Underground press prospers Publication risky
By JUNE KANTZ and DAVID WILLINGHAM
What is the "underground press"?
Today the connotation of "underground press" has somehow come to represent obscene or revolutionary newspapers that are often published only to financially exploit those foolish enough to buy them.
The true meaning of "underground" press is simple. It is a publication that is printed and distributed "underground," that is, without the sanction that would be necessary to publish such a work in complete cooperation with all persons and sources affected by it.
The underground press and the suppression of it are almost inseparable. Unsanctioned publications invariably meet opposition. If there were no opposition, there would be no need for them.
Suppression of the underground press takes many forms. Throughout the ages the standard punishment of its writers and publishers has been death. In the Dark Ages, publications against rulers or the church were considered to be among the worst of crimes and were dealt with accordingly.
American writers and publishers of underground publications flourish with virtually no overt official hindrance. However, the number of them thrown in jail and otherwise restricted on pretexts having little to do with their work on their publications lends a suspicious atmosphere of suppression.
During last winter's troubles at San Francisco State College and the nearby Berkley campus, the editors of the Berkely Barb, Gidra and two other unsanctioned newspapers in the area were arrested within a week on different charges, having little to do with their publications.
The need for an underground newspaper arises when there is a lack of communication in a school. The most obvious example of this is a school without any newspaper. Such a situation exists when there are not enough interested students, if there is no faculty sponsor or when the principal decides it might be a financial risk to print a school newspaper.
Little better off is the school with the "official" newspaper. Such newspapers are often dominated by the editor, controlled by the sponsor or censored by the principal or a combination of these.
Letters to the editor may be edited or left out if they do not agree with the editor's beliefs or if they criticize the school. The sponsor may find it necessary to censor some articles to keep his position.
Many high school newspapers include little which is relevant to the needs or desires of the students. In such cases an underground newspaper may fill the void. The staffs are volunteers who want to see some changes. If they are not afraid of administrative control, they will print articles which would be censored in the "official" newspaper. They accept contributions from all students. The underground press discusses things such as the ABM, fluoridation, zoning and incompetent teachers—subjects which many "official" newspapers do not discuss.
In many cases, students publish an underground newspaper without taking precautions. Such negligence gives the administration an excuse to "punish" these students. For distributing the paper on school grounds, a student can be expelled and branded as an "agitator" on his permanent record.
If the paper has no connections with the school, is distributed off the grounds and says nothing untrue about the school, there is little the administration or faculty can do except keep the suspected students out of faculty-chosen organizations.
If it meets the needs of the students—the underground newspaper is more popular than the official publication. If the new publication is free, the official paper will have a small circulation and must raise the price to stay in business. Or, the principal or staff may decide it is no longer profitable.
The official newspaper must, in order to survive, include things the students want. As long as there is the desire for a free press in the high school, students will meet that desire by printing the kind of newspaper that meets their needs.
— Photo by Herman Ward
Marijuana and its family raise concern and questions
By HOLLYE CAPPLEMAN
"And God said, let the earth bring forth grass" . Genesis 1:11.
God was speaking of grass which would benefit all mankind and not "grass"—technically known, Cannabis sativa L. or mariana.
Ask the hippie and he will tell you "grass" is as old as Eden and he would probably use the Bible to substantiate his contentions. Hippies, however, do not quote from Genesis the comment made by God some 60 verses later, when He dispatched Adam and Eve from their garden:
"Personification occurs when You begin by endowing a tree with your own passions, its gleanings and swayings become your own and soon you are the tree. Let us suppose that you are sitting and smoking. Your gaze rests a moment too long on the bluish clouds emerging from your pipe. The notion of a slow, steady, eternal evaporation will take hold of your mind and soon you will apply this notion to your own thoughts and your own thinking substance."
One of the most graphic descriptions of the drug was written during the late nineteenth century by the poet Charles Baudelaire.
"Cursed is the ground for thy sake," He said. "In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field."
The use of "pot" among the youth of today is widespread, but is the drug safe?
According to Daniel Efron. a
paychopharmacologist with the National Institute of Mental Health, scientific facts to answer that question are not readily available.
"Medical scientists," agrees science writer Patricia McBroom, "do not know, for instance, whether marijuana poses a threat comparable to alcohol, or is more serious, or is less."
Psychiatrists define drug addiction as "a state in which a person has lost the power of self-control with reference to a drug and abuses the drug to such an extent that the person or society is harmed."
