Pubdate: Fri, 29 Jun 2007
Source: DrugSense Weekly (DSW)
Section: Feature Article
Website: http://www.drugsense.org
Author: Stephen Young
Note: Stephen Young is a freelance writer and an editor with DrugSense Weekly.

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake