DEA Religious Exemption Process

SashaShiva

Active Member
I have contacted the DEA to submit a Petition under their RFRA Exemption Process
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf

DEA Religious Marijuana Petition - The Shaivite Temple

I also have a meeting on November 6th with the Marijuana Enforcement Agency, where I will be showing them the DEA Exemption process, and Gonzales V O Centro, and having the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Agency create an Exemption for Religious Marijuana Use
Colorado Religious Marijuana Rights - The Shaivite Temple

And I contacted the FDA and USDA through various Department emails, in order to get Licenses to further legitimize Religious THCv use; I sent them a link to the DEA RFRA Exemption process and the Petition I sent to the DEA, as well as a Petition I have written which I will submit to the IACHR if the DEA rejects our Request. And I was told by various Departments of the FDA and USDA that the Department I should talk to for Religious THCv Exemptions from the FDA and USDA is CEDR, so I have contacted CEDR as well.
THCv Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) - The Shaivite Temple

The way this works is that the DEA has absolutely no Obligation to refuse Religious use of Substances which are not on the UN Psychotropics Convention.

The DEA used to say "Everyone is banned, so Religion is banned". But then in Gonzales V O Centro, they pointed to DEA Form 225, and showed that not everyone is banned. And the Supreme Court said that if they are doing it, then Religion can do it. And the DEA said "But we have the UN Psychotropics Convention" and the Court said "This substance is not covered by that Treaty". And the DEA had to stand down and create this process.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
If anyone is confused about how I am going to get a DEA Exemption, this explains how it actually works. The Controlled Substances Act is what we are talking about, and first off, is it called the "Banned Substances Act" or the "Controlled Substances Act" and are they "Banned" or are they "Scheduled"?

Mallinkdrot is literally allowed to sell Medical Cocaine online, here is the link.
Controlled Substances

Cocaine Hydrochloride USP CII

So what Mallinckrodt has is an exemption. A Medical Exemption. Yet no where in the Constitution is there a "Medical Clause", but there is a "Free Exercise Clause"; which forced the DEA to create the process in this link:
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Sasha Shulgin's words on the Analogue Act

This base, a-ET or etryptamine, was a promising anti-depressant, explored clinically as the acetate salt by Upjohn under the name of Monase. Its central stimulant activity is probably not due to its monoamineoxidase inhibition activity, but appears to stem from its structural relationship to the indolic psychedelics. It was withdrawn from potential commercial use with the appearance of an unacceptable incidence of a medical condition known as agranulocytosis, but the extra mural research into its action, among the lay population, goes on.

One property has been mentioned more than once in anecdotal reports. It appears to serve well, with short term dosage regimens, as an effective tool in kicking dependency on opiates. In chronic use, there is a rather rapid tolerance built up over four or five days, that allows a dosage escalation to a daily load of a gram or more. There might be some discomfort such as sores in the softer tissues of the mouth, but apparently the withdrawal from heroin is easy and effective. Here is a potential tool in addiction treatment that might warrant closer investigation.

