Hey, there! Log in / Register
Dissatisfied with MA Voter Guide?
By Anonymous on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 7:29pm
Here's a guide to the 3 referendum questions on the ballot Tuesday, with pro's con's articulated by the experts who are supporting and opposing the measures. It's surprisingly concise.
Q1 Would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.
Q2 Would replace the criminal penalties for possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana with a system of civil penalties, and would exclude information from the state's criminal record system.
Q3 Would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs.
The rest is here.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
No - Yes - No
No on #1, because chaos in government is worse than waste in government.
Yes on #2, there is no reason why possession marijuana should be punished harshly when alcohol, which causes so many problems and violence, is legal.
No on #3 - Wonderland can be fun even if I prefer Suffolk Downs. Let the doggies chase "Swifty."
No, yes, yes
Greyhound abuse is not fun:
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets...
abuses can be prevented without banning
First, the abuses have been largely corrected if they ever existed.
For example, it doesn't make sense that greyhound owners who wanted their dogs to win would keep them starving and cooped up in small cages all day without a chance to exercise, as the Yes on 3 ads claim.
Second, abuses can be corrected without banning the races. There are already laws banning cruelty to animals, and the tracks are inspected by the State Racing Commission and the MSPCA.
The continual urge to ban all activities and research involving animals is a product of PETA fanatics. I say let the doggies run, and let them be adopted afterward.
Have you ever talked to anyone who works for greyhound rescue?
You realize that in order to get dogs that are in the top tier in terms of speed, you have to have to start with a lot of dogs, right? What do you think happens to the other 80 dogs that don't get to race? Do you think the breeders and racers keep dozens of dogs as pampered pets? Why do you think there are so many organizations in business that rescue greyhounds from the racing industry? Because of a lone few cases of abuse/abandonment/euthanasia?
Also, you realize that there are few laws to protect animals, right? It's legal to keep chickens in pens so small they can't turn around, it's legal to euthanize greyhounds that aren't fast enough, it's legal to cut the anuses off of wool sheep without any anesthetic. Just knowing that the MSPCA is aware of these industries doesn't mean they're humane; most animal abuse has stayed perfectly legal, usually because of greedy people.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
did you know...
it's legal to cut the anuses off of wool sheep without any anesthetic
Mulesing was done to prevent blowflies from slowly killing sheep.
Lemme guess, you're one of those hypocritical morons that protest "mutilation" of girls in Africa, but think it's A-OK to circumcise your boy, right?
Not to get off subject but I
Not to get off subject but I think the two types of "mutilation" are very very different. What happens to girls in some parts of Africa is quite horrific compared to a male cirumcism.
I think some people are
I think some people are unfairly demonizing dog tracks.
Q3
The law has nothing to do with dog tracks. It has to do with making bets about the speed of dogs.
Like if you're at Jamaica Pond with your puppy, and I bet my lil guy can get the ball first, says $5.
BANNED.
Has nothing to do with abuse, cages, or dog tracks.
Hilariously, if they take the betting out of the dog tracks, they'll be completely legal under Q3's terms.
Well I dont believe betting
Well I dont believe betting on dogs outside of a dog track is legal to begin with lol...
Ive never been to the dog track, I dont think it would be terribly entertaining, especially when theres a horse track down the street. Id much rather they just turn them all into Casinos, but apparently thats bad for us too! Mother Goose is in charge of our lives.
Q3 cont
The notion that it is illegal to make a simple bet between two private adults is ludicrious. Talk about an invasion of privacy and an erosion of individual freedom. The only reason such a law exists, I'd reckon, is so they can decide who and when you can bet on things, and regulate the shit out of it, wasting all of our money to pay for the departments, paperwork, computers, training, hiring, licenses, dispute resoltuion... for what, betting?! AYFKM?!
I've never been to a dog track, but I don't want to ban others from doing so, and I do think the dogs should be well cared for, but sadly, Q3 does not really address the care of the dogs.
Like Prop 2 in California... make a similar prop like that here for the dogs (and for all livestock, would be great) and I'd wholeheartedly support it!
But it addresses the betting on the speed of animals, not care of dogs, nor dog tracks. It takes away everyone's freedom in order to indirectly attack the dog tracks in an poorly construed manner.
