Munsil Hates Fags: Proposition 107

Len Munsil hates fags.

And unmarried couples, and quite possibly the University of Arizona and the city of Tucson.

Why else would he have led the effort to put the downright spiteful Proposition 107 on the ballot?

Even the usual bonehead reason for supporting this sort of bill doesn't apply here. Many religious people, especially Protestants of the vulgar, "fundamentalist" sort, believe that state law recognizing same-sex marriage somehow changes the definition of marriage used for the purposes of their religion. They never put it that way, of course, as they're thoroughly confused. But Arizona's an easy state to handle for the mouthbreathers as its

Arizona statutesalready declare same-sex marriage void.

Childrearing, too, has nothing to do with Proposition 107, contrary to the hype.

Proposition 107 forbids the state's political subdivisions from creating or recognizingany state similar to marriage. Thus it would eliminate domestic-partner benefits programs in Tucson and elsewhere and greatly restrict the rights of unmarried or homosexual couples pertaining to hospital visitation, next of kin status, and the like. All of the responsibilities of marriage may still be assumed through private contract but, at least at state universities and hospitals and before the courts, and for government employees, none of the rights shall apply.

The only conceivable effect this will have is to make life more difficult for homosexuals and cohabitants employed by municipalities or the State and cause them to seek employment elsewhere. Join with me, Arizona Together, and myriad others in opposing pointless spite such as this.

Society for Economic Anachronism: Proposition 202

Something to chew on before we begin, an appetizer of sorts: A minimum wage is a law forbidding one from selling one's labor below a given price and thus forbidding somebody whose labor may not be worth the minimum from selling it at all.

Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb knocked this one out of the park:

There is no greater economic superstition held by the American people than that government can suspend the laws of supply and demand when it comes to wages...the minimum-wage argument has become largely irrelevant. The American labor market has passed it by.

Robb is right: With fewer than 1% of full-time and 6% of part-time workers being paid minimum wage, it's clear that market mechanisms are in fact at work in the labor market. The AFL-CIO, aka the Society for Economic Anachronism, however, feels that somehow these market wages aren't honest. Just how an honest wage can be calculated other than by bargaining and agreement between labor seller and buyer they don't explain. The old canard about being able to support a family has been brought out, but, again, just why one ought to be able to support a family of some arbitrary size no matter what one's employment situation is isn't explained, either.

Usually when the terms of an economic exchange are coerced by a third party, we call it "extortion". How the minimum wage doesn't fall into this category is lost on me. Perhaps, however, I should have more faith in the AFL-CIO in this matter as they are the nation's experts on worker exploitation, collecting mandatory dues from workers in agency-shop states and then using them to feed the lumpen ideologues in its leadership and lobby against its members' individual interests. They ought know it when they see it!

That it is a hike in the minimum wage is alone enough reason to oppose Proposition 202. If you need any more, consider that it's a trojan horse giving government agents and even complete strangers--including labor unions--sweeping access to private empolyment records and raising paperwork requirements for small businesses, making it even harder for them to compete with big-box stores having the advantage of economy of scale.

This is going to hurt consumers and small business owners and it isn't even going to help the poor. As the minimum wage increases it'll become more economical for businesses to computerize, mechanize, or hire fewer but more experienced and productive workers. Teenagers, those coming off the welfare rolls, and those in transition between occupationss--none of whom are represented in the AFL/CIO--will be hurt most of all, albeit in a manner invisible to all but the professional economist.

Variations on a theme: Proposition 206

Proposition 206: Nonsmoker Protection act

More has been said about the major sources of funding of the effort to pass Proposition 206 than about the substantiative differences between it and 201. Yes on 206 has received a lot of funding from tobacco companies and the vulgar Left, as is their tendency on every issue (just look at what they've been saying about developers and Prop. 207!), has been trying to spin this as a reason to vote against it.

