2
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Wednesday, November 29, 1967
Revision of marijuana laws
The wildest flouting of a federal law since prohibition is now occurring on college campuses, in the armed forces, among intellectuals and teenagers.
A Life magazine report (July 17, 1967) said more than 10 million Americans have tried marijuana, a euphoric drug, and the number of steady users is increasing.
Recently, Brig. Gen. Harley Moore Jr. said "several thousand" of the 464,000 U.S. servicemen in Vietnam smoke marijuana and more men are arrested for this than any other single offense.
John Steinbeck IV, son of the novelist, who recently served a year in Vietnam, said three-fourths of the servicemen smoke marijuana.
New York police seized 1690 pounds of marijuana this year—17 times as much as last year and they say this is only a fraction of the total amount coming into the city.
Federal Food and Drug Administration Director James Goddard said narcotics agents are unable to control the situation.
Contrary to popular belief, use of marijuana does not lead to the use of "hard" narcotics. Most marijuana smokers do not become junkies. The only dependence which may develop from the drug is a psychological one.
Dr. Henry Brill of New York's Pilgrim State Hospital said the user who develops a psychological dependence on marijuana prefers to escape regularly into a turned-on state rather than face his problems.
The effects on the mind and behavior are varied. Marijuana affects the nervous system as part relaxant, part stimulant producing a sleepy euphoric effect. It distorts perception and visual focus and can cause anxiety or panic in unstable users.
Dr. Brill said, "Pot smoking will do nothing for instabilities but aggravate them."
In 1937, the first federal legislation was enacted after a publicity scare which stated that marijuana caused violent crime, insanity and sex orgies.
In 1956, teeth were added to the law by establishing a mandatory prison sentence of two to ten years for use or possession of it. A sentence of five to twenty years was enacted for its sale. Penalties increase after the first offense.
Current repeated studies have shown there is no real correlation of marijuana use with other crimes. However, the severe law still stands.
Currently, there are two main factions discussing marijuana—both quite vocal. One group favors legalization of marijuana and one is against legalization.
Preponents of legalization argue that, because we accept potentially harmful commodities such as alcohol and tobacco, make them legal and merely warm people of their dangers—why not legalize marijuana too?
Aside from the appeal of expanding the mind and improving the appearance of the world, proponents say marijuana is actually less harmful than alcohol since there is no evidence of serious aftereffects, such as cirrhosis of the liver or alcoholism.
Opponents argue that, if marijuana were legalized and advertised, its use would undoubtedly spread. They allege that, although physically it doesn't pose a serious health problem, there are psychological and social problems. Since marijuana produces perceptual defects, driving while "turned on" can be compared to driving while intoxicated. Also, because marijuana users sometimes find a worry-free euphoric state while "high," opponents feel legalization will provide too easy an escape from jobs, school and financial responsibilities.
I feel the first sane step is to realistically reduce the punishment for using marijuana to fit the nature of the offense.
If a young man, experimenting with marijuana for the first time, gets caught, he can face a long prison term with hardened criminals. The very severity of the law incites some to triv it as a protest.
A realistic solution, I believe, would be to revise the existing federal narcotics law. First offenders, especially the young, should be turned over to health and school authorities, not courts.
With present fears, prejudices, and ignorance, legalization is "shooting for the moon." Also, it seems silly to condone another intoxicant on a society already deluged with them.
However, a revitalization of present laws is sorely needed. The federal narcotics act should reflect the times, not an era past.
Diane Wengler
"Easy, Fella"
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY kansan
Newsroom—UN 4-3646 --- Business Office—UN 4-3198
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 68044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advice available students are not necessarily to color, credit or national origin. Opinions ex- board of Regents.
Managing Editor—Dan Austin
Business Manager—John Lee
Member Associated Collegiate Press
REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services
READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, INC.
360 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017
Letters to the editor
basketball tickets, hill game
To the Editor:
Unfortunately Coach Pepper Rodgers has been introduced to the facts of life in sports in the Big Eight that have resulted in the University of Kansas being the "whipping-boy" for the other schools and the conference.
