.The
Daily
individuals.
Founded February 23, 1893
I ar JdLee
82nd Year Of Editorial Freedom
Ail unsigned editorials at the opinion of the editors. Letters tad columns resresmt the cpinlcns cf
- Hill. t i ! t
Friday, October 18, 1974
iroom IbeMdliinig
urn
class
During football season the most
obvious school spirit is bourbon,
except during the State game. Then,
as may plainly be seen over the
campus, it takes the form of childish
and obnoxious graffiti.
Tuesday we asked that State fans
restrain themselves and, if they had
to, to take their emotions out on the
Cube or on street pavement. So,
instead of marring our buildings on
the outside, they painted the insides.
Admittedly, a few wayward
Carolina fans started the immature
exchange by invading Raleigh this
past weekend, but there is no reason
for mistakes to create even greater
misjudgments.
Hamilton Hall, Gardner and even
Silent Sam were the hapless victims
of -State's not so harmless pranks.
We urge Carolina students not to
reciprocate. Let's get our revenge on
the football field.
In the last day or two, students
have even called to ask if the DTH
knew where State keeps it wolf.
Whatever happens innocent animals
should not be stolen or painted blue.
Ramses has'suffered similar fates all
too often. Harmless animals should
lead the cheering, not become the
butt of practical jokes.
There are numerous outlets for
emotion other than the destructive
or the malicious versions we have
already seen. The anti-State joke
contest, eliminating farm subsidies
or setting up x a roadblock for
tractors would be far more effective.
A few disparaging remarks about
State's new grading system (which
literally guarantees graduation)
would be appropriate.
One of the curious things about
the Carolina-State rivalry is that the
two schools are so similar. Athletic
fervor only accentuates what few
differences there are. We have our
rednecks and our tractor drivers,
too. If the two schools weren't "so
similar (i.e. if State really were
terribly inferior) the jokes and the
rivalry wouldn't be so amusing.
But on top of this underlying
brotherhood, it is fun to heighten
our differences with caricature and
humor. The only problem arises
when either side becomes
overzealous.
Only yesterday a State fan was
arrested on this campus for defacing
a building. Students should enjoy
themselves, but not at the expense of
others, or of the university.
It used to be that when you saw
four Carolina students, there was
always a fifth. Now there may also
be an ugly spray-paint sign saying
"Go to Hell State." Graffiti belongs
to bathrooms, not classroom
buildings.
Today in the Pit
All students owning bicycles will find it wise and in their self-interest to
register their bicycles today.
Bikes may be registered from 12 noon to 5 p.m. right in the middle of
campus at the Pit and costs only 50 cents.
Bike registration involves ( 1) identifying the bike by serial number, model
and frame number and putting this in police files; (2) checking the bike for
proper lights and reflectors; and (3) permanently marking the frame of the
bike with the owner's drivers license number.
What are the benefits?
After Dec. 1 , a $ 1 0 fine plus court costs may be levied against anyone who
has not registered his bicycle.
You may figure that's a poor reason to register, but the best reason is to
safeguard against theft.
In the period of February through June, 1974, more than $21,000 worth
of bikes were stolen. Using a little math, one sees that's better than a bike a
day. And, the present return rate oh stolen bicycles is less than 10 per cent.
Along with the registration drive, police at Duke, N.C. State and N.C.
Central will exchange information on stolen bikes with UNC's Campus
Police. This should increase the return rate.
So taking 5 minutes and paying 50 cents now may save you lots of time
and money later on.
'
L J'tjlllt I"' ..i-,-i.,,r ,
'WHATEVER ELSS YOU FIND, I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT, 03 APOLOGIZE FOR ITI
Laura Toler
i
TO
laws
need rejormini
"Twelve-o'clock High"-at the Bell
Tower reminds me of the benign-neglect
attitude of the British crown toward the
colonies prior to the Revolution. Just as
Whitehall looked the other way when
smuggling and other illegal trading
practices were prevalent in the colonies,
so do the campus police refrain from
destroying a pleasant day for the
counterculture.
Many arguments have been waged on
the subject of the legalization of
marijuana. Most older people seem to
oppose its legalization; most young
people tend to feel that it is absurd to
have laws penalizing marijuana users,
while alcoholics threaten the safety of
highways.
One aspect of this controversial issue -has
been largely overlooked. This is the
flagrant disrespect for the law as
exemplified by "Twelve O'clock Highs"
throughout the nation. Marijuana use
violates the law, yet many law
enforcement agencies have not arrested
those guilty of this crime.
