JUDGE'S DISSENT ATTACKS PROHIBITION

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling allowing schools to punish a student
for unfurling a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" -- and, perhaps,
any student speech that contradicts official anti-drug dogma -- may
have an unfortunate chilling effect. But most coverage of the ruling
failed to note the important points made by Justice Stevens in his
dissent. Stevens drew a pointed and accurate connection between our
current marijuana laws and prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s:

"But just as prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly
questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of
bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions
of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of
voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of
the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by
those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs.
Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of
dampening speech suggesting -- however inarticulately -- that it
would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a
futile effort to ban its use entirely."

We should confront the mistakes of this new Prohibition, rather than
trying to silence its critics.

Bruce Mirken

Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C.