Question 1 would starve state government of 40 percent of its revenue – more than $12 billion – and give the biggest breaks to the richest taxpayers. It would pressure communities to make up for lost revenue, almost surely by raising property taxes. Services ranging from the MBTA, to fuel aid, to local police would be slashed just when residents need them most.
Proponents claim that state government is full of fat and incompetence. But Question 1 would require such extreme cuts that the government could fire every state employee – every prison guard and social worker – and still have to find another $7 billion.
I like that last stat — fire every state worker, and you’re still $7 billion short. Good grief.
[A]n ounce of marijuana isn’t a trivial amount – it’s enough for dozens of joints – and the civil penalty would not escalate for subsequent offenses.
Anyway, it’s not the case that jails are clogged with those whose only crime is possessing a trace of marijuana. Under current law, possession is punishable by fines of up to $500 and jail sentences of up to six months. But judges are required to place first-offenders on unsupervised probation, and records are sealed after six months. Ultimately, the offense doesn’t appear on the record.
The Globe goes on to back CORI reform, but says that Question 2 is a bad way to go about dealing with that issue.
[T]he Globe does not believe the evidence presented by Question 3 supporters rises to the level of abusive mistreatment that would justify shutting down a legal industry…. The 840 injuries to dogs since 2002 are not that numerous, compared with what track owners say are the 470,000 times dogs have run races in that period. And those injuries are treated by the veterinarians who are always present during races…. [T]he Massachusetts dog racing industry is one of the most closely regulated in the country. Thanks in part to that oversight, dog racing deserves a reprieve in Massachusetts, even as many of its patrons switch their allegiance to new gambling venues in Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Needless to say, we beg to differ with the Globe on this one. Dog racing is without question a dying industry, and it continues to predictably result in serious injuries and lousy living conditions for the dogs. Put it out of its misery. Vote YES on 3.
(A) voting no on Question #1. Getting rid of the state income tax is an extremely reckless and dangerous idea for all kinds of reasons.
<
p>(B) Voting yes on Question #2. First of all, given the fact that marijuana has been shown to have a number of medical uses, and to be beneficial to people with certain medical conditions for who more conventional medical treatments have failed to work. Secondly, all too often, non-violent offenders busted for possession of small amounts of marijuana have been put in prison cells along with violent, hardened criminals, with disastrous results. Thirdly, small amounts of marijuana are not, imho, reasons for people being labeled and treated as criminals.
<
p>(c) As for Questiopn #3, I’m really not sure about right now, although it is true that the greyhounds used in dog racing are treated in the most horrific manner, and horror stories abound. They’re beautiful animals, and I hate hearing stories of them being abused. In fact, no animal should be abused. I wonder, however, if there’s a humane way to continue the dog racing and to treat greyhounds who’re no longer able to race more humanely.
A joint is typically half a gram (according to Wikipedia), so an ounce is enough for nearly 60 joints. That’s a small amount if you’re a dealer maybe, but quite a big stash if you’re just a recreational user.
OOh, an ounce!
<
p>It could be kilogram, and I would still vote yes, not that I expect this to have any effect on anything.
<
p>Pot is simply not a threat to anything or anyone. Banning it is a stupid waste of time and money.
responsible use never hurt anyone.
difference between pot and heroine. Hyperbole much?
Why should you be able to buy an ounce and I can’t buy a few grams of heroin? What’s that all about?
that’s the difference.
<
p>the fact that you can’t see that – and continue to make this insane comparison – only speaks to the fact that you don’t know enough about this subject to be intelligently participating in the conversation. No offense.
Amsterdam being the most obvious example. “Soft on soft drugs, hard on hard drugs” works.
No little kids are going to be shot in the crossfire of gang violence if this stuff is taxed and sold at the local packie.
I just find it strange that people keep categorizing that amount as small. Not being a pot user, I don’t have much experience with this. Do people regularly carry that much pot around with them?
How much is in your house right now? Is it more than one shot/one beer/one glass of wine?
<
p>I don’t see how this is different. References to drug dealers are beside the point, because prosecuting pot possession in any amount large or small is stupid.
below for why I think the DAs care about this – I suspect it has nothing to do with recreational users.
I don’t think it is a good reason. A bad tool is a bad tool, even if it is one they like to use.
