With Election Day less than a week away, most Amherst College students who reside in other states have already filled in and sent out their absentee ballots. A fair number of us, though, will be voting on Election Day in Amherst. Those of us who will be casting ballots in Massachusetts will probably have limited effect on the outcome of the presidential race and the battle for Congress—Obama is winning the state by a gazillion points, and neither Senator Kerry nor Congressman John Olver is exactly sweating it out at this point in the race. However, Massachusetts voters will be deciding on three interesting and important state ballot initiatives, the implications of which cut to the heart of what government should, and should not, be doing.

Ballot Question One would abolish the Massachusetts state income tax. This proposal comes up every few years, and it is always an exceedingly bad idea. We think that those households who earn a greater income, and can therefore afford to pay a larger amount of money in taxes, should continue to do so. Those who have benefited from the opportunities afforded them by our society should expect to pay slightly more than those less fortunate, to ensure that succeeding generations have the same avenues and services open to them as we do.

We think abolishing this tax will breed multiple negative outcomes. According to the advocacy group Vote No On Question 1, income tax revenue provides 40 percent of the state’s budget. This may force the state to cut social services radically, and regardless of cuts made, would definitely cause Massachusetts to run massive deficits. It will drive up property taxes, further dissuading people from buying homes in Massachusetts in what is already a disastrous housing market. It may cause Massachusetts to increase sales taxes, which are naturally regressive, and thus target the consumption of poor people disproportionately. Most likely, a combination of all of these harms will materialize. For Massachusetts to vote yes on Question One would be fiscally suicidal.

Ballot Question Two would decriminalize the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, substituting a series of civil punishments for possession for criminal ones. We think this is a sensible idea. The argument that marijuana is materially more harmful, as a substance, than such things as tobacco and alcohol has been roundly discredited. We contend that people ought to be trusted to make rational decisions regulating their consumption of such substances, rather than have the government, like an overprotective parent, lock things away that could possibly hurt us. Normatively, then, we would go further, and advocate for full legalization and taxation of marijuana. However, we believe that this is a good first step. It’s absolutely silly that somebody’s criminal record should be tainted by the possession of a mere ounce or less of weed.

Ballot Question Three would enact the Greyhound Protection Act, which would ban greyhound racing at Massachusetts dog tracks after the year 2010. There is much to recommend this proposition. It is true that, as the Committee to Protect Dogs argues, greyhounds are treated less than humanely at many Massachusetts tracks. Greyhounds do sometimes get injured at races, and when that happens, often have to be euthanized. However, we believe that these factors, in and of themselves, are not reason enough to support this measure. Greyhound racing is not dog fighting, a blood sport in which people enjoy watching dogs rip each other limb from limb, brutalizing animals and watchers alike. In principle, it is little different than horse racing. In both sports, we use animals for our enjoyment, and in both, there is a risk of injury. However, neither dog racing nor horse racing endorses violence, and neither of them has as object the disembowelment of the creatures involved. If there are problems with the treatment of racing greyhounds, this is something Massachusetts can address through regulatory measures. Generally, we don’t think the state should impose blanket bans on recreational activities when their harms can be effectively addressed with nuanced oversight. Massachusetts can cope with greyhound racing with a legislative scalpel; Question Three attacks it with a chain saw.

Ultimately, we believe that government should provide a reasonable level of services and opportunities for its constituents, and pay for it by means of a fairly distributed tax structure. When it comes to its citizens’ private lives, government should leave well enough alone, as long as there aren’t significant harms to other people. On Nov. 4, Amherst students, and Massachusetts residents, have the chance to actualize that philosophy of government. We say, No on One, Yes on Two, and No on Three.