(Cross posted. Surprised not to see this news here yet!)
Another poll has come out regarding the up-and-coming ballot initiatives voters face on November 4th.
First, the decent news for those who are sick of throwing nonviolent offenders into jail for up to several years for a small amount of pot, which is arguably just about as harmful (in the general population) as smoking, which is legal. The yes-on-two vote is 51% to 32% opposed, with 16% undecided. Seems like with the way things are going, it’ll pass.
Second, the OK news for the dogs: 44% in this poll support banning racing, and 43% are opposed, with 13% up for grabs. The poll consisted of 400 people, called between Monday and Wednesday, with a 4.9% margin of error (pretty large if you ask me) so things are up in the air on Question 3 (which I encourage people to vote Yes on – you would too if you knew a greyhound adopted from the tracks which was seriously screwed up in the head).
The best news, however, comes on the income tax repeal question – Question 1. Fully 59% oppose the measure. 26% support it. That’s some really low support numbers. Shows that people are more educated this time around (as opposed to 2002). People are becoming less afraid to say, “hey, if we want services, we need to pay for them.” Progressives have made their message clear and people are listening. Doesn’t hurt that our side had $3.5M to spend on ads and grassroots campaigning this time either (taking no chances, as the boston.com article says). But that doesn’t explain the extreme margin between those pro and against.
But if you want Question #3 to pass (and if you are not a cold hearted cruel person, you should, you really should), you have got to talk to your friends and neighbors and tell them to vote with the dogs, Yes on Three!
(As to Question Two, vote your conscience. But remember this: we spend a lot of money incarcerating people for small amounts of marijuana possession. But if we pass Q3, we turn a money sink into a money gain, as people who are caught pay a fine to the state. It seems like a no brainer to me, at least fiscally.)
Work faster! Doncha get paid to blog? Heh.
<
p>Hey, it saves you writing up something on it, right?
nt
put any text in the comment. ~tsk tsk~ š
I’m undecided about Question 3, and this diary says that that might make me “cold-hearted”. I want to be convinced.
<
p>So far, I have been unconvinced about the arguments in favor of Question 3, and the Globe’s endorsement of voting “no” has me leaning in that direction. The question strikes me as purely unnecessary meddling for a feel-good cause with no substance behind it.
<
p>How are dogs that are bred and raised for racing ethically different than horses that are bred and raised for racing? Is there anything to this movement besides “dogs are cute and cuddly and wuvvable”?
<
p>Vegetarians (well, most vegetarians) don’t campaign for banning the sale of meat in the entire state, and most animals raised for meat are treated worse much than these dogs, not to mention the fact that meat animals are slaughtered and eaten in the end and dogs aren’t. If you don’t like it, the argument goes, don’t pay for it.
<
p>So given that the fact that dogs are cuter than horses or cows doesn’t swing my vote, what should?
From an economic [not animal lover] perspective, a horse is a much larger financial investment than a dog. As such, they’re simply not as disposable. Horse owners have a much larger financial incentive to treat their horses well. The general treatment of horses is indeed better than dogs — and I suspect that it’s a function of the amount of money and human time that goes in to raising and training a race horse, which is much more than a racing dog.
<
p>Ethically, there may not be much difference. In practice, though, racehorses are treated much better than racedogs.
<
p>
<
p>The difference between animals for food and animals for entertainment is an important one. The fact is, we need calories, and protein. It’s true that we as a society might be able to shift to vegetarian [or even vegan], but in the mean time, eating food is a basic human need with relatively few options. Entertainment is a less immediate need with far more options. I agree that animals in the food stream are often mistreated, and that’s a problem on which I’d like to see society shed some more light. In the mean time, society has shed light on the unnecessary cruel mistreatment of dogs, so why should we as a society condone it?
<
p>
<
p>I’ve never even owned a pet, and I wouldn’t be considered an animal lover by anyone I know. I have a Catholic outlook — animals are tools to be used by humans, but not to be mistreated. Racing dogs in MA in 2008 has proven to be impossible to do without mistreating the animals, and their value for humans just isn’t high enough to justify the mistreatment.
are actually sighthounds, bred to help out on the field, not run around in circles with half a dozen other dogs going upwards of 40 miles an hour or more.
<
p>Stomv did a good job discussing the horse issue, but I’ll only add this: what’s on the ballot this year are dogs. If you or anyone else feels passionately about horses, that’s a cause you or they can take up. I’ve seen the cruelty done to dogs and I’ve seen the nefarious influence of the industry on this state, along with all of their lies and deceit. I’m not interesting in propping up their lies, deceit or abuse of animals.
<
p>I almost feel as though this is a plant. I’ve never seen anyone comment on BMG using a Globe endorsement as their reasoning for voting no. I hope I’m wrong.
abuse greyhounds is ok if we don’t lose jobs…
<
p>What An Asshole
<
p>Scott Brown for Governor!!!
<
p>J/K but not too far off
A plant? A plant for who? How did it even advance the discussion for you to make that random accusation?
<
p>Here’s a hint about politics: when you believe in a cause, it works better to persuade the undecided people who are willing to discuss things, than to insult them for being undecided.
from the track are not the same sort of dog as one completely raised by a loving family.