You get the nods—BFD. Ever talk to a pot head? They talk ragtime. What’s the dif? One doesn’t talk, the other talks nonsense.
i.e. my roomate smoked like a chimney.
<
p>Okay, amounts…
<
p>An ounce isn’t really that much weed. I think that the issue with “how many joints does this or that make” is a moot argument, because the vast majority of pot use I see is either blunts (weed cigars) or smokin’ a bowl, which is using a pipe.
<
p>Trying to determine how much weed is a lot is subjective. To put it differently — to me, I would never need more than a 12 pack to get inebriated at a party. I have friends, however, who could kick back a 24 pack of keys without much issue. An ounce of pot is a lot to someone who doesn’t smoke often, but to someone who smokes on a regular, day-to-day basis, its not a ton. As to whether a person normally carries that much on them, it’s not really that common. You’d be more apt to finding people carrying an either or a fourth on them. Usually an ounce even more is because either they just bought however much they need for a week or any number of days, they are going to smoke with friends which requires more, or they are dealing.
<
p>So…to answer your question, it’s subjective, but they have to set it somewhere, so an ounce is a nice even number to arbitrarily pick.
<
p>Now, the kid who got arrested a couple floors above me freshman year who had a couple of pounds in his room…that’s a different story…
Smok’n is smok’n.
…when pot was 20-100 times weaker than what’s out there now, an ounce was considered a pretty small amount. As far as how many “joints” are in an ounce, that would depend on the size of the rolling paper, no? At any rate, it’s a simple measurement, somewhat arbitrary, as are a lot of dividing lines in law. The main thing is, we need to stop wasting jail space on this.
For making marijuana possession a criminal offense, but openly manufacturing and selling tobacco and alcohol — and subsidizing the companies that do so.
Whether or not “there’s a way” to safely race dogs is irrelevant. At some point, you have to look at the industry’s, ahem, track record. They’ve done nothing to inspire trust. Their campaign against 3 is pure deception. Wonderland couldn’t even pay its property taxes! They don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt that they could clean up their way, which they can’t. How do you create a scenario where hundreds of dogs won’t break their legs every year? Race them one at a time? Any “solution” would effectively kill the industry anyway, so we may as well get it over with and focus on redeveloping the land, creating new job and tax potential.
<
p>Vote yes on three – if you think dogs should be treated with at least a modicum of dignity and respect, it’s the only rational decision.
I would have agreed with the Globe on a no vote on Question One due to the potentially devestating impact it will have on services for students and the needy.
<
p>However, some politicians don’t seem to get it. Legislators overriding gubenatorial line item vetos, cities and towns circumventing the governor’s reasonable fiscal decisions via contracts, etc. demonstrate that many politicians aren’t connecting the dots.
<
p>These clowns need a wake up call!
<
p>At 12:00 a.m. on the specified date, the law may take effect. At 12:01 a.m. the Legislature will have to restore the cuts in a fiscally responsible manner. Then maybe they will get it!?!
I am planning on voting yes on #2, the marijuana issue. I don’t think that marijuana is something that people should be using, however, I don’t think that being caught with marijuana is a reason to hang a criminal record around someone’s neck for the rest of their life.
<
p>We have gotten to a point in this country where having a criminal record shuts a lot of doors for you — employment, housing, education, etc. CORI doesn’t matter — most employers ask you directly if you’ve been arrested, and if you fail to answer, you don’t get hired; if you answer “no” but you have, you have just falsified their application.
<
p>Imagine if speeding gave you a criminal record. Would it cause less people to speed? Sure. Would it cause more people to live in the shadow society, hampered by a criminal record? Sure. Is stopping someone from speeding worth the problems we get when more and more of our citizens get marginalized? I don’t think so.
<
p>I like to think, do I want my child smoking marijuana? No, I don’t. But I don’t want his life permanently ruined if he gets caught doing so a lot more.
why the Establishment opposes #2- a measure that makes sense just about any way you look at it–economically, morally ,and from a law-and-order perspective.
<
p>And then I remember that the Establishment has historically opposed marijuana b/c it is has been the drug of choice for intellectually, culturally, and politically subversive elements of society.
<
p>Gerry Leone, you are a square and you won’t get my vote again!
The DAs in Western MA held a press conference stating that if the question passes, this would be a signal for drug dealers to start targeting children.
<
p>Does anyone think that drug dealers aren’t currently targeting children because they are concerned that the children are going to get hung with a criminal record?
