So away we go!
Question 1 has gotten the most press and debate, as it deals with abolishing the state income tax:
I'm voting "Yes", even though it's about as futile a gesture as one can make. The reason I'm so pessimistic is that in 2000 we had a binding referendum question on the ballot rolling the state income tax back to 5.0% from 5.75%. It passed overwhelmingly, yet when it came time to implement the rollback, the legislation elected to ignore the will of the people entirely. The rate was finally reduced, but only to 5.3%, not 5% even.SUMMARY
This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.
The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009.
The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.
A NO VOTE would make no change in state income tax laws.
There is literally no reason to suspect that the legislature would respect the will of the people this time, either - especially with such a major revamp of the tax code. Cutting off a revenue stream is a sure way to slow the growth of government. Obviously this doesn't sit well with the cradle-to-grave nanny-statists. I don't know if it will pass - I doubt it, as anti-question 1 commercials and signs outnumber the pro- commercials about 500 billion to one...
Question 2 revolves around the penalties for possession of marijuana:
I am also voting "Yes" on this question, as it's one step closer to decriminalization, which is the first step to legalization. I cannot fathom how alcohol can be legal and marijuana is not. It boggles the mind that alcohol, which one can purchase at virtually any corner store, is perfectly legal to purchase, consume, etc. whereas marijuana will get you arrested. There is no logical reason for this - marijuana is no more addictive, altering, or dangerous than alcohol. Physically, the dangers of smoking marijuana center mainly on the actually smoking part; long term damage, aside from smoking, is far less pervasive (and open to interpretation) than even moderate alcohol consumption.SUMMARY
This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.
Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse.
The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding.
The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.
Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor
vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.
The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.
A NO VOTE would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.
I certainly don't expect this bill to pass; they haven't even bothered running ads against it. The only pro-ads have been long-time cops who agree with the idea of making MJ possession more of a ticketable offense rather than a crime. Which, really, is better than it being an arrestable offense. I don't have a dog in this particular hunt, as I don't partake (I quit smoking cigarettes before my son was born and swore off *all* smoking then), but any time we can claw back a small amount of freedom we're all better off.
Question 3 tackles an ethical dilemma, the racing of dogs for sport:
SUMMARYI'm voting "Yes" on this question as well - three "Yes" votes in a row. I'm not an animal person - I am extremely allergic to animal dander, meaning basically that even short-term exposure to cats, dogs, mice, hamsters, etc. leaves me literally gasping for breath. I've never had a cherished childhood pet, never bonded with a four-footed housemate, never felt the stinging pain of loss when a lifelong friend slipped away.
This proposed law 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 State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing.
Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs.
These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would prohibit dog races on which betting or wagering occurs, effective January 1, 2010.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing dog racing.
And yet I have a soft spot for animals. I've taken my children to the circus on several occasions, and I wince when the animals are prodded or whipped. I empathize with the protestors who want the animals freed - I disagree with their methods, but not their goal. It saddens me that great and majestic animals are reduced to mere playthings for our amusement, that in this day and age we need to denigrate other species for a quick laugh or a moment's amusement.
I haven't the foggiest idea if this will pass or not. I suspect not, as there are numerous dog tracks around the state, and one riiiight over the border in Seabrook NH that will be more than happy to take all the dog racing dollar$ MAholes want to spend. Plus the general consensus lately has been to allow more gambling rather than less, and one of the ways they've tried to stave off allowing casinos has been to allow some slot machines at dog tracks...
Well, there you have it, my ballot questions broken down and explained away. For the MA residents out there reading, feel free to debate my positions or support my choices. For residents in other states, please take the time to read your states' ballot questions carefully and study both sides of the question.
That is all.
15 comments:
I am with you on one and two, I am going NO on three. After the great "No Traps" law got passed on all the hype (I fell for it and now we have beaver Damns flooding folks)I don't trust the tree huggers any more. I don't think they treat the dogs that bad. MA is pretty good at watching what goes on at the dog tracks. I also wonder what will happen to the dogs they put out of work (and the people). They may get sent to other tracks that are as bad as they say or the dogs may get put down. . .
