To the Editors:
The Fifth Estate has always looked beautiful to me, from the very beginning, typos and all. But even more so lately. It’s always saying something provocative visually, too. There is such a wonderful vitality about it. And obviously the only way to keep it alive and assure longevity is to print the Fifth Estate “at home”—with a printer who is sent to school by the Fifth Estate and Inner City Voice jointly.
An entire printer’s shop must be set up. Inner City Voice and the Fifth Estate have to combine energy and resources and raise funds to do this. I’ll be the first to contribute to the best of my ability. Because both the Fifth Estate and Inner City are too important to lose out on a single issue.
Editors’ Note: Thanks, Cella, we are working on that very idea.
Dear Fifth Estate,
Congratulations on the new look of your paper. With Grimshaw’s great work now showing up primarily in posters and The Sun, your paper was starting to look pretty awful! Ed Bania is doing a great job to make the Fifth Estate visually exciting once again. The changes in lay-out and format are welcomed by this reader at least.
In your issue of the April 1-15, you have an article on dope quiz results, In the latter part of this, you say, “Now we are aware Grass has been around a while…” So here are a few facts regarding grass and its older use.
In 1930, I was conducting a news feature syndicate. A story on dope-running across the Mexican border came in. I went to the Police Department to get some pictures to use with it, when released. The inspector in charge of the Narcotic Squad invited me to ride around with one of his squad cars, to get more detailed knowledge of the narcotic situation here. And I learned this:
Marijuana was a common weed that grew freely in the West, where it was known as the “loco weed,” because when the cattle ate it, they went loco.
This weed is prolific and will grow almost anywhere. The squad car crew showed me patches of these weeds growing in vacant lots. They said it could be grown almost anywhere (in temperate climates, I suppose), even in window boxes.
At that time, 1930, the Harrison Narcotic Act was new and did not cover marijuana. Nevertheless, the dicks were arresting people found in possession of the leaves or cigarettes and usually managed to find some other legal charge on which they could be prosecuted.
One of the dicks showed me samples of marijuana cigarettes in their exhibit case and told me this:
“I would not smoke one of those things for love or money. It is not necessarily habit-forming but… you smoke one some night and get a happy feeling from it. Later, you may be feeling blue some night, you think of this smoke, and you use it again. The third time it is easier and presently you have the habit.”
So presently the police reports resulted in the Harrison Narcotic Act being amended to include marijuana.
…As to your argument that marijuana is no worse than liquor, I wouldn’t know definitely, as I have never been an addict of either, but I have had considerable contact with liquor, through working as a bartender once or twice, and I have also known many alcoholics and I know for a fact that hard liquor ruins many men and women and has spoiled the careers of many.
C. Henry Nims
To the Editors:
“Mazeltov” on your latest acquisition in the form of Cub Reporter, Arthur Johnston. Mr. Johnston, however seems to be of a limited vocabulary, which may explain why he wrote so little in the REAR END. Journalistically speaking, it isn’t good policy to rely solely on some ten words; but then, the Fifth Estate group knows less about journalism than a goat in a field.
It’s rumored that you are moving offices to a sewer; good luck.
J. R. Greenshields
P. S. I trust my assailant has replenished his wardrobe for I believe my friend took a toll of his coat and pullover.
Editors’ Note: The above writer was popped in the chops for ripping down anti-war posters (See last issue).
Dear J.R.: I don’t know the condition of your assailant’s wardrobe—how’s your mouth?
To the Editor:
After the recent April 26 demonstration at Wayne, which was marred by the violent acts of the fraternity men, we were stopped by two out-of-uniform policemen near Third and Warren.
Though not overly rude, they were very brusque and to the point—why were we carrying anti-war signs. We students of respectable Catholic high schools were not supposed to air our moral convictions. One officer remarked that he was a graduate of Salesian and that he would not tolerate a Salesian book bag together with an anti-war sign.
Frank asked, “What’s wrong with ending war?” but he was not given an answer.
We were never told what we were being stopped for. We felt that we were persecuted for participating in an action that we thought was our moral duty. We protest this new form of police harassment.
Scot Nelson, Larry Soman, Mike Johnson, Frank Doman