Free Speech violation-bong hits 4 jesus
- Thread starter mouth_my_nuts
- Start date
Did you watch tv in the class room? Seriously, were MTV and BET playing in class while you were trying to read? Did teachers allow walkmans to be played while they were lecturing? The answer to all of these are a resounding no, so again, why compare the two?
You agree with weed being legalized, so I can see why you would agree with this guy doing what he did. You don't believe in censorship? Again, so kids are allowed to say whatever they want in a school environment? If school is to produce law abiding citizens that contribute to society in a positive manner, how can limitations not be imposed? School is a private institution, and if schools have rules and regulations prohibiting substance abuse whats the problem?
No, he didn't excercise his constitutional right to free speech, and he did something that went against school policy. Now if he were an ADULT who did this, and this was at some parade or something I would have no problem. The problem is schools are not the enviroment for promoting such madness.
So because they bring them to school or have access to them it should be excused? That should be teh green light to do whatever you want?
Read:
A recent study by Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, states that the earlier children use the gateway drugs tobacco or alcohol or marijuana, the more likely they are to move on to other drugs. Youth who drank alcohol were 50 times more likely to use cocaine, and those who smoked tobacco cigarettes were 19 times as likely to use cocaine. Nearly 90% of cocaine users had smoked tobacco or drank alcohol or used marijuana first. The study, based on 30,000 American households, established a clear progression that began with use of the gateway drugs of alcohol, tobacco or marijuana and led to use of other drugs.
http://www.drugwatch.org/Alcohol & Tobacco_Gateway Drugs.htm
If tobacco is a gateway drug to illicit drugs why would you want KIDS posting something like that?
A nation of junkies....
You agree with weed being legalized, so I can see why you would agree with this guy doing what he did. You don't believe in censorship? Again, so kids are allowed to say whatever they want in a school environment? If school is to produce law abiding citizens that contribute to society in a positive manner, how can limitations not be imposed? School is a private institution, and if schools have rules and regulations prohibiting substance abuse whats the problem?
No, he didn't excercise his constitutional right to free speech, and he did something that went against school policy. Now if he were an ADULT who did this, and this was at some parade or something I would have no problem. The problem is schools are not the enviroment for promoting such madness.
So because they bring them to school or have access to them it should be excused? That should be teh green light to do whatever you want?
Read:
A recent study by Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, states that the earlier children use the gateway drugs tobacco or alcohol or marijuana, the more likely they are to move on to other drugs. Youth who drank alcohol were 50 times more likely to use cocaine, and those who smoked tobacco cigarettes were 19 times as likely to use cocaine. Nearly 90% of cocaine users had smoked tobacco or drank alcohol or used marijuana first. The study, based on 30,000 American households, established a clear progression that began with use of the gateway drugs of alcohol, tobacco or marijuana and led to use of other drugs.
http://www.drugwatch.org/Alcohol & Tobacco_Gateway Drugs.htm
If tobacco is a gateway drug to illicit drugs why would you want KIDS posting something like that?
A nation of junkies....
TV, yes. MTV or BET, no not really. But, in the cafeteria there were a few TV's and they were on MTV the whole day, every school day. And students have been taking walkmans/ipods to school and sneaking them in class for a long time, although they are still "prohibited". I only mentioned rap music and television because when students are not at school, what are they doing? Why shouldn't there be a connection with school and reality? If students smoke weed on their own time and not on campus, why shouldn't they be able to express themselves about it?
No man, no where did I say I agree with what this guy did. I don't agree with people waving around confederate flags, but those are allowed in most high schools, at least in mine they were. I don't believe in censorship because by censoring something you are negating a student from learning about it and actually think deeply about it. If the school is doing it's supposed job, its students should look at the sign and examine it and be able to make up their own minds about the message. A school has to produce law abiding citizens that contribute to society in a positive matter? Well, I guess I'm one of those people who believes that educating and teaching students to think for themselves and be able to survive is better than brainwashing little kids into being a bunch of dumbfucks who end up voting for people like George Bush. And never did I say that I have a problem with schools prohibiting substance abuse, but talking about it and bringing it up is a different matter altogether.