I just don't trust them on #3
Jay,
Not that I have any real stake since I'm not in MA, but...
On issue 1 we agree.
On issue 2 I'm of two minds. On the one hand, as a "leave me alone" style conservative I'm in principle in favor of legalizing all drugs that don't make the user dangerous to others; on the other hand, there's a lot of anecdotal accounts that suggest marijuana is in fact more dangerous than alcohol, in subtle ways. People should be able to make an informed choice on whether or not they're going to poison themselves. The poisonous effects of alcohol are well known and well understood; the effects of marijuana aren't.
On issue 3, I think you've been suckered by the extremist left. "Dog racing" means "greyhound racing;" no other breed of dog is used for racing. If properly done and supervised, greyhound racing simply isn't abusive. There's nothing 'denigrating' about it either. Greyhounds are bred to run, and they enjoy it as much as any bred-for-a-purpose dog enjoys fulfilling that purpose. Border collies and herding, huskies and pulling, foxhounds and tracking, greyhounds and running. A greyhound that can't run is a miserable animal. The only problem with greyhound racing is that the dog owners can't afford to keep dogs that don't win, so many older dogs are destroyed. But even that is changing thanks to greyhound rescue groups that find homes for greyhounds off the track.
I might also point out that the ban-greyhound-racing move is led by animal rights activists. AR activists are far-left-wing extremists, and like all such, they lie whenever it suits their purpose. As with the claim that circuses abuse their animals. You may have seen animals getting prodded in circus acts, but I can just about guarantee you've never seen animals getting hurt in a circus act. Pokes and prods are a convenient training signal: "when touched here, do this; when touched there, do that; when touched twice, do something else." But that's all they are. Signals. Not painful.
This is how extremists work, don't forget. They take a nibble here, a nibble there, aiming at small groups that have few defenders, and whose activities are easily distorted and demonized. In animal issues, it's circuses and dog racing. In gun issues, it's automatic weapons and big rifles like the Barrett. AR activists tell you "oh, we only want to end abuse; activities that use animals but don't abuse them are safe from us." Anti-gun activists tell you "oh, we only want to ban guns that have no legitimate use, like machine guns. You who use guns for legitimate purposes like hunting and target shooting are safe from us." But the one is just as much a lie as the other. Anti-gun groups want to ban all ownership of guns for any reason whatever, even self-defense; AR activists want to ban all use of animals for any reason whatever, including pet ownership. No more dogs, no more cats, no more horses, no more hamsters or mice or gerbils or snakes or turtles. No more eating meat or milk or eggs.
Agreeing to a ban on "just this one" type of animal activity is like agreeing to a ban on just one type of gun.
I have to agree with Wolfwalker. I have friends that have adopted greyhounds and they are great pets and don't show any signs of abuse (such as hiding from people or other obvious behaviors)
The pro racing folks had an ad on this morning on the way in with the (former?) head of the State Police Racing oversight folks and they say the dogs are well cared for in MA including vets visits and all.
If you think about it, why would you hurt the dog? You only make money if it can win, and sick dogs don't win. . . It is in the owners best interest to care for the dogs.
I'm voting yes, yes and no.
The dog thing is self explanatory. It is not in racing dog owner's own interests to abuse or neglect their animals. I don't believe the animal rights people. As the owner of 2 working dogs, I can certainly tell you that ruel masters are one in 1000. You don't make policy for the exception. If you're against passing a machine gun law for people under 21 in response to the recent accident, you should be against this measure
Furthermore, when you say you like their goals, I think you're crazy.
The animal rights people would have us abandon all animal research. This is a fundamental goal of these folks. That means you can kiss any more significant medical advances goodbye. That's an argument for self-extermination, not kindness.
And that's the real AR agenda.
People have rights. You could perhaps extend that to the very brightest monkeys, whales and porpoise.
