There are few contested legislative races on the North Shore this year, which is unfortunate and helps explain why voters are being asked to make policy themselves at the polls this year.

Question 1 proposes that voters eliminate the state income taxes in two stages beginning Jan. 1, 2009.

The idea, being championed by groups such as former gubernatorial candidate Carla Howell's Committee for Small Government and Citizens for Limited Taxation, is certainly radical. And in our view it makes no sense to deprive state government of 40 percent of its revenue at a time when the need for its services has never been greater.

Nevertheless, the repeal effort gained enough signatures to win a place on the ballot and appears to have broad support despite a well-funded effort by teachers and other public employee groups to defeat it. Many see it as the only means of protesting the rampant giveaway of taxpayer funds of the sort recently seen in Peabody where police were awarded extra pay for 9/11 on top of a 13 percent raise.

There is a growing disconnect between those who work in the public sector, for whom regular raises and generous fringe benefits are taken for granted; and those whose taxes support them. For the latter, things like job security and guaranteed pensions are but a distant memory in this recessionary climate.

But the proper way to address that disparity and the other wasteful practices that afflict the way government does business is not by eliminating the least regressive method of taxation. It's by electing a governor, legislators and local officials who recognize the problem and are willing to do something about it — and throwing out those who won't.

Society has plenty on its plate already dealing with the negative effects of tobacco and alcohol consumption. It makes no sense whatsoever to legalize yet another dangerous, addictive substance.

Thus we would urge a no vote on Question 2, which would replace the existing criminal penalties for marijuana possession with a system of civil penalties for those found to have an ounce or less on their person.

We agree with those in the law-enforcement community, health professionals and educators who say this would send a terrible message to our youth.

Marijuana is not a harmless substance, far from it. Neither are tobacco or alcohol, but their use is so prevalent any effort to ban those products would prove fruitless.

Advocates say assessing a $100 fine for marijuana possession might actually be a more effective deterrent. But there would be huge costs and obstacles involved in the implementation of such a system.

The best deterrent, in our view, is maintaining the current standard by which the use of marijuana is against the law.

Greyhound racing appears to be on its last legs. Legislating it out of existence would set a bad precedent and we'd urge a no vote on Question 3.

What remains of the industry — the only tracks left are those in Revere and Raynham — is closely regulated. And at this point the state doesn't need another 1,000 people — the estimated number of people working at the tracks and kennels — to the unemployment rolls.

Besides, we worry about what might be next — horse-racing, hunting, fishing? — should the animal rights activists prevail here.