Newsbrief: Heartland Hysteria -- Bag of Dirt Gets First Grader Punished as Doper

Newsbrief: Heartland Hysteria -- Bag of Dirt Gets First Grader Punished as Doper 2/18/05
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/375/bagofdirt.shtml

One of the noxious side-effects of prohibition is the unthinking application of its edicts. In the name of "drug-free schools," administrators, school boards, and law enforcement routinely subject students to "lock-downs" where drug-sniffing dogs roam the halls and classrooms. They increasingly resort to urine testing of students without cause. And they create policies designed to punish students who would bring banned substances to school.

Even when implemented thoughtfully and flexibly, anti-drug measures that treat students as de facto "suspects" are dehumanizing, not to mention ineffective. But when implemented robotically by overzealous police and school officials entranced by the doctrine of "zero tolerance," drug prohibition's totalitarian tendencies produce results that would be laughable if they were not such a sad reflection on the society that produced them.

A case in point comes from Sikeston, MO, where 6-year-old Michaela Boyd is now enshrined in school district records -- and the mind of at least one local police officer -- as a drug offender. According to KFVS-TV "Heartland News" in the southeast Missouri town, young Boyd found an empty baggie on the ground during recess, filled it with dirt and debris, tied a ribbon around it, and gave it to a friend. But this was no harmless childish exchange in the eyes of school officials, who decided the bag of dirt looked like a bag of mar1juana, and gave the child a punishment of two-days in detention for her alleged pseudo-pot peddling.

Young Michaela protested her innocence. "There was nothing in the bag. I just found it on the ground," the first grader explained. So she decided to make her friend a bag of goodies. "They said what did you make this out of? I said out of dirt. And what else? I made it with rocks, clover and dirt." Sticking with her story, Michaela said she then tied the bag shut with a purple ponytail holder and gave it to her friend, saying "here's a bag of dirt."

According to the child's mother, Michele Boyd, the trouble started when the recipient of the gift bag gave it to a teacher when recess when over. The teacher consulted the principal, and mom got a call. At a meeting with the teacher and principal, Boyd said, she was told the bag of dirt "looked like a bag of weed."

"They said it was kind of a drug," Michaela said. "I don't know what those are. I only see cigarettes. That's all I say."

Michele Boyd fears her daughter will be labeled a doper. "They said it would be on her school record as far as disciplinary that she made a look-alike drug, but I don't feel like that's right. Because she didn't do anything wrong."

While most people would probably roll their eyes at this ludicrous tale, Sikeston Police Sgt. Shirley Porter is not one of them. In a follow-up story on "Heartland News" a few days after the big bust, Porter said the case needs to be taken seriously. In Porter's eyes, 6-year-old Michaela Boyd was dealing fake drugs, and that's a crime. "If she would have been 14, we would have been arrested her and taken her to jail," Porter said.

 

Just say no....to dirt.

 

Since you never quote a source at all, not even propagandist ones, I would say that my sources easily trump yours.

Once again, I will ask you to debate the substance of this FACTUAL report or shut the he!! up.

In addition, I will up the ante on my challenge. If you debate me on the subject of any aspect of the drug war (EDIT: and you have to win as per my previous challenge, thanks basso), not only will I accept banishment for a year, I will throw in a six game Rockets ticket package. In return, you will only have to risk a six game pack for me. Will you accept my challenge or will you run away yet again? I'd say the latter. [cue t_j's exit]

 

That's kind of amusing. 10 times out of 10, the stuff I read that you write is just ridiculous. Just for clarification, which of the topics covered by stopthedrugwar.com have you found "just ridiculous" in recent memory? I would challenge you to find anything David Borden has written (or edited for his newsletter) that is "just ridiculous." I am certain that if you issue the same challenge, I can find something YOU have written that would qualify.

Again, debate the substance or go away and allow the adults here to have a conversation. You cannot debate the substance because there is simply no defense for this or for any of the other deleterious effects the drug war is having on our society. The drug war causes far more harm than drug usage ever did when it was legal in this and other countries.

Prohibition simply does not work when you are talking about behavior that does not involve one person causing harm to another. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution just to name a few would be better off under a system of strong regulation, just as these and other risky behaviors are regulated (and taxed) like cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, and prostitution. What I want is for the federal government to step off of drugs as they have stepped off on the other "vices" to allow the states to decide for themselves what is good policy. It is absolutely insane that voters in California (or Oregon, or Nevada, or Alaska, or any of the other states that have found themselves caught in the drug war crosshairs) could find their wishes trumped by a policy that is not even loosely based on science.

There is a cure for the "drug problem." Unfortunately, the "problem" is prohibition itself.

 

Had you ever accepted my challenge, you might have had a chance of handing me a loss. Instead, you ran away like a little b!tch.

Have you been smoking a lot of pot lately? Your memory really seems to be quite bad.

 

Actually, I said that I would "up the ante" on my previous challenge. That challenge included a structured debate to be judged by three judges, etc.

If we were debating legal terms, I think that my statement would constitute the modification of a previous challenge. However, I will add the caveat that if he accepts the challenge *and wins,* then he gets the spoils.

 

The purpose, as such, would be my amusement at seeing t_j eat a little crow after the drubbing I would administer. At the very least, it would allow me to exercise my intellect and sharpen my viewpoints by participating in a judged debate. I would come out of it with an expanded understanding of how my views are seen by others (which I already get around here to some extent) and a smile on my face as it would be at the expense of our resident village idiot.