Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 13, 1970)
HI 1 I Should we keep off the grass? Drugs are definitely here in Lincoln and people are interested in them. Many groups have gone to great lengths to prepare literature and programs condemning the so-called "drug culture." Most of these have come from responsible groups whose leaders are still reacting to anti-drug scare tactics used in the 1930's. They are, for the most part, pointless. Marijuana, perhaps the mildest drug of the new culture, is probably the most often attacked. One of the most common charges is that grass users usually go on to harder drugs. No one argues that heroia addiction is a good thing, but many question the theory that grass leads on to harder stuff. Unlike most drugs, marijuana does not build up a resistance in the body. Indeed, it takes less and less grass for the experienced user. Most regular users say it takes only a very small amount for them to get stoned. This has been verified by such anti-drug authorities as Dr. Sidney Cohen. In an ETV interview last spring Cohen said that though marijuana could be psychologically addictive, there was no evidence that it led to heroin addiction. Though most heroin users have used grass first, they have probably also used milk or pablum or aspirin. When pressed most drug "authorities," pro or con, will say there is simply not enough information on marijuana to determine its effects. Actually, the only thing sure about marijuana use is that a first offense in Nebraska can get you seven days. Another argument is that if marijuana does not lead to harder drugs then the drug culture does. However, the psychedelic community generally deplores the use of hard drugs. Heroin, cocaine and the like are regarded as degrading by those who consider a psychedelic experience the ultimate in individuality. The heroin addict is shunned by the drug culture, as well as normal society. If anything, the drug culture guides people away from hard drugs. But, there are dangers in the culture. LSD and methedrine, better known as speed, are accepted parts of the culture. These are dangerous drugs. Many people don't come back from LSD trips and speeding can burn out a young body in a short time. With all drugs there is a need for care in use. This is often not available to those who use drugs socially. But, the drug revolution cannot be turned back by unbacked statements and repressive laws. Prohibition didn't work and neither will drug repression. Drug use should not be approached irrationally on the basis of "It's bad because it's bad." Youth are probably more turned off by this sort of argument than any other. The drug scene should not be a source of hysteria among police and parents. It should be approached thoughtfully and studiously. Aldous Huxley saw society heading toward drugs early in the century. Now, the drug scene is here. It will not go away no matter how much it is repressed and preached against. But, rational Drought and research might produce facts to modify and accept the culture before ft tears down the society that bred it. After all, free choice of safe alternatives has always been the ideal, though not the practical, American way. Bill Smitlierman News Editor THE NEBRASKAN Telephones: Editor: 477 15M, Business: 473-230. News: 47MM. Second Cleat postage paid at Lincoln. Neb, Subscription rates art U par semester or 14.50 par yaar. Published Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday during tti school yaar octet during vaca tions and eam parlods. Member of the Intercelleolate Press. National Educa tional Advertising Service. The Nebraskan it a student publication. Independent Of the University of Neb. raska's administration, faculty and student government. Addrms: The Nebraskan M Nebraska Union University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska e8i Idlterlal Staff Editor: Kellcy Bekert Managing Editor: Connie Winkler Newt Editor: Bill Smithermant Sports Editors: Jim Johnston and Roger Rlfei Nebraskan Staff Writers: Gary Seacrest. John Dvorak, Mick Morlerty, Marsha Banoert. Dave. Brink. Steve Strasser, Pat McTee. Carol Goetschlus. Monte Gerlach. Charles Harpstert Photooraprwrs: Dan Ladely. Mike Haymani ntertainment Edltort Fred Elsenhartf Literary Editor: Alan Boyei News Assistant: Andrta Thompson) Copy Editors: Laura Pertsch. Jim Cray. Warren Obr, Blythe Ericksont N ght News Editor: Tom Lansworth; Night New Assistant: Leo Schleicher. Business Staff Business Manaoer: Pat DiNatale; Coordinator; Sandra Carter! Subscription and Classified Ad Manaaert Jan Boatman Salesmen: Greg Scott, I. Jan Kidweit. J. J. Shields Circulation Managers: Chuck Balduff. Barry Pllger, John Wuggoner. PAGE 6 ) Cj I x feel I by Frank Manklewlc and Tom Braden WASHINGTON Looking back now, it appears to have been the year of the overkill. Richard Nixon might have taken a leaf from what is said to be the forthcoming book of George Wallace and gone only to those states where he had a good chance to win. Instead, he indulged in more than 20. The result: Angry Democrats will come to Washington