<
p>It was the most bizarre logic I’ve heard in a while.
You are not aware of the national drivers database? Just afew speeding and other motor vehicle violations most certainly preclude many forms of employment. many people are arrested, found NG, CWOF, or pretrial prbation. This should not under any circumstance preclude employment, unless in a very special field, and shame on any employer that asks without doing a CORI. I believe the more acurate query is” have you been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor within five years?
… considerations on question two.
<
p>
Instead of shutting down an industry and lowering the number of jobs, why not require the racetracks to hire Animal Well-being Officers, lowering their profits, but increasing the number of jobs?
what could they do?
<
p>As I’ve said elsewhere, short of racing one animal at a time, I don’t see how you can prevent broken legs. Instituting larger mandatory cages would cost a lot of money for the kennels, as would requiring they spend much more time out of those kennels. Adding “Animal Well-being” officers would be another great expense.
<
p>This is not a profitable industry – witness the fact that Wonderland essentially went bankrupt, ceasing their property tax payments (to the tune of owing the city of Revere $800,000). Adding significant new regulations not only likely be ineffective in protecting the dogs, but it would be a costly new expense they don’t have the money to spend. It’s better to just end this barbaric industry and allow this land to be redeveloped into more jobs and more taxes for these local economies.
If they are losing money – let them go bankrupt on their own. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with “they are going to go BK later anyway, so let’s prohibit them now”
… using the fact that they are likely to go bankrupt as a reason for prohibition would be wrong, but I don’t think that’s what is being argued here. The reasons given for proposing the ban have nothing to do with their financial situation. However, when considering this kind of prohibition, it behooves us to consider all factors. One such factor is economic. Demonstrating that they are not in great financial shape is merely a data point to answering the question about what the economic impact of the ban would be.
<
p>In that way, I think talking about it is perfectly valid… indeed it’s necessary.
2. Yes on marijuana decriminalization
3. Yes on ending greyhound racing
I hope that I am detecting some irony here. This “sage” is voting yes on all three.
Thankfully many are disregarding the wisdom of the Boston Globe. A good day for me.
<
p>A yes vote on question #1 is a wonderful thing for the citizens of MASS. Not because of the draconian cuts which materialize from this question passing since we already know the legislature doesn’t give a hoot about the voters will and have already gone on record that they will simply overturn the vote. The important part may be the message of so many people in MASS voting to control spending or else. I wish I had more time to investigate exactly where the state spends all the money so I could recommend cuts. I was sadly laughing about the state plane being sold (like Sarah Palin did). The sad part was we (all of us who pay taxes anyway) are paying $30,000 per year to store this plane. So… how long have we been paying those fee for the plane, what maintenance have we been paying? Any staff been assigned to fly the plane? How many other things like this are there hidden away in the budget under ambiguous wording?
<
p>Question #2 – Keep the existing laws. Zap the law breakers. Keep them on CORI.
<
p>Question #3 – No real position either way.
1) F everybody
2) F everybody
3) Whatever
<
p>
Clearly by voting Yes on 1 that makes f everyone…
<
p>rolls eyes
That it’s a bad idea but you want to send an “f you”, yeah, that’s how I’d describe it.
If it cost the state a penny more that $5000.00 per annum for this plane—there should be an immediate grand jury and Little Ms. Martha should get off her backside and start locking people up.
<
p>The annual inspection on this aircraft cost $1500.00
(required by FAA for this aircraft to be airworthy)
<
p>Hangar fee. $400.00 a month is outrageous and a ripoff—$250.00—$350.00 is the going rate and $350 is real high end—they beter be washing and waxing that plane every month for that price.
<
p>Dick Bunker—Mass Aeronautics Comm. is/was the assigned pilot. Mass. Aeronatutics Comm supports aviation in MA. believe it or not—aviation makes this state a lot of money through tax on jet and avgas fuels and aircraft registration fees (just another rip off–the registration fees that is). I have no idea what Mass Aeronautics budget is—but I bet they make a lot of money. I know one thing—-Their budget shouldn’t be over $750,000.00 a year. I also know that outside Mr. Bunker, who does 98% of the work and is liason to FAA, that the commission has secretaries, phone answerers , (one of whom speaks an unintelligible dialect of sanskrit or whatever country he comes from)a commissioner (god only knows what he/she does) a few other gophers and office space at the state transportation building. I have no idea what it is—any bets that they have a budget in excess of 5 million?
