The “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case
posted at 11:51 am on March 20, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Gotta say, I’m on the side of the ACLU in this one:
The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in an unusual free speech case that found Christian groups and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on the same side of the debate.
The groups have put aside their differences to support a former high school student who was punished for holding a sign declaring, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
When the Olympic torch passed by his Alaska high school in 2002, Joe Frederick and some friends unfurled the banner, whose slogan refers to smoking marijuana. Frederick, at the time an 18-year-old senior, was suspended for the prank.
The ACLU came to Frederick’s defense, arguing that the school violated his free speech rights by unfairly censoring speech based on its content. In the 1969 decision Tinker v. Des Moines, the court found that students maintain their constitutional rights in school and that expression that doesn’t disrupt education cannot be censored.
The only thing that makes this case at all questionable is that the kid was on school property, but when it comes down to it, so what? It was offensive but not disruptive, and I doubt anyone took “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” to be the school’s official stance. This was a case of kids being kids.
If the principal wins, here’s what will probably happen before long. Some Christian kid will say something that a PC principal will find objectionable, and that kid will get suspended from school. This case would back up that call, and free speech would take a massive hit on school campuses.
We already have enough speech codes at universities. A win for the principal here would open up too much room to create more of them at our schools.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Man, I’m mixed on this one.
I guess what I’d like to really see is what will never happen:
I’d like to see the government (and the school) stay out of it.
And I’d like to see the kid’s parents beat the crap out of him for being such a punk.
I guess that’s too old-school. These days, the schools do the parenting, I guess. Too bad. If parents did their job (and were allowed to), we wouldn’t need the courts, schools, and government to deal with discipline issues.
Professor Blather on March 20, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Is having a sign that says “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” any worse than having teachers at schools, who are rooting for the terrorists to win? Or kids rioting on campus, with Palestinian flags, condemning Israel, and smashing windows?
amerpundit on March 20, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I fail to see how unfurling a banner with a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” message at an Olympic ceremony could not be construed as disruptive, Bryan. Would you be singing the same tune if this kid had been part of the Phelps Church’s “God Hates Fags” bunch?
fusionaddict on March 20, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Apples and oranges. This kid isn’t part of Phelps’ church, so the hypothetical doesn’t get us anywhere. Phelps goes out of his way to disrupt funerals–that’s the whole point of his actions. This kid was just trying to get on TV. It wasn’t an “Olympic ceremony,” by the way. The torch was just passing by the school.
I agree with Prof B, bad parenting has a lot to do with this case. But that doesn’t mean schools should have the kind of power that a win in this case would give them. It will end up hurting students’ right to speak out on moral issues, guaranteed.
Bryan on March 20, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Was the kid on school property?
Back in 6th grade, some kid nailed another kid in the head with a rock after school at a public park and was suspended. That didn’t make sense then, and neither does this.
If the students were released from class and allowed to leave school property during the event, then the school only has itself to blame.
rw on March 20, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I don’t think the kid was on school property, but I believe it happened during school hours.
Number 2 on March 20, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I was about 14 when I was told to take off my “To Hell With the Devil” T-Shirt in Junior High.
The principal thought it would be offensive, or that the language was offensive, and so he made me take it off. My mom was pretty livid.
I think institutions should be able to regulate the behavior of their students. At the same time, the monolithic opinions of the public school should not be able to silence the free expression of beliefs that are protected by the constitution.
I think I would actually support the school in this, but for one reason only: The activity being promoted by the banner was illegal. Bong Hits involve marijuana, and are therefore illegal behavior. (By the way, how do head shops get away with selling bongs and pipes and bats and all those things? Tobacco products?)
Does free speech (honest question here, not rhetorical) allow a kid to hold up a banner that says “Kill the Torch Bearer!” or “Kill the President”? I would think that free speech might allow a legal activity or opinion to be expressed, like “I love the president” or “Worst President Ever.” But not an illegal activity.
I think schools can and should promote legal behavior among their students. Allowing kids to dress as beer cans (something that happened in my high school) should be verboten… it’s illegal for kids to drink at that age. (Should teachers be able to dress as beer cans?)
I think we need to let the principals of schools have some say in what they deem appropriate conduct is. A ruling like this might make it difficult for students in the future, but law seems to be the process of splitting hairs very finely.
I’d tend to support the principal here.
Besides… I don’t remember Jesus specifically commanding or requesting bong hits on his behalf anywhere in the scriptures… unless you count the dubious theology of Cypress Hill regarding Genesis 1:29. (Which I don’t.) It’d be pretty hard to count this as his religious conviction.
