Stop Increased Marijuana Penalties in Cincinnati

Cincinnati City Council to vote on increased marijuana penalties Wednesday; act now to block the ordinance!

Right now, a person who gets caught in Cincinnati with a small amount of marijuana faces a $100 fine. But if City Councilman Cecil Thomas (D) has his way that person would face a $250 fine and up to 30 days in jail. The council will vote on this bill this Wednesday, March 22, and we need your help to stop this reckless legislation now!

There are three things you can do to stand up for reasonable marijuana laws in Cincinnati.

1. Please call the members of the City Council and tell them that you oppose Councilman Thomas’ motion to increase penalties for possession of small quantities of marijuana. You can help to protect Cincinnati’s responsible marijuana policies. Each phone call takes only a moment, and you can call the entire council in only 10 minutes. Please find their phone numbers listed below:

Mayor Mark Mallory (D) — (513) 352-3250
Vice Mayor James Tarbell (D) — (513) 352-3604
Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz (R) — (513) 352-3344
Councilman Jeff Berding (D) — (513) 352-3289
Councilman John Cranely (D) — (513) 352-4657
Councilman Chris Monzel (R) — (513) 352-4649
Councilwoman Y. Laketa Cole (D) — (513) 352-3466
Councilman Chris Bortz (I) — (513) 352-3249
Councilman David Crowley (D) — (513) 352-2453
Councilman Cecil Thomas (D) — (513) 352-3492

2. Please follow up your calls by e-mailing the members of the City Council. Our Web site will enable you to automatically e-mail your letter to the members ... all with the click of a few buttons. The whole process takes less than two minutes, but it makes a world of difference.
Please act now.

3. Then, please send a letter-to-the-editor to your local papers and express your opposition to Councilman Thomas’ emergency ordinance. Our automated system will easily allow you to send a letter to newspapers in Ohio. It takes only a few moments, but it can make a world of difference. Feel free to draw from the talking points that we have provided, but remember that a personalized letter is more likely to be published than a form letter.

Please send a letter-to-the-editor today.

Councilman Thomas’ motion follows an attempt last year by former Councilman David Pepper to increase marijuana possession to a third degree misdemeanor. Councilman Pepper’s proposal was rejected, and with your help Councilman Thomas’ efforts this year will meet the same fate.
Thank you for supporting the Marijuana Policy Project. Please pass this message on to your friends and family around the state so that even more voices for reform can be heard.

If you would like more information about MPP or would like to find out how you can get involved, please contact Jonas Singer at JSinger@mpp.org or (202) 462-5747 ext. 125.

Legislating Gay Rights?

Most Americans are familiar with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Most people know who Martin Luther King Jr is, and they are aware of his famous "I have a Dream" speech. In many Southern cities and states, segreegation was a requirement by the government. 'Colored skinned' people could not sit with people who had white skin. There were seperate seating sections in restaurants, concerts, on the bus, and even they could not use the same drinking water fountains. In a free society, it seemed odd that some law abiding people be required by law not to mingle with other law abiding people.

Thus came the Civil Rights Movement.

This movement not only pushed to gets those laws eliminated, but it also pushed to make bigoted acts illegal. With the Civil Rights Act, it would eventually become illegal to refuse service, housing, business, or employment to somebody based on their race (as well as gended and national origin). This was supposed to bring minorities on equal standing with whites in society. How well has it worked? Let's fast forward to 2006.

Are miniorities making as much money as whites?
Who lives in the poorer parts of town?
Are the worst schools generally racially diverse schools?

The answers are no, no, and no.

In the early 1900's, there was a lot of anti-Irish discrimination. When looking in old newspapers from the era, one could see Help Wanted ads with the words "Irish need not apply" on the bottom of the ad. In the first part of the 20th century, there was also a lot of anti-German bigotry. Even before World War I, there were many people of British decent that would not do business with a German. What laws were passed to make Germans and Irish on equal footing as other Americans? None.

My question now is, why would we expect to have a Gay Rights Law in Cincinnati be any different? If the entire 20th century has shown that we cannot pass laws to make people equal, why is there a debate about there being yet another law to do something that has not been accomplished before?

Obvious, somebody who is a staunch homophobe would be against this law. However, somebody who is the staunchest of Gay Rights supporters should not support this ordinance is going to be nothing more than a useless law that will give the Government more power over the lives of oridnary people.