Other homologues of a-ET have been synthesized. The a-propylhomologue (a-PT) has been made from tryptophan, and the acetate salt was recrystallized from ethyl acetate/MeOH and melted at 158-158.5 °C. It has not, to my knowledge, ever been tasted. But I suspect that it will take a pretty hefty dosage to get some CNS effect based on the loss of potency with the similar homologation in the Muni Metro series related to MDMA. Rather than lengthening the chain on the alpha-position, some studies have exploited the known potency enhancement that comes from putting a methoxyl group on the 5-position of the indole. This compound, 5-MeO-a-ET, has been made from the 5-methoxyindole-3-aldehyde by coupling with nitropropane (with ammonium acetate) to form the nitrobutene which is a reddish crystalline material, mp 114-116 °C from ethanol. LAH reduction in Et2O/THF gave the desired 5-MeO-a-ET in a 72% yield, mp 201-203 °C as the hydrochloride salt. An alternate synthesis that avoids LAH involves the conversion of 5-methoxyindole to the nitrobutane with 2-nitro-1-butene, followed by reduction with nickel boride to give 5-MeO-a-ET, as the free base in a 52% yield, mp 110-112 °C. As might have been predicted, it was more potent than a-ET by a factor of two with 70 milligrams orally producing a trippy feeling that lasted several hours accompanied with an increased heart beat and difficulty in sleeping. There were no psychedelic effects as such, and no unpleasant side effects. Another compound that has been closely associated with a-ET is a carboline. If a molecule of acetone is brought to react with the amine group and the indolic 2-position, in a condensation that is called a Pictet-Spengler reaction, there would be formed 1,1-dimethyl-3-ethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-b-carboline. This is a chemical ally of the harmine family of alkaloids, but I have not heard of its having been explored psychedelically. It has been reported to be an impurity of commercial a-ET (including the prescheduling product from the Aldrich Chemical Company) to an extent of some 30%. At these levels, it was suggested that it might play some role in the central action of the parent tryptamine.

a-ET has played yet another role in the evolution of our drug laws, a role that will be found to be of extraordinary importance once it becomes more widely known. This compound may prove pivotal in our ultimate definition of the Analogue Drug Law. I want to talk about: (1) The Controlled Substance Analogue Drug Bill; (2) What happened in a trial in Denver; and (3) What happened in a District Court in Colorado.

During the most political period of the War on Drugs, Congress passed, and the president signed, a new law every two years, on the even-numbered years (the years of congressional re-election) that increased either the definition of what were illegal drugs, or the penalties that follow a conviction for having been associated with them in any way. In 1986, there was a proposed draft of a bill called the "Designer Drug Bill" that had been created within the DEA, and sent on to the Justice Department who, in turn, submitted it to Congress as desired legislation. This was a proposal that would make illegal the tinkering with the structure of a molecule of an illegal drug, to change it in a way that would make it fall outside of the explicit listings of illegal drugs but without significant changes in its pharmacological effects. It was the first time a drug law would define a crime by the activity of a compound as well as by chemical structure. The proposal went to the appropriate legislative committee and, with some modifications, it became law in 1986. There was considerable celebration within the DEA, expressing a "We did it!" kind of satisfaction.

The first three Articles of the Constitution of the United States are entitled: Article. I. The Legislative Department; Article. II. The Executive Department; and Article. III. The Judicial Department. The first of these, consisting of Congress, has the role of writing law and defining the military structure of the nation. The second of these defines the president, who approves the laws of Congress and is the highest military officer. The third of these is invested in the enforcement of these laws. The three departments were defined in a way to assure a balance of power. It is a dangerous step towards a totalitarian state when one special interest group (here the DEA) can, in effect, both write the law and then enforce it.

Here is the text of the Analogue Drug Bill:

(1) The Controlled Substance Analogue Drug Bill. This is contained within Public Law 99-570, the Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986. This is the so-called "Designer Drug" bill which was intended to allow the prosecution of any act associated with an unscheduled drug, if that drug is analogous either in structure or in action to a scheduled drug, and if it is intended for use in man. Here is the exact wording of this amendment:

(32)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term 'controlled substance analogue' means a substance --

(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II;

(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II; or

(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucino-genic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.

(B) Such term does not include --

(i) a controlled substance;

(ii) any substance for which there is an approved new drug application;

(iii) with respect to a particular person any substance, if an exemption is in effect for investigational use, for that person, under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) to the extent conduct with respect to such substance is pursuant to such exemption; or

(iv) any substance to the extent not intended for human consumption before such an exemption takes effect with respect to that substance.

SEC. 203. A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for purposes of this title and title III as a controlled substance in Schedule I.