PastaKeith on March 20, 2007 at 12:13 PM
banner across the street from school
Good point.
Bryan on March 20, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Isn’t the answer in Garcetti v. Ceballos?
The principal gets told to pound sand.
Kid from Brooklyn on March 20, 2007 at 12:14 PM
On the other hand… the issue of limiting free speech on “religious” issues is going to hurt the west… no doubt.
Check out this article by Ph.D David Cashin on the death of Christendom, specifically in the area of free speech and free practice of religious conviction.
Similar to some of Robert Spencer’s conclusions at the end of the P.I.G. to Islam and the crusades.
I love free speech… but I think the rule of law needs to be respected as well.
PastaKeith on March 20, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I think it’s nice to see kids bonding with Jesus. Or bonging. Either way….
honora on March 20, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Most schools have code of conduct rules which ban clothing with references to drugs and related materials. I think the banner would be considered a similar display. I don’t know the details, but if this wasn’t the kid’s first offense in violating school code of conduct rules, I don’t see anything wrong with his suspension. The action the school took would seem too harsh if this kid hadn’t made any infractions prior to this. In addition, I don’t think it’s the religious (Jesus) part which the principal took issue with. It’s the promotion of an illegal act, which the school has every right to ban.
Having said all that, I can’t believe our tax dollars are being used to decide this.
Melba Toast on March 20, 2007 at 12:23 PM
If that’s the case, then I could see a defense from the school. He wasn’t just holding up an offensive sign. He was holding up a sign that commented on something that is illegal.
So far as I understand it, free speech isn’t covered when you promote illegal activity. Am I wrong?
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Nobody’s said it yet? OK.
Sweet Jesus! That principal was one toke over the line.
James on March 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Bong Hits for HotAir!!!
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Actually, Bong Hits lead to Hot Air. :) NM.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 20, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Mature expressions of free speech is just not about saying anything anytime anywhere. It is about showing responsibility. I think the disparaging aspect for me is that conversations about our freedom of speech seldom include discussions about responsible speech.
However, while I do think the student should have been disciplined (detention for example)for blatant non-compliance , his suspension from school was too extreme.
In a related subject, are there not exceptions to the applications of the Bill of Rights or specific rights when it comes to minors like those still in grade school and high school? I recall a case about the legal/illegal search and seizure of student school lockers but don’t remember the outcome.
geckomon on March 20, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Give me a break Bryan. If the kid had held up a sign that said “Abortion destoys a life” or “God Saves” do you think he would have gotten away with it??? This isn’t about free speech, it’s about authority. The principal had every right to tell him to take the banner down. It was a school sponsered event. The kid refused and was given 10 days suspension. Totally reasonable.
We shouldn’t side with idiots like the ACLU just “in case” in the future some students do put up signs like the ones I mentioned and we hope the ACLU will come to bat for us. The students have no business holding up banners like that at an Olympic Torch relay NO MATTER WHAT IT SAYS.
Good grief.
Rightwingsparkle on March 20, 2007 at 12:32 PM
It would have to incite illegal activity (”let’s take bong hits for….), or cause harm to many others (fire in a crowded theatre).
Even if this happened during school hours, the student was on his own time, and off school grounds. Which is why I go back to Garcetti. Unlike the instance in that ruling; this speech didn’t happen within the student’s normal scope of duties or activities, nor did it happen on school property…so it looks like the principal overreached.
Kid from Brooklyn on March 20, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Afik you’re wrong. Otherwise, the editors of High Times would be out of a job. Free speech is generally limited at the line of “fighting words” and incitement to violence, or saying things that cause danger–yelling “fire” in crowded theater if there’s no fire, etc. And then there’s slander/libel and that sort of thing.
This sign wasn’t any of that and it was off school grounds.
Bryan on March 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM
If he had a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” he needed to have other signs in the display, like “Bong Hits 4 Buddha” and a mix of Santa Clauses and reindeer.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 20, 2007 at 12:37 PM
As I understand it, the students were excused from class to attend this activiy. There’s a fair amount of daylight between that, and the event being a “school-sanctioned event”.
Kid from Brooklyn on March 20, 2007 at 12:38 PM
If this is the case, then yeah, the principle did overreach her authority. Is it?
geckomon on March 20, 2007 at 12:39 PM
… if so, then the case is not about free speech, but about jurisdiction. Or am I missing something?
geckomon on March 20, 2007 at 12:42 PM
It was a school sponsered event. These are kids. They are under the authority of principal. Period.
