Imagine you wake early one morning with severe sinus congestion and a throbbing headache. You wobble down to the local Walgreens for some medicinal relief, only to be denied your Sudafed by the pharmacist for lack of a doctor’s prescription. What do you do? Lug your bloated, throbbing head to the next county where prescriptions are not required? Or schedule a doctor’s appointment for next week? That is hardly timely relief. What will St. Charles County residents do?

The St. Charles County Council voted on July 25 to require a doctor’s prescription when purchasing cold and allergy medications that contain pseudophedrine. Unfortunately, the ordinance imprudently inserts doctors into meth makers’ raw material supply chains. It is difficult to imagine, much less believe, that this ordinance will effectively diminish meth production in Missouri. With a sufficient profit motive, meth makers will seek out alternative arrangements for the procurement of pseudophedrine, perhaps by recruiting doctors as critical prescription suppliers.

In essence, the ordinance will turn otherwise law-abiding doctors into accessories to crime, unwittingly or not. Some will no doubt embrace the temptation to write fraudulent prescriptions, thereby corrupting the practice of medicine.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. With the resulting increase in the demand for prescriptions, the ordinance further taxes an already over-burdened medical reimbursement insurance system. In an era when concerns for healthcare costs predominate, why should St. Charles County compound the problem by dumping a multitude of cold and allergy sufferers onto the bloated calendars of busy doctors?

And what about consumers? Certainly, the monetary and inconvenience costs of traveling to — and paying for — doctor’s visits and the time exhausted circumventing the ordinance by purchasing medications in non-regulated jurisdictions are substantial. The St. Charles County Council has voted, in effect, to shift meth-related law enforcement costs onto the backs of innocent cold and allergy sufferers.

This cost shift acts much like a tax on the purchase and consumption of cold and allergy medications. As with a tax, the “effective” price for these medications rises for consumers. Similar to a tax, the result is a deadweight loss as consumers ultimately consume less than the optimal amount of medications.

Seriously, is the real purpose of the “prescription mandate” to engineer a local law enforcement database to better monitor the activities of private citizens? If so, shouldn’t someone conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis comparing the expected benefits with the known costs? After all, pharmacists are already required to request and to enter personal information into a database tracking consumers of pseudophedrine-based medications.

And what can be done to alleviate the competitive disadvantages and inherent inequities dogging those pharmacies who happen to be located wholly within a prescription mandate jurisdiction? They will certainly lose business to competitors fortunate enough to be situated in non-mandate counties and municipalities. Although a statewide mandate would address this latter concern, it nevertheless would still give rise to the corruption of medicine and tax-imposed deadweight losses, as discussed above.

The war against meth is not a free task. The costs associated must ultimately be borne by taxpayers. The issue is whether the selected means for conducting that war are wise and efficient, implying that all costs and benefits have been carefully weighed and compared.

Working at the Show-Me Institute, located in the highly walkable Central West End, my colleagues and I often take short walks to lunch. Recently, food trucks have entered the competition for our dining dollars.

Given the large crowds that form around these trucks, they seem to be a hit, but apparently this is not the case for everyone. This week, police have cracked down on food trucks in the area — allegedly in response to a complaint.

A regulation in the city code forbids street vending within the Central West End, but until recently the restriction had not been enforced. Earlier this week, officers and inspectors issued warnings to multiple food trucks asking them to leave the area or face fines for violating vending regulations.

Christine Harbin, a former SMI policy analyst, wrote numerous times on these restrictions on private enterprise. First spotting food trucks in the Central West End back in March, she later followed up on the issue in a video interviewing both food truck owners and their customers. The verdict is still clear: there exists a strong consumer demand for these food trucks. Why should government inhibit healthy competition and growth of consumer choices?

Some people worry about the safety and health concerns associated with food trucks, but like any other restaurant or food provider, they must undergo government health and safety inspections to obtain permits for legally selling their goods.

