under the Free Exercise Clause as
interpreted in
Smith
.”
Id.
, at 533–534. See also
id.
, at
532.
Following our decision in
City of Boerne
, Congress
passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C.
§2000cc
et seq
. That statute, enacted under Congress’s
Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the
same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category
of governmental actions. See
Cutter
v.
Wilkinson
, 544
U.
S. 709, 715–716 (2005). And, what is most relevant for
present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of
the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb–2(4) (importing
RLUIPA definition). Before
RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition
made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb–
2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exer-
cise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA,
in an obvious effort to effect
a complete separation from
First Amendment case law, Co
ngress deleted the reference
to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of reli-
gion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not
compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”
§2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this con-
cept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of reli-
gious exercise, to the maximu
m extent permitted by the
terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc–
3(g).
5
-
ment substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion,
under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from
the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that appli-
cation of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of
a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least
restrictive means of further
ing that compelling govern
NEEDMMASAP
Well-Known Member
The I AM part is in the Bible , Some Bible quotes state “ God said to Moses I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I PROVE TO BE ‘ Other Bibles say " Tell your people " I AM sent you .
Does your group have a Bible ? Einshaggy this is getting to be real interesting , I will have to do some reading
Glad to hear your case was dropped , that’s cool . Has anyone in your group been busted for growing?
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
Did you just refer to Fin as,
Einshaggy?
Einshaggy?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I am Hindu, most Hindus use a more recent text, but I use the Rig Veda. I am specifically a Shaivite, and I don't know anyone that has been arrested for Religious growing, I mainly grew and taught be how to grow or make Charas (Hash) in Colorado. And in Colorado you can legally practice, without having to worry about laws. I just came back to Texas to beat my case that I beat, and now I am going to start a Temple after I finish suing the City for an Illegal seizure that prohibited me from practicing my Religion properly, and caused me to not be able to Celebrate for the Festival of Holi.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
They already returned the property, I am just suing still because they kept everything for over 4 months. And when I asked they said the longest it takes to test any number of things is like 2 weeks. So they have no reason to have taken so long and make me miss Holi.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
How did not having any of that stuff prevent you from engaging in Holi? None of what was withheld is required for Holi.
Where do you usually celebrate Holi, and with whom? If they banned you from Holi because of that . . . Well then that wasn't very Holi of them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holi