Whither Logic

Drug Policy Alliance: Myths and Facts About Marijuana: "Myth: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug. Even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of 'harder drugs' like heroin, LSD, and cocaine.

Fact: Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug."

Actually, the real "gateway drug" is tobacco. That and that spinning thing kids do until they fall down dizzy. We live in a strange world where I ca legally get hammered on vodka nightly and smoke a pack of cigs per day but the possession of one joint can provide me with a criminal record.

'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case limits student rights - CNN.com: "Morse, who attended arguments in March, told CNN at the time: 'I was empowered to enforce the school board's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment.'"

Signs promoting the inhalation of Mary Jane are NOT an illegal substance. They are merely a form of free speech, which until recently, was protected by the First A. Next, a banner in support for carry permits for DC residents will be labeled as illegal guns? Sophistry at its worst and bad jurisprudence.

"Schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use," the majority said. In contrast with, say, a general rule against banners at school events, this topic-specific, viewpoint-based ban encourages suppression of dissenting opinions.

While students in school do not have the same First Amendment rights as adults, the Supreme Court has emphasized that they do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." That's why two of the justices who ruled against Frederick said in a concurring opinion that the Court's new rationale for censorship should apply only to pro-drug speech, as opposed to political or social commentary.

So, I ask, how does pro-legalization speech differ from the political or social. Drug policy in this country is inherently political in that it is the politicians who enact such policies and the social ramifications of the "War on Drugs," i.e mass incarceration and disparate and arbitrary sentencing, is both seemingly a quintessential question of both political expediency and social policy. Many drugs are currently illegal, and at one time, it was illegal to intermarry between races, educate blacks, and allow women to vote. So is the Court saying that free speech only applies to subjects, the content of which, are currently legal? This flies in the face of the very foundation of the 1st A. Petitioning and speech against the status quo is, or was, once enshrined as the first step in changing public opinion. What's next? No speech aimed at ANYTHING currently illegal. TJ and the other Framers are definitely rolling over, bones and all. More to come.