Rightwingsparkle on March 20, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I feel it will probably go the ACLU’s way. Yippee.
But that doesn’t hide the fact the boy is an utter moron and should be smacked 14 ways to Sunday.
Darksean on March 20, 2007 at 12:54 PM
No argument there.
Bryan on March 20, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Every time a read about this case it brings a smile to my face…Christians and the ACLU on the same side, Ken Starr back in the limelight, 90 year Supreme Court Justices discussing the dynamics of a bong rip, what’s not to love?
I just hope he wins and offers Scalia a celebratory bong hit.
JaHerer22 on March 20, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Man, I thought we were punks in highschool. Glad to see all that anti drug education in school is being so well received. Otherwise, great points PastaKeith. Too bad the only time Jesus is permitted in public school - He’s no this lame banner.
Buck Turgidson on March 20, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Or on this lame banner, rather.
Buck Turgidson on March 20, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Would the ACLU have still taken the case if the words “Bong hits” were missing from the sign? Probably not.
Coyote D. on March 20, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Alright, but traditionally, kids at public schools simply have less freedom than the rest of the population. Just by entering a school, many students are subject to searches without probable cause. In fact, children cannot legally leave school without permission.
It seems to me that students already have rules applied to them that do not apply to others.
Is it really worth a court case when a treenage punk decides to embarrass the school he represents by holding up a sign about an illegal drug? Personally, I don’t think kids should be allowed to hold up signs, any unauthorized signs, while at an event they were brought to be a school.
If kids get that right taken from them, I can live with that.
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 1:40 PM
As a parent, I’d be livid w/ my kid for holding up a sign like this. And instead of fighting the school for my son’s right to “free speech”, I’d be telling him to buck up and take his punishment for his stupidity. Parents no longer seem to be parenting. I have a 13 year old son, and an almost 11 year old daughter. I’m trying to raise them to be responsible people, to know right from wrong, and to learn from their mistakes. I’m not going to pander to my kids like some parents. These parents need to be smacked upside the head, too.
StephC on March 20, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Marijuana is the Devil’s weed!! This child must be punished!!
Nonfactor on March 20, 2007 at 1:45 PM
See NAMBLA, for example.
Professor Blather on March 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM
The first amendment is designed to protect just this kind of thing. The most vile and insulting speech is just as protected as the daily school calendar.
School sponsored event…does that extend to activities OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS? Dunno. I think the teacher over reached and violated this kid’s right to make an a$$h@t of himself which he managed to do anyway.
I guess we’ll get to see what Roberts is made of this time.
Pilgrim on March 20, 2007 at 1:53 PM
I’d take a bong hit 4 Jesus. Why the hell not?
Babs on March 20, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I’ve got the munchies, but I’m too paranoid to go to the store…
infidel4life on March 20, 2007 at 1:59 PM
That’s why potheads order pizzas online.
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I see.
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 2:01 PM
The message is irrelevant. Free speech is free speech and no speech is any “free-er” than anything else said.
Oh noes, its offensive. Too bad, its off school grounds, and the school doesn’t “own you” after you leave their property.
triple on March 20, 2007 at 2:16 PM
They do if you’re there with them on a field trip.
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 2:23 PM
i wonder how the 9th Circuit would feel if the banner said “Bong hits for Muhammed”. Would that be ‘plainly offensive’ or just ‘poor taste’?
On school property or not, the student was released from campus but still under the watchful eye of school administrators, thus; the student was still a ward of the state. Does this distinction matter? What if this had happened on a field trip, say, at a museum? Just curious. Any school administrators want to jump in?
stevezilla on March 20, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Yesterday,
DrudgeDr. Evil, put a story up that showed that one in five adults are illiterate. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it’s because our society worries itself into tizzy over these sorts of things rather than say, actually teaching people to read?billy on March 20, 2007 at 2:44 PM
First off… In some municipalites it would be perfectly legal, except for an unconstitutional Federal Law to take a Bong hit… in some places for Medical reasons.. in some its just plain legal…
The Congress has overreached itself on the war on drugs. Just where in the Constitution does it have the power to say Marijuana is illegal if it does NOT cross interstate lines???
Second, my understanding of the case is that the kids were released from school… and he was off school property. Now, the question is were there chaperones present? Was it a school event? or just one they “could” go to? If so, then school rules no longer apply
Thirdly… and just for good measure, this IS a POLITICAL topic… I’ve voted in the last two elections here in Colorado about this very subject… therefore this would be stymeing POLITICAL speech in school….
Romeo13 on March 20, 2007 at 2:45 PM
What ticks me off most about this case is that it is a case at all!