Writing words on cardboard goes against school policy? These are just words, he wasn't caught with any weed or anything like that. Are you in favor of schools producing a bunch of passive, ignorant, retards that are taught only to follow rules and never think for themselves? If that's the case, than there is no need to continue this argument.
What are you talking about? Never have I mentioned that it should be allowed at school or that they should be excused if they get caught! All I'm saying is that the reality is that many high school students do smoke pot, and most encounter people consuming it often.
Yes, but do you think censoring all these things from the school will help? By censoring things like this, many students don't really know what the fuck they get into when they mess around with drugs. It should not be promoted at school, but complete censorship is unneccessary and diminishing to the educations of all the students...
No man, no where did I say I agree with what this guy did. I don't agree with people waving around confederate flags, but those are allowed in most high schools, at least in mine they were. I don't believe in censorship because by censoring something you are negating a student from learning about it and actually think deeply about it. If the school is doing it's supposed job, its students should look at the sign and examine it and be able to make up their own minds about the message. A school has to produce law abiding citizens that contribute to society in a positive matter? Well, I guess I'm one of those people who believes that educating and teaching students to think for themselves and be able to survive is better than brainwashing little kids into being a bunch of dumbfucks who end up voting for people like George Bush. And never did I say that I have a problem with schools prohibiting substance abuse, but talking about it and bringing it up is a different matter altogether.
Writing words on cardboard goes against school policy? These are just words, he wasn't caught with any weed or anything like that. Are you in favor of schools producing a bunch of passive, ignorant, retards that are taught only to follow rules and never think for themselves? If that's the case, than there is no need to continue this argument.
What are you talking about? Never have I mentioned that it should be allowed at school or that they should be excused if they get caught! All I'm saying is that the reality is that many high school students do smoke pot, and most encounter people consuming it often.
Yes, but do you think censoring all these things from the school will help? By censoring things like this, many students don't really know what the fuck they get into when they mess around with drugs. It should not be promoted at school, but complete censorship is unneccessary and diminishing to the educations of all the students...
That school needs to be reported, and that school is NOT the norm as many schools barely even have a budget to afford books let alone a tv.
Yeah and I had a gun on campus even though it was prohibited. Does that make it right? Again, the school is a learning envrionment, and playing walkmans, psp's, ipods and all that stuff while class is going on is defeating the purpose.
Some are in teh library, some are working, some are doing community work. Some are drinking, some are smoking, some are creating babies. I can't give an account for every teen ager in america.
Because that isn't the reality for everyone and those things are ILLEGAL for students to have. Those things DETRACT from the "learning environment."
See above.
You do agree with what he did. You agree that what he did was appropriate and that his freedom of speech was violated. Go back and read some of your comments.
I don't agree with what some people use that flag for, but at the same time all it is is a rag. I couldn't care less about someone waiving a confederate flag.
They have classes that talk about drug use, sex education etc. You can learn by picking up a book or enrolling in a class. You are comparing ADVOCACY to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Do you understand there is a difference? And the school did its job. The school made sure they implemented rules in accordance with state law, and they tried to provide a drug free zone that reinforced the learning curriculum.
If we utilize your method we will have a nation of junkies. They won't care about Bush, voting, or any other thing you listed because they will simply want to get high as a kite. And while I am all for thinking for yourself, there still needs to be BALANCE and REGULATION.
Talking about it and PROMOTING it is two different things. I'm talking about. You're promoting it.
Yes and the supreme court agreed. Did you not read the part of the article that said, "...but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event."?
I am looking at the CONTEXT of his actions. If he was trying to make an educational statement or create a valid discussion about drugs (by utilizing his sign) I would be all for it. No, I am not for schools producing a bunch of passive, ignorant retards, but your mode of thinking would create all of the above.
This isn't an argument, and so far you have yet to provide a logical explanation for anything you are suggesting.
Now how is the fact they do it or encounter it connected to what HE did? Also, I didn't imply or said you said that. I am asking rhetorical questions at that point, and they are based on your statements.
There is a DIFFERENCE between ADVOCACY/PROMOTION and doing something to raise a GENERAL CONCERN. Do you believe his intentions were to draw attention to teen age drug abuse and why kids shouldn't do drugs?
