Deborah Knight Snyder
Norton Mirror and Taunton Daily Gazette
Mansfield -
If the crucial 2008 presidential election wasn’t reason enough to get out and vote, Massachusetts residents also have three compelling ballot questions, all of which, in their own way, are important to the state’s future.
Question One suggests eliminating the state income tax. Let’s not mince words here: this is a dreadful, irresponsible idea that would wreak havoc on cities and towns across the state.
Towns like Mansfield and Norton would lose more than $2 million apiece, while a city the size of Attleboro stands to lose $5 million — those figure don’t refer to just one time, they refer to every year.
As it is, the dismal economy is forcing the governor to revisit the current year’s budget, and he’s having a hard time deciding where to make cuts in already tight situation. Just imagine what would happen if the state lost another $12 billion — the portion that comes from income taxes — of its annual revenue. Public safety, public education and the state’s roads and bridges would be the first to suffer and suffer badly.
Of course, other taxes, most likely property taxes, would have to be raised, because no business can withstand the loss of 40 percent of its revenue.
Money has to come from somewhere, and the income tax is a fair one. The more people earn, the more they pay; the less they earn, the less they pay. The economic climate is bad enough, but this proposed law would have a devastating impact. No on Question One.
Speaking of the commonwealth’s money, or lack thereof, the passage of Question Two would save taxpayers $30 million a year. That’s how much is currently spent arresting and prosecuting non-violent people who are caught with small amounts of marijuana. Question Two seeks to decriminalize — not legalize, just decriminalize — possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. The idea is to replace the current criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with civil penalties.
Massachusetts would join 11 other states — California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon — that have passed similar laws. Those states have not seen their marijuana use increase as a result of decriminalization.
As a matter of fact, the federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s annual drug use survey reported that the rate of marijuana use in neighboring New York, where pot had been decriminalized, was actually lower last year than the rate in Massachusetts.
Approximately 7,500 people are arrested in Massachusetts every year for marijuana possession. Though those people are not criminals — possession of a small amount of marijuana is currently considered a misdemeanor — they still wind up with “criminal” records under the state’s Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) system.
As a taxpayer, I’m all for having my tax dollars go toward tracking violent criminals. However, clogging up the courtrooms with non-violent people who have been caught with a little bit of pot is a waste of money and resources. Yes on Question Two.
The third ballot question seeks to eliminate dog racing in the state, effective Jan. 1, 2010. As it is, there are only two dog tracks still open in the state, so this isn’t a proposal that would cut a huge industry.
According to the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, thousands of greyhounds in the state “endure lives of confinement, kept for 20 or more hours each day in cages barely large enough to stand up or turn around in.” That’s apparently true, because I was at a fair in western Massachusetts a couple of weeks ago, and a pro-dog-racing booth, with signs urging voters to keep dog racing legal in the state, unapologetically had two greyhounds sitting together in one small cage. The dogs looked so sad, and the sponsors didn’t even realize they were sending a reverse message. I couldn’t believe it.
Dogs involved in racing have tested positive for cocaine and suffered broken legs and paralysis. The Humane Society of the United States is supporting the proposed ban.
In the state-sponsored booklet that seeks to inform voters about the ballot questions, both for and against, the author of the argument against banning dog racing asserts that dogs are owned by “caring dog owners, not tracks.” However, later in the same paragraph, he refers to the state racing commission’s maintenance of a program that provide for adoption of the dogs “when their careers are over.” So here’s the question — why are these “caring dog owners” putting their dogs up for adoption? That’s not what caring dog owners do. Specious argument. Inhumane pastime. Save the dogs. Yes on Question Three.