I'm all for casinos, with a NIMBY exception. If people want to go waste their money, that's their right.
I believe most Nimby
I believe most Nimby concerns would have been taken care of if the Casinos were contained to current racetrack type sites, gurantees were made for increased police protection, and the local cities and towns were offered a reasonable annual payment from the casinos to fix any problems affiliated with their existence and to fund projects for the local communities. If that had passed all of this would just be hitting the ground now, just in time for the recession, and that extra cash would have been well recieved by the Nimby population, along with the jobs.
Yes, Yes, No
Yes on 1 - Put more of your money into your bra!
Yes on 2 - Duuuuuuuuuuuude
No on 3 - Dog racing is boring but it shouldn't be illegal.
No - I can't say it better
No - I can't say it better myself. Deselby: "because chaos in government is worse than waste in government." The Commonwealth and local government cannot operate without income tax revenue so taxes would be raised in other ways, most likely existing methods like real estate tax and sales tax. As a home owner who endured Romney "budget balancing" act that cut local aid and therefore increased real estate taxes substantially, I'm not eager to embrace the adjustments made if Q1 passes because they will shift the burden from many to few.
Yes - A criminal record for carrying a doobee is cruel punishment. But the fine should be higher, maybe $1000 per offense, and include mandatory public health or public service component because I don't think decriminalization should in any way be tacit approval. We have an epidemic of substance abuse in this country (Yes, you can abuse pot although addiction is mental more than physical with pot and yet, too many kids stop paying attention to their studies and their other interests when smoking a bone turns them on and turns the other concerns off.
Flip a coinYes - There is no guarantee and there never will be a guarantee that the dogs will be treated well when their "useful" life is over so I think it is exploitative and cruel in the end but I'm the guy that thinks renting dogs is Boston is not immoral so I can't decide on 3. How is dog racing so different from horse racing anyway? Do we still allow boxing matches (human boxing human)? I heard that the state subsidizes the dog track. If that's true, it's as good a reason as any to end it. Take the subsidy for one more year after it closed and use it to help the employees get retrained and into new jobs. I guess that's a Yes on 3.Yes, Yes, Yes
1 - Yes, I want to starve children and old people, which is exactly what will happen if we stop handing over our 5% to people who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not good with money and they don't care about the taxpayer or the voter. There's just NOTHING ELSE in the budget we could cut before the children starve and we're forced to devour their still-warm corpses; I know there's nothing else to cut, because I played the "How Will You Cut" game on the Globe's site and it says there's $0 in waste, pet projects, or subsidies for bullshit.
Even if it passes, there will be an override, so go ahead and show us how much you respect the "will of the people", jerks.
2 - Yes. I'm gonna blow two lungfuls of prime hydro right in a cop's face and slip a $100 bill into his front pocket, and he won't be able to do anything but groooove on it.
3 - Yes. Even though it means "loss of jobs", which is the only real argument I've heard in opposition to this one, aside from "the dogs aren't necessarily abused and neglected that much". Loss of jobs. You know another place that was shut down resulting in the loss of jobs? Auschwitz.
^^^Godwin's law, in six posts!
Godwin's Law doesn't apply...
if the person who makes the reference also calls it out.
Do you honestly believe that $12 Billion of the state budget is waste, earmarks, and subsidies?
Yawn
Do you honestly believe it's an efficient and completely valuable use of $12,000,000,000?
The State should have to justify why it is taking our money, we should not have to justify why our money deserves to be ours.
No. I don't.
But how inefficient do you really think our government is?
They do. It's called the State Budget.
Yeah, seriously
Every place I've ever worked has been somewhere that's partially or fully funded by state contracts. Sure, you hear about the wastes of tax money like police details and people making six figures to answer phones in government offices, but that's not most of the state budget. This isn't the way to get those kinds of wasteful items cut, because it's also going to cut things like services for kids with autism and parenting programs and housing for adults with developmental disabilities. I can tell you that agencies like mine are not wasting state money. We barely have enough money as it is to be able to provide our services, and we're already making considerably less than people who work for private clinics.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Followup from my answers to the survey before
1) No. Have any of you read what you'd actually be agreeing to? Section 1 of the proposition reads like a 10 year old wrote it with buzzwords like "Big Government" capitalized because it's not just a change in the law but a propaganda piece from the libertarians that wrote it. Even *if* I thought the income tax needed to go, I wouldn't assign my vote to such a bellicose piece of claptrap that's really behind Question 1.