Ours is a free society in which the interests of tobacco companies' shareholders are no less valid than yours and mine. It takes a certain degree of antiliberal audacity, self-interest not being equal to malice, to see malevolence in their fight for the right of consenting adults to use their product in limited settings where others consent by their presence.

In this case their interest happens to overlap with that of bar owners afraid that an outright ban on smoking in their establishments, completely bypassing their property rights, will cause them to lose business.

Proposition 206 isn't the smoking ban we're looking for. It doesn't address sidewalk smoking at all, shifts smoking to patios, and like 201, maintains a presumption that smoking is permitted in the absence of a "no smoking" sign, although it does mandate "smoking permitted" signs for bars allowing such behavior. But in several ways it's an improvement over 201. It preserves the right of bar owners to decide to allow or forbid smoking in their establishments, and doesn't include a gratuitious tax.

Its one drawback is its preemption clause forbidding local governments to further restrict smoking in bars or tobacco shops. Yes, the city of Tempe harmed quite a few of its small businesses by banning smoking, driving bar customers to neighboring cities. Nonetheless, since there are always contingencies, the option to modify the law ought remain open to local governments and abuses fought at that level.

206 is only slightly superior to 201. Given their similarity, it makes sense to vote for both, to avoid seeing each getting, say, 40% of the vote and neither passing.

Breathe easier: Proposition 201

Smokers don't understand how much the byproducts of their habit are an imposition on the rest of us. Secondhand smoke makes the eyes water and itch, the nose run, causing a scratchy throat and shortness of breath. And it also kills.

Unless I enter an establishment that has a warning posted on the door that says "Tobacco smoking permitted inside", there's no way I consent to exposure, least of all by walking on the public sidewalk, any more than I consent to being sprayed with chlorinated hydrocarbons or dusted with cocaine. Whether or not it's a byproduct of someone else's pleasure doesn't change that.

What would the ideal smoking law do? It would prohibit smoking in public, including on the sidewalk and on outdoor patios, except in places--enclosed rooms and courtyards--where one receives warning before exposure. And it would do something for those poor children, who couldn't possibly have consented, who are exposed to smoke in the home and go to school reeking like old ladies. Our laws are backwards; we can't legally encourage healthy alcohol consumption by giving teens a glass of wine with dinner, but we can fill childrens' lungs with tar and ash.

Not wanting to make the perfect the enemy of the good, I'm taking a stand for the right to stop a proverbial swinging fist where my nose begins and voting for Proposition 201. This despite it being put on the ballot by a group of busybodies including the American Lung Association which shouldn't be involving itself in legislation and politics, despite it raising the tobacco tax by two pennies per cigarette pack, despite it requiring, ridiculously, nearly every place where smoking is prohibited to post "No Smoking" signs, despite it exempting the outdoors, and despite it not providing private property owners to opt out.

Proposition 201 prohibits smoking inside all enclosed public places and places of employment, explicitly excepting outdoor patios, tobacco shops, private vetarans' and fraternal clubs, and hotel rooms.

A lot of my Libertarian comrades will find my position hard to swallow, some because in their quest for a grand unified theory of politics and ethics they have come, bizzarely, to the conclusion that what they call "property rights" (bearing only coarse resemblence to the actual institution) are somehow the most fundamental, and some due to difficulty separating the concepts of public and private space and public and private property. I'll offer my apologies now to those who've been pointing people here as though I've been presenting the definitive LP position on the issues (Sorry, Dave!) but I stand by my positions as not only correct, but liberal (libertarian), too.

Where negative externalities are involved, the law always has to balance rights. Prop. 201 is a minor and equal imposition on the rights of business owners, and the tax it establishes is flat-out gratuitous, but the current laws favor too much the right of smokers to indulge their habit over the right of the rest of us to not have noxious, carcinogenic irritants forced on us without our consent. Let's take a step in the right direction now; a sidewalk smoking ban and an opt-out for property owners can be added later.