But animals do not have rights, because they cannot grasp that they have them.
We do not allow cruelty because it tugs our heartstrings and it causes damage to the humans that are cruel, and by extension, all the rest of us.
This is ethics 101 and you have to go to wackos like Singer to find an alternative view. The rest is emotional, not rational.
Okay, I guess I didn't make my point clear enough on the dog issue.
I'm not against animal testing. In fact, I've done a fair amount of vivisection. In that case, though, the sacrifice of the animal serves a purpose, a scientific purpose that can benefit mankind.
But racing dogs? What purpose is served by that?
That's a good point though, Bill, about voting for the law. I will reconsider my support for question three in that light - I'd much rather let market forces dictate the end of dog racing rather than the .gov...
Wolfwalker said:
"On issue 2 I'm of two minds. On the one hand, as a "leave me alone" style conservative I'm in principle in favor of legalizing all drugs that don't make the user dangerous to others; on the other hand, there's a lot of anecdotal accounts that suggest marijuana is in fact more dangerous than alcohol, in subtle ways. People should be able to make an informed choice on whether or not they're going to poison themselves. The poisonous effects of alcohol are well known and well understood; the effects of marijuana aren't."
Hi Wolf:
I don't need to be protected from myself. There's virtually nothing out there from any credible source that shows marijuana to be anywhere remotely as dangerous and addictive as alcohol. Ask any cop. And I mean ANY beat cop. They will tell you they virtually never have calls or problems associated with people smoking pot.(With the obvious exception of driving, which no one would recommend decriminalizing anyway, even the most radical of legalization of proponents). They have virtually non-stop ones from alcohol use.
People will always seek to medicate themselves, whatever the substance. Trying to stop relatively harmless forms of this is futile and trivializes the law as a useful entity.
The drug war has cost hundreds of billions, has demonstrably not worked, has eroded our 4th amendment rights to a hollow joke and criminalized and made felons of millions of people who have never harmed a soul.
Making marijuana possession a fine-able offense is quite literally the very least we can do to reverse the horrendous effects of the drug war.
"But racing dogs? What purpose is served by that?"
The same as racing horses: betting money to see if the animal that you've purchased/bred, trained, poured money into, is faster than that other guy's. I'm pretty sure that if it's legal, there's going to be oversight (massive) by the state.
I know squat about dog racing, never been to one (it's illegal in GA, I think), but I have been to Churchill Downs and if the greyhounds are treated 1/100th as good as race horses are, then they're more comfortable in their surroundings than I am.
BTW, I'm the world's biggest dog lover; one sleeps with me every night and I plan on replacing him with another one when he eventually passes. I plan on that being the case until I'm the one that passes. There is such a thing as unconditional love and it comes from a dog.
Making marijuana possession a fine-able offense is quite literally the very least we can do to reverse the horrendous effects of the drug war.
Never done drugs. Never tried marijuana. Lord willing, I'll never need to (catarax, cancer, etc.). That said, I can't recall anyone dying from using marijuana, while I have two family members (wife's side) that have lost their families due to their addiction to Jack Daniels & Jim Beam. If I can get $hitfaced within the span of 30 minutes from alcohol, then it should be legal for someone to get spacey & crave twinkies over the span it takes them to get high in their own homes via MJ. I mean, anyone ever heard of MJ-rage or overly aggressive pot heads? Meh, legalize it & treat it like 100 proof alcohol and be done with it.
I'm a "yes, Yes, No"
For #3, I feel the same way about gambling as I do about Pot smoking, I don't much care for it, but don't see why it needs to be illigal. I don't give a shit WHAT they're gambling on, Cards, Dice, Horses, How long Before Ted Kennedy dies, which sugar cube a fly will land on first, or Dogs. Just like Race Horses, or service dogs, Racing Greyhounds are worked hard, but are kept very happy because happy animals work harder and are helthier.
Oh, FYI for any Masshole Gun owners who might be excited about the results of Question #2. I'm sure just because it won't be a criminal offence doesn't mean you won't get your guns taken away by our lovely state just because you were smoking a Bone on your porch.