This must be apparent even to the most casual observer. It is time for Jayhawk fans to rise up and be heard rather than continue to sit idly by and do nothing.
The episodes of the CU and OU games have served to magnify the situation. No matter where the athletic teams of KU play, they get the wrong end of the stick. Having traveled to Colorado for the football game, we could see the officials cheating our team on valuable game yardage in marking the ball for play, calling mystifying penalties, and leaving everyone in doubt as to whether or not Bobby Douglas really scored in the third quarter. And of course the all-time champion tissue paper throwing CU fans didn't help matters.
At OU the oranges were certainly of no help. Again the valiant KU team received the buunt of penalties. However, this time there were a few more added: a questionable pile-on call and two calls on linemen illegally downfield on punts which, by the way,
no other team in the conference has been called for this season, and the catch made by Gary Ard which the official did not allow because he (the official) was out of position and not where he should have been. Incidentally, one of the local papers had a picture showing that the catch was made.
All of these injustices to KU by the field officials and the Big Eight in general have happened in basketball also, but the KU team usually wins so handily that their "bush call's" do not hurt as much. Let's hope that the officials will not continue to call those mystifying fouls on Vernon Vanoy this season.
After listening to Coach Rodgers after the OU game and reading the newspapers, we hope that he writes a blistering letter to the conference officials and raises a "big stink."
Join A. Bouie
Newark, N.J. junior
Ralph Chambers
Pennsville, N.J. junior
* * *
Recently I have heard numerous complaints from malcontent students who moaned about what they called the unfair action of the athletic department in limiting to 7,000 the number of student season basketball tickets to be sold.
To the Editor:
I should like to defend the department, but first I should like to point out that my motives are purely selfless; I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of the department and, to tell the truth, I don't even own stock in its corporation.
First of all, some malicious, irascible students have charged that the athletic department has deliberately limited the number of student tickets in order to sell the remaining tickets (a mere 10,000 or so) for several times the student price of four dollars.
But these students miss the point, for what is the use of an incorporated athletic department that fails to make as much money as possible? Could any unhappy student possibly argue against the financial logic of this? Surely not.
Secondly, I overheard another depressed student lamenting over the supposed fact that evidently the basketball team does not exist for the sake of the student body. This sadly misled fellow went even so far as to claim—listen to the absurdity of this—the team exists to entertain the Lawrence populace and old grads, and then he mumbled something about "bread and circuses."
Here again the point, I humbly
submit, is missed. After all, at least some tickets were certainly made available to some students, and furthermore the athletic department does allow students—those who get in to the games—to cheer and stamp their feet at no extra charge.
Finally—and here is my ultimate defense of the department—the student overlooks the undeniable fact that the athletic department gladly and willingly allows students to play on its team, on all its teams, for that master.
Ask not what your athletic department can do for you, but what you can do for your athletic department.
Robert Pataille
Graduate student
* * *
To the Editor:
We had faith. That is, until Friday, Nov. 17, when we could hardly find your minute covera e of the intramural hill B football championship.
Faith that you were at least partly interested in students and students' activities. It was almost as if the story was written by a girl that was dating a Phi Gam.
You complain that there are not enough student stories to fill up the spaces between the advertisements, yet all your correspondent cares to write is, "The Phi Gam B team moved into the
"Lost out!" The Green Threes, mainly templin expatriots, were not even scored upon in the entire season and amassed an offensive total of 136 points, including a 21-9 win over the Laws in the semi-finals. But what is more to the point, this is the first independent team to win a hill B championship since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor 27 years ago.
final round by defeating the Phi
Delts, but lost cut to the Green
larges 10-0 for the hill championship."
In an exciting game, the small but tigerish Green Threes defense held their record while the offense continued to roll on with its devastating double passes and accurate kicking.
We look forward to more informed reporting in the future, and would not recommend too high of grade for your correspondent.
Kathy Prewitt
Wichita junior
Fat Blackburn
Shawnee Mission
junior
Alice Brown
(Editor's note: The story in question was not written by a "girl that was dating a Phi Gam," but by a girl married to a Phi Gam now attending the Law School.)