<
p>Greyhounds (all the greyhound breeds) are quite intelligent, very sensitive animals. They are highly trainable and susceptible to psychological problems if mistreated.
<
p>However, if you meet a greyhound from a track, they are a very different animal. They come off the track VERY skittish, mentally damaged, and very stupid. All the adopted racing greyhounds I’ve ever met seemed less trainable than the average for their breed. You would be dumbed down too too if you spent the first half of your life running around in circles after a fake rabbit and then stuck in a cage without mental stimulation the rest of the time.
<
p>Given the highly sensitive nature of the breed, the treatment is that much more cruel. Even if they didn’t merely cage ’em up and run them to death (in some cases), it would be cruel, because an intelligent animal deserves to have something to keep its mind sharp. At a minimum, it’s severe neglect. No way that a dog owner with many many dogs that they race can mentally challenge all their dogs enough in a given day or week to do this. If we find a household that has a million cats or dogs who are this neglected, we take them away from said owner, but with dog racing owners, this is OK?
<
p>Then there is the dozens on dozens of culled puppies that don’t ever make it to the track, never mind adoption. They are perfectly good dogs, just not fast enough. How come the tracks haven’t tried to defend themselves against that argument? Because there is no defense.
Dogs off the track are often shy and skittish as you say, but I would not call them “stupid” or “less trainable. I have not found that to be the case with my greyhound (except for the fact that he doesn’t seem to get the concept that he cannot just get in the first car he sees when we leave the park!) or with my many conversations with other greyhound owners, but perhaps it may be more the case with those dogs who race for many years.
<
p>The dogs are indeed not mentally stimulated on the track. They usually are not allowed to play with toys and don’t get chew toys or treats. They frequently don’t know how to walk on a leash.
<
p>I have noticed that dogs that have raced frequently display scars — presumably from being clawed by other dogs — and broken or partially amputated tails.
<
p>In general, the dogs are treated well enough to perform well on the track, but there is not a general concern for their long-term health. Track dogs also tend to be borderline anorexic because the extra weight may slow them down. They and are generally fed only wet food and consequently almost universally have bad teeth by the time they retire.
<
p>Most (but not all) racing greyhound owners have no interest in taking care of these animals when they can longer race or no longer have breeding value. They either euthanize them or they dump them on various greyhound adoption agencies who have to raise money in order to care for these animals and find homes for them. It is great that there are so many charities willing to try to rescue retired race dogs, but if there weren’t so many animals much of the money spent on that effort could have been spent on other charities.
I’ve owned one rescue dog at one point and have interacted with many others. When I first learned that greyhounds as a breed were supposed to be very intelligent, I was genuinely surprised, because my experience with race hounds was that for the most part they were pretty dumb. The rescue dog my family owned was hands down the dumbest dog we’ve ever had.
The dog tracks probably would already have gone out of business if it were not for state subsidies and tax breaks.
Do you think this is a good way for the state to spend its money, propping up a dying industry? You say “if you don’t like it … don’t pay for it”, but we already are paying for it. I think that should stop.
I wrote this in another thread, but I’ll just blockquote it here. I’d love some answers…
<
p>
<
p>There was some discussion on the thread I link to, but not enough for me to really get a feel for the ramifications of changing this law.
People caught with pot who aren’t major dealers aren’t going to go to prison. That’s the major ramification. I didn’t understand what you don’t understand. It’s pretty simple. If you think people who smoke pot should be frequently sent to prison, vote no. If you don’t think they should be sent to prison, unless they’re major dealers, then vote yes. One option saves this state money, the other wastes resources on locking more people up.
Your posts are great when I agree with them…
but absolutely no data. For me, some topics require real data — and criminology is one of ’em. Numbers, citations, and the like please.
<
p>Otherwise, I’ve got nothing to go on but a bunch of people who have opinions but little expertise, and that’s fine on some issues but, for me, not this one.
Like others, I don’t have data to cite at my fingertips, but it is well known that the WOD is ridiculously expensive and one way its too expensive is in paying for the prisons who’s populations have been inflated over the last 25 years with non violent drug offenders.
<
p>Now, of course, it may be the case that the specifics in question 2 don’t actually save much money. I’m still leaning toward yes because the message needs to be sent that the WOD needs serious re-thinking.
Numbers can tell you how much money it would save, whether it would make a significant or insignificant dent in the prison population or load on our court system, etc. But that only decides your vote if you think there’s a good reason to put people in prison for marijuana possession, in which case you’re trying to make the best tradeoff. If so, why do you believe that?
<
p>I would say yes to this question for the simple reason that we should not put people in prison for marijuana posession, at all, ever. The extra benefits are bonus, and data telling me how big a bonus that’d be isn’t necessary for making the decision, because there’s no negative to trade off against the benefits.
<
p>P.S. However, a public defender I know tells me that the courts that try minor crimes in Massachusetts are overloaded and underfunded and these cases are expensive to try and anything that gets rid of them would be a big help.
is the fact that almost 60% of respondents in the Suffolk poll thought it was necessary to increase taxes to get out of this current budget hole. To me, that’s permission for Beacon Hill to do it. Couple the raises with getting rid of the tolls and I think the people of this state will be much happier overall.