[secretagent]

Prior restraint refers to First Amendment issues solely, at least in the first few Google pages I scanned.

Please cite some text, or explain it yourself. You may have a new, valuable principle here.

[dcwusmc]

Prior restraint may not currently be in vogue for other than speech, but the principle is clearly established: You may not restrain someone from speaking (possessing an object or substance) simply because of what he/she MIGHT do or say. However, WODDIES such as roscoe could care less about principle or the Constitution and label ANYONE a druggie who dares oppose them.

Something just now occurred to me: A useful purpose for WODDIES... the Red Army in WWII, as I understand it, had penal battalions made up of dissidents and other objectionable people who would be out in front of the combat troops, unarmed, to draw German fire or trip their landmines. We can use WODDIES for similar functions when we invade Iran and Iraq or when we follow the WOsD to its logical conclusion and invade Colombia or, even better, "da HOOD"...

Then, at long last, the ilk of Roscoe could make a useful contribution to society.