BONG-OBSESSED COURT JUST SAYS NO TO JESUS

Understanding that some people will use almost anything as an excuse
to celebrate, does the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" really tempt the
abstinent to indulge? Can those three little words (and a
single-digit numeral) threaten all the billions spent on anti-drug
advertising by the federal government over the past decade?

According to a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision on
Morse v. Frederick, the answer to both of those questions is yes.

The court's majority acknowledged that the phrase could be
interpreted as nonsense (a claim made by the banner's creator Joseph
Frederick), but the majority also said that the words could
reasonably interpreted as encouraging illegal drug use. Therefore,
the high school principal did not violate anyone's free speech rights
when she took the banner down and punished Frederick. According to
the court, the principal was doing her best to protect other students
from a pro-drug message that cannot be interpreted as political.

Compared to all the seductive imagery used to sell legal drugs (
beer-inspired fun on the beach and Viagra-inspired intimacy at home )
through a variety of realistic media, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"
hand-painted on a scruffy banner lacks something in the persuasive
punch department.

Regardless of Frederick's motivation, the majority's tortured effort
to justify their decision shows, quite to the contrary of their
stated arguments, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is truly political speech. From
the perspective of prohibition's true believers, even ambiguous
messages are seen as threatening enough to sanction censorship. The
fact that the majority made an affected effort to treat the banner
seriously shows that they unthinkingly accept the rigid political
ideology of the drug war, and that they apply that rigid ideology to
their decisions.

The banner simply cannot be perceived as a challenge to any
individual's sobriety, but it did challenge an article of faith among
prohibitionists: illegal drugs must not be associated with anything
positive. To make such an association doesn't just undermine the war
on drugs, somehow it actually encourages use ( at least in the
convoluted logic of the drug war ). The opinion didn't have much to
say about Jesus himself; the poor guy is all but ignored, his
invocation not enough to give the banner religious weight.

He is, however, quietly present in the equation used by the majority
to come to its conclusion. Though not explicitly stated, it appears
to be given in the court's algebra that Jesus equals good, just as
bong hit equals bad. Adding the two values together presents a
difficult problem that can't be solved, only censored.

Fortunately, there was a dissenting minority opinion contained in the
decision as well, and it clearly points out the faulty logic of the
majority. The dissent not only challenges the narrow interpretation
of the phrase, it places the banner within the boundaries of the
political battle over the war on drugs, and even likens that
political battle to the political battle over alcohol prohibition.
Drug policy activists who wonder if anyone on the Supreme Court
really "gets it," might want to take the time to read the dissent, as
it appears our message is being heard at least by some in high
places. The dissent is also grim, as it offers a stark assessment of
the future of "drug speech" in schools.

"Although this case began with a silly, nonsensical banner, it ends
with the Court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment
rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions
drugs, at least so long as someone could perceive that speech to
contain a latent pro-drug message," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens
in the dissent.

Stevens seems to be right, which raises troubling questions not only
about Free Speech, but about open education. Can this recent Supreme
Court decision be discussed honestly in a high school classroom
without fear of reprisal by administrators? After all, if the phrase
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is a threat when printed on a banner, is it any
less of a threat when it's said aloud? What about challenging the
interpretation of the banner as a pro-drug message? Does merely
voicing the argument equal treason in the drug war, and therefore
make a student subject to punishment?

And what of further discussion of the slogan's actual meaning?

I'm not familiar with any evidence suggesting Jesus came close to a
bong hit in his lifetime, though some biblical scholars suggest the
anointing oil used by Jesus and his followers contained cannabis.
It's a subject fit for debate, but if you're a student on school
grounds, it's probably in your best interest to keep your mouth shut
on the issue. You heard it straight from the Supreme Court - despite
our long history of religious tolerance, even Jesus backed by the
First Amendment won't save you from punishment if you mention drugs
without proper denunciations.