Guest Post: How an Axe Murderer Helped Make Weed Illegal

by Laura Smith

Tampa police arrived at the Licata residence one afternoon in October 1933. Neighbors in the tightly-knit immigrant community were concerned. No one had come in or out of the Italian-American family’s home all day, which was strange, considering the school-aged children, and that the father, Mike, ran two bustling barber shops.

When the police opened the door, they found carnage. Twenty-one year-old Victor Licata had murdered his family with an axe the night before – his parents, one of his brothers, and his younger sister were all dead and another younger brother would be soon. Victor was discovered in the bathroom, curled in a chair, murmuring incomprehensibly. His family was trying to dismember him, he said, and replace his arms with wooden ones.

According to Larry Slomans’s book, Reefer Madness, shortly after the murders, Licata was evaluated by psychiatrists and determined to be suffering from “dementia praecox,” (now known as schizophrenia). The doctors speculated that his condition was congenital. Two cousins and a great uncle had been committed to asylums, his brother also suffered from “dementia praecox,” and his parents were first cousins. The police had been trying to have him committed for over a year, but stopped when his parents said they would care for him at home.

The case would have slipped largely unnoticed into grisly small-town lore if it were not for one detail. According to the local newspaper, at the time that he committed the murders, Victor Licata had been “addicted to smoking marihuana cigarettes for more than six months.”

Driven By Racism
Four years later when Harry Anslinger heard about the Licata case, he knew it was the break he had been waiting for. Anslinger had recently been appointed head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (the precursor to the DEA) after making his name as a temperance hardliner during prohibition. But as Johann Hari explains in his book, Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs, after prohibition ended, bureaus like Anslinger’s were threatened by obsolescence.

Anslinger’s office was focused on narcotics like cocaine and heroin, but these drugs were only used by a small minority. In order to ensure a robust future for his bureau, “he needed more,” Hari writes. Marijuana was used more widely.

Anslinger consulted 30 doctors about the drug’s connection to violence. All except one told him there was none, so he bucked the other 29 and trumpeted the findings of that one doctor. Anslinger warned in a congressional hearing, “Some people will fly into a delirious rage, and they are temporarily irresponsible and may commit violent crimes.”

His anti-marijuana push was driven by racism. “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men,” he was quoted as saying, and “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

Beginning in 1939, immediately following her performance of “Strange Fruit,” Anslinger began ruthlessly targeting Billie Holiday who was rumored to have a heroin addiction. Those closest to her believed Anslinger’s campaign created an enormous strain, contributing to her early death. During this time, anti-drug crusaders switched from calling it “cannabis” to “marihuana” or “marijuana,” hoping the Spanish word would capitalize on anti-Mexican sentiment.

Linking Violence to Cannabis
At hearings in 1937 on a bill to prohibit marijuana, Anslinger was asked for “horror stories” proving the marijuana-violence connection. Two weeks later, a letter from the chief inspector at the Florida Board of Health arrived telling the story of Victor Licata. The inspector also sent along a picture, presumably the young man’s mugshot, which had been circulated widely in the Florida dailies. In the photograph, Licata is crazed violence incarnate, his wild-eyed stare entirely unnerving. This would be the face of Anslinger’s marijuana crackdown.

Victor Licata, driven “mad” by reefer.

Anslinger began giving speeches and writing articles on the dangers of marijuana, harping on the Licata case. “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother,” he said. In his most famous article, “Marijuana – Assassin of Youth” published in the American magazine, Licata is transformed from a congenitally mentally ill person into “a sane and rather quiet young man” whose reefer-toking had turned him into an axe-wielding murderer – not his schizophrenia.

Anslinger succeeded in turning marijuana into a national issue. By 1938, the film Reefer Madness had been purchased by a new director and was being circulated more widely, warning of the “frightful toll of a new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America … The Real Public Enemy Number One!”

In the 1930s, The New York Times ran dozens of articles about police crackdowns on “marijuana rings,” whereas in 1926, the paper ran an article titled, “Marijuana Smoking Is Reported Safe.”

The Marijuana Tax Act, legislation that Anslinger drafted himself, was passed in 1937, effectively making the sale and possession of marijuana illegal across the country. In 1950, Victor Licata hanged himself with a bed sheet. Meanwhile, Anslinger’s bureau flourished.