2) Yes. The War on Drugs is over. Drugs are bad, m'kay? But when something like Salvia is still legal in nearly every place but pot isn't, something is seriously messed up.
3) No. I've thought it over some more and I have two problems with this initiative. The first stems from the fact that this is really about dog abuse and not dog racing...so why ban the racing then? There are rules against dog abuse and maybe they need tightening if "small crates" or "lack of movement" or certain aspects of the racing are causing injuries, but wholesale destruction of dog racing isn't the answer to me. Has anyone looked at how we raise animals for destruction as food lately? Talk about some inhumanity to animals. Dog racing is child's play compared to that. But I also still eat plenty of burgers and steaks...so why am I going to suddenly feel bad about Fido at the track? Secondly, I want *more* gambling options in the state. It's counter-productive to agree with what I see as a throwback to puritanism or the hardcore Southern Baptist approach if I want casinos and table games in the state as entertainment options. I'll probably never bet on a dog, but if we agree that dog gambling needs to go, then getting more gambling probably isn't going to happen any time soon. I'm already sorta pissed that the Feds devastated my online poker options. Just the wrong direction on all of this and Vegas or the Indians shouldn't be the only options. Now, if there's a ballot question increasing the definitions of dog abuse at the track in the future that brings a greater level of oversight/regulation and control to the trainers/owners, I'll be the first to say Yes.
Q's
Why blame the messenger? I agree that it's over the top, but since I know it won't pass with the vulcan death grip the teachers and cops have on this state, voting Yes is a safe bet to send a message of fiscal prudence.
I would put weed on par with alcohol and tobacco, if there's any scale of severity to be used... and it probably wouldn't be as severe as alcohol.
No need to even bring up Salvia! ;)
What happens if your wrong
What happens if your wrong and the tide turns against the State because of the current economic crisis? I know I could sure use the 5 percent I would save on all sorts of things. Im concerned that many self interested people who THINK they dont need the state will vote for it not realizing that they just saved like 1,000 dollars but its going to cost them 2,000 a year in property tax increases.
If you think its a dumb idea my suggestion would be to vote against it. Simple put, you cant take your vote back if this passes just because you didnt think the side you voted for would win. This isnt Nader in Massachusetts were talking about, its not that safe, the last similar vote over the income tax was 45-55 and that was in good times.
Maybe 5.3% was wrong
LETS ROLL THOSE DICE!
Sounds reckless to me. Its
Sounds reckless to me. Its tossing the baby out with the bath water.
Fair enough.
That's fair. But at 40%, I don't think all the baby or bathwater is getting thrown out. Less than half, even. As I've said elsewhere, it could be better addressed and I don't fully support the question (or the messenger, to Kaz's point) ... but it seems I've become the devil's advocate for Q1 around here, and since it ends tomorrow, why stop today?
This is just like the dog
This is just like the dog tracks, its not addressing the problem which is waste at the state level. The Dog Track question doesnt address humane treatment of animals, it just shuts down one type of venue without thought of how that will affect the current dogs, local economies, and employees. The same thing can be said about question one, it doesnt answer the question or solve the problem. They both just make things worse and leave big gapping holes that can be amended to later on.
No, No, Yes.
1. No, because I agree that the alternative is unworkable as others have said.
2. No, because (and why don't I hear more about this) that's too damn much! 1 oz. is too high (pun intended) an amount to decriminalize. I don't know why they chose this weight, but I assume it's because it's a nice, round number. Too bad- you messed up and chose too large a number & I'm not voting for it.
3. Yes, because I have no love for gambling, and if less dogs are harmed and less people lose their money, excellent.
Thanks
You're allowed to not love gambling but I'm not allowed to love it? Thanks.
Question 2
This should be a question about CORI and criminal records, not smoking pot.
The police already have several options when they encounter someone who is smoking weed.
A) Do nothing, throw the weed away, tell the kids/people if they are seen again with weed stronger action will be taken
B) Put the kid/person for a hearing, leave it up to the clerk to decide (based on the kids/persons history) on whether or not to put the charge forward. If the clerk gives the person a chance, there is no record of that person being charged with anything.
