Vol. 101, Iss. 31 | Friday, February 10, 2012
The Flat Hat The Twice-Weekly Student Newspaper
Faculty
of The College of William and Mary
Flathatnews.com | Follow us:
General Assembly
Gun bill misfires
Turning a new leaf
College will remain a firearm-free campus
General Assembly considers fiscal benefits of marijuana legalization
by Vanessa Remmers flat hat news editor
BY connor norton flat hat staff writer
Relief was expressed by some members of the College of William and Mary community when a proposed Virginia General Assembly bill that would have overturned the College’s gun policy was shot down. House Bill 91, sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall, R-13, would have allowed full-time faculty members at public universities who possess state concealed handgun permits to carry weapons on campuses regardless of university gun policies. “I don’t think we want to give them [College faculty] guns,” President of the Faculty Assembly and marketing professor Tom Mooradian said. “If we give the faculty guns the only sure bet is on Sentara stock — imagine the spike in inadvertent flesh wounds to the buttocks.” The College’s gun policy, revised in October, currently restricts everyone except law-enforcement officers and university-authorized persons from carrying guns in any campus facility. “I don’t think that right [the right to bear arms] is an unlimited right,” Vice President for Administration Anna Martin said. “The laws of the state of Virginia prohibit employees, prohibit state employees, from carrying guns in the work place. This is our work place.” Both Mooradian and William and Mary Police Chief Donald Challis expressed confidence that College faculty did not feel suppressed by the restrictions in the current gun policy. “There is not any faculty jumping up to say, ‘I want to be armed,’” Challis said. “A greater presence of guns on campus does not correlate to a safer campus. Crime can always happen.” Instead, some faculty members expressed discontent with Marshall’s proposal. “Regrettably, a majority in the two houses of the Virginia General Assembly believes that guns are like handkerchiefs — anyone should be able to carry one, at any time, and at any place,” government professor and former Williamsburg Democratic House of Delegates member Greg Grayson said. To some, it boils down to politics. “The reality is there are very few faculty members who have permits or who know how to handle a weapon, and if a wingnut decides to come on campus, faculty with guns is not going to make a big See GUNS, page 4
courtesy photo / EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
The College of William and Mary considers itself green, from its school colors to its growing involvement in environmentalism. If a recently introduced piece of legislation is passed, there soon may be another reason for some College students to think of themselves as “green.” Delegate David Englin, D-45, has proposed a bill in the Virginia General Assembly to study the fiscal effects of the legalization and sale of marijuana in state ABC stores. Proponents of legalization, like Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron, argue that legalizing marijuana sales and possession would increase tax revenue and decrease police costs associated with drug enforcement laws. In a 2010 paper, “The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition,” published by libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, Miron estimated that in 2008, the commonwealth of Virginia spent more than $125 million enforcing marijuana laws. If those laws were overturned and marijuana had a sin tax levied against it, Miron estimates the commonwealth could expect over $74 million in additional tax revenue. If Miron’s estimates are correct, the state government would stand to gain as much as $200 million, which could be repurposed, possibly to be used for higher education or other programs. Other economists, such as George Mason University economics professor Jon Gettman, argue that Miron’s figures are conservative and the commonwealth could gain as much as $500 million in additional revenue due to decreased drug policing and sin tax revenue as part of a marijuana legalization scheme. Both men agree, however, that the criminal underground associated with the sale and distribution of illicit marijuana would, for the most part, disappear much in the same way that bootlegging and speakeasies disappeared after the end of Prohibition. The Drug Enforcement Administration holds a more pessimistic view toward marijuana legalization. In 2003, the agency pointed to National Institute on Drug Abuse studies that found that the tar introduced to one’s lungs after smoking one joint is twice that produced by a filtered cigarette. The DEA also noted that marijuana would still be sold on the black market, even if it were legalized,
