Free Exercise Claim To Use of Hemp Rejected

In Kiczenski v. Ashcroft, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7007 (ED Cal., Feb. 24, 2006), a California federal district court rejected plaintiff's claim that his religious beliefs were being infringed by the federal government's refusal to permit him to cultivate, possess and use hemp. The court rejected plaintiff's claims under RFRA and the First Amendment because it found that the beliefs that impel him to grow and use hemp are secular, economic, social, and philosophical, not religious. The court said: "Although plaintiff does link 'tending his garden' with feeling close to God, he does not specifically link or require growing hemp to commune with God." In a footnote, the court added that "even if a 'commune with God through nature' philosophy could be considered a religion, plaintiff's religion would not be substantially burdened by not permitting him to grow hemp [because]... it is growing anything, not specifically hemp, which spiritually fulfills plaintiff. "