This law is just like so many other government programs, they are very well intentioned, but so badly misguided.

How to Lower Home Heating Prices

With winter coming to an end, many people are happy about heating prices coming to an end, at least until next winter. Several states are now talking about taking legal action against natural gas producers claiming that they unfairly charged a higher price for natural gas. Those state Attorney Generals are hoping that a court will order more regulations over the energy industry to prevent future price spikes. How well will this work? Let’s consider a recent conversation I had with my mother.

The other day I called my mother. I called to tell her that I had gotten a brand new digital phone, now I have a new phone number. A few years ago, I got rid of my land line because my cell phone was cheaper. With digital phone, I get free caller id, free voice mail, free 3-way calling, and free long distance. So that 45 minute phone call I had with my mother was free. These are things that a traditional land line carrier charges for.

I got to thinking about long distance calling in the past. In 2000, all the rage was using a long distance prefix to get a cheaper rate (remember 10-10-220?). My 45 minute phone call would have cost me $4.14 with their service (plus taxes). In 1995, Sprint had a huge marketing campaign about long distance calls (intrastate only) for 10 cents a minute (what a bargain, at the time). My conversation would have cost me $4.50 (plus taxes). In the mid 80’s, if that call had been made before 7:00pm during the week, that call would have easily run 35 cents per minute ($15.75). If it was after 7:00pm, but before 11:00pm, then that call would have been closer to 20 per minute ($9.00), and 15 cents if I stayed up past 11:00pm (cost $6.75, and my parents are usually asleep then).

What caused this? In 1982, and again in 1984, the government broke up the monopoly that AT&T had over local telephone and long distance service (it was a government mandated monopoly). This allowed companies like Sprint and MCI into the telecommunications field. Competition helped drive down the price, fewer government regulations meant less overhead costs to do business, and smaller competitors could more easily enter the field (now companies like T-Mobile are founded). This mean more competition. And competition drives down prices and drives up innovation. In 1985, who would have imagined one could use their computer to make free long distance phone calls.

Now in this age of communications, some companies have discovered that they can offer phone service over high-speed internet connections. This phone service can be offered at a fraction of the price of a traditional landline. In fact, my monthly bill is about the same as what I paid in 1996 for basic phone service (long distance not included).

When the telecommunications industry was run with huge regulations, the service was expensive (and I won’t even go into the quality of service one received). Now why would one expect more regulations to be good for natural gas service? Gas and electric service is already one of the most regulated industries in the country. One has to wonder, if true deregulation works for telecommunications, what is the logic behind adding even more regulations to gas providers? My phone bill is low. In fact, 2 years worth of phone bills is about how much I pay during this past winter for only one month to CG&E. To help out the consumer, why doesn’t the government do to Gas and Electric what they did to phone service?

"The Banks" Project Failure

With tax season in full swing, I am reminded of an analogy that Harry Browne made in his book Why Government Doesn’t Work. Many people see how inefficiently government departments are run only when they have to deal with that department. Most people have waited in a long line at the BMV, many know how long it takes for one to get their IRS refund. Getting lost in the mail is still a cliche. And now we are learning how inefficient government is when it comes to development. Development of “The Banks” has been a long, inefficient process to say the least. In fact, after almost six months of talks and planning, nothing has even been decided. You see, our politicians can’t seem to decide what exactly should be built there, and how it should be financed.

Now, let’s look across the river. Northern Kentucky has seen lost of redevelopment (Coporex building, the Aquarium, Newport on the Levee). Can anybody tell me which politicians brokered the deals to get those buildings built? You can’t. Those were private projects, funded with private money, developed by people who will lose money if things are not done correctly.

How much public outcry was there? None. How many politicians paraded around looking high and mighty that they were responsible for redeveloping their city? None. Since it was run by people who were going to lose a lot of money if they failed, they were able to decide on a good plan, implement it, and finish it in a fashion that will make them money.

Back to Ohio, now. Who is running this? The county politicians and the city politicians are fighting with each other about who should control this. The city and county governments are fighting about who should pay for this. It has gotten to be so old and childish that people are now begging our politicians to, “Just do something!” I hate to see what “Something” is. This is being run by our politicians who have nothing to lose. If they build something, and it fails, who will take responsibility? Phil Heimlich, Pat DeWine, and Todd Portune will all be long out of office. In 20 years, nobody is going to point the finger at anybody that is on Cincinnati city council today? The people who will be responsible will be the tax payers of the future. If there is this much bickering about how to get this project up and running, imagine the problems we will face when the project is complete and several million dollars a year are needed to maintain “The Banks”.