Yeah and I had a gun on campus even though it was prohibited. Does that make it right? Again, the school is a learning envrionment, and playing walkmans, psp's, ipods and all that stuff while class is going on is defeating the purpose.
Some are in teh library, some are working, some are doing community work. Some are drinking, some are smoking, some are creating babies. I can't give an account for every teen ager in america.
Because that isn't the reality for everyone and those things are ILLEGAL for students to have. Those things DETRACT from the "learning environment."
See above.
You do agree with what he did. You agree that what he did was appropriate and that his freedom of speech was violated. Go back and read some of your comments.
I don't agree with what some people use that flag for, but at the same time all it is is a rag. I couldn't care less about someone waiving a confederate flag.
They have classes that talk about drug use, sex education etc. You can learn by picking up a book or enrolling in a class. You are comparing ADVOCACY to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Do you understand there is a difference? And the school did its job. The school made sure they implemented rules in accordance with state law, and they tried to provide a drug free zone that reinforced the learning curriculum.
If we utilize your method we will have a nation of junkies. They won't care about Bush, voting, or any other thing you listed because they will simply want to get high as a kite. And while I am all for thinking for yourself, there still needs to be BALANCE and REGULATION.
Talking about it and PROMOTING it is two different things. I'm talking about. You're promoting it.
Yes and the supreme court agreed. Did you not read the part of the article that said, "...but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event."?
I am looking at the CONTEXT of his actions. If he was trying to make an educational statement or create a valid discussion about drugs (by utilizing his sign) I would be all for it. No, I am not for schools producing a bunch of passive, ignorant retards, but your mode of thinking would create all of the above.
This isn't an argument, and so far you have yet to provide a logical explanation for anything you are suggesting.
Now how is the fact they do it or encounter it connected to what HE did? Also, I didn't imply or said you said that. I am asking rhetorical questions at that point, and they are based on your statements.
There is a DIFFERENCE between ADVOCACY/PROMOTION and doing something to raise a GENERAL CONCERN. Do you believe his intentions were to draw attention to teen age drug abuse and why kids shouldn't do drugs?
i dont like this decision, look at the voting it was close and i cant help but think this was a jesus thing, yet again. dude said bonghits 4 jesus. look at the definiition of bong......so this whole "endorsing drug use" is some hillbilly bible thumping bullshit. even a crackpipe isnt considered drug paraph unless it has residue in it. this is all about jesus. how much you wann bet a sign that said OXY 4 GANESH would have raised zero problems?
but the right hates two things. non-christians and people who use drugs that they dotn specifically allow through the fucked up phram industry....p.s. post #7 by 2-0 made me spit out the water i was drinking
but the right hates two things. non-christians and people who use drugs that they dotn specifically allow through the fucked up phram industry....p.s. post #7 by 2-0 made me spit out the water i was drinking
I disagree.
Has nothing to do with the bible and everything to do with preserving the school system.
Not true.
Would that have violated the schools drug policy?
If you had choked on the water that would have brought tears to my eyes, but it doesn't matter. What matters is the supreme court ruled in favor of teh school, and this guy has nothing else to go on.
Has nothing to do with the bible and everything to do with preserving the school system.
Not true.
Would that have violated the schools drug policy?
If you had choked on the water that would have brought tears to my eyes, but it doesn't matter. What matters is the supreme court ruled in favor of teh school, and this guy has nothing else to go on.
U. S. Code Title 21 Section 863
§ 863. Drug paraphernalia
How Current is This?
(a) In general
It is unlawful for any person—
(1) to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia;
(2) to use the mails or any other facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia; or
(3) to import or export drug paraphernalia.
(b) Penalties
Anyone convicted of an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be imprisoned for not more than three years and fined under title 18.
(c) Seizure and forfeiture
Any drug paraphernalia involved in any violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture upon the conviction of a person for such violation. Any such paraphernalia shall be delivered to the Administrator of General Services, General Services Administration, who may order such paraphernalia destroyed or may authorize its use for law enforcement or educational purposes by Federal, State, or local authorities.