Another common concern is the potential increase in street congestion. In Dr. Donald Shoup’s book, The High Cost of Free Parking, he explains the best way to manage street traffic is to introduce market determined parking fees.  Parking is not a free good, and should not be treated as one. Busy streets with more traffic and higher demand would have higher parking fees, while quiet less crowded streets with lower demand would cost less. This would force food trucks to internalize the externality of over consuming street parking.  If the trucks wanted prime location they would have to pay extra for it.

These trucks may be “technically illegal” in the area, but clearly there is a demand here that the government is barring. Originally, the downtown area had this same restriction, but now it benefits from many popular street vendors and food trucks. Why should the Central West End or any other area be treated differently?

Consumers would benefit if this restrictive ordinance was repealed throughout St. Louis, allowing their preferences — not the preferences of bureaucrats — to dictate food trucks’ placement and success.

To follow this issue further, watch Christine’s other video on the subject in which food truck owner Jeff Pupillo and a number of customers weigh in on food trucks and the unwanted competition they provide for some local restaurants.

Early in July, amidst a much cooler climate, Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a measure that sought to limit the openness and transparency of public and governmental entities.

Specifically, the vetoed legislation aimed to shelter public entities from disclosing minutes, votes, and records; it also allowed for closed meetings.

Without public access to important information — whether it is school district board minutes or the budget of fire protection districts — injustices may go unnoticed and our public officials may be tempted to act in unethical and elusive ways.

Take, for example, a recent embezzlement scandal in Brentwood. As Chad Carson reported, the city administrator of the suburban municipality was found to have stolen nearly $30,000 of city funds. That money, largely from tax receipts, was thrown away at a riverboat casino. Increased government accountability is the only effective solution Missouri citizens have to prevent such abuses in the future.

It is improbable to assume that the general public will suddenly besiege public entities with information requests — commonly known as Sunshine Law Requests. Therefore, the protection of this right is critical to policy analysts and journalists statewide who, in their endeavor for truth, rely on accountability. After all, your government cannot be accountable without transparency.

We often chastise our elected officials’ performance — ironic, since we elect them. However, when they strive to bolster the sense of public duty, as Gov. Nixon illustrated here, some praise and an attaboy are due.

So now, even as the mercury seems to higher and higher each day, Missourians can feel good about greater openness, transparency, and accountability in government.

Let’s all applaud the Federal appeals court who ruled in favor of Jim Roos that freedom of speech is more important than stupid sign regulations. We have followed this case, and the broader issue of eminent domain abuse, closely at SMI. Needless to say, we think this is an excellent ruling and a victory for liberty in Missouri.

More importantly, could it mean more green in your wallet? As the Riverfront Times notes (emphasis added):

Motorists driving along roadways maintained by the Missouri Department of Transportation could receive fewer red-light camera tickets if preliminary reports from Arnold ring true statewide.

Beginning in February, MoDOT began changing the yellow-light signal times throughout Arnold, where all the city’s red-light cameras happen to be along state-controlled roads. In general, the change to the signals has lengthened the amount of time for yellow lights.

For example, motorists traveling southbound through the intersection of Highway 141 and Astra Way now have 1.6 seconds more yellow time — from 4 seconds to 5.6 seconds. MoDOT has also changed the length of time that all signals at an intersection appear red, generally giving intersections a bit more time to clear all cars before changing lights.

In so doing, Arnold has experienced an unintended consequence — the number of red-light runners has plummeted since MoDOT made the changes.

In January, the city issued 691 red-light camera citations, according to information obtained from a city council member. By March, the number of citations had dropped to 263. Last month, the vendor that operates Arnold’s red-light cameras — American Traffic Solutions — confirms that it issued just 198 citations. That’s a drop of 72 percent from the number of citations issued in January.