Nice little organization—do we really need them—maybe—but not at what it costs us.
Where’d you get that hangar fee figure? It really costs less to store an airplane than for a room in east somerville?
heated–like nice and cozy—50-60F is around $350.00 a month because of increased cost of construction/insulation/ heat/lights etc.
The appropriation for the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission this fiscal year is $603,000
Yes, Yes, & No.
2. Present
3. Yes
<
p>I just don’t understand the marijuana debate. That’s not to say I don’t understand why there’s a debate; rather, I don’t know enough about this and doubt that I will between now and Nov 4.
<
p>Instinctively, I believe we’re dealing with the war on drugs in an overly heavy handed way. We ought to help “small time” users and non-violent addicts get treatment at the very least.
<
p>But, what happens if I’m caught with 9/10ths of an ounce now [and no other contraband]? Am I locked up for 10 years? Pay a $100 fan and told to clean up my act? Does it statistically depend on my gender or race?
<
p>Methinks this particular initiative is very complex and may have tremendous consequence if passed, possibly positive, negative, or both. I just don’t know.
<
p>In fact, this is why I’ve hired a state rep, a state senator, and a governor. I don’t want to have to know. I want to hire people who I trust to have good judgment, a broad understanding, and access to experts.
<
p>I may have just talked myself into voting no — if I’m not sure it should be a yes, voting no maximizes the chances that the legislators and the governor make the decision. Since I believe in my state government, this might be the best direction for me.
<
p>Or maybe I’m just weaseling out of making myself make up my own damned mind.
has to do with charging people who are almost certainly guilty of much more serious crimes, but as to whom proof is difficult. That IMHO is why the DAs are so strongly against this thing. They like to be able to charge dealers with simple possession so that they can be assured of a conviction, since it can be harder to prove possession with intent to distribute. I mean, I’m speculating, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn that it’s true.
Though, I think there’s some synergy between what you’re saying and what Sab is saying. While yes, it would probably be easier to nail some people on the lesser crime – not exactly an infrequent tactic – I think that frequently there are “bad” people who get trapped in holes who, if they had access to the sorts of attorneys some people could get, would often otherwise have a better outcome.
<
p>I’m somewhat sympathetic to what the DAs are saying, at least in some cases, but I think there are other, better means to which we could address their problems. Perhaps these laws are really a crutch for them and removing that crutch will provide the impetus for Beacon Hill to give them better tools in which to catch the real criminals.
The proper sentence mitigator or nul pros is giving up a whole buncha folks. This is what is most commonly practiced. What is little reported is that in the inner city—judges just keep on continuing the cases without a finding, or dismissal, or suspended sentences, otherwise all of Roxbury/Dorchester would be in jail/prison. Don’t believe me. Go ask the BPD in those districts and sit in Dorchester/Roxbury DC for a few days.
What an eye opener.
MCRD, you’re talking like a racist jerk. (yes, I know, I’m feeding a troll, but as a nurse who knows that MCRD has siad he’s a nurse, I have to do it!)
<
p>Re “…otherwise all of Roxbury/Dorchester would be in jail/prison”
<
p>btw NO, Yes, Yes on the ballot questions
I read recently that police say that nobody is jailed due to marijuana possession, but it’s one of those numerous “add-on” offenses that some cops and lawyers use to keep people in prison for a long time when so inclined. You know — one of those laws that is only enforced against the “wrong” people.
Everything I’ve seen says the opposite. The small timers go to jail. The dealers get off because they’ve got something to trade.
is mythology. Why would the Globe every take the world of Race Track owners?
<
p>The 470,000 figure can only be used if you assume each dog that’s raced in Massachusetts only raced one time. Which is absurd. At any given period, each track has around 2,000 dogs. Several hundred injured dogs out of 4,000 total in Massachusetts each year is not an insignificant figure, especially given the fact that 100% of the dogs suffer through 20 hours of confinement each day in small cages.
Let law enforcement show a little spine in restoring judicial discretion in sentencing (as opposed to mandatory minimums) and rolling back other measures that fill our prisons to the bursting point in the name of “law and order.”
<
p>THEN I will take their concerns about an ounce of grass seriously.