(d) “Drug paraphernalia” defined
The term “drug paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana,[1] cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as—
(1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls;
(2) water pipes;
(3) carburetion tubes and devices;
(4) smoking and carburetion masks;
(5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand;
(6) miniature spoons with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less;
(7) chamber pipes;
(8) carburetor pipes;
(9) electric pipes;
(10) air-driven pipes;
(11) chillums;
(12) bongs;
(13) ice pipes or chillers;
(14) wired cigarette papers; or
(15) cocaine freebase kits.
(e) Matters considered in determination of what constitutes drug paraphernalia
In determining whether an item constitutes drug paraphernalia, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following may be considered:
(1) instructions, oral or written, provided with the item concerning its use;
(2) descriptive materials accompanying the item which explain or depict its use;
(3) national and local advertising concerning its use;
(4) the manner in which the item is displayed for sale;
(5) whether the owner, or anyone in control of the item, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products;
(6) direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the item(s) to the total sales of the business enterprise;
(7) the existence and scope of legitimate uses of the item in the community; and
(8) expert testimony concerning its use. (<--will get you everytime.)
(f) Exemptions
This section shall not apply to—
(1) any person authorized by local, State, or Federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such items; or
(2) any item that, in the normal lawful course of business, is imported, exported, transported, or sold through the mail or by any other means, and traditionally intended for use with tobacco products, including any pipe, paper, or accessory.
Bold and underline added.
§ 863. Drug paraphernalia
How Current is This?
(a) In general
It is unlawful for any person—
(1) to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia;
(2) to use the mails or any other facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia; or
(3) to import or export drug paraphernalia.
(b) Penalties
Anyone convicted of an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be imprisoned for not more than three years and fined under title 18.
(c) Seizure and forfeiture
Any drug paraphernalia involved in any violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture upon the conviction of a person for such violation. Any such paraphernalia shall be delivered to the Administrator of General Services, General Services Administration, who may order such paraphernalia destroyed or may authorize its use for law enforcement or educational purposes by Federal, State, or local authorities.
(d) “Drug paraphernalia” defined
The term “drug paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana,[1] cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as—
(1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls;
(2) water pipes;
(3) carburetion tubes and devices;
(4) smoking and carburetion masks;
(5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand;
(6) miniature spoons with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less;
(7) chamber pipes;
(8) carburetor pipes;
(9) electric pipes;
(10) air-driven pipes;
(11) chillums;
(12) bongs;
(13) ice pipes or chillers;
(14) wired cigarette papers; or
(15) cocaine freebase kits.
(e) Matters considered in determination of what constitutes drug paraphernalia
In determining whether an item constitutes drug paraphernalia, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following may be considered:
(1) instructions, oral or written, provided with the item concerning its use;
(2) descriptive materials accompanying the item which explain or depict its use;
(3) national and local advertising concerning its use;
(4) the manner in which the item is displayed for sale;
(5) whether the owner, or anyone in control of the item, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products;
(6) direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the item(s) to the total sales of the business enterprise;
(7) the existence and scope of legitimate uses of the item in the community; and
(8) expert testimony concerning its use. (<--will get you everytime.)
(f) Exemptions
This section shall not apply to—
(1) any person authorized by local, State, or Federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such items; or
(2) any item that, in the normal lawful course of business, is imported, exported, transported, or sold through the mail or by any other means, and traditionally intended for use with tobacco products, including any pipe, paper, or accessory.
Bold and underline added.
sweet.
nice opinion. i suppose the judges that werent in favor want to destroy the school system. thumbs down.
here im sure you read this.
Under the Federal Drug Paraphernalia Statute, which is part of the Controlled Substances Act, it is illegal to possess, sell, transport, import, or export drug paraphernalia as defined.
do you want me to go buy you a crackpipe tomorrow? they will even charge me sales tax. so bravo for your little law search. but it only serves my point. because i can buy a crackpipe legally, by your own expert findings, it would not fit under the definition of drug paraphrenalia. heres a diagram so i dont have to hear your inevitable refute.
