This year’s legislative session has reached its midpoint, with bills that survived in their respective chambers crossing over for consideration on the other side. Only those measures that win approval from both the House and Senate will move on to the governor for his consideration, to be enacted into law. Here is the Honolulu Star-Advertiser editorial board’s stance on a few of many important pending measures:

» Extend rail tax (SB 19, SD2): Yes. The Senate proposal to raise more money to build Oahu’s elevated-rail transit system is preferable to the House plan because it solves the urgent budget problem without permanently raising taxes. The latest version of Senate Bill 19 would extend Oahu’s half-percent general excise tax surcharge for five years past the original sunset date, a straightforward solution to the over-budget project. House Bill 134, meanwhile, cuts the surcharge in half without setting any expiration date at all. Too little funding forever? That doesn’t seem like a viable solution, and serves neither the rail project nor the taxpayers well.

» Raise the smoking age (SB 1030, SD1): Yes. Sound public-health policy underpins this proposal to raise the minimum age to buy tobacco products and electronic smoking devices from 18 to 21. Preventing more young people from picking up an addictive, deadly, expensive smoking habit will save lives, not to mention money spent to treat tobacco-related diseases. Nearly all smokers start before they are 21 — a stinging indictment of marketing targeting susceptible young people and another reason to support this bill.

» Houseless Bill of Rights (SB 1014, SD1): No. Homeless people should not be discriminated against, but neither should they receive special rights due to their status, as this measure seeks, in opposition of existing state and county laws. Vital issues affecting homeless people need urgent attention, but this blanket edict, even with its far-off effective date, is not the best way to address them.

» Marijuana dispensaries (HB 321, HD1): Needs refinement. Hawaii’s medical-marijuana patients have long needed a legal way to obtain their pot. However, this bill, which would establish a statewide network of at least 26 dispensaries, provides more outlets than are necessary to serve the state’s 13,000 registered medical-marijuana patients. One dispensary for every 500 patients? Such broad distribution fuels legitimate concerns that the dispensary network anticipates future marijuana sales in a state where recreational use is not yet legal. Lawmakers should reduce the number of dispensaries allowed before approving this measure.

» Maui County hospitals (HB 1075, HD2): Yes, with caution. Lawmakers should authorize a private entity to assume control of Maui Memorial, Kula and Lanai Community hospitals and operate them as a new, nonprofit corporation. The arrangement offers the best hope of providing high-quality health care at a price that doesn’t break the bank. But lawmakers must exercise great care to ensure that Hawaii Pacific Health, the private entity in question, the taxpayers and the facilities’ employees all get a fair deal.

» Transient vacation units (HB 825, HD1): Yes. It’s long past time for the state to get a handle on this large and growing segment of the tourism industry, in part so that the government succeeds in collecting applicable taxes due. The bill would require owners of transient vacation rentals to register the visitor lodging with the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

» Media shield law (HB 295, HD1): No. Journalists are better off with no shield law at all than with this twisted measure, which erodes the bedrock democratic principle of a free press. The bill was amended in the House Judiciary Committee to require journalists to release unpublished information, undermining the very intent of shield laws, which are used to protect journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources. Lawmakers should simply restore Act 210, the old Hawaii shield law that was allowed to expire despite being a model for the nation. This amended version is no substitute.

» Eliminate ethanol requirement (SB 717, SD2): Yes. Mandating the use of ethanol as a transportation fuel — as the state has done since April 1, 2006 — was supposed to spur the creation of local jobs and reduce energy imports. It hasn’t, and it’s time to pull the plug on this initiative.