Don’t we have more important things to move through the courts. I would SAY SO.
Rightwingsparkle on March 20, 2007 at 2:59 PM
No matter how it plays out one thing is for sure: The kid is getting all the attention he hoped for.
Fatrap on March 20, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Liiighten up, Francis.
Mike H on March 20, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Funny part is the “Kid” is now a teacher himself, and living in CHINA. Gotta remember this took place a number of years ago.
Romeo13 on March 20, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Guys,
I’m from Alaska where this took place. It was NOT a school sponsored event and the kid was NOT on school grounds. The school had let students out to watch the Olympic torch pass by, but did not sponsor the event. Student speech is limited in 3 forms: it can’t disrupt school or infringe on other students’ rights; it can’t be plainly offensive; and school papers can be restricted. While this was a stupid move on the part of the student, it didn’t disrupt school since everyone was out anyway, I don’t see how it could fall under the standard of plainly offensive which tends to focus on sexual and racial commentary and it wasn’t in the school paper. One also has to take note of the legal and political argument regarding marijuana in Alaska where the Alaska Supreme Court has allowed the private possession of marijuana. The school said it was plainly offensive and disruptive because it went against their desire to promote a drug-free lifestyle. I have serious reservations about calling speech offensive or disruptive because it is in opposition to a particular agenda. That is very dangerous ground. And the school could show no specific disruption beyond their vague comment about being in opposition to their preferred point of view. I think I have to go with the student on this one, even though it was an idiotic thing to do.
kemphd on March 20, 2007 at 3:22 PM
There ya go.
Professor Blather on March 20, 2007 at 3:27 PM
If your information is accurate, I repeat my first post: keep government out of it - and have the kids mother take him behind the woodshed and beat the tar out of him for being an imbecile.
A funny imbecile, though. C’mon. Bong hits 4 Jesus. I’d be laughing as I was whuppin’ his ass.
Professor Blather on March 20, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I think you are correct, undermining authority is a bigger offense than the poster. If it was on school prop. or school sponsored than the principal has the authority…right or wrong. High school kids can’t reasonably think for themselves.
If kemphd is correct, that is was not and was not than the prinicipal has only the recourse to explain what happened to their parents and let the parents deal with it.
right2bright on March 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Yeah, China… that’s where all the kids who are concerned with free speech go…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Remember when people would just take this like it is.
An annoying joke. Then it would be forgotten.
Xcuse me while I take this hit. blubb, buulbb,
Now what was I saying?
Kini on March 20, 2007 at 3:38 PM
The kid needs rehab.
csdeven on March 20, 2007 at 3:47 PM
If everything you say is correct, then I agree.
My only concern is that teachers have the right to not allow signs like that when children are under their supervision.
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 3:47 PM
So . . . this is
notabout free speech but about questioning the school’s jurisdiction for disciplining the student at this event. If this is clarified as such, there should be no legal justification for commenting on the Bill of Rights as applied to this case.The whole point of the judicial review concerning the denial of the student’s first amendment right is moot if the school had no authority of the student at the time of the incident.
Or are we to assume that the courts have already recognized the schools authority?
geckomon on March 20, 2007 at 3:47 PM
should read not
geckomon on March 20, 2007 at 3:48 PM
To Bryan and all those supporting the “Bong Hits”…
Answer me this…
1) Do you smoke pot? Or any other drug for that matter?
2) Do you want your kid(s) to smoke pot?
3) Do you want your kid to have been the inspiration for someone else’s kid to have gotten into pot or any other drug?
4) What is next for this kid and what kind of future do you think is in store for your kids?
Mazztek on March 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Bryan,
I so agree with you. The failure of most recent generations of American parents to fulfill their role responsibly is driving a massive encroachment of government into the most private areas of family prerogative. In some cases the government must step in where adults fail (as in teacher-student seductions). However, the prevalence of cases where intervention is called for is encouraging a massive governmental over-reach into other areas such as religious and sexual education.
If they’re already describing religious education as “child-abuse” in some school districts, the scenario you’ve described above is not only possible, it’s just a matter of time.
The Ritz on March 20, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Well this case proves that school is no substitute for good parenting.
We should do what England and Austrailia do. The money for education goes with the child regardless of whether he goes to a religious or state run school.
Iblis on March 20, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Mazztek on March 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Sorry friend, the greater evil to be resisted is government usurpation of your right to “speak the truth in love” to this misguided kid. The government’s never going to rescue him. And if the government starts telling your children they can’t speak a message of hope to him because it might “offend” him, what are his odds then?