IF drug paraph --> THEN illegal
THUS
IF not illegal --> THEN not drug paraph
if you dont understand this, go ask parkboyz, he seems to have sharpened his skills lately.
according to the diseenting votes no. the vote was 5-4. the drug policy talks about promoting illegal drug use which is why this is a joke. the principal saw "bong" and thought "weed". even if we assume bong equals weed in the bible belt, how is suggesting weed for a deceased schizo at all likely to insight "drug use by school children" (roberts). how does "bong hits 4 jesus" promote drug use?
obviously we have different opinions, just like, gasp, the supreme court. have a look at what they say, its probably close to what we are arguing:
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas says he is all for this, but he comes at the issue from left field or, more accurately, from somewhere in the 18th century. Thomas plays the crotchety schoolmarm, proclaiming that students should not have any free-speech rights in school. In the good old days, he writes, "teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order." Spare the rod, he concludes, and spoil that little dickens Joseph Frederick.
Meanwhile, in another concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, sides with Roberts, but they fret about anyone construing his opinion too broadly. It's all right, they say, for schools to crack down on speech about drugs, because drugs can be a real threat to student safety. But in their view, that's about as extreme a restriction as the First Amendment allows. Roberts' opinion "provides no support," they say, "for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue."
But the problem, says Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent, is that the Roberts opinion not only provides support for such a restriction, it invents "out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs." Stevens is fine with a rule that prohibits students from promoting illegal drugs. But no matter what the principal argued in this case, the bong-hits banner conveyed "nonsense," speech "that was never meant to persuade anyone to do anything." -TIME.COM
EDIT: foot in mouth
nice opinion. i suppose the judges that werent in favor want to destroy the school system. thumbs down.
here im sure you read this.
Under the Federal Drug Paraphernalia Statute, which is part of the Controlled Substances Act, it is illegal to possess, sell, transport, import, or export drug paraphernalia as defined.
do you want me to go buy you a crackpipe tomorrow? they will even charge me sales tax. so bravo for your little law search. but it only serves my point. because i can buy a crackpipe legally, by your own expert findings, it would not fit under the definition of drug paraphrenalia. heres a diagram so i dont have to hear your inevitable refute.
IF drug paraph --> THEN illegal
THUS
IF not illegal --> THEN not drug paraph
if you dont understand this, go ask parkboyz, he seems to have sharpened his skills lately.
according to the diseenting votes no. the vote was 5-4. the drug policy talks about promoting illegal drug use which is why this is a joke. the principal saw "bong" and thought "weed". even if we assume bong equals weed in the bible belt, how is suggesting weed for a deceased schizo at all likely to insight "drug use by school children" (roberts). how does "bong hits 4 jesus" promote drug use?
obviously we have different opinions, just like, gasp, the supreme court. have a look at what they say, its probably close to what we are arguing:
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas says he is all for this, but he comes at the issue from left field or, more accurately, from somewhere in the 18th century. Thomas plays the crotchety schoolmarm, proclaiming that students should not have any free-speech rights in school. In the good old days, he writes, "teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order." Spare the rod, he concludes, and spoil that little dickens Joseph Frederick.
Meanwhile, in another concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, sides with Roberts, but they fret about anyone construing his opinion too broadly. It's all right, they say, for schools to crack down on speech about drugs, because drugs can be a real threat to student safety. But in their view, that's about as extreme a restriction as the First Amendment allows. Roberts' opinion "provides no support," they say, "for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue."
But the problem, says Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent, is that the Roberts opinion not only provides support for such a restriction, it invents "out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs." Stevens is fine with a rule that prohibits students from promoting illegal drugs. But no matter what the principal argued in this case, the bong-hits banner conveyed "nonsense," speech "that was never meant to persuade anyone to do anything." -TIME.COM
EDIT: foot in mouth
First here is a link from the junkies themselves:
http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=985&aid=24
Second of all you can buy your granny a crack pipe.
Third of all, and unused pipe WOULD fit under the definition or paraphrenalia especialy when e(8) happens. When they talk about "expert testimony" they are usually referring to the officer who made the arrest or an officer who was present at the scene. If the officer gets on the stand and testifies that he has 10 years under his belt, and has done a gazillion narc busts, they will consider his testimony to be that of an expert. If he at that point says it is a crack pipe the trier of fact IS going to take his word over the person, and it doesn't matter if any substance is present in the pipe or not.