In 1939, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed by Congress. The law attempted to control the use of "pot by employing federal police power and by the imposition of penalties upon both the buyer and the seller when they were not in possession of this special tax stamp.
The penalties were increased in 1951 and again in 1956 by the passage of the Federal Narcotics Control Act. Punishment at the federal level for violation of the act may result in maximum sentences ranging from 10 to 40 years in prison.
E. R. Bloomquist, M.D., categorizes "pot" users in three main groups:
"First," he says, "there are the uneducated and unemployed who have from the beginning used the drug as an added chorus to an already established refrain of antisocial activities."
"Group two," he continued, "is far more interested in self-exploration and mind expansion. We find the intellectuals, psuedo-intellectuals and religious and
psuedo-religious people in this group."
Group three is actually the largest of the three. Bloomquist says it is composed primarily of average, curious, uninhibited people out for a lark—the high school or college student.
One fifteen-year-old apprehended by police made this statement as he was arrested, "I don't plan on smoking the stuff; I just keep it around as a status symbol."
Other teenagers smoke "pot" because it is easier for them to obtain than alcohol—and less expensive.
In recent surveys, as many as 70 per cent of the teenagers interviewed thought marijuana ought to be legalized.
The other 30 per cent of those interviewed who did not believe in legalizing the drug, seemed to think that society does not need the burden of another intoxicating drug. Some said the laws should be more lenient; others didn't care.
In an editorial that appeared in the Haight Ashbury Freepress, the writer commented, "It seems to be logical that a man has a right to do damn near anything he chooses until he interferes with the rights of others. The exceptions to this must, of course, be where violence or coercion is involved."
The time has come to make the decision as to what society does with marijuana. Drugs can offer people an escape through illusions, but there is only one way of life that can give happiness—facing up to reality. If society comes to the point where it cannot do this—the drug will be the victor.
Youth are turning from Church
By DAVID APPLETON
To some teenagers today God does not exist, to others He is a "feeling," a "concept," an "internal spirit" or "something on that order" and to a few He is a superior being.
To discover how youth feel about religion, a questionnaire was circulated among Campers. The answers were highly opinionated—some people were even offended to have been asked about their religious beliefs. It seems the only common factor to the answers was that they were all different.
Ever since the youth of today have been old enough to understand things, they have had their heads filled with the doctrine of their respective faiths. Yet, when these same children went to school they were taught how to reason to find answers and to question things—not merely take one's words as proof.
In the recent Camp survey one-third of the Campers questioned said there was "no God." Another third said that He existed, but only one said "God is the Superior Being."
"Is God dead?" This time over half said there has
Jly. 25
1969 KAMPER 3
Over half of those interviewed said organized religion is either dead, dying or "sort of sick." One-fourth said religion's place has changed, while the remaining quarter saw no change.
Concerning a "trend toward agnosticism or atheism," 100 percent agreed there are definitely more atheists and agnostics today than in the past--although this could be the product of a permissive age.
The answers differed greatly concerning the power, control and role of religion. Some said religion had too much power and more than half said it was not beneficial. But most said religion was crucial to our society—whether beneficial or not.
been no change in the Almighty, while the remainder said He never existed. One person said the only change was in the "mode of thinking" concerning God.
Another surprise was that four-fifths of the answers contended there are harmful religions in the world today, reflecting prejudices young people have acquired from their environment.
When asked if their parents and their views on religion were alike, one-half said they were—the other half emphatically said. "No!"
"If you were persecuted for your religion and beliefs, how would you react? Would it strengthen you or cause you to falter?" Although answers ranged from "mildly rebel," to "fight to the death," all agreed their beliefs would strengthen and not falter.
When asked about the effect caused by a possible disappearance of religion, one-half said there would be little or no change. (one person said the world would be "better off"), while the rest foresaw "moral decay" and an end to society.
The questionnaire also asked what religion children would choose if they were raised without any formal religious education, and with no influence whatsoever. Two said the children would choose the religion right for them, several others said the children would start their own religion. But most agreed the children would choose atheism.
"Have you ever entertained the idea of changing your religion," was a question to which almost half replied affirmatively.
An interesting question asked respondents to classify themselves religiously. Two-thirds claimed they were either "somewhat religious" or "unconcerned with religion." while the remaining third said they were "agnostic or atheist." Not one person said he was "very religious."
All in all, young people today are searching for change in many things—including religion. Many still hold their parents' beliefs, but they have modified them. A great number have become completely disillusioned and have turned to agnosticism and atheism. But whatever young people believe in, they believe in strongly.