Over in Kentucky, there are a lot of new towers that have sprung up in recent years. One developer named Bill Butler owns most of the development. Jerry Carol is another developer that has financed a lot of development in Kentucky as well (including the Kentucky Speedway). A lot more is happening in Kentucky where private developers are taking the lead on such projects. Yet, Cincinnati City Council and the Hamilton County Commissioners seem to think that they can do a better job. Instead of selling the land to somebody who knows what they are doing, “The Banks” project is becoming nothing more than a political topic. Why doesn’t the city and county follow the lead that Newport did?

Harry Browne, Rest in Peace

This afternoon, Downsize DC announced that two time Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne passed away. News of his passing has spread like wild fire throughout the internet (personally, I have gotten four different e-mails about it, in only a few hours). I cannot think of one single person or event that has inspired people to join the Libertarian Party. In tribute, I am re-publishing Harry Browne's last essay. Even though he had been in failing health for several months, I don't think Harry Browne intended this to be his last essay. You can visit his personal website http://www.HarryBrowne.org to see a collection of all of his writtings. This was published on December 12, 2005, entitled

Why You Are a Libertarian

You’re a libertarian because you abhor violence . . .

When a neighbor isn’t willing to contribute as much to a social project as you are, you’d never think of:

• Using a gun to force him to contribute;
  
• Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap him or confiscate his money if he didn’t contribute;
  
• Using the government in place of the armed gang if he didn’t contribute — because every government program, in the final analysis, involves violence against those who don’t comply.
  

If two people have agreed to engage in voluntary behavior between them, with no violence involved, you’d never think of:

• Using a gun to stop them;
  
• Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap them if they didn’t stop;
  
• Using the government in place of the armed gang to stop them.

If a company and an individual have agreed to engage in voluntary behavior between them, with no violence involved, you’d never think of:

• Using a gun to stop them;
• Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap them if they didn’t stop;
• Using the government in place of the armed gang to stop them.

If a foreign government is not attacking America, you’d never support the idea of initiating violence against the foreign country.

As one who abhors violence, you’re willing to tolerate anything that’s peaceful, and you practice the principle of live and let live — opposing the initiation of force (violence) against anyone for any purpose.

That’s why you’re a libertarian.

Real Property Tax Reform

I have been very busy with tax season, so I have not had time to update the blog. So I am republishing an article writen by LPO Chair Jason Hallmark from his blog "Yearning to Breathe Free". Visit his blog here.

The Columbus Dispatch published an article today on Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Bill Peirce entitled “Grounds for Change”. The article discusses Peirce’s support for reforming the property tax system.

Granted, I’ve only recently began studying the “Land Tax”, as originally theorized by Henry George. But from what I’ve learned, there are some pretty encouraging implications in such a system, especially when it comes to urban “blight”.

Many proponents of eminent domain cite the need for cities to seize property from private owners in order to facilitate and stimulate “economic growth”. Often, one might find large areas of run-down, dilapidated buildings, unkept slums, and other unsightly properties. As the argument goes, allowing government the power to take property in order to clean things up is the only way to combat such things. But by reforming property taxes to exclude the value of buildings, taxing only the land value would alter the incentives that are built in to the system.
An end to tax policy that rewards owners of dilapidated and vacant properties with low tax bills and penalizes those who invest in their properties with higher tax bills.

Since buildings become less important to total value, property owners don’t pay higher taxes when they add a Florida room or build a 12-story office instead of a two-story.Owners of vacant lots or dilapidated buildings see their taxes rise to the level of similar-size properties nearby. The tax increase motivates slumlords to invest enough to pay the higher bill or sell out.

The fundamental question of any taxation system revolves around what sorts of activity will be rewarded, and what will be punished. For example, the income tax punishes work and savings; sales taxes punish consumption; and the current property taxes discourage investment, and reward negligent property owners.It seems to me, reforming property taxes to tax only the value of the land would result in greater incentives to invest in and upgrade one’s property. It may even help reduce urban sprawl. In the end, there would less need for a munipalities to assert eminent domain, as the free market would be taking care of itself.

In any event, this is an idea worth looking into.