Finally, why include park in this?
If you go to one of my earlier posts I said it doesn't matter if it IS weed. If it is tobacco it is basically the same thing because it is ILLEGAL on the school campus, and it is ILLEGAL for people under 18. If he IS suggesting weed for a deceased schizo, he is VIOLATING the school rules because they don't advocate the promotion of drugs at school sanctioned events. So it doesn't matter if he was advocating it for you, your mom, me, my dead cat or the blind guy next door. HE IS STILL ADVOCATING THE USE OF DRUGS.
And they did a great thing by voting in favor of the school. God bless them.
As for the report from time.com, I prefer to read the entire opinion of the court. If you ever want to see the judges go at it, or if you want to see them insult society, officers, criminals, etc read these things from start to finish.
http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=985&aid=24
Second of all you can buy your granny a crack pipe.
Third of all, and unused pipe WOULD fit under the definition or paraphrenalia especialy when e(8) happens. When they talk about "expert testimony" they are usually referring to the officer who made the arrest or an officer who was present at the scene. If the officer gets on the stand and testifies that he has 10 years under his belt, and has done a gazillion narc busts, they will consider his testimony to be that of an expert. If he at that point says it is a crack pipe the trier of fact IS going to take his word over the person, and it doesn't matter if any substance is present in the pipe or not.
Finally, why include park in this?
If you go to one of my earlier posts I said it doesn't matter if it IS weed. If it is tobacco it is basically the same thing because it is ILLEGAL on the school campus, and it is ILLEGAL for people under 18. If he IS suggesting weed for a deceased schizo, he is VIOLATING the school rules because they don't advocate the promotion of drugs at school sanctioned events. So it doesn't matter if he was advocating it for you, your mom, me, my dead cat or the blind guy next door. HE IS STILL ADVOCATING THE USE OF DRUGS.
And they did a great thing by voting in favor of the school. God bless them.
As for the report from time.com, I prefer to read the entire opinion of the court. If you ever want to see the judges go at it, or if you want to see them insult society, officers, criminals, etc read these things from start to finish.
because if you did you wouldnt have wasted your time with any of the above. but alas; inevitable.
how is he advocating the use of drugs? a dead jesus cannot "use" drugs in any sense. that is the point we disagree on.
the phrase in nonsense to me.
to you it promotes drug use.
for the sake of argument, would a banner that simply said "marijuana" fit your description of promoting drug use? i think the concutring judges would lean towards saying yes, while i would say no, it is a word on a banner.
god has already blessed them, thats why they vote in his favor.
thanks for the advice, sincerely.
how is he advocating the use of drugs? a dead jesus cannot "use" drugs in any sense. that is the point we disagree on.
the phrase in nonsense to me.
to you it promotes drug use.
for the sake of argument, would a banner that simply said "marijuana" fit your description of promoting drug use? i think the concutring judges would lean towards saying yes, while i would say no, it is a word on a banner.
god has already blessed them, thats why they vote in his favor.
thanks for the advice, sincerely.
I have no idea what you mean by this, but lets move on.
It doesn't matter who he is suggesting should use it. The fact that he is suggesting use is where the problem lies.
Drug use is nonsense (btw, I support medical marijuana.)
That would depend. Right now I am saying no because "marijuana" doesn't imply any ACTION, but that opinion can change within the next 12 minutes.
Yep.
np.
It doesn't matter who he is suggesting should use it. The fact that he is suggesting use is where the problem lies.
Drug use is nonsense (btw, I support medical marijuana.)
That would depend. Right now I am saying no because "marijuana" doesn't imply any ACTION, but that opinion can change within the next 12 minutes.
Yep.
np.