The Show-Me Institute has a long history of opposing red light cameras, particularly given the cameras’ questionable effectiveness in preventing accidents yet prodigious aptitude for raising money for cities. Lately, though, Missouri’s red light camera industry has been traversing rocky judicial and legislative roads. Earlier this month, policy analyst David Stokes astutely reviewed one court ruling in Saint Louis that could very well cripple the use of red light camera systems in the city. His analysis:

It will probably take an act of the legislature to declare unequivocally that red light camera programs are invalid as a matter of state law, but the red light camera issue may, for all practical purposes, be resolved by adjusting the signals where the cameras sit. The roads in Missouri may be getting a great deal safer, just by adding a little more time to yellow lights — a simple, nearly costless solution to an important issue of public safety.

Cities must be elated. After all, “safety” was the driving purpose behind their use of these cameras anyway, right?

Right?

During the past few weeks, this sound has become familiar to many Missourians, particularly those who live on or south of Interstate 70. That’s because the Great Southern Brood of cicadas has emerged to reproduce and fulfill its 13-year life cycle. The creative minds at Sparky’s Homemade Ice Cream, a local institution in Columbia, thought they could use this as an opportunity to experiment with a new ingredient:

Yum. Despite many people’s instant aversion to the insects, people have eaten cicadas for decades — but typically grilled, and never before in ice cream, to my knowledge. Nonetheless, the concoction proved a hit — so much so that Sparky’s sold out of it before it even officially debuted. Unfortunately, the health department warned Sparky’s against making more, likely ensuring that this will be the only batch of cicada ice cream ever sold there:

Sparky’s approached the Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services and asked about the use of cicadas in the ice cream, Gerry Worley, environmental health manager for the department, said.

“The food code doesn’t directly address cicadas,” Worley said. “We advised against it.”

Despite the fact that people are free to eat cicadas on their own and frequently do so, the city has recommended that food service professionals avoid using this highly demanded ingredient. Everyone loses in this situation. Sparky’s loses business and publicity. Consumers lose an exotic experience. The only winner is a climate of senseless regulation.

Today is my last day at the Show-Me Institute. Beginning next month, I will work at the Center for Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Washington, D.C. I am thrilled about my new role, but I will miss working at the Show-Me Institute.

Missouri public policy has its problems. Lawmakers have a terrible habit of trying to pick winners and losers in the market, even though they have such a bad track record of doing so. We’re relying on government to make the choices that individuals should be making for themselves in the private sector. Lawmakers are addicted to targeted tax credits and tax-increment financing (TIF) — even though these programs repeatedly fail to deliver on their promises.

Despite this state’s problems, Missourians have a lot to celebrate in public policy. Many great things are going on here. Missouri has fewer occupational license requirements than other states, which means that Missourians are more free to earn a living. Plus, Missouri has low state taxes on booze, cigarettes, and gasoline. It also has the Hancock Amendment, which limits state spending and requires that voters have the final say on tax hikes. (Wouldn’t it be great if the Hancock Amendment existed at the federal level?)

We’re taking many steps in the right direction toward limiting government and protecting individual liberty. For example, Missourians were among the first to oppose the federal takeover of their health care, and we haven’t given up. As another thing I find promising, the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) is accepting more offers to buy vacant property (thanks largely to the efforts of my colleague Audrey Spalding).

I’m confident that Missouri, and other midwestern states, will be leaders in limiting government and getting the economy back on track. This change will be driven by individuals acting entrepreneurially in the private sector, however — not by the hand of government.

See you later, Show-Me State.

My buddy Mike M. forwarded me this terrific article in The Economist about occupational licensing in the United States. As we have discussed many times before, Missouri has fewer of these types of economic restrictions than any other state. We can be proud of that, and we can be proud that the legislature adjourned without passing — as best I can tell — any major new licensing provisions. I define “major” as taking an entire occupation that was previously unlicensed and requiring it to be licensed. There were definitely examples this session, some good, some both good and bad, of changes to existing licensing rules.