Build our pyramids with their toil: Proposition 300

Proposition 300: Public Program Eligibility

That Proposition 300, the most mean-spirited of the anti-immigrant bills submitted by the legislature, is likely to pass is testament to just how hysterical Arizonans have become over visa status.

Since such obsession over a government permit is absurd, take it as a measure of the degree to which bigotry and xenophobia have become mainstream. Ernesto Portillo sees this as a mere expression of anger over Congress's refusal to seriously reform immigration policy. I'm not willing to be so charitable. We don't, after all, deny the elderly equal protection at the state level over Congress's refusal to reform Social Security.

Prop. 300 would tie eligibility for State childcare subsidies, and in-state tuition, and adult education programs to one's Federal visa status. Have the right papers, and you're eligible. Have the wrong ones, and you're not.

How long one has lived in Arizona and whether or not one is a taxpayer is inconsequential. The purpose here is not to cut back on free riders but instead to stick it to the mojados. Students who may have immigrated as toddlers will find themselves ineligible for in-state tuition over something their parents did sixteen years ago, over which they had no choice, regardless of whether or not their parents have paid taxes.

I'm no supporter of state-subsidized higher education--despite being employed by one of the state universities (ask me about that by email)--or of childcare subsidies. But while such things exist, those who pay their fair share ought to have equal access, and people oughtn't be penalized over matters in which they had no choice. That's called justice. Prove that someone has evaded taxes and we have a different matter on our hands.

Vote "no" on 300 and question the character of anyone who doesn't.

Turn pill-poppers into hardened criminals: Proposition 301

Proposition 301: Mandatory prison time for methamphetamine users

Hysteria about the recreational use of methamphetamine--known to the rabble as "meth" or "crystal meth" and to your local pharmacist or psychiatrist as Desoxyn--has swept Arizona. So far its affect has been limited to distorting police priorities and moving cold medicine behind the counter, but it now threatens to undo the gains brought about by 1996's Proposition 200.

Under that law, those convicted for the first time of simple possession of drugs are entitled, if they want it, to probation and treatment. Proposition 301, proposed by the legislature, would override the 1996 citizens' intitiative when the drug in question is methamphetamine.

Why methamphetamine and not amphetamines in general? From a purely scientific or medical perspective, singling it out makes no sense. The public has been made to think that "meth" is scary; they largely don't know what amphetamines are. Prop. 301 is a cynical means for legislators to score points with an ignorant and fearful public.

The main opposition to Prop. 301 has been the empty heads at Meth Free AZ. To quote:

The physical effects of the addiction are irreversible. It disfigures your teeth, increases the possibilities of stroke, liver damage, and an increased possibility of HIV, or hepatitis. It affects your brain through the destruction of tissue that is responsible for memory and emotion. It has a psychotic toll that includes paranoia and hallucinations. Repeated use destroys the brain cell receptors for dopamine, causing the brain to be unable to process the natural chemical, thus making the drug user feel less natural enjoyment when not using drugs.

That addiction per se is a behavioral symptom and doesn't cause "physical effects" aside, to hear it you wouldn't think that this is a legitimate and potentially safe prescription medication--the best known treatment for ADHD--that only damages the liver, disfigures the teeth, or causes hallucinations when taken in improper form and dosage.

Amphetamines are so socially harmful largely because they're illegal. 1996's Prop. 200, establishing treatment as the standard response to use, was the next best thing to legalization; treatment mitigates social harm. And it's been shown to work; Arizona's program has been considered a model nationwide.

Mandatory prison time, on the other hand, amplifies it, tearing pill-poppers away from their jobs, disrupting their families, and providing them the prison experience known to harden criminals. Vengeance and spite--the roots of the punitive mentality--have no place in the justice system of a free society. Conviction of behavior that at most is self-harm cannot justify imprisonment, and such imprisonment cannot be beneficial to society. It costs more than treatment and returns its victim to the streets more damaged than when they went in.

Vote "no" on Proposition 301.