Spread the love
Clear all

Religious Marijuana Exemption is Federal not State

2 Posts
1 Users
Member Admin
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 692

Member Admin
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 692
Topic starter  

The Shaivite Temple and Rev. Sasha: A Legal Perspective

The Shaivite Temple and its leader, Rev. Sasha, have been at the forefront of legal battles concerning religious freedoms and the use of controlled substances in religious practices. Two notable cases shed light on their journey through the U.S. legal system.

1. Gallagher v. Austin Police Department Source: Casetext

In this case, Plaintiff Ryan Gallagher, an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, runs a religiously oriented business selling seeds, herbs, fruits, and vegetables. Identifying as a Hindu, Gallagher practices "Neurospirituality," which involves the use of nootropics. He mentioned substances like syneperine, tryptophan, and holy basil seeds, which are grown for Lord Krishna and are not illegal.

However, a week before filing his lawsuit, Gallagher alleged that the police seized around 100,000 items from him, including his nootropics. The items were taken on the grounds that they did not test positive for Cocaine, Methamphetamine, or Heroin. This seizure, according to Gallagher, damaged his business as he couldn't sell his seed inventory or make a nootropic blend. Moreover, he would miss the growing season, preventing him from restocking or growing herbs for food or religious use. Gallagher claimed that the Austin Police Department's actions violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The court, however, dismissed Gallagher's claims against the Austin Police Department, stating that the department is a subdivision of the City of Austin and cannot be sued as a separate entity.


In a more recent case, Ryan Sasha-Shi Van Kush, formerly known as Ryan Gallagher, filed a complaint against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The court construed his initial pleading as a civil complaint under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. Van Kush later moved to amend his complaint to raise claims under various acts, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Van Kush requested an exemption from regulation under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) for various forms of cannabis and another controlled substance. The DEA, after receiving the petition in 2017, interviewed Van Kush in 2018. However, the DEA requested additional information, which was a lie and has lead to the DEA OPR doing an Investigation and attempting to get the DEA to contact him, to which they have as of yet refused and actually are attempting to start a War.

The court concluded that the proposed amended complaint failed to state a Specific Religious Ritual. Furthermore, it was erroneously missed the following case and the timelyness of its filing.

This post was modified 7 months ago by


Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.