Unfortunately, the larger cities and counties in Missouri have too often decided to fill in the lack of statewide licensing with local licensing rules. Those can be some of the worst rules, because they often favor certain constituencies even more brazenly than statewide licenses would. Nonetheless, Missourians can be proud to have less of these rules dictating our lives in general than in other states. So, think about that as you enjoy the article, and trust that we at the Show-Me Institute will keep fighting this issue.

Now, on to the best part of the story. The legislature passed changes to Missouri’s utterly ridiculous home mover licensing requirements. Now, if you wish to engage in the business of moving people from house to house, you will no longer be subject to some of the most insane licensing requirements in the country. The business will be treated more like other businesses, in which markets and customers make the decision of who will participate, not state government. The moving industry is still subject to regulations by the state, but if you read the bill summaries you will see how the new regulatory system is much less burdensome and crazy than the prior system.

The Show-Me Institute has been one of the leaders in urging Missouri’s attorney general, Chris Koster, to join the lawsuit against the health care reform bill, so we are pleased to note that he finally took action this morning. Better late than never. But regrettably, the amicus brief that Koster filed in the multistate lawsuit only goes halfway.

Although Koster says that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, he also says that it’s severable from the rest of the law. In other words, Koster believes that the federal health care law can remain in place even though the individual insurance mandate can be struck down.

Judge George Vinson went further in his ruling. He ruled that Congress does not have the power to force people to buy something that they don’t want, and therefore the entire law must be declared void.

I understand that many people object to the regulation because of the individual mandate. However, there are additional reasons to oppose this law in Missouri. With or without the individual mandate, the PPACA will raise the cost of health care in Missouri by increasing mandates to cover specific conditions and expanding the eligibility requirements for Medicaid. This component of policy will burden state budgets and threaten state sovereignty. In order to come up with the cash, Missouri will have to raise taxes, cut services, or both.

Koster’s decision to file an amicus brief may be partly due to the Show-Me Intitute’s prodding. Encouraging him to join the lawsuit is a topic that we’ve tracked closely. Show-Me Institute staff have released an open letter, an editorial, an “urgent call for action” via email, and several blog posts on the subject.

While lawmakers in the Show-Me State want to hike the cigarette tax rate, lawmakers in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New Jersey have proposed cutting theirs.

I wonder whether they caught my recent op-ed about cigarette tax hikes. I argued that raising the rate would not solve Missouri’s budget woes. Instead, it would cause people to buy their cigarettes in other states that have lower taxes. Cigarette tax hikes are no quick fix.

In New Hampshire, they want to cut the cigarette tax by 10 cents, to $1.68 per pack. In New Jersey, even more, by 30 cents, to $2.40 — and, in Rhode Island, by a whopping $1 a pack to $2.40. All are still way above Missouri, which, at 17 cents per pack, has the lowest cigarette tax in the nation.

I’m not pro-cigarette (my Dad’s a cardiologist and very anti-cigarette), I’m pro–low taxes. Cutting taxes on cigarettes and other “sin goods” will promote economic activity and personal liberty in the state.

A couple of weeks ago, the executive director of the Show-Me Institute, Brenda Talent, received an interesting letter on the mail, courtesy of Kansas City’s photo enforcement division, informing her that she owed $100 for running a red light on Feb. 16. The envelope contained the notice of violation and links to online sources where you can see photos and watch videos of you and your car committing the violation. It also included an affidavit of non-liability, which allows recipients only five choices for indicating why they are not liable for the fine — your car was stolen, for instance — and requiring the submission of a police report. Not surprisingly, a sixth choice — that the notice is simply mistaken — was not included.

Brenda disagreed with the charge that she had run the red light for four reasons:

1. She tries very hard not to run red lights, and to obey other traffic laws.
2. Neither she, nor any member of her family, was in Kansas City on Feb. 16.
3. The car in the video was not her car.
4. The license plate in the photo was not her plate.