The Ritz on March 20, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Mazztek
I don’t smoke pot or any other drug and this stupid poster would not inspire me to do so, and wouldn’t have inspired me as teenager. I would have thought he was an idiot then as I do now.
If I had kids, I would hope that my teachings would be enough that my kids would know not to do something just because it was on a poster they happened to see.
Plus, kids get inspiration to do drugs almost every day they’re in the school system. They don’t need the sign, all they need is to listen to the conversations going on around them. I worked in a school system and a poster like this isn’t going to get kids into drugs; tons of other stuff in the school that teachers and administrators ignore are more likely to affect kids than a dumb poster.
Another thing, in Alaska one can legally possess less than 4 ounces of marijuana, for better or worse. That ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court has stood since 1975 and was reaffirmed in 2001.
kemphd on March 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM
So was it a school sponsored event or not? Because everything I’ve read so far says it was. And if so, then to me it becomes about the school’s anti-drug use and anti-drug message policy. Many high schools across the country ban the wearing or showing of anything that supports or incites drug use. (those lil marijuana leafs on hats, shirts, etc…) So, if it was school sponsored, and the ACLU successfully makes it about free speech instead, then I can see those policies around the country becoming useless. (That guy in Alaska got away with it, why can’t I wear this t-shirt on campus now? It’s free speech)
serpentineshel on March 20, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Can we have bong hits for Allah/Mohammad shirts too?
lorien1973 on March 20, 2007 at 4:17 PM
lorien1973, You could, but if you get in trouble, I wouldn’t count on the ACLU to help you.
serpentineshel on March 20, 2007 at 4:18 PM
According to information from the Juneau and Anchorage papers, it was not a school-sponsored event. The Olympic torch was passing by on its journey, so I guess that was an Olympic-sponsored event. The school simply released the students so that they could see the torch; one assumes that for many it will be the only time that they have the opportunity to see it.
kemphd on March 20, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Thank you kemphd, I was under the impression they had taken a “field trip” to see it.
serpentineshel on March 20, 2007 at 4:23 PM
But I don’t want to meet a headless end without legal representation :(
lorien1973 on March 20, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Cool! Let ‘em take out some of the ACLU’s finest with ya!
serpentineshel on March 20, 2007 at 4:26 PM
That has nothing to do with the case or the guys right to show that sign.
Nonfactor on March 20, 2007 at 4:27 PM
To Bryan and all those supporting the “Bong Hits”…
Answer me this…
1) Do you smoke pot? Or any other drug for that matter?
Constantly. Right now as a matter of fact.
2) Do you want your kid(s) to smoke pot?
Only if they have their own stash.
3) Do you want your kid to have been the inspiration for someone else’s kid to have gotten into pot or any other drug?
Can you repeat the question….
4) What is next for this kid and what kind of future do you think is in store for your kids?
As long as they don’t become soul deadening pompous assholes, I’m cool.
Mazztek on March 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM
honora on March 20, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Hmmm… yes, once upon a time I smoked Pot.
Since then I have been a decorated Veteran, who served his country with an above Top Secret Clearance.
If my kids were to occasionaly smoke pot? Rather have them do that than drink and drive. No one has ever died of an overdose of POT, but many College kids a year die of alcohol poisoning.
As to my future??? Well, it worked out pretty well…
As to the young man’s in question? It is reported that he finished College and became a teacher… so your point is?
YOU are demonizing drug use… apparently without knowing your facts.
Romeo13 on March 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM
The cheap shot would be to act as though your answer to number 1 explains your Left-wing stance.
The truth is though, any kid who wants to try pot really doesn’t need a sign to be convinced to call someone for a dime bag.
And besides, someone else said this kid was teaching in China. I can’t speak for him, but when my pothead friend left to teach English abroad, she lost her dealer and quit smoking. I’m not one to claim that pot is good for kids. In fact, all of my anecdotes point to quite the opposite, but the person who drew up those four questions is going a little overboard.
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 4:48 PM
This is true. Though the first time I tried it, I was convinced I’d be the first reported case of death by pot.
That said, just saying it’s not as evil as something that kills kids isn’t really an argument in favor of pot. The choice isn’t between alcohol and pot. It’s simply pot or nothing. Pot doesn’t have to worse or equal to alcohol for someone to be against it.
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Cheap? Perhaps. Definitely uninspired, not your usual style, Esthier.
honora on March 20, 2007 at 4:54 PM
. . . and exhale.
geckomon on March 20, 2007 at 4:54 PM
I just found myself agreeing with Nonfactor the Perpetually Clueless and laughing out loud at Honora (well, until she had to throw in that last smarmy bit … but nice try!)