This is the exact wording of the law, and I have discovered that the more times I read it the more convinced I become that, whatever the original intent might have been, it was structured in a way to promote vagueness. I have written elsewhere about the rhetorical nightmare of a double disclaimer, "substantially similar." "Similar" means "pretty much the same." "Substantially identical" would means "pretty much the same." But what does "substantially similar" mean? I like the analogy of seeing two cut glass shakers in the center of the fancy table, one with small holes in the silver screw-down cap containing salt, and the other with slightly larger holes containing pepper. Are these two items substantially similar? If you happen to be a collector of antique crystal glassware, these items are completely identical. If you happen to need to add a condiment to your entree these items are totally different. You must know whose eyes are being looked through to approach the question of "substantial similarity." At a trial a few years ago in Southern California the issue was settled once and for all for a confused jury when a forensic chemist gave an expert opinion that two things were substantially similar when they were greater than 50% identical. Is the right hand more than 50% identical to the right foot? This opinion was patently absurd.

(2) What happened in a trial in Denver? A few years ago a young man discovered that the Aldrich Chemical Company offered alpha-ethyltryptamine acetate as a fine chemical. He could buy it in 100g quantities, and package it in 150 milligram capsules to be sold to the street trade as Ecstasy, or MDMA. He could and he did. His actions came to the attention of Law Enforcement, and an opinion was obtained from a DEA chemist that a-ET was not an analogue substance. So the prosecutor decided against pressing charges. But not every one agreed with this not-analogue opinion.

So the chemist solicited the thoughts of his professional colleagues and the answers cam back with as many no's as yes's. The no's were from those who reasoned objectively (scientific, compare the structures) and the yes's were from those who reasoned subjectively (abuse potential, compare the action).

The adventurous a-ET peddler continued, and was again brought to task. The analytical duties went to another chemist, and charges were finally brought under the Analogue Drug Bill. But the earlier opinion was in the record, and the first chemist was brought in by the defense to present these findings at the trial. Clearly there was uncertainty if this was an analogue of anything that was scheduled. The research toxicologist for the home-office of the DEA gave testimony that it was, without question, an analogue. But on cross examination, he was asked just how many times, and for how many different drugs, he had been asked that same question, as an expert witness at a criminal trial. Perhaps twelve, he said. And how many times had he offered the conclusion that the proposed compound had been an analogue of a scheduled drug? In every case. The judge decided that there were some conflicting opinions here, amongst the experts, and dismissed the charges. The defendant was given the warning that this kind of leniency was not common and told to behave himself in the future.

(3) The text of the appellate decision in this matter is a valuable lesson in the fine aspects of grammatical analysis. This is all from 806 F.Supp. 232 (D.Colo., 1992). In way of background it emphasizes that the purpose of the controlled substance analogue statute is to attack underground chemists who tinker with molecules of controlled substances to create new drugs that are not yet illegal. In this case, the defendants were not chemists who created or marketed a designer drug but rather allegedly purchased and distributed a substance that preexisted drugs to which it was a purported analogue. This was probably, in and of itself, sufficient reason to deny the appeal. But the argument developed marvelous new texture as things progressed. As a reminder of the wording of the law (here SS is, of course, substantially similar but this terminology is not addressed in the decision), the three phases of the definitional part of the law can be summarized as follows:

(i) a chemical structure which is SS to ... ;
(ii) which has an effect that is SS to ... ;
(iii) which is represented as having an effect that is SS to ...

The prosecution's reading and analysis of this definition:

"The government's reading of the analogue definition has superficial appeal. As a matter of simple grammar, when an "or" is placed before the last term in a series, each term in the series is usually intended to be disjunctive. Under this reading, a-ET would be an analogue if it satisfies any of the three clauses; however, this reading ignores other grammatical principles that apply in favor of defendant's construction. The operative segments of clauses Iii) and (iii) both begin with the word 'which,' signaling the start of a dependent relative clause modifying a previous noun. In each case the precedent noun is 'chemical structure' found in clause (i). Because both clauses (ii) and (iii) can be read to modify clause (i) the statutory language can be fairly read as requiring the two-pronged definition asserted by the defendants."