just as pills are sold illegally and alcohol is consumed by minors. Finally, the DEA noted that only a minority of drug offenders in state and federal prisons are there due to possession. Most drug offenders are imprisoned due to repeat offenses or dealing drugs. “Marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized. … It would become much less of an issue than it is now,” Tom Scott-Sharoni ’15, a student who spoke at a 2010 Virginia Beach Town Hall meeting on government reform and restructuring, said. In his statement at the town hall meeting, ScottSharoni referenced Miron and Gettman’s arguments in favor of marijuana legalization, arguing that the legalization of marijuana would generate revenue through taxes and alleviate the strain on the correctional system. Marijuana legalization faces stiff opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Delegates. Opponents cite moral reasons or point to the limited scope of the study, referencing its singular view of fiscal matters. “Do you want to do marijuana? Do you want to do prostitution? Do you want to do gambling?” Republican House Speaker Bill Howell, R-28, said, according to The Washington Examiner. “There are lots of ways to raise revenue, but it doesn’t need to be done.” Delegate Michael Watson, R-93, whose district includes the College, referred to the proposed study as “premature and ill-conceived.” “Looking solely at the fiscal impact is a poor measure of whether marijuana Revenue from legalization legalization would be good for the Amount spent by Commonwealth,” Virginia to enforce $125 Watson said in marijuana laws in an email. “Before million 2008 we open access to a drug that Estimated revenue was previously Virginia could banned, it is $74 bring in by levying important to have million a tax on legalized insight into not marijuana sales only the fiscal impact, but also into the medical, legal, and social impact.” See LEGALIZATION page 3
Politics
General Assembly bill would require identification at polls
Student Assembly leaders contact state legislature to voice opinions and concerns about proposed House bill BY rob marty flat hat assoc. news writer
After concerns were voiced that a Virginia General Assembly bill intended to cut down on voter fraud would negatively impact students, an amendment was added to protect college voters. Senate Bill 1, and its counterpart in the House of Delegates, House Bill 9, require voters to show identification at the polls, but there was concern that the bill left out college identification cards as a valid form of identification. “We were uncomfortable with the section that was unclear on whether college IDs were listed as an acceptable form of identification at the polls,” Keenan Kelly ’14, Student Assembly secretary of public affairs, said. “We thought that might be a problem for certain students who might not have other forms of ID that could be adequate.” The amendment, passed Monday just before voting on Senate Bill 1,
Index News Insight News News Opinions Variety Variety Sports
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
specifies that student identification issued by any four-year college in Virginia is a valid form of identification when voting. The amendment passed by a 21-19 vote, while the bill passed with a 20-20 vote, relying on a tiebreaking vote from Republican Lt. Governor Bill Bolling. The bill was divided along party lines; many Democrats viewed the bill as an attempt to suppress the votes of minorities and other groups. Under the current legislation, a voter without identification can cast a ballot after signing a sworn statement saying they are who they claim to be. The new legislation would still allow this, but votes under a sworn statement would be cast as provisional ballots. “Most provisional ballots are cast, but there are sometimes issues where they are contested,” Kelly said. “We just wanted to make sure all students are counted on the first ballot.” Late last week, SA members began
Today’s Weather
MIchelle gabro / THE FLAT HAT
Campaign signs decorate one of the polling places for students at the College during the state and local elections in November.
contacting the General Assembly to investigate the bill’s potential impact on students and to express their concern to legislators. A statement released Sunday by SA President Kaveh Sadeghian ’12 and Vice President Molly Bulman ’12 described their concerns about the bill.
Inside opinions
Internship woes
Partly cloudy High 58, Low 40
Companies need to place more value on the labor students provide during summer internships. page 5
“One section of the bill addresses which kinds of identification can and cannot be used at the polls,” Sadeghian and Bulman said. “The Student Assembly is not taking a position on the entirety of SB1 but is opposed to any portions that may restrict the voting rights of students.” In addition, over the weekend, class
Inside SPORTS
presidents sent out emails informing students of the possible implications of the bill and included a draft letter to state senators that students could send. “This bill would disproportionately disenfranchise students, as many of us See voting, page 3
Tribe drops fourth straight
A sluggish night on the offensive night doomed the Tribe at home Thursday, as Towson dealt the College its fourth consecutive loss, 56-50. page 8