Alright I read most of the first two pages, but nobody has brought up the real reason why this is such a big deal. You could never wear any kind of clothing to school that had any drug related shit on it, if you did they'd make you change it or in come cases suspension. This guy wrote it in big writing on cardboard and it was seen on tv by a film crew filming the olympic torch to salt lake city. What's the olympics really represent? Even though I disagree because medical marijuana is legal in alot of states now and if we can decide that weed is a medicine then everybody would be happier and our goverment would make more money. Even though they could of been making money off of medical weed for along time, but instead they pissed away over 500 billion dollars in the "war on weed". Thats a different topic though, if dude would of been some kind of advocate for medical marijuana or at least had a prescription, the ruling would be different. The fact that it was a high school and they were mostly minors is why the court ruled the way it did, im not suprised but like I said before our Freedom of Speech right can be censored by our scandalous society in certain situations, but that can't stop us from taking it somewhere else and use a different medium to express it. Bad decision on dudes part, wrong place & time to pull that shit.
yup.. legal in alaska where this kids from.. but i'm pretty sure the feds are already makin' a killin' by lockin' up potheads.. until it gets legal in more than 25 states.. i don't see it becomin' legal... but the rest of your shit is on point.. he's a minor.. it was school related.. you lose.
and cmoke what's a soda bong? chug hella soda? the rest of the 100 things you named sound illegal.
and cmoke what's a soda bong? chug hella soda? the rest of the 100 things you named sound illegal.
Anyone who doesn't support the choice of controlled, educated illicit drug use already has it backwards. Speaking about non-physically addictive and non-lethal substances that is (i.e. meth and heroin and such aren't included).
If you think psychedelic alteration within a very low percentage of members of society is hurting the world in any way, you should rethink the entire concept of human life because you fail.
If you think psychedelic alteration within a very low percentage of members of society is hurting the world in any way, you should rethink the entire concept of human life because you fail.
Ok, we don't live in India here. I would say that most schools do have televisions these days in this country...
Of course it defeats the purpose, and I'm not arguing against that. Im saying that many students DO take those types of electronics to school and listen to them on campus, either in class or on lunch or break.
Of course you can't give an account for everyone, but like you mentioned, some are drinking and smoking. For those that are, why shouldn't they be allowed to mention what goes on in their own PERSONAL life? It is my opinion that a student will learn more easily when they can relate their own personal life to the criteria at school, do you disagree?
I know it's not reality for everyone, NOTHING is reality for EVERYONE! And I don't see how a sign like that detracts from the learning environment, when it should do things like spark debates and things like that.
No sir, I agree that it should be allowed just like any other words and ideas. I don't believe in any sort of censorship because I feel it takes away from a student's learning experience.
If the confederate flag is just a rag, than the sign is just cardboard with some words on it...
I don't see "Bong hits for Jesus" as advocacy though, just a controversial statement that gets people like yourself to wet their panties because it has to do with drugs and religion. I understand the job the school is trying to do, raise a bunch of sheep who never think for themselves and follow rules their whole entire life. I have a huge problem with this, you obviously don't.
We will have a nation of junkies? If wasn't even aware that smoking pot makes one a junkie? They won't care about Bush? Does it seem like people care now Heresy? I understand there needs to be balance and some regulation, but censoring words and ideas from schools is simply retarded. You can't expect a student to sacrifice his own personal life and experiences in the classroom just because a bunch of guppies can't see the reality that exists with young people and drugs/alcohol. By making those things taboo to talk about at school, do you think it stops more people from doing them, or encourages more people by doing them?
I'm not promoting anything but free speech and non-censorship.
Yes I read that, I still don't agree with the actions of the school and the court's decision though...
How does censoring things help students in any way? Do you not understand the mentality of a young person, or have you forgotten? Why did you take a gun to school, like you mentioned earlier? A gun at school is obviously illegal, but why did you do it? My mode of thinking is to not censor anything at all, and for schools to realize that students are young adults and the child-like treatment they recieve will produce child-like adults who are good for nothing...
Are you serious? I'm not gonna sit here and let you nitpick every thing that I say because you don't want to see the logic I use, but I'll try and make it as simple as I could:
What do young kids do? Rebel
What does censoring things and making big controversies like this do? Those trying to rebel get a great opportunity because of such a huge overreaction to things like this
Without censorship, the "taboo" behind things like marijuana go away. They are still illegal (sadly), but people are always going to be smoking weed, whether people like it or not. So the censorship only adds fuel to the fire, if you catch my drift...
If you want to ask rhetorical questions, than please don't write it after one of my quotes because I will assume they are not rhetorical and aimed at me.