The defendant's reading and analysis of this definition:

"Defendant's reading is also bolstered by a deeply rooted rule of statutory construction. A statute must be construed to avoid unintended or absurd results. If I adopt the government's construction and read clause (ii) independently, alcohol or caffeine would be controlled substance analogues because, in a concentrated form, they can have depressent or stimulative effects substantially similar to a controlled substance. Likewise if I read clause (iii) independently, powdered sugar would be an analogue if a defendant represented that it was cocaine, effectively converting this law into a counterfeit drug statute. In both cases the defendant could be prosecuted for selling a controlled substance analogue even though the alleged analogue did not have a chemical structure substantially similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance. Therefore, to prevent this unintended result, clause (i) must apply to any substance that the government contends is a controlled substance analogue."

There is a most instructive bit of history to be considered. In July, 1986, the House of Representatives considered the Designer Drug Enforcement Act of 1986 (H.R. 5246). As with the Senate, the House bill focused on underground chemists who seek to evade the drug laws by slightly altering a controlled substance. The House proposed a two-pronged definition of "analogue" that is virtually identical to the construction advocated by the defendant here. The House bill contained the same three clauses as the current statute, but added the word "and" after clause (i). Congress ultimately adopted the analogue statute as part of the comprehensive "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986." Inexplicably, the analogue definition enacted by Congress dropped the word "and" after clause (i).

This pretty well defines the legislative intent of Congress, and I would give a pretty penny to meet the writer who happened to delete that "and," the one critical word that changed the heart of the law. i would like to know to whom he answered.

Here is a masterpiece of logic which makes some sense out of sloppy law. It must be remembered that the purpose of all of this is to determine if one, or two, or three definitions must be applied to establish just what is an analogue. This court declared that a substance may be a controlled substance analogue only if it satisfies clause (i) and at least one of clauses (ii) or (iii).

There is a fascinating, and potentially most disruptive, appeals ruling made in 1996 concerning the interpretation of this law, in this case involving aminorex and phenethylamine as being analogues of 4-methyl aminorex and methamphetamine, respectively, and thus chargeable as a crime under this analogue statute. This is from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 95-2132. In this ruling the Analogue Drug Bill is paraphrased with the following text: "... a drug becomes a controlled substance if it has a chemical structure substantially similar to that of a controlled substance, and either has a substantially similar effect on the user's central nervous system, or a relevant someone represents that it has or intends it to have such an effect." This is fascinating in that the source cited for this quote, 21 U.S.C. SS 802(32)(A), has no such text. And it is potentially disruptive for two reasons. It suggests that an analogue shall become a controlled substance, rather than be treated as if it were a controlled substance. It also introduces a new and undefined term, a "relevant someone." I do not have the legal background to guess the extent that this statement can influence future court challenges in the area of controlled substances analogues. Do, always, keep in mind that the finding that a chemical, in a given situation, is a controlled substance analogue does not make that chemical a controlled substance. The analogue status exists for just the single instance, and the next time the arguments all start over again.

Back to the case involving a-ET. The DEA retreated, licking its wounds, and got its own back by immediately proposing the placement of a-ET into Schedule 1. They succeeded, and Monase is today no longer an FDA-approved antidepressant but it is, instead, a drug with a high potential for abuse. One of the more unexpected forms of abuse can be seen in the costs to the researcher who wished to study it in some legal way. Before it became a scheduled drug, alphaethyltryptamine was what is known as a "fine chemical" and was listed in the catalog of a major chemical company (1993) for a modest $60.90 for a hundred grams. It became a Schedule I drug by emergency scheduling that same year. Recently (1995) I noted that the chemical has been discontinued (as a fine chemical) but has appeared in a catalog from a major supply house for neurological chemicals. Alphaethyl tryptamine now requires a DEA license for purchase, and retailed at $424.00 for 100 milligrams. That calculates out at $424,000.00 for a hundred grams, a price inflation of a factor of almost 7000, or a 700,000% increase. Now THAT is truly drug abuse.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Sasha Shulgin Contemplating Religious Sacraments, and not yet tying the UN Psychotropics Convention's Definitions for "Scheduled Substances" to his thought process like I have