We must ask ourselves whether or
not it is more important to restore
respect for the laws, regardless of their
popularity, either by (a.) legalization ojL
marijuana, (b.) decriminalization of the i
drug, or (c.) enforcement of anti-'
marijuana statutes, or continue to avoid
social confrontations by the non
enforcement of laws forbidding its use.
Can society afford to have laws which
it knows are not only abused, but
condoned by its administrators of
justice? I think not.
The time has come for individual
states to reform their anti-pot statutes.
No longer should the laws concerning
drugs be mocked by both citizenry and
the police. No longer should the simple
possession of minimal amounts of grass
be illegal.
The cycle of debate over the potential
harm created by marijuana to the
human body is not over. Medical
opinion seems divided. Regardless of
the massive evidence compiled against
pot, most marijuana users will not heed
these warnings anyhow. Previous drug
education efforts by the government
resulted in their loss of credibility.
The fact that over twenty-five million
people iri the U.S. have smoked pot
proves the futility of those arguments
which declare that marijuana is (1)
addictive, (2) a narcotic, (3) conducive
to heroin use, and (4) produces violent
behavior.
In fact, I am thoroughly convinced
that because of past government,
"misinformation" on the nature of
marijuana (until the passage of the
''li Hi i
Mk -1
Controlled Substances Act of 1970
which declared that marijuana was not a
narcotic), young people began to
experiment with "harder" drugs.
This tragic effort by the state to
exaggerate the danger of pot is partially
responsible for the great number of
heroin addicts in this country.
The decriminalization of marijuana
would eliminate twenty-five million
Americans frorn the criminal list. It
would also lead to the reduction of its
use for the simple reason that many pot
smokers, particularly adolescents,
smoke as an act of rebellion against
society and for the exciting, clandestine
nature of its procurement and use. I do
not believe that millions more
Americans will take up the habit
because of its "sudden
decriminalization. Thos who want to
smoke it, do so now, regardless of its
-illegality." .
As is the case with most victimless
crimes, the enforcement of pot laws is
quite an arduous task for the law. I think
society, via its legislative avenues, can
make the police's job quite a bit easier
with the decriminalization of marijuana
and in doing so will empty our jails of
thousands of unfortunate pot smokers
whose only crime was ajighted joint.
This proposal does not advocate the
use of pot nor does it intend to
encourage those advocates of
legalization of the drug. Young people
should be discouraged to use any drug
or stimulant which is potentially
dangerous to their minds and bodies.
The legalization of pot would make it
just as easy for a sixteen-year old to
purchase a pack of "Zowies" as it is for
him to secure a pack of "Camels."
Decriminalization of "small"
amounts of dope would enable law
enforcers to concentrate on arresting the
sellers of the drug. If the number of
arrests of growers and distributors
equalled the number of parking tickets
given out in one week in New York City
alone, then real progress in discouraging
dope would be made.
I realize that marijuana is alien to
Western civilization and offensive to
most Americans. After all, most pot
smokers belong to the counterculture
whose degenerate values jeopardize our
institutions. But the preservation of
those very institutions (e.g. our legal
institutions, the courts, the police)
cannot be attained by the continued
disrespect for our legal system.
Accelerated prosecution of marijuana
users comes too little, too late, is totally
infeasible, and will only lead to a further
polarization in our already divided
society.
Decriminalization of pot will not lead
to the fall of the republic! It ' wilf only
tend to make room in our crowded jails
for some real criminals and restore a
much needed respect for the rule of law.
Rorin Piatt is a junior political
science major from Greensboro.
Letter to the editors
The
Moo U. can't cope Daily
To the editors:
You think that school spirit was carried a
little too far!? H ave we so suddenly forgotten
when the columns of the Old Well were
painted Duke blue, or during last year's
Duke game when the Blue Devils shaved
. Ramses and painted "DUKE" on his side.
And don't think that our agronomist
friends over at State have not pulled a few
good, pranks in the past. For your
information, our victory bell disappeared
last year only to turn up in Raleigh at the
State-UNC game, with a rather sloppy coat
of red paint. Also the upper deck of State's
Carter Stadium is lined with flags denoting
each school in the ACC. During last year's
State game, about 30 spirited State fans took
the Carolina flag from its pole and ripped it
to shreds, each of them receiving a piece.
Is there anyone at Carolina that can't see
that our future farmers over at Cow College
aren't getting a case of the big head. They just
can't handle the idea of being NCAA
basketball champs. And after that amazing
last minute comeback in last Saturday's
State-Virginia game, those rednecks got a
little too big for their shoes.