C) Summons the person into court. This will be on the persons record (unless a sealed juvinelle) even if the case is dismissed
D) Arrest. Same as C, the person will have the record no matter what.
so looking at above, the enforcement will be limited to still A (do nothing) or kind of an A/B where the person gets a citation.
Weed is kind of decriminilized in this state already. I don't think people are spending serious time in jail for joint possession.
Id vote no on #2 and hope that the CORI system gets changed. Weed should not go on your record the first or second time you get caught with an ounce or less.
Q2 is not a CORI question
Q2 is not about CORI, should not be considered to be an attempt to fix CORI, and will not change or fix CORI.
But it's certainly up to voters to try to shove Q2 in a CORI box, get upset it doesn't fit, then vote based on their experiment.
Weed is not decriminalized in this state, and Q2 does not decriminalize weed.
Q2 does not attempt to stop people from spending serious time in jail for joint possession.
If you want to change the CORI system, stop making Q2 your strawman and get a CORI question on the ballot.
But then again... you already knew this, didn't you? Sigh.
What Q2 does and does not do
Does not Q2 removes jail time as a potential sentence for anyone with possession of 1 oz. or less. No?
re: What Q2 does and does not
Yes, but you mis-understand the point of my statement. Since there is no current "serious time in jail" for possession of one joint, this Q2 law is not attempting to undo that which does not even exist.
Someone against Q2 would say: Under current law, you don't even spend serious jail time when caught with a joint!
My response: Q2 is not attempting to address that! Stop using the current law of minor offenses to justify not lowering the bar even lower, and judge Q2 for its own merits.
Something like that.
Anything that effects what goes on your criminal record
is about cori.
Q2 effects the law, cops, guns, drug packaging, kids, courts, paperwork, pot smokers, cori etc.
What?
I don't see what Q2 has to do with guns.
Ok not really guns directly
but drug gangs in the city of boston will now have a different operation plan. If this is voted in, there will be a reorganization of drug operations for drug gangs in this state. There may be more violence, since the drug is still illegal and must be brought into the state on the black market (drug dealers).
Sure, the hippie in Weston that wants to grow pot in his closet and sell it to his friends isn't going to be effected, but the gangs that may be competing for cheaper prices now may be.
Too Much Discretion
In my mind "kinda decriminalized" is actually far worse than criminalized. Why? Because that gives law enforcement and justice systems too much power to not enforce the law against certain people and enforce it against certain other people.
In other words, what you are charged with can get down to how you look, who you are, and who you know, rather than what you did. That's not the way a democracy under the rule of law should work.
I'd far rather the Feds let states completely legalize, regulate, and tax the stuff, but I'll vote yes on 2 in the interim.
In my mind "kinda
Me too. "kinda decriminalized" is the kinda discretion that makes for no "equal protection under the law".
The Q2 question is not the ideal question but it is a step in the right direction.
Exactly I wonder who would
Exactly I wonder who would get off and who would get arrested?
Im guessing if your father is a cop your safe, and if you happen to be a little darker then the average shade of the community you may have some issues.
When I was high school I remember the kids of cops and their friends would always get away with alot of this stuff if it happened in our hometown as it was. It wasnt until they crossed town/city lines and did something stupid (they never learned not to be stupid because it was always taken care of) they got into some trouble. Lucky for them it amounted to community service and being kicked off of the sports teams for a season, it could have been worse... Sure was lucky that their fathers knew people in the court system tho wasnt it...
you might be suprised
at how suburban cops treat suburban kids compared to Boston cops treating Boston kids.
Often times its the opposite of what you think.
Im not saying its about CORI
but it should be. And the ad I just saw on tv with the Boston cop (pro #2) even mentioned it!
It should be decriminilized in a different way (smoking it in your own house with no minors around).
I just think its good news for drug dealers, and bad news for those who have been hurt by those drug dealers.
Now: decriminalized for some, hypercriminalized for others
Weed is decriminalized for college kids busted by campus cops, West Roxbury kids and suburban kids stopped by the town cops.
It's NOT decriminalized for urban youth from low-influence familes. It's not all about race, but race comes into the picture. A black kid from Dorchester with three joints, certainly with a half ounce, is going to get charged with felony possession with intent. In a "school zone" that is a two-year minimum mandatory sentence.