Yes, abstain, no.
#1 is self evident (but MA legislature likes to ignore ballots anyway)
#2 dont really care. shoot heroin into your scrotum for all I care, but I as joe the taxpayer don't want to spend a cent for your sorry ass. Either in medical care or care and feeding at the MCI facility of your choice. So until we get personal responsability, I'm not voting pro pot. But as long as there is a larget 'it's not my problem' / nanny contingent, I'd be equally willing to ban alcohol as I'd be willing to legalize pot.
#3 Dogs are treated reasonably well. My family used to have some active racing dogs. And, more family has been employed in the dog racing sector for decades. As others have said, the dogs' health is paramount.
Although, passing this ban would shove a red hot poker into the rear of Charlie Sarkis, so for that alone it would be a good thing :)
"As others have said, the dogs' health is paramount"
Even after it's finished racing. Just like horses, premium breeding can be an additional money-maker. My in-laws put my wife through college by mating their pure-breed English Sheepdog a few times (a healthy sized litter X $450 a pup = tuition).
I doubt there are Mike Vicks out there flogging their dogs if they lose a race. Heck, if they come in 7th & are mated with a prime breed, they can give the owner a future stud (horse lingo that I couldn't pass up).
I'm with JD and Weer'd. Don't care much for dog racing (kind of a sleezy scene, if you ask me), but just 'cause I don't like it isn't a good enough reason for me.
#1 reduces the size of gov't (always a good thing), which means that they'll not mess with us as much. Although you're right that the Legislature will simply ignore us.
#2 is explicitly voting for more freedom. I never cared for MJ, and don't even drink much anymore, but it's really hard to see the downside of even full legalization. Matter of fact, if #1 passes, they may legalize for a new revenue stream.
#3 is about limiting freedom. Don't care much for this - it's kind of like the fois gras banners.
And yes, I like dogs. Little One-Eyed Dog is a rescue dog, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
Allow me to humbly disagree on two of the points with our humble host...
Question 1: End the state Income Tax.
YES.
We agree. We also agree that this is largely a fantasy, as the sheeple of this state are so enraptured and dependent upon the government teat that we will see giant talking broccoli stalks come mow our lawns for free before we will ever see a reduction in state taxes. The legislators of this state ignored previous referrenda to lower the state income tax down to 5% -- imagine how much credence they're going to give a lowering to "0%". And since we did not march on the capitol with torches and pitchforks after previous victories at the polls, they have no reason to fear us. None.
Question 2: Legalize pot.
NO.
Though our host has taught me much in the ways of libertarianism (small-"l"), I won't support the legalization of additional drugs so long as the nanny-state is out there, waiting to add more coddling and tax-payer funded safety nets. I'm more than happy to support this idea at some point down the road, *after* Question 1 (see above) passes. Since that isn't likely until sometime after Broccoli Brothers come and mow my lawn, I'm in no rush to add more people who have to be cared for -legally- by the state.
Question 3: End Dog Racing.
NO.
The dogs are overseen by animal control folks. The industry employs hundreds of people. We're facing a rough economy and we'd be canceling the livelihood of these people. No thanks. I believe the dog handlers have more interest in the well-being of the dogs than do the tree-huggers. (This is identical to my feelings regarding hunters and wide-open spaces -- who is more likely to care about the environment? The hunters who walk and hunt in the great outdoors, or Al Gore as he jets over the forests, heading to a new meeting where he can grab control of those same forests?)
Footnote*
The "giant talking broccoli stalks" gag is from Dave Barry.
I am glad to see that all of you have seen through all the lies that have been spread about the racing industry in this state. The laws that govern dog racing were made to protect the dogs and they have. I have been to the track and to the kennels in the back. They are adhering to all the laws and the handlers, owners and other workers really love the dogs. If you have a chance to visit the track ask to see one of the kennels, the owners are very proud of them.
Post a Comment