Thus, the world is ending. Pigs are trying to fly out of my rectum and ice is selling for two bucks a cube in Hades.
Run for your lives. Somebody tell AP that God is coming, and He’s amused.
Mazztek, if I raise my kids to be so weak-minded that a dumb kid and a dumb joke can convince them to do drugs (assuming all of the other billions of pro-drug messages don’t get through), than I’m a crappy parent. And my kid sucks.
And for what it’s worth, in the grand scheme of things I’d rather my children never experience, smoking a little wacky tobacky does not make the top 100 list.
And Romeo - WTF is “above top secret?” In my five years doing Signal Intel for the USMC, I held a top secret clearance and dealt with a lot of SCI information (sensitive … compartmented … etc ) … but “above?” Did it come with a decoder ring?
This place is killing me today. God bless America, you potheads.
Professor Blather on March 20, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Ah, but would you not then agree, to be intellectualy honest, that if you are against Pot, then you should be against somthing that is worse? Both are intoxicants, both are downers, both are poisons, both are gateway drugs (I know very few people who have smoked pot who have not also had alchohol, with is the hard drug gateway arguement)…
If you argued its between intoxicant abstinance, and use? Good arguement… but thats not the arguement that is made.
Romeo13 on March 20, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Jeez. What planet have you been living on Bryan? Schools already ban clothing advertising alcoholic beverages and with illegal drug symbols. Speech codes are already in existence in high schools.
If it was off school grounds, of course, that may be another issue.
Anyway, on the pot issue: marijuana should be legalized.
tommy1 on March 20, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Hmmm… how to explain without breaking the Ole Personal Responsibility Agreement…
Ooooppsss… can’t….
Romeo13 on March 20, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I like honora’s style on these questions. I’ll imitate it.
1) Do you smoke pot? Or any other drug for that matter?
Yes. Anyone who has ever read my comments would recognize that instantly.
2) Do you want your kid(s) to smoke pot?
I’d prefer that my hypothetical kids don’t make the same mistakes I have regarding my unhealthy habits, but I also understand that I won’t be able to stop my kids from doing what they want. Same way my parents couldn’t stop me. As long as they can hold a job and don’t drive while intoxicated, they’ll be fine. Of course, I don’t have kids.
3) Do you want your kid to have been the inspiration for someone else’s kid to have gotten into pot or any other drug?
Not really, but I have a fairly lax conscience. By the way, what do you think pot does? There’s a huge difference between pot and harder drugs like heroin, meth, coke, etc. Pot is akin to beer - it’s intoxicating, but it’s possible to enjoy without behaving irresponsibly. The main broil about pot is the cost, and it does create a sense of inertia.
4) What is next for this kid and what kind of future do you think is in store for your kids?
I have no idea. Do you really think you can make a judgment on this kid’s future based on this one event? And nice link to the “beer binge proceeded shooting” article, fruitcake. I suppose the beer made them do it? Puh-lease.
Enrique on March 20, 2007 at 5:17 PM
It was just hanging out there. I won’t claim it as a proud moment.
I didn’t argue that I was against alcohol consumption, but that doesn’t mean I favor it.
Worse is very subjective. From my own personal experience, at least for the time being, pot has been worse than alcohol. Both are bad, but pot was worse.
Now that my husband and I are abusing alcohol more frequently (though not as frequently as we abused pot), the scales will probably tip the other way.
That’s just for me though. I make no claims that others should chose one over the other. Neither are beneficial when used beyond moderation.
People are best served by abstaining from both though.
Esthier on March 20, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Hang on! Apparently smoking dope does lead to violence! The horrible truth can be found here.
Enrique on March 20, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Which is why I have a unregistered bootleg copy of “I can’t drive 55″. Promoting illegal speeding, the bane of Sammy Hagar’s existence, and the reason for his continuing imprisonment…
Free Hagar.
Oh, wait. That’s all fictional. And really absurd. Oddly people promote illegal behavior on a semi-regular occasion. Aside from certain felonies and violent crimes, it’s usually ignored.
Oh, and RWS, I’m not sure you’re right here…
Did the school sponsor the Olymic Torch being carried? I didn’t realize they did that… They let school out so kids could go watch (from my understanding), but that doesn’t make it school sponsored.
Or, if it does, then the School letting me off for Easter means that when I sneaked a drink of Uncle Dave’s beer they could have suspended me for alcohol use at a school function? Well no, I can see that Sunday wouldn’t count, but I guess Good Friday was a school sponsored function?