How do you know this?
There is nothing Boston Cops hate more than some West Roxbury Fruit and Veggie punk dealing drugs. Suburban cops love arresting kids for possision of a class D substance all the time. And intent to distribute is not a felony for Weed unless you have over 50 POUNDS!. (outside of the school zone)
And right now the law says that MA courts must place anyone found in poss. of weed on a first offense on probation and dismiss the case if the person gets through the probation. So yea, it is decriminilized already.
The school zone thing should be relooked at I agree though.
Sorry, if your in a school
Sorry, if your in a school zone pushing that stuff its different then if your roomate in in the apartment toking it up....
School Zone?
What if your apartment is in the school zone?
(Lopez)
Get a new apartment... If
Get a new apartment... If your selling drugs I dont want you living near my kids school anyway!
the problem with school zones
is that urban areas are going to have a higher percentage of areas that fall within a school zone. So the guys that sell drugs in the middle of the night with no intent of selling or using with minors have a higher chance of being in that school zone.
In other words, minorities are going to be charged more with the felony (and mandatory jail time) in compared with suburban youth when the intent of both drug sales are one in the same (not selling to minors)
The point of the law was to keep people from selling drugs to kids around schools which used to happen. It has turned into an added offense when cops can look at a map and then add on the charge within a school zone after the arrest was made.
Maybe I should
Burn down the school instead? Love it or leave it works both ways, and doesn't help the community.
The school offers a service
The school offers a service for the greater good of the whole community. As much as I dont disdain all drug takers, I dont hold a similar place in my heart for any drug dealers. The drug dealers are the destabilizers of many communities, and oftentimes where you find a drug dealer you find someone who is also involved in other nefarious schemes. Would you really feel comfortable sending your four year old to preschool if his classroom was within a stones throw of the friendly neighberhood drug dealer (who very well could peddle in minor prostitution and other black market scheme)?
As much as those school buses may annoy you in the morning, or the kids make noise when walking past your house, the main objective is a postive one for the community not a negative one. To draw a contrast between a school and a drug dealer is just plain odd.
Who commented above about
Who commented above about the vote in advance and voted the way the results proved out?
NO - YES - YES
Not me, I was N, Y, N
I voted No, No, NO
I voted No, No, NO
No, Yes, No
Here's why:
A) I voted "No" on Question #1, because getting rid of the State income tax is a totally wreckless and dangerously irresponsible thing to do, particularly during these tough economic times, when various vital programs, such as education, programs for people with various disabilities, housing programs, to name afew, are seriously in danger of ending up on the chopping block, if one gets the drift. Moreover, there's no guarantee that the election of a Democrat to the White House would help rectify what could turn out to be a horrendous situation overall. A "Yes" vote on Questioin #1 would've definitely increased the chances of that happening....by a lot. thank heavens that Question #1 didn't pass. It would've spelled disaster for the whole Bay State.
B) I voted "yes" on Question #2, because I think that posession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use is not harming anybody.
C_ I voted "No" on Question #3 because I believe that, as other posters here on UniversalHub have pointed out, there are more humanitarian ways to treat greyhounds, whether they're employed in dog-racing or not. Putting them in horribly constrictive cages and letting out only at two regulated times during the day to relieve themseleves is not only cruel, but a total atrocity, to boot. I'd like to see these beautiful animals treated in a more humane fashion. Abuse of any animals is inexcusable and unacceptable. Another reason why I voted no on this particular question: During these tough economic times, passing something that would result in people being thrown out of work would put more hardship on people who're already struggling to make ends meet, and add to the unemployment rolls, which the Bay State doesn't need.
I know this post is kind of long, but I had to speak my piece.
That'd be Fifty Billion Trillion KaJILLION in Dog Dollars
We just need to get the greyhounds addicted to slot machines, and the state's money problems will be solved.
"during these tough economic times" people aren't gambling on dog races. From today's Globe:
I honestly don't understand how these ever-so-many workers can even be paid every week or two... it's a failed business, a throw-back to a time better forgotten. This measure is probably the best thing that could have happened for the track owners, who can now push for slots, which will pull way more money from the pockets of depressed north- and south-shore housewives than any dog track ever could.