According to Hari, “within thirty years, he succeeded in turning this crumbling department with these disheartened men into the headquarters for a global war that would continue for decades.” In the coming years, hundreds of thousands of men and women – disproportionately people of color – would spend huge portions of their lives behind bars.

Reprinted from Timeline.

Laura Smith is a staff writer @timeline and a freelance journalist based in Oakland, California. Her nonfiction book, The Art of Vanishing, about the disappearance of Barbara Newhall Follett will be out from Viking in 2018.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

From the Archives: State Senator Ralph Smith 'keeping his powder dry' on ABC privatization proposals

State Senator Ralph Smith 'keeping his powder dry' on ABC privatization proposals
August 9, 2010 2:25 AM MST

Governor Bob McDonnell’s first town hall meeting on government reform was held in the chambers of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, in the backyard of state Senator Ralph Smith (R-22), a former mayor of Roanoke whose district encompasses all of Botetourt County, parts of Montgomery and Roanoke counties, and the cities of Radford and Salem. (The city of Roanoke is represented in the state senate by Democrat John Edwards.)

Smith introduced McDonnell at the start of the meeting. After the event ended, he spent a few minutes answering questions from the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner.

Smith’s assessment of the town hall was positive.

Learning from the public
“I think we all learned by it,” he said. “I feel sure the Governor’s learned new angles by this. I certainly did.”

The senator was particularly impressed by the way Governor McDonnell handled difficult – if not hostile – questions from the audience.

On occasions like this, he said, “no one’s going to like everything you do.” McDonnell “did an excellent job of dealing with those issues which are pretty much in opposition from the direction he wants to go.” For that, Smith concluded, “he gets good credit.”

With regard to the specific question of McDonnell’s proposals for privatization of the sales and distribution of distilled spirits, Smith put on a positive face but was nonetheless noncommittal.

Wait and see on ABC
“I’m like probably a majority of the members of the General Assembly,” he explained, who want to “see more detail and expect to learn a little bit more in the next couple of days.”

Smith said of himself that “I’m a private-enterprise guy, so that kicks in, but I also realize that this is not a product like shoes and razor blades and everything else, when you’re dealing with alcohol,” suggesting that alcohol sales should be treated differently under the law than other consumer products.

Asked if he has a sense of what the General Assembly is thinking, Smith replied:

“Most everyone’s keeping their powder dry,” but he added that the opposition party – the Democrats, who have a majority in the state Senate – are unlikely to be supportive.

Still, Smith does not think support or opposition to these proposals will be driven entirely by partisanship.

“It’ll be back and forth,” he said, although “I think the partisanship will handicap it, somewhat.”

Rural-suburban split
What’s more likely is a rural-suburban split among legislators, depending on the constituencies they represent.

“You’re going to see some of that, clearly, yes,” he noted, pointing out that “Southwest Virginia is going to be the most conservative part of it.”

On the other hand, he said, “there are pockets around the Commonwealth,” which he identified as “the heavily populated areas, without naming the specifics,” where the transition will be welcomed by those who have seen free-market sales in other parts of the country.

At the same time, he expressed some concern that those other states serve as examples of where they “have one [liquor store] essentially on every corner.” In his own visits to other states he has seen “gaudiness” and thinks those stores are “pretty tacky visually.”

Still, he added, “I can’t imagine that it doesn’t encourage more alcohol consumption,” an assertion contradicted by studies such as one released last week by the Virginia Institute of Public Policy, and by some of the research done by economist Antony Davies, who was interviewed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner last Thursday.

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 9, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Interview with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on ABC privatization - Part 2

Examiner.com exclusive: Interview with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on ABC privatization - Part 2
August 8, 2010 2:45 AM MST

Just before the first of eight town hall meetings he is hosting around the state, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell sat down in Roanoke with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner for an exclusive interview.

As a Republican candidate for governor in 2009, McDonnell had promised to privatize the state’s system of alcoholic beverage control (ABC), which includes government ownership of liquor wholesale and retail operations. The system dates to 1934, after the passage of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which ended alcohol Prohibition.

Unlike distilled spirits, beer and wine are sold privately, through both wholesalers and retailers, in Virginia.

Answering Opponents
In continuing the conversation about ABC reform, McDonnell was asked about opponents of privatization, which may include beer wholesalers and others who fear competition in a free-market environment.

“Once the proposal is announced,” he said, adding “on exactly what the right mechanics are, it will then go to my government reform commission.”