Now everyone knows that the Heels are
going to literally grind the Wolfpack into the
turf of Kenan Stadium. The students at Moo
U. might not be able to cope with this
situation, so a few loyal and concerned UNC
fans decided to gently break the news to
them on the walls of their barns. It would
be a sin to close this letter without saying
"Go to hell State." And always remember
that a State graduate is always outstanding
outstanding in his corn field.
Victor Stephenson
Rick Verderamo
Knott Proctor
6th floor James
Tar Heel
Jim Cooper, Greg Turocck
Editors
Kevin McCarthy, Managing Editor
Barbara Holtzman, Associate Editor
Gary Fulton, Associate Editor
Joel Brinkley, Naws Editor
Harriet Sugar, Features Editor
Elliott Warnock, Sports Editor
Martha Stevens, Head Photogrcphsr
Linda Stern, Night Editor
financial help for day care centers an urgent need
Good day care centers cost money. That's why
the nine non-profit day care centers in the Chapel
Hill area have asked the city government for
help.
However, because state law does not
specifically provide for municipal funding of day
care centers, the Chapel H ill Board of Aldermen
was unable to allocate the needed funds. Instead,
a mayor's task force was set up to study
alternative means to aid the centers. But the task
force will not even be able to report on this
urgent need until January or February 1975.
There are no legal roadblocks in the way of
action by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners. State law says that educational,
and social services are the responsibility of the
county. But. members of the board hesjtate. .
In view of the many claimants tugging at
governmental purse strings, it might be wise to;
examine the urgency of the nurseries needs, as
well as the number of citizens benefited by their
services, before endorsing such an allocation.
Lack of funds means shortages of equipment
and inadequate staff salaries for day care,
workers, according to Lynn Hefner, director of
the Chapel Vl ill Day Care Center. Yearly wages
at the center for college graduates amount to
$4,000 or $5,000.
Tuition has already gone up to $80 per month,
and few scholarships are provided, which means
the center cannot serve many children from low
income families. Hefner maintains the financial
problems at the other eight centers are
comparable to, if not worse than, her own.
Obviously, then, day care centers need more
money from somewhere if they are to operate
efficiently. Perhaps the more important question
is whether the taxpayer should be the one to fork
over his dollars.
Generally speaking, three sectors of society are
directly aided by day care service.
First, there is the upper echelon liberated
mom. Not only is she eager to fulfill herself with
some occupation other than tending the playpen,
but she is also interested in a more enriching pre
school educational experience for her children.
She probably learned in college that a person's
capacity to learn has been determined almost
completely by the time he is four by the amount
of intellect-stimulating material that has been a
part of his environment.
Second, there are the divorced parents who
must be able to depend on day care so they can
work to support their families.
Third, and close to this category, are the poor
families, who could earn far more if both parents
were free from child care and able to work.
Community Action workers in the area have
.called day care their number one concern, a
program that would give the poor the boost they
need to make their own way and forego
handouts.
Who, then, is left with no stake in day care
whatsoever?
Some may be unwilling to see their hard
earned tax dollars go for scholarships for the
children of the poor, while they must pay tuition.
Still others may be opposed to the concept of
"socialized children. They maintain that a
parent has a unique obligation to raise-his ' owa
children, lavishing upon them the individual
attention they need. Finally, those who have no
children may not be interested in paying to train
the offspring of others.
. Surely, though, each of these factions can
come to see that by helping others they help
themselves in a number of ways.
To begin with, those unwilling to have their
incomes redistributed for someone else's benefit
should be happy with 'the thought that if poor
parents can work instead of tending to their
children, they may come not to need welfare
checks, food stamps and housing
developments all of which this same type of
begrudging taxpayer has funded over and again.
Next, those who would raise their children
individually must realize the tremendous task"
they are undertaking. Our technological society
becomes increasingly more complex, and there
is in these days an overwhelming body of
information for a rTew individual to incorporate.
That two parents could singly provide this
information without coming up with an
unprofessionally unbalanced child is open to
questioning. Also, in this world where dealings
with others become more and more important,
the child who has been raised primarily in the
home may always find that strangers require
somewhat of an adjustment.
Lastly, those with no children should be
reminded that the next generation will define the
society the older generation itself will, for a time,
live in. And although they have no interest in
other people's children in particular, they
should, for their own benefit, be concerned
about the future conduct of those who will live
beside them. '
Financial aid to day care centers, then, does
seem to be an urgent need. In addition, the
demand for public funding is sufficiently backed
by a large number of, if not all, factions of the
population. The Orange County Board of
Commissioners should attend to the needs of
those whom they represent.
Laura .Toler is a junior journalism major.