Now, about the AP . . .

If it became a nationwide standard, it would also cover such federal enclaves as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, defense lawyers said.

The case involved Benny Toves Guerrero, a Rastafarian arrested at the Guam airport with five ounces of marijuana and 10 ounces of seeds. He was charged with importing the drugs from Hawaii.

Guam's Supreme Court ordered the charges dismissed, saying Guerrero's religious practices were protected by Guam's "fundamental law." The appeals court disagreed, saying the fundamental law was passed by the U.S. Congress and contained no religious rights beyond those of federal law -- and that importing drugs wasn't a protected religious practice.

Remember what Richard Cowan says: "the best two-word explanation for cannabis prohibition is 'bad journalism.'" In this case, both writers are at fault. It is irresponsible to suggest that cannabis is legal for Rastafarians on federal land without also mentioning that importation of cannabis (which means carrying it onto federal land--e.g., into the park) is not legal, even if you are a Rastafarian. What this really means is that if you happen to be Rastafarian, and you happen upon some kind bud while taking in the beautiful scenery at one of our nation's parks, you're okay. Just don't bring it with you, because you can bet that now they'll be checking at the gate.

And it is rather propagandistic to mention only the downside (not okay to import) without mentioning the enormous admission by the feds (so far) that they have no right to prosecute a person who possesses cannabis for religious purposes. This admission presents an unprecedented opportunity. The best thing we can hope for is that the feds will sit on this one until it is too late to file for an appeal on the ruling. Only then will it be safe to use this decision in court without risking it being overturned. Regardless, if people don't know about it, they can't use it at all. And how will people know unless it is reported.

In other words, these are not two different stories; they're the same story and should be treated as such. Doing otherwise potentially puts people (particularly Rastafarians) in harm's way on the one hand and, on the other hand, it diminishes the full import of the court's ruling.

Either way you look at it, it's bad journalism.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a man accused of importing marijuana to Guam cannot invoke religion as a defense.

The 3-0 decision overturns the Guam Supreme Court, which had said marijuana use was fundamental to the practice of Rastafarianism. The territory's Supreme Court also ruled that Guam's drug prosecution of a Rastafarian violated his right to freely exercise religion.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying Guam could prosecute Benny Guerrero for allegedly importing marijuana.

Guerrero was arrested in 1991 after he allegedly was found with about 7 ounces of marijuana at A.B. Won Pat International Airport. He claimed he is a member of the Rastafarian religion, and that use of marijuana is a required canon of his faith.

Guam, a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean, is about 3,700 miles southwest of Hawaii.

One of Guerrero's attorneys, Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.

One fundamental issue should revolve around the somewhat challenged concept of "equal protection under the law." Although I am delighted that Native Americans can use peyote as a sacrament, as Americans, how do they have a right to do so when an agnostic Christian may not?

I live in Idaho which is a state that happens to have a RFRA law on the books. I wonder if I could use the defense in court if I happen to use Cannabis religously.

Could someone please enlighten me on the current laws and if anyone is legally using Cannabis religiously in the United States?