After getting input from the commission and from citizens, the administration “will address some of the concerns that people have,” such as fears that money will be taken from the state’s general fund and that there might be an increase in crime in the absence of direct government control of liquor sales.

Privatization, McDonnell said, “maximizes the competition to reduce price, increase quality, [and] increase convenience. I think everybody will have a fair shake at getting a distribution license. We’ll still have strong enforcement of the rules; it will just be done by a private vendor, not by a government monopoly.”

Addressing the concerns of beer wholesalers and others who fear competition, he said, “at the end of the day, if people think that somehow this privatization might not be good for their business, then maybe they’ll still be opposed to it. But we’re going to knock down most of the opposition”

Creating and Retaining Jobs
McDonnell believes strongly that privatizing the ABC system will create jobs, but he also believes a new system will accommodate current ABC workers.

“We have 2,500 employees right now that work in the state system for ABC. We think they’re good employees,” he asserted. New, private-sector vendors “will have every incentive to try to hire the government workers.”

Rick Sincere interviews Bob McDonnell

McDonnell said, “it’s obvious” why the new owners will want to retain most of the current workers. “They’re trained, they know the system.”

Beyond job creation, however, the emphasis on McDonnell’s mind is what he calls privatization’s “biggest benefit”: an immediate windfall of “$500 million or more for transportation.”

Over the past several years, he said, “there’s been a lot of discussion about transportation and many proposals have failed.”

Unlike those, this proposal, McDonnell said, “is one that uses the free market, gets the government out of business, [creates] smaller government [and] more competition, and generates a half a billion for transportation.

“To me,” he concluded, “that’s a win-win and I think it’s one of the biggest reasons we’ll have public support for this idea.”

Part 1 of Governor McDonnell’s interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner is available on Examiner.com. See the attached video for a complete recording of the conversation.

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 8, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Interview with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on ABC privatization - Part 1

Examiner.com exclusive: Interview with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on ABC privatization - Part 1
August 8, 2010 2:34 AM MST

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell proposed during his 2009 election campaign that the Commonwealth should end the government’s monopoly on the wholesale and retail sales of distilled spirits, with the intention of raising millions of dollars that would be applied to transportation needs.

While this proposal was not acted upon during the 2010 session of the General Assembly, this summer the governor began floating ideas about how privatization of the ABC system could be implemented. McDonnell sees privatizing liquor sales as part of a broad-based government reform program.

Town Hall Meetings
McDonnell hosted the first of eight town hall meetings on government reform in Roanoke on August 4. Prior to the meeting, McDonnell sat down with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner for a one-on-one, exclusive interview on the topic of ABC privatization.

Bob McDonnell

The first question posed to McDonnell referred to the fact that other so-called “control” states – states where liquor, and sometimes beer and wine as well, is sold through state-owned stores and wholesale operations – are considering a transition to a free market system. These include Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Washington.

What has the McDonnell administration learned from government leaders from these other states?

“Our team has been working for four or five months,” McDonnell said, “talking to legislators, talking to people in the industry, looking at the best practices from other states, to try to find out what’s the best model for us to use in Virginia.”

Citing the historical context, McDonnell noted that “since Prohibition was repealed almost 80 years ago, 32 states have adopted a private system of distribution of alcohol. Only 18 states,” he said, including Virginia, are left with the control system.

Learning ‘what’s right for Virginia’
He said specifically that while “we’ve got some things we’ve learned about from other states,” he has “not talked to other governors,” instead looking at other states’ “experience and trying to find what’s right for Virginia.”

Returning to his theme about general government reform, McDonnell insisted that ABC privatization “is one of hundreds of issues that we hope to address in a government reform special session” of the General Assembly.

The ABC question, he admitted, “is one that’s got a little bit more of a profile because it’s a fairly significant, systematic change we think will generate maybe half a billion dollars for transportation, which is something we need.”

‘A win-win’
Moreover, he added, “it’s getting the government out of the business of alcohol distribution, which I don’t think it needs to be in. We’ve [sold] beer and wine [privately] for 70 years; we can certainly do distilled spirits” in the same way.

McDonnell argued that privatization is “a win-win,” because it gets “the private sector making economies of scale and, I think, it’s the right thing to do.”

Governor McDonnell’s interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner will be continued in Part 2. See the attached video for a complete recording of the conversation.