disposed to skip the usual amenities. Spiro Agnew, too, indulged in overkill. In at least 30 of the 37 states he visited be called respected citizens well-nigh certain of taking their posts as honored representatives everything from radical-liberals to promoters of crime, violence, drugs and pornography. They can hardly be expected to return him the polite respect which we teach our children should be the due of a Vice President Overkill begets overkill. Republican prognostications of sweeping victories leading to seven Senate seats led reporters, including these, to doubts so grave as to lead in turn to incaution. "The Republicans will lose seats in both the Senate and the House," we predicted on Nov. 1, and we were half wrong. But the President was more than half-wrong, and the Vice President a great deal more wrong than that. Look ing back, it is hard to find anybody who was not at least half-wrong, except the great American people who provide the ultimate judgment of wrong and right. At least they do so in a procedural sense. But a free election is not, after all, an end in itself. What matters is what the people want it to do, and here it is hard to duck the conclusion that they want it to do pretty much what they have been doing. Take crime, for example. Did the voters say that the solution for crime was the no-knock and preventive deten tion advocated by Mr. Nixon and overkilled by the rhetoric of Agnew? Then why did they defeat Sen. Joseph Tydings (D-Md.) who wrote the bill and pushed it through? Or take "permissivists,' one of Agnew's favorite overkill words. Did the voters decide they don't want any more Overtoiling to a draw "permissivists"? Then why did Califor nians defeat the man who started the whole thing, Superintendent of Public Instruction Max Rafferty who ran as usual on a platform of being against "heavy-booted slobs who like to stomp on old ladies with polio"? Are they determined as the White House at one time suggested on a stronger defense? Or, as Agnew put it, that they were opposed to radic-Iibs who thought defense expenditures too high? Then why did they elect Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.) who opposed the ABM and voted for McGovern-Hatfield and whose election despite his party registration can hardly be counted as a plus for the President? Looking back now, it is clear that the President's use of the Social Issue was a flop (witness the defeat of George Murphy who stood to gain most by presidential overkill of the incident at San Jose), but it is equally clear that the Democrats' use of the economy as an issue was also overkill. It worked where unemployment was over 6, as in Michigan; it did not work where unemployment was about 4, as in Ohio and New York. Looking back, the only thing that seems to have been proved is that the famous Southern Strategy is dead, dead in the Northeast where Republicans gained and in the mountain states which Democrats swept, as dead in Georgia and South Carolina where Mr. Agnew labored hard as George Wallace is a'lve in Alabama. But that, too, is a procedural decision, having to do with politics and not with the tougher questions about what the country wants to do. On those tough questions the voters ignoring the overkill came to no decision at all. Dr. EBb Pocrates Dear Dr. Schoenfeld: If a married girl (age 19) wants a tubal ligation mast she first have had at least one child? Or can she only obtain this operation because of Infection or some other medical reason? Is it possible to have a spinal anesthetic? How long must a person be hospitalized? And finally, what is the ap proximate cost? ANSWER: Tubal ligations involve cutting the fallopian tubes (the passages between the ovaries and the uterus) and tying off the severed ends. The result is usually permanent sterilization: At tempts to reconnect the fallopian tubes after such a procedure are rarely suc cessful. Total hospitalization for a tubal ligation is is about four days and the cost runs between $600 and $800. When the surgery is done following delivery of a baby the cost is less and only a extra day's stay in the hospital is necessary. Spinal anesthetic may be used. But I doubt if a reputable physician would do a tubal legation on a 19 year old girl who had never borne a child. You have left about 20 potential child bearing Post-election analysis reveals Ultimate Truths by ARTHUR HOPPE The election analyzers have now analytically analyzed the election results to explain what they all mean. It is therefore now time to analyze the elec tion analyses to explain what they all mean. FIRST, WUAT do they mean to Mr. Nixon? Here, the analysts have shown con clusively that the political debts Mr. Nixon garnered by his Intensive cam paigning plus the gain of several Senate scats assure his re-election in 1372. Then the analysts have shown con clusively that the enemies Mr. Nixon made, the divisiveness he created and the loss of a dozen governorships assure his defeat in 1972. Thus we see that Mr. Nixon will now be returned to the White House in 1972 if he wins the election. BUT