I don't believe that he was trying to draw attention to teen age drug abuse and why kids shouldn't do drugs, not at all. I still don't think he should even have to give an explanation, it happened off campus, although it was school-sanctioned. Do people have to explain everything that they write, is that a part of the constitution I may have missed? And I don't believe students should have to sacrifice ANY of their constitutional rights at school...
Of course it defeats the purpose, and I'm not arguing against that. Im saying that many students DO take those types of electronics to school and listen to them on campus, either in class or on lunch or break.
Of course you can't give an account for everyone, but like you mentioned, some are drinking and smoking. For those that are, why shouldn't they be allowed to mention what goes on in their own PERSONAL life? It is my opinion that a student will learn more easily when they can relate their own personal life to the criteria at school, do you disagree?
I know it's not reality for everyone, NOTHING is reality for EVERYONE! And I don't see how a sign like that detracts from the learning environment, when it should do things like spark debates and things like that.
No sir, I agree that it should be allowed just like any other words and ideas. I don't believe in any sort of censorship because I feel it takes away from a student's learning experience.
If the confederate flag is just a rag, than the sign is just cardboard with some words on it...
I don't see "Bong hits for Jesus" as advocacy though, just a controversial statement that gets people like yourself to wet their panties because it has to do with drugs and religion. I understand the job the school is trying to do, raise a bunch of sheep who never think for themselves and follow rules their whole entire life. I have a huge problem with this, you obviously don't.
We will have a nation of junkies? If wasn't even aware that smoking pot makes one a junkie? They won't care about Bush? Does it seem like people care now Heresy? I understand there needs to be balance and some regulation, but censoring words and ideas from schools is simply retarded. You can't expect a student to sacrifice his own personal life and experiences in the classroom just because a bunch of guppies can't see the reality that exists with young people and drugs/alcohol. By making those things taboo to talk about at school, do you think it stops more people from doing them, or encourages more people by doing them?
I'm not promoting anything but free speech and non-censorship.
Yes I read that, I still don't agree with the actions of the school and the court's decision though...
How does censoring things help students in any way? Do you not understand the mentality of a young person, or have you forgotten? Why did you take a gun to school, like you mentioned earlier? A gun at school is obviously illegal, but why did you do it? My mode of thinking is to not censor anything at all, and for schools to realize that students are young adults and the child-like treatment they recieve will produce child-like adults who are good for nothing...
Are you serious? I'm not gonna sit here and let you nitpick every thing that I say because you don't want to see the logic I use, but I'll try and make it as simple as I could:
What do young kids do? Rebel
What does censoring things and making big controversies like this do? Those trying to rebel get a great opportunity because of such a huge overreaction to things like this
Without censorship, the "taboo" behind things like marijuana go away. They are still illegal (sadly), but people are always going to be smoking weed, whether people like it or not. So the censorship only adds fuel to the fire, if you catch my drift...
If you want to ask rhetorical questions, than please don't write it after one of my quotes because I will assume they are not rhetorical and aimed at me.
I don't believe that he was trying to draw attention to teen age drug abuse and why kids shouldn't do drugs, not at all. I still don't think he should even have to give an explanation, it happened off campus, although it was school-sanctioned. Do people have to explain everything that they write, is that a part of the constitution I may have missed? And I don't believe students should have to sacrifice ANY of their constitutional rights at school...
i dont think he is suggesting its use. again, a dead man cannot use drugs. its like saying bong hits for a pile of bones. its nonsensical. bong hits 4 my paper weight. etc. but to you jesus has a different meaning, and considering the the faith of this country, maybe it implies use because people still think jesus is floating around. but then we go to separation of church and state. "shall make no law...."
glad to hear it.
yeah i think this is another point of contention. if a kid wears a shirt with a leaf on it, they will get kicked out. and this is where it gets into the gray area. now we are basically saying that any reference to drugs implies promotion of drugs, and i think this is a slippery slope to nazi censorship.
glad to hear it.
yeah i think this is another point of contention. if a kid wears a shirt with a leaf on it, they will get kicked out. and this is where it gets into the gray area. now we are basically saying that any reference to drugs implies promotion of drugs, and i think this is a slippery slope to nazi censorship.