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 8, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives - Privileges, immunities, gun rights: Charlottesville lawyer Buddy Weber discusses the 14th Amendment

Privileges, immunities, gun rights: Charlottesville lawyer Buddy Weber discusses the 14th Amendment
August 6, 2010 12:49 PM MST

In a recent post on the group blog, The League of Ordinary Gentleman, the Cato Institute’s Jason Kuznicki discusses the history and understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constition.

Kuznicki, a historian and assistant editor of the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, argues that “maybe we could make the Fourteenth Amendment apply to all people. Just one of those crazy ideas, you know, that I got from the text of the amendment itself.”

He further explains that “our constitution must absolutely be a set of general principles pointing at liberty, combined with a set of specific operating procedures for government. It needs to be a general grant of liberty, and a limited grant of power, because a limited grant of liberty very quickly begins to eat itself. General grants of liberty, however, must be expressed in general terms, and this necessarily leaves the working out of particulars to each subsequent generation.”

Fourteenth and Second Amendments
Kuznicki’s blog post fits in nicely with the argument made by Charlottesville attorney Charles “Buddy” Weber on WINA-AM’s The Schilling Show earlier this week, during a discussion of two recent Supreme Court decisions that addressed the right to keep and bear arms.

In an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner on August 5, Weber summed up the two cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Buddy Weber

Heller, he said, held that a Washington resident had the individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms within his own home in a federal enclave, the District of Columbia. McDonald, he explained, had essentially the same facts but was applied against a state (Illinois).

In Heller, Weber explained, “the interesting thing about the case, although it came out 5-4, was that all of the justices used originalism as the basis for their argument. I know we’ve always heard about the debate among the justices between originalism vs. the ‘living constitution’ concept. Those in favor of the living constitution have always critiqued originalism as a basis for interpreting the constitution.”

What this shows, Weber continued, is “that reasonable people can disagree as to what the history really was, but it boiled down to the plain meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. When it says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ does ‘the people’ really mean the people, or does it mean ‘the government’?”

Weber was particularly impressed by the reasoning of Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
“The question is,” he said, “does the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate the entire body of the Bill of Rights and hold the states responsible for the content, the substance of those rights?”

That question is still relevant “because the Supreme Courts in the post-Civil War era just simply refused to acknowledge what was intended by the Fourteenth Amendment,” Weber explained. The court “issued a whole bunch of decisions that narrowed the meaning of it, specifically the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which came out of the Slaughterhouse Cases. They eviscerated that and [it] was dead-letter law for well over 100 years.”

Prior to the McDonald case, Weber said, “in order for the courts to backtrack and get some of those rights applied against the state, they’ve used the Due Process Clause.”

‘Absolute Clarity’
In McDonald, however, “Justice Thomas, in a moment of absolute clarity, has basically looked at that whole history and said, you know, this is all legal fiction. How can you possibly claim that a clause in the constitution that guarantees only a legal process guarantees any substantive rights whatsoever?”

Paraphrasing the Thomas opinion, Weber explained that “we need to go back and revisit that whole line of cases on the Privileges and Immunities Clause,” saying that “it ought to be held against the states because the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms as a privilege of citizenship in the United States and the Fourteenth Amendment specifically says no state shall abridge the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States.”

‘Straightforward Reading’
Praising this “really straightforward reading of the words of the Constitution,” Weber exclaimed, “thank God, it’s about time! Maybe we’ll get back to that sort of legal interpretation in the future.”

Weber, who is also chairman of the Charlottesville Republican Committee, predicts that the remaining rights listed in the Constitution – to a grand jury indictment, to a jury trial in civil cases, against excessive fines, and against the quartering of soldiers during peacetime – will “all get incorporated in time. It’s a question of whether they get incorporated piecemeal” or whether, like Jason Kuznicki, “somebody just says ‘these are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and they all ought to be incorporated.’”

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 6, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Economist Antony Davies debunks arguments against liquor sale privatization

Economist Antony Davies debunks arguments against liquor sale privatization
August 5, 2010 5:12 PM MST

Based on studies he has done regarding the privatization of alcoholic beverage sales in other states, Duquesne University economist Antony Davies concludes that “the major opposition surrounds the social impact of privatizing alcohol. The conventional wisdom would say if you privatize alcohol, the state loses control, and you will see more social problems associated with drinking.”

Empirically, however, this is not true, Davies told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner in a telephone interview on August 5. He distinguished between levels of “control,” from the free-market systems that exist in most states, to moderate control (such as in Virginia, where beer and wine are sold by private businesses) to full control (such as Pennsylvania, where even beer and wine are sold by a state-owned monopoly).

