The Students for Sensible Drug Policy said it was sad that the court thought there should be a drug exception to the First Amendment.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_BONG_HITS?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-06-25-19-34-52

Yep. The supremes should know this --now they are saying that categories
of thought (or ambiguous nonsense) can be limited by the State. Think about where that could go.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the ruling "does serious violence to the First Amendment."

Good Justice, bong hits for JP Stevens.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Chief Justice John
Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one," Roberts said in the majority opinion.

Bad Justice, no donut for you, Roberts. Perhaps it is reasonable interpretation, lets say the banner said "illegal drug consumption is fun". What gives the State the right to censor that expression? Or suppose the phrase was "school is dumb". Is that permitted? Please re-read the Bill of Rights.
You see, the State has no right ever to censor; and we the people have the right to any expression we want. Actually, Justice, you should turn in your robes.