I think I've held forth on these already, so I won't belabor the points:
Question 1: No.
For all those folks who don't use roads, or send kids to schools (or care about or are influenced by public education in any way), or aren't protected by police or firemen, or don't use libraries, or courts, or services for the disabled, or have parents in nursing homes, or get health care services, or use parks, or are affected by local economies … Yeah, for all those folks, then Question 1 makes a hell of lot of sense. All three of you, living in that cave, with all the guns and canned food.
For the rest of us, it's a Dumb Idea.
Question 2: Yes.
I just can never get over the question of why marijuana possession itself should be illegal in the first place. The argument always goes into “it's a gateway drug” (slippery slope), or weak analogies to alcohol, heroin or cocaine (are they at all similar? How?), or that weed is way more powerful than it used to be (more powerful than what? to what effect, exactly?).
I am open to any responsible, well-documented arguments regarding the harmfulness of marijuana. But I seem to never actually hear them.
In the absence of such arguments, I have to conclude that our marijuana possession laws are draconian, and should be weakened or cast aside entirely. This measure is a small movement towards that end; and as has been pointed out by some astute observers here, it expresses the public's opinion regarding an issue on which few elected leaders are willing to lead.
Question 3: Yes.
I am sensitive to the fact that jobs may well be lost if greyhound racing it outlawed. I'm also sensitive to the fact that it's a dying business in any event, and that the industry has called on the state to allow slots at racetracks. I don't see a good reason to allow (or even subsidize through liberalized gambling) a sport in which animals are abused.
If this passes, measures should be taken to help the employees of the tracks. This isn't a slam-dunk like the others, but I'll be voting yes.