IT IS CLEAR that Mr. Nixon's Southern Strategy worked In Ohio, New York and several other Northern States. Unfortunately, it didn't work too well in the South. It didn't work too well in Illinois either. But that was because Adlai Stevenson HI is the son of Adlal Stevenson. Similarly, the son of Gene Tunney, the son of Robert Taft, the son of Joseph P. Kennedy and the son of a Rockefeller all won. True, in Maryland, the son of Senator Tydings was beaten. But he was beaten by the son of Senator Beall. THUS THE RESULTS prove a can didate is fortunte these days if the voters know his own father. In several areas, however, victory went to candidates whose own fathers the voters didn't know. These unknown fathers include the fathers of Gowrnor Reagan, Governor Wallace, Senator Sten nis and James Buckley. But they were elected, most analysts agree, on the strong Conservative tide that engulfed California, Alabama, Mississippi and half of Ohio. It didnt engulf New York, where two Liberals piled up 60 per cent of the vote over Conservative James Buckley, who won. But then he's William Buckley's brother, which proves something about brothers. It's unclear what MEANWHILE, most anlaysts agree, a strong Liberal tide engulfed California, Minnesota. Wisconsin and half of Ohio. The problem in California was that both tides engulfed the voter. Each voter. The California voter walked into the voting booth, the results show, and voted in a Conservative mood for Governor, a Liberal mood for Senator, a Conservative mood for Attorney General and a Liberal mood for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. THIS PROVES what we have all long felt about moody instability of Calif or- nians. So a thoughtful analysis of the State-by-State analyses explains what they all mean. They all mean that the voters, in a conservatively-liberal or vice versa mood, want either fresh new faces or experienced leaders who stressed law and order or bread and butter issues to go to Washington and get America out of Vietnam InunedUUIy or sooner or later. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. The mandate is clear. U we are going to preserve our sanity in these troubled times, if we are going to preserve our cherished democratic heritage, if we are going to preserve our inalienable right to vote as we please, then we're going to have to abolish election analyzers. It's them or us. years. Once a tubal ligation is performed it's too late to change your mind. Dear Dr. Schoenfeld: Foot yers ago I contracted serum hepatitis and was hospitalized for a month. Bed rest and proper diet, etc. were recommended for at least sis months following my release. Bat I didn't follow the advice. Now especially when I ran around and get run down I turn yellow. Sometimes worse than others. Is there anything I can do about this crummy color? Have I fooled up my liver: ANSWER: Serum hepatitis is usually caused by sharing syrines and needles or through transfusions of contaminated blood. The other type of viral hepatitis, infectious hepatitis, is transmitted through feces or possibly urine or saliva. Serum and infectious hepatitis cause an identical disease state. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, darkening of urine, light-colored stools and yellowing of the eyes and skin. Viral hepatitis weakens the liver and makes it more susceptible to further attacks. Make sure you're under the care of a physician who gives you periodic checkups. Dear Dr. Schoenfeld: I am a male, age 19, with a height pro blem. I am only 5'9" and have been for the past two years. I believe that I should be taller because the result of the male adults in my family are much taller. I heard that male hormone Injections will Increase the height ef a male in dividual. Is that true? ANSWER: Maybe a professional basketball team would consider that you have a problem but your height is about average. Hormones are used experimen tally to increase height in some cases though I doubt you would be a candidate. An endocrinologist could determine whether you're capable of further growth by examining x-rays of your arms and legs. Last summer I met a German Inventor who had patented a method of removing nicotine from tobacco. He couldn't find one manufacturer interested in the pro cess. Why? Nicotine is apparently necessary to cause addition to cigarettes and the tobacco industry wants to keep Its customers hooked. Filters on cigarettes may turn out to be nothing but a gimmick. A study in the British Medical Journal of September 19, 1970 reported observations on 38 cigarette smokers. Some used "high retention fitters and some "low retention" filters. Those using "high retention" filters puf fed their cigarettes more frequently and thus received nearly the same amount of nicotine as those using "low retention" filters. Dr. Shoenfeld welcomes your letters. Write to him at 2010 7th Street, Berkeley, Calif. 94710. :, i f-4 y H ; ' it THE NEBRASKAN FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1970 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1970 THE NEBRASKAN PAGE 7 r