Think about what it costs to keep someone in medium/max security prison…I remember a figure like $50,000+ each a year, and that was 15-20 years ago. Prison guards have to be paid–a lot more than mall cops since it’s hazardous work, they need health insurance, there’s maintenance, and course building high-security prisons is very expensive, too.
Per an earlier conservative poster, is to kill any prisoners who are costing you too much money to keep alive.
No on Question #1. Do I look like an idiot?
<
p>No on Question #2. I’m much more in favor of a wholesale makeover of our entire controlled substance laws. While I agree with the idea of ‘decriminalizing’ marijuana (and making better use of other cannabis’, e.g. hemp) I think, as written, the law wouldn’t do anything of hte sort. It only adds to the already bewildering array of laws, loopholes, subclauses and legal escape hatches, without actually freeing up , or much changing, anything. It’s the worst sort of compromise: one that simply moves the perspective and calls it innovation. I think this is a case where moving incrementally is just a ridiculous waste of time.
<
p>Personally, however, everytime I’ve smoked marijuana, it’s put me right to sleep… Deep restful sleep… but I was told it would be something different.
<
p>Yes on Question #3. Duh. They’re dogs. First off, they’re originally (as in two hunnert years ago) bred for hunting and not straight out flat out running. Even if they were treated well (which they are decidedly not) It’s very stressfull for them, period. Add to that the horrendous and wretched conditions under which they are housed and trained (as part of a race to the bottom economy of scale) and there is no upside. None. I can tolerate horse racing. Horses are made for speed and are treated (by and large) ten thousand times better.
<
p>And we oughta pass a law that says whomever it was that first had the idea to race dogs ought to be force fed alpo for the rest of their natural days.
It’s something significant, the degree to which people have intervened in the animal. Not only in their socialization, but even their physical makeup through selective breeding. It’s the human race that made greyhounds what they are, not anything else. We’ve played God with these animals for centuries. Given that in essence we created them as they stand before us now, don’t we have a responsibility toward them?
They will ignore us in voting yes on one.
Pot keeps the prison/”social services” industries going.
And they do abuse the dogs.
For a first offense, after the probation and sealing of the records, are they still saddled with CORI?
from http://www.unionofminorityneig…
<
p>DID YOU KNOW…
<
p> * These [CORI] reports are difficult to read/[decipher], often contain flawed information and are based on NAME…not social security number or fingerprints…
<
p>and from http://www.masslegalservices.o…
<
p> * Even if the case is dismissed or otherwise disposed of, or if the defendant is found not guilty, there is still a CORI. If the defendant is convicted, that will be reflected on the CORI…
Q1 – A terrible idea. Taxes are part of being a responsible member of society. You don’t like how government is run? Elect different people. Enact different priorities. Don’t cut it off at the knees.
<
p>Q2 – Not a big fan of pot myself, but I think this sets an appropriate middle ground. Plus, I like that any minors caught under the new law would have have to undergo mandatory drug education courses or face much heftier fines. That’s why the Brookline Police have endorsed the question.
<
p>Q3 – There’s an argument to be made that what individuals do with their private property is their own business (and like it or not, animals are property), but we also have laws that govern humane treatment of pets. Dog racing is not humane. Period.
<
p>I must say I’m impressed with the wide range of thoughful reasons people have put up for their various answers. I’ve been pleasantly surprised.
which is the point I think the Globe editors are trying to make. Whether or not you agree with the specific ballot initiative position, do you really want the ill-informed public making decisions based on instinct or the little or no information they have?
<
p>I’m a public school teacher, and I was doing some phone banking for my local district to help defeat Question 1. You’d be shocked how many teachers hadn’t even heard of the ballot question. Now, I like to think that teachers are relatively well-informed people, so it shocked me that this group was so unaware of this issue. I think the field organization and publicity of the Vote No on 1 has been bad, but a bad campaign to win over an ignorant populace is a lousy way for our state finances to be thrown into disaster.
Spoke with a high school teacher today, she was voting NO on Question 2 she fears that would lead to more youth smoking pot and coming to school high as the legal “scare” will be gone. You can test for alcohol. Can you test for pot? Breathalyzer?
I’ve gotta admit that the people who say they’ll vote yes on question one because they won’t implement it anyway have me baffled.
Is that more cynical than stupid or more stupid than cynical?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
When public financing of campaigns passed by referendum the Great and General Court chose to ignore it and it was never implemented. I guess that is what they must be thinking.