No Substantial Difference
A 2009 study he wrote for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives (a Pennsylvania think tank) with fellow Duquesne economist John Pulito, resulted in these findings, based on statistics from 1970 through 2006:

“….advocates claim that the social goals of reducing alcohol consumption, underage drinking, and alcohol-related traffic deaths justify controlling wholesale and retail alcohol markets.

“Evidence from 48 states over time shows no link between market controls and these social goals.”

Dr. Davies said in the interview that “we’re not seeing any evidence that greater control leads to better social outcomes.”

There is an exception, however, that Davies pointed out over the telephone: “DUI fatalities are significantly higher in states with more control than states with less control.”

Other factors, however, are different, he said. “If you look at per capita alcohol consumption, there’s no difference as you move from full to moderate to light control.”

Underage Drinking
As to claims that state-owned liquor stores are a better protection against selling alcohol to minors and underage drinking, Davies explained that people think “at a gut level” that private businesses “have an incentive to sell to minors. We see that’s not the case.”

Why not? “If alcohol is sold in the private market, the owner of the store has a profit incentive not to sell to minors, because if he gets caught, he loses his license. He wants to protect his business.”

Davies, who is also a visiting scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Northern Virginia, concludes: “If you look at the data, there’s no clear pattern [that emerges showing] that imposing more control reduces underage drinking.”

Financial Arguments
In addition to the “social outcome” arguments against privatization, Davies said that “there are some financial arguments but they tend not to hold too much water.”

Those arguments, he said, “are pretty easily knocked down when you realize the state can continue to tax alcohol regardless of whether it’s sold publicly or privately.”

Davies pointed to legislation currently under consideration by Pennsylvania, which proposes to sell that state’s alcoholic beverage stores. “What’s pushing this [proposal] is the budget crunch. Selling the state store system would immediately raise the $2 billion necessary to close the budget gap.”

From the state’s perspective, Davies continued, “this is a win-win situation financially. The state can sell off its ABC system for a lump sum of cash and then continue to collect alcohol taxes and fees.”

As for Virginia, Professor Davies said he did a “back of the envelope calculation” after “looking at latest ABC statement of revenues.” Superficially, he said, “Virginia would lose about 30 percent of what it’s taking in” in operating profits.

What that doesn’t take into account, however, is lost revenue from Virginia customers who do their shopping in the District of Columbia, Maryland, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Nor does it account for the revenue increases that will result from private operation of liquor stores.

“Here’s why it may be revenue-positive,” he explained. “You achieve all these things – more convenient locations, more convenient hours, better customer service, so sales will increase. Plus auctioning off licenses” will result in previously unavailable revenue for the state.

Rent Seekers
Davies also addressed why one of the primary opponents of ABC privatization would be groups like the beer wholesalers, whose products are already sold in privately owned stores.

“Beer wholesalers,” he said, “are most against privatization of wine and spirits because it increases their competition.” By making comparable products more easily available to the same customers, “that’s going to eat into the profits of the beer distributors.”

In that regard, Davies offered some advice for voters and taxpayers who are paying attention to the privatization debate in Virginia:

“Generally speaking, the economists’ mantra is ‘follow the money.’ If you find someone arguing for or against a regulation, ask where he gets his money from.”

That seems to be a simple explanation of the motivation of some opponents of ABC privatization.

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 5, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Virginia’s school supplies ‘tax-free holiday’ more complicated than necessary

Virginia’s school supplies ‘tax-free holiday’ more complicated than necessary
August 4, 2011 11:34 PM MST

From 12:01 a.m. on Friday, August 5, through midnight on Sunday, August 7, shoppers in Virginia will be able to enjoy a sales tax holiday on a limited number of items. The tax holiday’s goal is to ease some of the burden on families with children who are purchasing school supplies in anticipation of the coming academic year.

The first tax-free school shopping holiday took place in August 2006 and has been repeated each year since then.

Shoppers save $4.3 million

Governor Bob McDonnell explained in a statement released by his office:

“Returning to class is an exciting time for students, but it can also be a stressful time for their parents. Saving 5 percent on their purchases is not a great deal, but every bit helps in this struggling economy. I urge all Virginians to go out and save money, while supporting our retail community.”

The governor’s office estimated that this year’s tax-free holiday will save Virginia shoppers $4.3 million in sales taxes that they would otherwise pay.