The earliest reports of human activity, at 1 mg/Kg, are mentioned under DMT. The clinical trials from which the 80 mg comment above was entered, were conducted on a population of physically sound alcoholics. It was not only a study to define the nature of action of DPT, but to challenge the idea that the metabolism of the dialkyltryptamine on the 6-hydroxyl position might give rise to active metabolites. This challenge was in the form of assaying 6-fluoro-N,N-diethyltrypamine in the same subjects, to see if it might be an active placebo. This is discussed under that specific compound, DET. Incidentally, the actual amount of DPT used was originally published as being 1.0 mg/Kg body weight, and I am guessing that the subject might have been of average weight, about 175 lbs. In these studies, dosages were taken up to as high as 1.3 mg/Kg, which resulted only in a prolongation, not an intensification, of effect. In all trials, the onset of effects occurred between 10 and 15 minutes following injection.

Studies using lower dosages of DPT (15-30 mg intramuscularly) have been explored as adjuncts to psychotherapy with alcoholic patients. The enhancement of recall of memories and experiences, the greater emotional expressivenes and self-exploration, coupled with a consistently short duration, made the drug very attractive. Higher doses, up in the 100 milligram range, have been explored in psychotherapy, in the quest for peak experiences. Yet another study, in exploring the interaction of therapy counseling and DPT-induced peak experiences with patients who are dying, the i.m. dosage range was between 75 and 125 milligrams.

There is a rather remarkable religious group known as the Temple of the True Inner Light, in New York City, which has embraced as its Eucharist DPT which they refer to as a powerful Angel of the Host. Their communion is confirmed by either the smoking or the drinking of the sacrament, and they have been totally unbothered by any agency of the Federal Government, as far as I know. It is not as if they were unknown. Quite on the contrary, I had on one occasion received a request for information on the drug from a reporter who was writing a story on DPT and its use in the church. I asked him just how he had gotten my name, and he told me that he was given it by someone within the DEA. Someone, sometime, should write an essay on contemporary religions, as to why DPT has flown, why peyote forever struggles, and LSD and marijuana have bombed out, when tied to religion. Is there something about a faith being an "approved" religion? Who gives his approval? Who decides the applicability of the first amendment which explicitly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I wish the True Inner Light congregation Godspeed, if you will excuse the expression. My impressions of them from our correspondence have left me totally convinced of their integrity and dedication. It is an intriguing fact that this tryptamine was commercially available for a while from at least one small independent supplier of chemical novelties, but I believe that this is now no longer a valid source.

An intriguing (and perhaps theoretical) homologue of DPT is the 1-propyl counterpart, 1,N,N-tripropyltryptamine, referred to as PDPT. It is claimed that simply reacting tryptamine with an excess of propyl bromide put an alkyl group on the indolic 1-position (as stated also for the ethyl counterpart, sometimes referred to as EDET). In my own experiments with this reaction, I have yet to see any suggestion of 1-alkylation.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
An example of Human Rights Case Law.

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights{"itemid":["001-60505"]}

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_ing.pdf

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.pdf

:: Multilateral Treaties > Department of International Law > OAS ::

Brazil 12.051 - Merits

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_103_ing.pdf

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_150_ing.pdf

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_125_ing.pdf

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_114_ing.pdf

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_110_ing.pdf

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_16_ing.pdf

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_111_ing.pdf

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-116716"]}

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_124_ing.pdf

Inventory of the Cuban Freedom Committee records

Once I get the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Agency RFRA Exemption and the DEA RFRA Exemption, I will be making an announcements at both times. I don't want to give it away, but once each of those things happens, I am going to start getting a lot done.

