Also, this is my Religion, I am a Hindu Shaivite. So while we will be staying within the legal Colorado limit, Religions are only limited to growing what they need for their congregation without allowing it to move into illegal channels.
Here is the Religious case for this:
To prove my case I use a mixture of Case Law (Law decided by the Courts), Statutory Law (Law decided by Congress), Fundamental Law (Constitutional Rights and operations of the Courts and Congress as stated in the Constitution,etc), Historical Evidence to prove the reality of the Religion, and even DEA and FDA Administrative Regulations. This is not the whole case, but it is an outline that anyone could show to their lawyer and ask them to apply it to their situation. As long as you are actually growing Religiously, and not just using Religion as an excuse to sell Bud.
Hinduism is the only Ancient World Religion that has survived through Abraham, Jesus and Muhammed and is practiced by 15% of the World's current population. India is the only country in which the people living there are still using the same Temples and Holy Sites that they used over 4500 years ago when the first Hindu Holy Book, the Rig Veda, was written. Marijuana has been a part of every large society, from Ancient China, India and Egypt, to Ancient Greece, Rome and the Middle East and Europe. The word Indica means "From India" the word Sativa means "To Cultivate". The word "Ganja" comes from the Ganges River and the word "Kush" comes from the Hindu Kush Mountains, where it is believed the first Marijuana seeds came from. Lord Shiva is the Lord of Marijuana, the Lord of Bhang. Shiva is what happens when you smoke Marijuana, Shiva is what happens when you Dance. Shiva is simply a force of Nature and can not be denied. The DEA allows for corporations to legally Manufacture, Import (through customs), Distribute/Sell, etc, Marijuana (by the Ton), Coca leaf and Cocaine (by the ton), substances like LSD, 2C-I, DOM, etc, there are companies that have licenses to Manufacture or Import not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 10 substances, but some places are allowed to Manufacture and Import 50+ Schedule I and Schedule II substances. And in August 2016 the opened up registration for companies to begin doing this with Marijuana, as the University of Mississippi was the only place allowed to do it under Federal law before (for the Federal Marijuana patients), and this was seen by the DOJ as a Monopoly, so the DEA opened up registration.
The way this works is called DEA form 225, protocol found in 21 CFR 1301.18; 81 FR 53846. And the Free Exercise Clause states that Congress shall make no laws to prohibit the Free Exercise of Religion. If a corporation has been given a right or opportunity, that same right or opportunity must be given to Religions. The way the courts have stated it previously is that "If Marijuana laws are equally applied to everyone, then we can apply them to your Religion", well they are no longer being equally applied to everyone.
United States v. E.C. Knight Co 156 US 1 (1895)
Swift & Co v. United States 196 US 375 (1905)
Normaco v. DEA, No. 02-1211 (DC Cir. 2004)
John Doe Inc v. DEA 484 F.3d 561 (DC Cir. 2007)
This right must be afforded to Religions whether or not they are mainstream
Cutter v. Wilkinson 544 US 709 (2005)
Obergefell v. Hodges 576 US ___ (2015)
All Sacraments - being "Sacred Food" - are not "Drugs" as defined under 21 USC S 321(g)(1) of the FD&C Act which defined a "Drug" as "An article that is intended for the use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals and articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or function of the body of man or other animals".
"But beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against Religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or National, because this is a Religious People. This is Historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour"
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States 143 US 457 (1892)
A Law is only a Law if it fulfills Constitutional promises, the Constitution being the only thing that allows laws to exist, via the Commerce Clause, etc. But Congress shall not write Laws that prohibit Religion.
Hilton v. Guyot 159 US 113 (1895)
Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York 397 US 664 (1970)
Leary v. United States 395 US 6 (1969)
United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez Jr. 514 US 549 (1995)
United States v. Alvarez 567 US ___ (2012)
A Church is not much different in nature than a State, see Texas v. White 74 US 700 (186
. Religion is a form of COMITY INTER GENTES from AFFLATUS. The Separation of Church and State in the Establishment Clause exists because of the fact that Religion used to be the State, as it is now in Vatican City and the Holy See, Churches may be a party to CONCORDAT see Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church 210 US 296 (190
; Respublica v. DeLongchamps 1 US 111 (1784); Serban Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich 426 US 696 (1976); Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church 393 US 440 (1969).
"The term "Religious Exercise" includes any Exercise of Religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of Religious belief."
42 USC S 2000cc-5(7)(a)
"The general characteristics of Schedule I substances cannot carry the day"
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal 546 US 418 (2006)
Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Eric Holder, No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014)
"Congress must first enact a Law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the Federal courts Jurisdiction"
Hudson v. United States 522 US 93 (1997)
"Congress shall make no Laws prohibiting the Free Exercise of Religion"
The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment
"If a Government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forgo a Religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the Government has burdened the individuals Free Exercise of Religion"
Sherbert v. Verner 374 US 398 (1963)
"Even neutral laws can be used Unconstitutionally"
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 US 356 (1886)
42 USC S 2000bb(a)(2)
"Conduct business in accordance with their Religious beliefs"
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 573 US ___ (2014)
Laws can not Covertly or Overtly forbid the practice of any Religion
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah 508 US 520 (1993)
United States v. Price 383 US 787 (1966)