Or is it the “across the street from the school”? What is the radius of a school’s influence? 100 yards? 200? Is it a straight dropoff, or does a school have limited influece depending on how far away you are?
1) Used to. Quit.
2) I HAVE KIDS? DAMMIT, WHY WASN’T I TOLD… oh, nevermind.
3) Yes, I want my fictional kids to have real-world effects. I also want a magic genie, and I want my dreams to be real.
4) Well, seeing as he’s a smart-ass teenager, and possibly used recreational drugs around college age… END OF THE WORLD obviously. Nobody who was a smartassed teenager and used recreational drugs in college ever turned out ok. HE WILL USHER IN THE END OF THE WORLD.
Oh, and if he does usher in the end of the world, that’d be an impressive guess.
gekkobear on March 20, 2007 at 6:39 PM
infidel4life on March 20, 2007 at 7:05 PM
I cannot believe that so many people get their panties in a bunch over Marijuana as if it is the devil incarnate, and that it will rot the minds of all the people of the world, and that it will usher in the age of darkness and the destruction of the universe, then they turn around and say that it is just fine to have other drugs, such as alcoholic beverages, such as beer, wine, vodka, gin, whiskey, rum, and so on, and even pharmaceuticals of many kinds.
What a bunch of crap!
They are all drugs! Marijuana is grown naturally, even in the wild. If people think it is so bad because it is a “drug” then they should not be two faced about it and think that alcohol is just fine.
Either drugs are bad, or they are not bad. Either they are acceptable, or they are not acceptable.
Outrage over marijuana but not alcohol which contributes to thousands of deaths via automobile deaths - driving under the influence, as well as cirrhosis of the liver, and other illnesses, plus violence against family members and others perpetrated by the person who ingested the alcohol, is selective outrage.
William
William2006 on March 20, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Do you really believe that the parents should beat the crap out of their children like you said?
I find it difficult to believe that a parent who is not insane would truly think that beating the crap out of their child is really a good thing. By that logic we should all beat the crap out of anyone we find doing anything that offends us or ticks us off, or that we deem rude, irresponsible, or dangerous, such as cutting us off in traffic, pushing their shopping cart into us, then in front of us at the check out counter at the supermarket, saying something rude to us in public or saying something foul in public, and so on.
Heck, if we follow the same logic regarding strangers, people other than our children who really ARE offensive, and inconsiderate and who really do engage in dangerous behavior, we’d be beating the crap out of people several times per week. Our children do much less offensive stuff than they do.
If beating the crap out of children is such a good idea, when can we start tying thieves, rapists, murderers, etc., to the whipping post and whip them with the twelve foot long bullwhip as part of their punishment?
Let’s all approve of corporal punishment for all criminals.
We can even approve of corporal punishment for spouses who cheat on their spouse.
That’s it. Let the schools begin to employ corporal punishment in order to keep the kids in line and let the law be written that all parents must beat the crap out of their child if they do wrong, otherwise the state will beat the crap out of the child and the parent will be punished for not beating the crap out of their own child.
That would work.
I agree that parents should parent their children, but violent “disciplining” of children has not brought up children as saints. Many children who were raised with corporal punishment ended up as violent offenders. Many f the “gangs” of the old west were brought up by “parents” who “beat the crap out of them” and then the child ran away and went on to join gangs of outlaws.
Corporal punishment of children does have negative effects and is often done as a result of bad parenting in other areas.
Great Britain, which has used corporal punishment for a very long time, has among the highest concentration of S and M clubs in the world.
Coincidence?
I don’t think so.
Parenting of children involves more than beating the crap out of them. Parenting and disciplining children is very important and must not be neglected, or abused. It is important to form strong bonds with children from their birth on, in order to minimize the “need” for more severe methods of “discipline.”
William
William2006 on March 20, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Phhhhet! Anyone else wanna hit?
Kini on March 20, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Bryan,
How many practicing Christians do you know that while on school property would promote drug use ?
Should children have a constitutional right to promote drug use while on school property?
.
GT on March 20, 2007 at 8:53 PM
None of you obviously didn’t read a single link from the last question in my post.
Read this one, tell me that drugs are just fine… http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2000/Mar-24-Fri-2000/news/13236333.html
1) Do you smoke pot? Or any other drug for that matter?
Yes, on occasion. I also drink on occasion. Have you ever had a beer? Alcohol is also a drug. You must be high now, because you can’t stick to the subject.
2) Do you want your kid(s) to smoke pot?