I already mentioned that we will be accepting new Members right away, and soon after we will start Issuing ID Cards, and then once we open a larger Physical Location, we will start Ordaining Ministers and offering to send them to the PMI. We will go around to various States and eventually have Ministers set up their own locations in those States. Ministers will also teach people how to file with the DEA and IACHR, and we will begin filing Petitions on behalf of people and groups around the World.

But we are going to be getting a lot done. So the first week of November, the Marijuana Enforcement Agency should either acknowledge the Exemption that day, or figure out an Exemption system soon after. Then before the end of the Year, they said "Several Weeks", I should have the DEA response and THCv acknowledgement, and for both of those things I will be making announcements.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
The guy who determined Religious Exemption since it was put into place by the Supreme court since 2006 was Joe Rannazzisi. And his replacement is the person who is going to be reading the document I send in, then they will possibly be on the other end of the lawsuit regarding this if they for some reason decide not to let us use THCv.

But he is a Whistleblower, and is saying that the DEA is working with Pharmaceutical Companies to kill people (the Opioid Epidemic); and his job was being the liaison with the Pharamaceutical Companies, and the reason he is the person that oversaw this since 2006 was because the Religious Exemption is in reality just asserting your Right to do Religiously what Pharmacuetical Companies are allowed to do. So with all that going on, they almost can't afford to deal with a lawsuit like this and will probably not make it harder than it has to be.

Who is Joe Rannazzisi: The DEA man who fought the drug companies and lost - The Washington Post
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
And just in case anyone thinks that Sacraments are Racist, and only Native Americans can use Peyote and things like that, that is how it started, but that is not how it has been for years and years. The O Centro Church and the Temple of True Inner Light and the Church of the Toad of Light and the Peyote Way Church of God have all been around for decades now.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
For anyone who is too lazy to open the DEA Guidelines and read them themselves to see how easy this is, read this:
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf

6. Applicability of DEA Regulations.
A Petitioner whose petition for Religious Exemption from the Controlled Substances Act is granted remains bound by all applicable laws and Controlled Substances Act regulations governing registration, labeling and packaging, quotas, recordkeeping and reporting, security and storage, and periodic inspections, among other things. See 21 C.F.R. Sections 1300-1316. A Petitioner who seeks exemption from applicable CSA regulations (as opposed to the CSA itself) may petition under C.F.R. Section 1307.03. Such petition must separately address each regulation from which the petitioner seeks exemption and provide a statement of the reasons for each exemption sought.

This very clearly states that the Controlled Substances Act allows Substances to be used, and that there are rules for it. They are not banned Substances, they are Controlled. Not One of them is Banned.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
I found a Petition that was Denied by the DEA for Marijuana, so I am going to go through it and show what they did wrong, and by doing so I will explain how my Petition sets us up to Appeal to the IACHR, while the one I am going to go through messed up in so many places (they also mention that this was the first person to ever submit a request when the process was created)
http://www.churchofreality.org/dea/dea-rejection.pdf

Ok, so right off the bat, they asked for a Medical Exemption. If you want a Medical Exemption for anything, you have to get a PhD. The way this works is that Religion is Ancient, while the Controlled Substances Act has existed only since the 70s. You have to prove that your (1) Sincere (2) Religious Exercise (3) is Burdened by the Controlled Substances Act; to do this, usually someone has to go to jail, or you have to at the very least explain the ever looming threat of Police coming after you for your Religious Beliefs and Practices. And further, he asked for a Marijuana Exemption, while the Shaivite Temple is asking for primarily a THCv Exemption. And further, he worded it in a way where the DEA's first response was to tell them that they would treat the Petition as a request for a complete Exemption from the Controlled Substances Act. The Shaivite Temple is, again, primarily asking for a THCv Exemption, and asked for nothing more but the same rights as a Marijuana Importer, Distributor or Researcher who has been licensed under DEA Form 225, along with basically the same rights with THCv that the O Centro Church (the first Church to ever get an exemption) has with Ayahuasca. And THCv is not a Scheduled Substance, which is really the nail in the Coffin for any argument the DEA would have, and this is only the first part.

