A California church that distributes magic mushrooms and cannabis is filing a lawsuit against the City of Oakland and its police as a result of a 2020 raid that resulted in the seizure of cash, weed, and psilocybin mushrooms, claiming that they had violated their religious freedoms under the constitution.
Zide Door Church, the organization behind the lawsuit, served as an Oakland center for worship for the Church of Ambrosia, “a nondenominational, interfaith religious organization that supports the use and safe access” of certain natural and psychadelic drugs according to the groups website.
For those looking to join the church, just go on their website and fill out the application. In the questionnaire, prospective members are asked if they are with law enforcement, and if they accept cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms to be a “part of your religion.” If you are admitted, you would be expected to pay a $5 monthly membership to receive the “religious sacraments” through the form of donations.
In 2019, Dave Hodges, the founder of the church, would invite all members every Sunday for services at 4:20, in which he would pass out joints. After the pandemic, those services have since changed, but not all was lost. Now, the church has over 60,000 members, with over 200 people visiting daily to receive cannabis and magic mushrooms.
Since 2016, cannabis has been a legal recreational activity for Californians. In 2019, Oakland city council voted to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms and other entheogenic plants and fungi, however, the sales of such are prohibited.
Lawsuit Over 2020 Raid
In August 2020, Oakland Police officers had raided the Zide Door Church, and seized about $200,000 worth of cannabis, money, and magic mushrooms. The raid was due to police believing the organization more so operated as an unlicensed dispensary rather than a place of worship. Although no one was given any charges, only fines and warnings, all seized possessions have yet to be returned.
The raid was ensued from reports given to police that the church was not a legitimate place of worship, but rather a cover up for distributing illicit drugs. The department then sent an undercover officer to become a member of the church to purchase cannabis. Within a few days, the raid had taken place.
Since the raid, critics were skeptical of the church’s legitimacy as a real place of worship, and viewed the entity as a front to distribute drugs. Hodges responds with saying that is not the case.
Hodges and the Zide Door Church Double Down on Attaining Legitimacy
Hodges’s pursuit in filing a lawsuit against the city and police intends to put his church in a better light. He insists that the raid and seizure violated his constitutional religious rights and freedoms, and details the “sacramental use” of psychoactive and psychedelic drugs, namely weed and fungi, as a way of connecting to “a higher consciousness, their own eternal souls, spiritual beings and God.” That all being said, Hodges does not permit the use of these substances on church grounds.
“This is not just an excuse to sell drugs,” Hodges told the San Francisco Chronicle. “This is what we truly believe is the origin of all religion and really what religion should be.”
In the lawsuit, Hodges argues that his “sincere exercise of religion” is protected under federal law, as well as the church’s right to freely exercise religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Neither the city of Oakland or its police department has commented on any lawsuits brought against them, claiming that they have not heard of any word from Hodges or the church.
Speculation Over The Fate of Zide Door Church
Jessy Choper, a law expert at the University of California Berkeley, believes that the church may have a case against the city, especially if sent to trial. At the same university, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California’s Berkeley School of Law, disagrees with their lawsuit, saying that state drug laws may prevail over religious freedom.
“The general rule is that there is no exception to laws for religious beliefs,” he said. “Assuming that the California law applies to everyone and does not have discretion to grant exceptions, then there is not a basis for challenging it based on religion.”