Delegate Rob Bell (R-58) of Albemarle County pointed out in an email to constituents that during the tax-holiday weekend, “a variety of school supplies will be tax-free as long as each item costs $20 or less. Most clothing items and footwear will also be exempt from the 5 percent sales tax as long as they are priced at $100 or less each. There is no limit on the number of items you can purchase tax-free as long as each item qualifies.”

Whatever its merits, the sales-tax holiday’s framework is far more complicated than it needs to be. The Virginia Department of Taxation provides a lengthy list of those items that are eligible and others that are ineligible for the sales tax exemption through the weekend. It would have been much simpler for the General Assembly to decree that all consumer items priced at $100 or less would be tax-exempt for the 72-hour period of the tax holiday.

Mix of inconsistencies

Instead, the list offers a higgledy-piggledy mix of inconsistencies, in which “athletic supporters” are eligible items, but “cleated or spiked athletic shoes” are not. Computers and computer peripherals (like printers) are ineligible, but “all calculators, including those with printing capabilities” are eligible for the exemption.

Some eligible items have little or no relation to school supplies: choir and altar clothing; diapers, children and adult, including disposable diapers; and wedding apparel, including veils, to name a few.

“Book bags” are tax exempt but “briefcases” and “handbags” are not. Clothing items that dancers wear -- leotards and tights -- are eligible but ballet and tap shoes are not.

The lengthy and inconsistent list should be evidence that neither the General Assembly nor the Department of Taxation has thought through all of the ramifications of the tax-free holiday.

Business logic

Retail businesses, however, have thought things through to their logical conclusion.

In years past, some stores have simply absorbed the sales taxes on items left off the official list, declaring that virtually everything on their shelves would be tax-free for the weekend.

If the government behaved as rationally as businesses, that policy would be true across the board, in 2011 and in the future.

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 29, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: CPAC bars GOProud; presidential candidate Gary Johnson presciently weighs in

CPAC bars GOProud; presidential candidate Gary Johnson presciently weighs in
August 3, 2011 11:54 PM MST

In the lead-up to the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a minor controversy developed with regard to the presence of GOProud, an organization of gay conservatives and their allies. Several long-time CPAC participants announced that they would not take part in the 2011 conference because of GOProud’s presence.

The controversy came to a head, if not a conclusion, on July 29, when Gregg Keller, executive director of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which runs CPAC each year, sent a letter to GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia with what GOProud characterized as “disappointing news.”

‘Not invited’

Keller told LaSalvia: “As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you that GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.”

According to the Daily Caller, a similar letter was sent to the John Birch Society, which had a formal presence at CPAC for the first time in 2011.

Keller went on in the letter to say that GOProud members were welcome to attend CPAC and its programs as “individual registrants.”

‘Divisive agenda’

GOProud’s board of directors issued a response to the letter that said, in part, ““For the last two years, GOProud has sought to support CPAC and keep the conservative movement united. Unfortunately, elements inside and outside of ACU have pushed their own narrow, divisive and sometimes personal agenda. They have done so at the expense of the conservative movement.”

The GOProud board added that the focus of the conservative movement should be on defeating Barack Obama next year, not on internal bickering.

During CPAC, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner had an opportunity to interview Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson and asked him specifically about the GOProud controversy. His words presaged GOProud's reaction to its banishment from CPAC.


‘Gay rights are included’

Johnson, who has distinguished himself within the Republican presidential field with his libertarian positions on social issues, said the situation was “unfortunate.”

Governor Gary Johnson at CPAC 2011

Republicans, he said, quoting the Declaration of Independence, espouse as central values “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Johnson said that “liberty and freedom” are basic “tenets of what this country" stands for and that “gay rights are included in that" vision.

The former two-term New Mexico governor went on to say that “what I’m really trying to do is grow the Republican Party” because he thinks the GOP “is the only party capable of fixing where we’re at right now.”

Looking toward 2012, Johnson stated his hope “that Americans would give Republicans another shot at doing that -- but to do that, the Republican Party’s got to grow, got to be bigger than a narrow focus.”

In July, Johnson followed up on his comments at CPAC by becoming the first presidential candidate to refuse to sign the so-called “Family Leader” pledge in Iowa, calling it “offensive and unRepublican” because of its animus toward members of minority groups. At the same time, he released a campaign video titled “Tolerance Is American.”