Second, they gave no Historical Context for their Religious Practice, and even mentioned that they would decide rules of Membership at "sometime in the future", while, for example, the Shaivite Temple Petition mentions Initiation Rituals, and when Members or Priests or Visitors would be allowed to partake. I don't want people to think that this means your Religion has to be Ancient to be a Religion, that is not a Rule in America in any way. But when asking for exemptions, it is good to explain how it has been a Religious Practice for thousands of Years. An example would be Santa Ria, a Religion invented in Cuba, and which was banned in Cuba; but it was accepted in the American Courts; and they got an Exemption from Biological Garbage Laws (the laws were actually overturned completely because they targeted them); and the Court was helped in their decision by reading about Animal Sacrifice in other Religions throughout History. And in the 30s and 40s there are tons and tons of examples, usually Theosophical based Religions (Theosophy is also fairly new itself). But the DEA says in their Denial that they had to ask them for more information about the Religion and the Beliefs and the Structure, and the response their church gave was still lacking. One example of, apart from Marijuana being the body of Shiva on Earth, of how explained this in the Shaivite Temple petition, is mentioning that THCv is used by the Temple for Fasting. No one can deny that Fasting is a Religious Practice.

Third, instead of stating that Marijuana is their God, or Represents their God no differently than Jesus being represented by Wine and Bread; they state that Marijuana is inspirational, and inspired the Religion, and that all the doctrines were written while "stoned" (the DEA literally quoted him saying that). They also mentioned here, in the description of the church, that they have no formal membership structure. They also kind of dig in right away in their response and mention that this process is for Religions, not for Philosophies or Ways of Life. They also mention that if someone does demonstrate that it is a (1) Sincere (2) Religious Exercise (3) is Burdened by the Controlled Substances Act, that the burden is then shifted to the Government to prove that an outright ban is the "least restrictive means" of burdening the Religion. One of the most important indicia of 'a religion' is that the particular collection of ideas and/or practices involves belief in the supernatural, that is to say, belief that reality extends beyond that which is capable of perception by the senses. If that be absent, it is unlikely that one has 'a religion'. The way the DEA put it is
(1) Ultimate Ideas: Fundamental Questions about life, purpose and death
(2) Metaphysical Beliefs: Beliefs addressing a reality that transcends the physical and immediate apparent world
(3) Moral and Ethical System: Proscription of a particular manner of acting or a way of life that is moral or ethical
(4) Comprehensive Beliefs: An overarching array of beliefs that coalesce to provide the believer with answers to many of the problems and concerns that confront humans
(5) Accouterments of Religion: The presence of various external signs of Religion

(notice they don't say it has to be ancient, just for anyone wondering if a Religion has to be Ancient for Court)

Fourth, they mention that a Religion must have Ethical Guidelines, and that there must be guidelines, and rules as to how someone comes in and out of those guidelines. The Shaivite Temple very clearly provided the Rites of Beneficence, which is exactly what they are asking the Church of Reality for there (but at this point they already decided that he was talking about a Philosophy, not a Religion). They also mention that there are no "teachers" or "keepers of Religious knowledge" and we very clearly addressed that as well, members will be initiated through Rituals and learning Techniques. They also point out that if he had said he were gifted by God, or "The chosen one" bringing this Philosophy, that maybe it would have been different. And then they actually mention that their Church has no prescribed diet or Fasting. They also point out that no one in their Church is required to use Marijuana, which defeats the whole argument itself (if its not required, it's not a burden to stop you).

Fifth, they mention that the Holidays of their Church are more like jokes than actual Holidays. The Shaivite Temple petition points out that Hindu Holidays are based on the Sun, Moon and Seasons, as well as Memorialized Days; and happen almost weekly. Then they mention he has no Ceremony or Ritual. We mention many, including Weddings.

That's most of it, from there they basically just explain why Laws exist, in case their Church wasn't aware.