Outside of those four reasons, Kansas City had a really good case. Brenda, as the head of a free-market policy organization with a history of opposing these red light cameras as a money-raising device ineffective policy, was in a unique position to enjoy this letter. For just about every other Missourian, something like this is a major pain. Even if you are wrongly accused, the prospect of losing more time and money may well mean that it’s more worthwhile to make it just go away by paying the fine than to fight it. More offensive to me than the mistaken fine, though, is the assumption of guilt implicit in having a camera decide that you are guilty and need to pay a fine. If I ever had any faith in the fact that a police officer is “supposed” to be “reviewing” these tickets, I’ve lost that faith after seeing that an officer signed off on a ticket for the wrong car with the wrong plate. Brenda admits that the plate looked similar — they confused a “V” with a “Y” — but the car wasn’t all that similar.

From Brenda’s perspective as a responsible adult, the story has a happy ending. From my perspective as a blogger, it has a terrible ending. Brenda called the customer service line of the red light camera company, and was able to discuss all of the above issues in a call that took about 20 minutes. The customer service representative — Kyle from Tempe — promised that the company would put this ticket into their review category. The Show-Me Institute is in a pretty unique situation, so we might be the only people in Missouri who would hope for the bureaucratic nightmare, so we’d have something even more interesting to write about. Sure enough, though, the evidence was so bad that they rescinded the ticket, so our nightmare did not emerge. Still, it took Brenda about 20 minutes of her time to work out the situation.

(I wonder whether Kyle’s father-in-law set him up in a starter home in suburban Tempe.)

Over the weekend, I attended the 2011 International Students for Liberty (SFL) conference in Washington, D.C. Although I have participated in a number of similar conferences over the past decade, I found this one the most inspiring. That’s not primarily because of the speeches from figures like television host John Stossel, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and George Mason University economist and polymath Tyler Cowen. As impressive as most of the speakers were, I have seen their equals before. I was inspired by the 500-plus students that gladly gave up a weekend to spend hours in lecture halls in the hopes of advancing liberty.

Several of the speakers have since noted the growth in both the quantity and quality of young liberty activists over the last few decades. In his Washington Examiner column, Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy recollects that when he founded a college libertarian group in the early 1990s, “we considered ourselves lucky when we could get a couple of dozen socially awkward malcontents together to grumble about the government.”

But economist Bryan Caplan probably summed it up best: “Twenty years ago, a pack of libertarian students would have been roughly as awkward and freakish as attendees at Comic-Con … or, say, me. Now I see hundreds of students who aren’t just smart, but smooth.”

My college experience was not nearly as benighted as Healy’s or Caplan’s. I helped lead a libertarian group at Washington University in Saint Louis from 2001 to 2005, and we were extremely active: holding weekly meetings, bringing speakers to campus (sometimes multiple times per semester), debating other student groups, helping to publish a biweekly conservative-libertarian student newspaper, etc. The group was a major force in campus political life, but we were still outnumbered and isolated. There were only a few other large and active libertarian college groups across the country (Loyola New Orleans, Hillsdale College, and George Mason University spring to mind), so we felt like the last of a dying breed, a remnant of brighter days.

At one point, we tried to launch a national libertarian student group, much like what SFL has become. When we started planning for a conference, we thought 100–200 student attendees would be phenomenal, but we never achieved that because there wasn’t a great deal of interest in the idea outside of those few groups. If someone told us that, less than 10 years later, there would be a pro-liberty student group hosting a convention with more than 500 attendees (and many others turned away because of a lack of space), we would have laughed in his face.

I don’t think it has ever felt this good to be wrong. (Maybe in 2006, when the Cardinals surprised even me by beating the Tigers and winning the World Series, but I’m pretty sure this is better.) Students and young people in general are listening to the message of freedom being articulated by talented writers, filmmakers, artists, etc. — and by groups like the Show-Me Institute. I get dispirited on an almost daily basis when I see the government grow and grow, seemingly without end, but I have seen real changes in people’s beliefs since I first started tilting at these government windmills. That’s no guarantee that things will change for the better, but it is something. It’s hope.