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 3, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Attracting and retaining businesses are the key to job growth, says Albemarle Supervisor Ken Boyd

Attracting and retaining businesses are the key to job growth, says Albemarle Supervisor Ken Boyd
August 3, 2010 9:56 PM MST

Controversy over Charlottesville’s use of taxpayer funds to lure a firm from Albemarle County into the city, as well as the Coca-Cola Bottling Company’s decision to leave Charlottesville after 70 years, have brought to the fore concerns about recruiting and retaining businesses in the area.

Albemarle County Supervisor Ken Boyd brought this issue up in a recent interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, when he lamented that attracting new businesses is “something we want to do but we’re as anxious to keep the ones that we’ve got. We’ve been bleeding an awful lot of private sector jobs recently,” adding ruefully that “all our manufacturing jobs have just about left from the county.”

Lack of space
One problem Boyd highlighted was the lack of room for expansion, which was one of the reasons given for the Coke bottling plant’s move to a consolidated facility near Richmond.

Boyd pointed out that Albemarle has had “technology companies that have left the county because there’s not been a place for them to move to, they need to expand.”

Consequently, he said, county officials are “trying to take a very hard look at our land-use policies to make sure that there’s land available.”

He offered this illustration of the problem:

“I talked to a businessman the other day who moved his business to Greene [County]. The reason he did was because when he came” to Albemarle seeking a site for his company, “he was told to get through our bureaucratic process and it would probably be 18 months before we could approve a site for him. He went to Greene and he had his building up in six months.”

Boyd said the goal of economic development efforts is “to make sure there’s land available for somebody who is a plumber or an electrician or a carpenter, [so] that they have a place to thrive and grow their business here. We see them moving to other communities” even though “the work they do is here.” The problem, he said, is that “it’s too expensive to go through the process and get established in their business.”

Economic Vitality Action Plan
To address these issues, Albemarle County officials are now “in the process of talking about an Economic Vitality Plan,” Boyd said. “We’re trying to look at how an overburdening regulations impact our business community. We’re trying to figure out how we can stimulate private sector jobs.”

While the University of Virginia is an engine for job creation, as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), “these are all state and federal jobs,” Boyd said, and “we certainly want to grow the private sector, to make [it] an important part of the jobs we have available here.”

The Economic Vitality Action Plan that has been under discussion by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will be voted on at the board’s meeting on August 11.



Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 3, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: NRO’s Jonah Goldberg finds witch hunts and inquisitions ‘fascinating’

NRO’s Jonah Goldberg finds witch hunts and inquisitions ‘fascinating’
August 2, 2012 3:40 PM MST

In writing his new book about progressive ideology, National Review Online contributor Jonah Goldberg discovered some surprising facts about the inquisitions of the Middle Ages.

While conducting research for The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas, Goldberg “became really fascinated with the history of the inquisitions and the witch hunts in medieval Europe.”

His book, a follow-up to the 2008 best-seller Liberal Fascism, includes a lengthy, four-part chapter on the Catholic Church, a result of what he uncovered.

Until he began looking into the topic more deeply, Goldberg said, he had “had no idea how incredibly screwed up our popular understanding of what the witch hunts were about and what the inquisitions were about.”

Misunderstanding witch hunts
Goldberg spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about his research during a break at the RightOnline conference in Las Vegas in June.

He noted that recognizing our misunderstanding of the nature of witch hunts is “not to say the witch hunts were good or the inquisitions were good, but they were far less the tragedies and travesties that the Left or the popular culture makes them out to be."

Moreover, he added, "the role the Catholic Church in these things was far different than what I had realized.”

Church as check

Jonah Goldberg

What Goldberg learned is that “the Catholic Church was a check on [the worst of] these things. The real problems were with the people themselves -- the masses, They were constantly wanting to lynch people for being witches.”

At the same time, taking advantage of the peasants’ illiteracy “local, secular aristocrats and lords were constantly pandering to the mob and the Church would come in and say, ‘Calm down everybody, let’s figure out if this person is really a witch or not.’ and often, very often, would say, ‘You guys are nuts, leave this poor woman alone.’”

Pointing to an image from popular culture, Goldberg explained that “the role of the Catholic Church we get from Monty Python, ‘Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition’, is a much more complicated story. I found that fascinating and that’s why I have such a huge chapter on the Catholic Church” in The Tyranny of Cliches.

An audio version of the complete interview with Jonah Goldberg is available on Bearing Drift radio, "The Score."

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 2, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.