• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case at the Supreme Court (Updated 6/29/07)

No one took any bong hits for Jesus.
while there is absolutely no concrete evidence to back the following statement up, hashish oil was commonly used throughout the jordan reigon, and for that matter, the entire middle east, as a religious sacrament and annointing oil. No one took bong hits, but varying religious types (allegedly including the pharisees and sadducees of that time) often used hashish oil in annointment rituals. It would not be surprising if folks such as John the Baptist and Jesus did the same. Again I state there is absolutely no concrete evidence to state that the previous two mentioned religious patriarchs did such a thing.

Also I have no idea if putting hashish oil on your skin makes you high... im assuming no, but it was often also burned in large braziers accompanying religious ceremonies. Other middle eastern cultures often engaged in such rituals, and had been doing so for hundreds of years.

If this offends anyone, im sorry that our nation's propaghanda has polluted your mind to a point that you believe being under the influence of cannabis for meditative purposes is a bad thing.
 
I think Buddy Jesus would approve. Hey, its a plant yo. Relax people!
 
syymphonatic said:
The judges all seemed to have reasonable heads on their shoulders in regards to this case... I have a feeling it will turn out fairly well, without widespread speech rights implications. However, there was one part of the article that really made my skin crawl...



okay, we all know that drugs and guns aren't allowed in schools. but homosexuality and abortion? stop messages... therefore, information about homosexuality and (to a lesser extent) abortion... isn't that just harboring misinformation and prejudice? and shouldn't the national school board be commited toreally EDUCATING kids and helping them grow, as opposed to molding them into their preferred idealistic puppet?


i wish well for this kid though. bong hits 4 Joseph Frederick!!!

I agree with you ten fold
 
THE WOOD said:
while there is absolutely no concrete evidence to back the following statement up, hashish oil was commonly used throughout the jordan reigon, and for that matter, the entire middle east, as a religious sacrament and annointing oil. No one took bong hits, but varying religious types (allegedly including the pharisees and sadducees of that time) often used hashish oil in annointment rituals. It would not be surprising if folks such as John the Baptist and Jesus did the same. Again I state there is absolutely no concrete evidence to state that the previous two mentioned religious patriarchs did such a thing.

Also I have no idea if putting hashish oil on your skin makes you high... im assuming no, but it was often also burned in large braziers accompanying religious ceremonies. Other middle eastern cultures often engaged in such rituals, and had been doing so for hundreds of years.

If this offends anyone, im sorry that our nation's propaghanda has polluted your mind to a point that you believe being under the influence of cannabis for meditative purposes is a bad thing.


I was only saying that no actual bong hits were proven to have been taken by the students. You are very right about the historical use of hash though....
 
While I do agree that the schools have way too much disciplinary power, as the laws are now, what happened was to be expected. It was a school-sanctioned event for the students, so they were still under the school's jurisdiction.

Also, he specifically chose that statement because of it's ability to incite a reaction. He said he saw it on a snowboard (or skateboard, don't remember exactly right now), and thought it would be a good test of his free speech rights. He WANTED a reaction like the one he got.
 
it's a religious statement. it has no place in school. i don't give a fuck if it is witty, humorous, or pro drug use.
 
^ But he wasn't in school. He was at a parade. So your point is not valid.
 
r0asted, maybe he was singing the praises of Jesus, his Mexican gardener. If I were his lawyer I'd tell him to hire a Mexican gardener named Jesus on the double, and claim to the courts the two of them knew each other before the sign was shown.
 
i think its safe to say ''only in america''

stop messages related to subjects such as drugs, guns, homosexuality and abortion

HA! thats so fucking retarded its not even funny, since when did homosexuality become illegal and/or banned in highschools? man what a fucking retarded fuck, i mean yeah some of the gays ive met are absolute tossers, literally, and i stay the fuck away from them(but some i dont mind at all), but they can do that if they want and they can wear a badge on there back pack saying ''im gay'' if they want. same for abortion, when did it become something were not allowed to talk about? its something that effects many students(so does homosexuality).

Man some people a fucking morons.
 
r0asted said:
it's a religious statement. it has no place in school. i don't give a fuck if it is witty, humorous, or pro drug use.
Maybe not IN school... but as a student to a public, state funded institution, there are very real reaching laws and ordinances concerning the ways students act.

I am not saying that I at all agree with the actions of the a.) Principal b.) Court System; or c.) that douche bag Kenneth Star, however there is reason to assume, as stated earlier, that the sign on both parts of pro-drug use and religion was inappropriate due to the conditions of the event. By attending a public institution you willingly agree to abide by the statues set forth by our laws... its that simple... and stupid... but hey, ITS AMERICA! :)
 
By attending an institution you willingly agree to abide by the statues set forth by our laws?@@?!! what???....

So by going to school I am agreeing to abide by law?

Since when do school principles write/enforce law?

For the last time, the kid wasn't in school, just because he goes to a school sometimes does not mean he has to abide by the schools rules when outside of school. At least not in PUBLIC education, (or lack thereof)
 
Once again the religious right can't have anybody knocking Jesus. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? If he loses, I'm burning a flag!!
 
US student loses ruling over 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'
Tuesday June 26, 2007
By James Vicini, New Zealand Herald

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court on Monday curtailed free-speech rights for students, ruling against a teenager who unfurled a banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" because the message could be interpreted as promoting drug use.

In its first major decision on student free-speech rights in nearly 20 years, the high court's conservative majority ruled that a high school principal did not violate the student's rights by confiscating the banner and suspending him.

The decision marked a continuing shift to the right by the court since President George W. Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. The court has issued a series of narrow 5-4 decisions on divisive social issues like abortion and the death penalty.

In another decision on Monday by the same 5-4 vote, the court ruled taxpayers cannot challenge Bush's use of government funds to finance social programs operated by religious groups.

"Both of these First Amendment cases reflect the clear right-wing trend of the Roberts court. Unmistakably. Both are clearly wrong," said Abner Greene, a Fordham University law professor.

In the school case, student Joseph Frederick said the banner's language was meant to be nonsensical and funny, a prank to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in January 2002 in Juneau, Alaska.

But school officials say the phrase "bong hits" refers to smoking marijuana. Principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy.

The majority opinion written by Roberts agreed with Morse. He said a principal may restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

Drug abuse by the nation's youth is a serious problem, Roberts said.

Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented on the free-speech issue.

"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," Stevens wrote.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have decided the case without reaching the free-speech issue by ruling the principal cannot be held liable for damages.

The Bush administration supported Morse and argued that public schools do not have to tolerate a message inconsistent with its basic educational mission.

Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor who investigated former President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, argued the case for Morse and said the ruling has implications for public school districts nationwide.

Morse said, "I am gratified that the Supreme Court has upheld the application of our common sense policies."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Frederick, criticized the ruling for allowing censorship of student speech without any evidence that school activities had been disrupted.

"The court's ruling imposes new restrictions on student speech rights and creates a drug exception to the First Amendment," said Steven Shapiro, its national legal director.

Link
 
Top