As cannabis laws change worldwide, and with what could be drastic changes coming in a few short weeks, an interesting case of a “right to bear cannabis” was sent in by Rev. Dr. Anne Armstrong of the Healing Church of Rhode Island. There will be a hearing coming up to look at her case and her right to bear cannabis as explained below. Any readers in Rhode Island that could support Anne at the case are encouraged to do so.
The court case brings up the lawful right to bear cannabis and be protected from prosecution, and the right of cannabis to be in a urine sample of a bailee or parolee. As we have said before on the site, the legalization of cannabis will have many twist and turns and effect many areas of life, law, community, schools, education, recreation, and just about everything you can think of. What do you think of her case below and her right to “bear cannabis” and be able to pee in a cup with cannabis?
An interesting hearing is going to take place on October 27 in Kent County District Court Room 2B. At issue is whether laws of general applicability that are available as protection to everyone still apply when the reason for requiring the protection is motivated by a person's religion.
The particular instance here is based on the fact that anyone is statutorily entitled to assert an affirmative defense to cannabis possession if they suffer from a qualifying condition and if a doctor has signed to attest to this. A person does not have to be a 'registered cardholder' under this section of the law in order to be protected from the punishments of law.
THIS PROVISION IS WRITTEN INTO THE LAW SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS CASES WHERE A PERSON IS USING CANNABIS AS MEDICINE BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CARD.
In my case, I can't get a card because my position as clergy forbids me from registering for a 'census', but I used to have one before assuming my duties and I still have the qualifying condition.
The judge ordered 'substance abuse assessment' which includes urinalysis as a condition of bail. I asked the judge to rule in advance that the affirmative defense available to all could be explicitly made clear because for a Bailee, if cannabis metabolites show up in the urine, the Bailee can be imprisoned for two weeks before getting the chance to assert this defense to a judge.
Bailees with medical cannabis cards can have cannabinoids in their urine with no penalty, even when undergoing treatment for opiate addiction. This is a good thing, because as cannabis use goes up, deaths from opiate overdoses decrease dramatically, as we've seen in Colorado. In Maine, there are even clinics that treat opiate addiction with cannabis only, and they are having great results.
I motioned the court for this protective ruling in early September but the judge refused to consider it. I tightened up the wording and resubmitted it three weeks ago, and the judge agreed to hear it, scheduling it for October 27. The judge gave the state 17 days to prepare to argue this motion - 10 from the second filing and an extra, unasked for week at the first hearing. This is unusual, but what's odder is that I got a phone call from someone at the court yesterday indicating that the State was preparing to argue that I was not complying with the terms of my bail because I haven't had a urinalysis. I've been trying to resolve this important issue first, ever since mid August.
Please note: I am NOT asking for any special treatment or exception. I am asking that the law that gives protection to anyone with a qualifying condition who has no card also be applied to me even though my reason for not getting a card is religious rather than because I neglected to or couldn't afford it.
I hope someone can cover this hearing. God bless you.
Rev. Dr. Anne Armstrong
Deaconess, The Healing Church IN RI
OTHER STORIES YOU MAY ENJOY READING...
WE SHOULD VOTE FOR ANNE ARMSTRONG, CLICK HERE...
OR..