And lastly, not in the document, but they didn't bring up the UN Psychotropics Convention once. They basically asked the DEA to let them use Marijuana, instead of explaining in detail to them that they are attacking them by not letting them use it.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
And something that many people reading the Church of Reality Petition V Shaivite Temple Petition may not have noticed. Apart from the fact that they aren't even practicing a Religion, they didn't tell the DEA what they wanted an exemption for. That is why the DEA said they would treat it as a request for a "full exemption from the Controlled Substances Act". They asked for a Medical Exemption for Members, and a Religious exemption for Ministers, but didn't say where or how it would be used, you are supposed to explain the rituals and ceremonies that it will be used in. That way you aren't asking for full exemption, but mostly Possession Exemption, and use Exemption in certain situations. Which allows the DEA to fulfill the meaning of "Controlled Substance".
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Ok, so here is the plan. First we are going to get the Exemptions, then once we actually have a Federal Exemption, whether by Petition to the DEA or Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Once we have the exemption, we will launch a serious Campaign with Posters, and Flyers and maybe a Billboard and everything to raise money to open a "Mega Church" Temple in Colorado and in Texas, both with satellite locations in the nearby major Cities (Texas Temple will be near Dallas on land, smaller location will be in Dallas; Colorado Temple will be near Denver on land, smaller location will be in Denver.)

By this time we should have a good number of Ministers and will start renting out event Locations around America, and will start getting Members in the various States and Territories in America. And then from there we will start going to other Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Member Nations, starting with Trinidad and Tobago. Then from there we will start a Temple in India, and probably other Countries. But we will also allow Ministers of the Temple Body to do that themselves, as there will be plenty of Ministers by that time.
 

TheMadDabber

Member of the Month: Dec 2017 - Nug of the Month: June 2018
Look forward to reading back through this. Awesome work. Awesome! I am a very spiritual person and find I am most connected in meditation after using cannabis. We need to get this through before religious freedoms are further reduced by corruption in Washington. Thank you
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
I met with the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Agency on the 6th. They do not have a process, so I did not expect them to give me an Exemption, but as they did agree to a Meeting about Religious Exemption, I did think that they were going to at least take the Petition and give it to someone who would deny it, then I would take them to court. Instead they just completely denied my Religious rights outright and pretended that we had never planned to have a Religious Meeting in the first place, as if I had not come there under the pretext that I was going to be explaining my Religion to them.

So I filed that lawsuit already
Lawsuit Against the County of Denver, Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, and Supervisory Investigators - The Shaivite Temple


And I spoke on the phone yesterday with the first Media person to notice the Lawsuit. They said they might want to do a Story for Channel 4 Denver. I would rather do it after or during the Court process (at the Court House), not right now. We need to have a Exempt Temple before people start doing News Stories.

But I talked to the first Media person on the phone regarding this today.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Nikola Tesla and Swami Vivekananda wrote to each other and even met (before Planes, Cars, etc). Swami Vivekananda was a Hindu before Gandhi, who spread Hinduism around the world, started Temples in places like Chicago, and is seen as a Key Figure in many modern Hindu schools of thought.

"All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha (आकाश) or luminferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana (प्राण) or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles all things and phenomena."
-Nikola Tesla
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
And the DEA process is completely separate and apart from the Marijuana Enforcement Agency.

There was actually a moment at the Marijuana Enforcement Agency where I told them that the DEA has a process for this, and they said "We are not the DEA", so I asked if they were above the DEA; and they said that if anything, they are probably actually in violation of Federal Law, so I told them that I was more in the right than they are (because I am following a Supreme Court Case, Gonzales V O Centro). And they were quiet for a second before just saying "We only take Medical and Recreational Applications, that is all we do here" again.

So, the Court is the correct route of action for this, and I thought that that is how it was going to go anyways. But with the DEA they already went to Court with someone else, so I am just going through the process created by that Court Case. And in Colorado people will be able to do the same once I am done with my Court Case. They just have to follow the guidelines set in my Case, which are all directly from the DEA, or directly from the Supreme Court.
 
Top Bottom