THE STUDENT AND DRUG EXCEPTION TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

JACOB SULLUM, HIT AND RUN - The Court seems to be opening up a "drug
exception" to the First Amendment, albeit limited (so far) to students
in school. It's true that high school students do not have the same free
speech rights as adults, but the Court has held that they do not "shed
their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate." They have a right, for instance, to wear anti-war
armbands. In that case, the Court held that student speech may be
suppressed only if it will "materially and substantially disrupt the
work and discipline of the school." A "mere desire to avoid the
discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular
viewpoint" or "an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might
result from the expression" is not enough to justify censorship. But
fear of drugs apparently is.

"Schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from
speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use,"
the Court ruled. So where does that leave a student who wears a
"Legalize It" T-shirt, who points out the problems caused by prohibition
during a class discussion of drugs, or who shares accurate information
about the hazards of marijuana with his fellow students? I suspect
principals like Deborah Morris would view all of these student
expressions as "encouraging illegal drug use," even though they are also
indisputably political speech. If expressing opposition to the Vietnam
War is protected even in school, how can expressing opposition to the
War on Drugs not be? I have a feeling we're going to find out.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121041.html

INTERESTING WORDS IN JUSTICE STEVENS' DISSENT, drawing a parallel
between drug and alcohol prohibition:

JUSTICE STEVENS - 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.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||