If I had kids, I would want them to think for themselves and exercise their best judgement in the matter. Hopefully drawing on values I would have instilled in them from a young age. If they were grown adults I would trust them to make their own decisions in life. oh! Could you be possibly getting the point?
3) Do you want your kid to have been the inspiration for someone else’s kid to have gotten into pot or any other drug?
By holding up a sign? What is this, Jedi stoner mind control? “These are not the joints you are looking for. Move along.” Gimme a break. The cool kids are doing it, so why don’t I? Ah, well. You missed the point.
4) What is next for this kid and what kind of future do you think is in store for your kids?
He’s probably working on his next joke sign, hopefully funnier than the last one.
The same future that is in store for us all, wherein the evils of pot will have ridiculously little impact.
You obviously didn’ read the links I provided.
infidel4life on March 20, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Mazztek on March 20, 2007 at 8:57 PM
“GT,”
I understand Bryan’s concern.
His concern is not in favor of “promoting drug use.”
His concern is for free speech issues and PC issues (PC - Political Correctness).
One clear, glaring example is the issue of homosexual and lesbian behavior and promotion of homosexuality and lesbianism, something which has been on the increase in public schools over the past few years. This has been manifest via classes and lectures in which small children, even as young as five years of age, and older, are indoctrinated into the world of homosexuality and lesbianism via book bags or packets about homosexuality in various aspects, as well as live homosexual organization lecturers, and videos and movies promoting homosexuality, all being shown without parental notification or permission, and often without the child even being warned in advance of the “program.”
When parents find out and complain they are often brushed off, because, you see, parents have no say in the school. In the school they run the show and courts have already found that parents don’t have a say in sexual education in the school, that the school has authority, a finding that came about as recently as this past year.
There are other areas where PC dogma will override parental and student free speech and preferences as Christians, or others, will be silenced regarding any statements regarding their religious beliefs, or speaking out against radical assaults on their personal beliefs.
In the ninth district court last year in the Bay Area, the courts found that it was perfectly okay for the school to teach Islam to students, in which they could have a jihad, an Islamic name, wear Islamic garb, have a prayer rug, a Q’ran, and on and on, and where the class was led in call and response “prayer” sessions by the teacher, all without notifying the parents and without the parents’ permission. This treatment is selective and privileged, for even kindergartners who bowed their head to pray silently before eating their snack at recess were suspended from school.
Students have had to sit and listen to teachers in middle and high schools grill President Bush and the US, but they are in big trouble if they speak out against their teacher’s diatribe.
There is a danger here and Bryan has the insight to see it.
I agree with Bryan in this one.
William
William2006 on March 20, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Read em… one guy was a whacko to start with, and killed out of rage, somthing Pot probably did not bring on…
Girl fell asleep at the wheel… tragedy which pot may have attributed too, but I could pull up THOUSANDS of the same type of case a year due to alochol… while you had to DIG to find a few cases.
Did you know that on average 6 kids a year die because they drown in buckets???? People get hit with lightning too… sometimes bad things happen.
Romeo13 on March 20, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Mazztek,
The subject is a sign and free speech, isn’t it? You smoking something funny?
You can test positive for THC as long as 90 days after having smoked it. That means next to nothing re: impairment, particularly for someone who smokes pot frequently. I’d be more concerned with the Ecstacy she had taken.
And of course, there’s a big difference between using a substance and driving under the influence of it.
Pablo on March 20, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Substance abuse? How can you abuse a substance?
Unless you are the substance, of abuse.
Kini on March 20, 2007 at 9:56 PM
I don’t see how this case could possibly have merit.
Mazztek, I agree with Prof. B., if a kid starts smoking pot because he thought this kid’s sign was cool, then the kid had parenting problems to begin with.
Science is against you concerning the
of marijuana, especially to cancer patients.
And Holy Crap! is this a thread where a majority of commenters agree with the ACLU and defend marijuana (mostly) at the same time?
SouthernDem on March 20, 2007 at 10:12 PM
should be benefits
SouthernDem on March 20, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Now now, let’s not be too hard on ol’ Mazztek, his judgements about marijuana are obviously severely impaired.
You’re not driving right now, are you Mazztek?
infidel4life on March 20, 2007 at 10:46 PM
That’s all fine. It still doesn’t answer my question, though. Does a child have a constitutional right to promote drug use on school property?
I understand the issue from a legal point of view and also grudgingly agree with the ACLU.
My problem is when we let the patients run the asylum and some of the doctors are sampling their own meds in the process.
.
GT on March 20, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »