Massachusetts Giving Voters A Say

There are three important ballot questions for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts this year. Damn it feels good to type that sentence. Three questions worth voting on, despite the fact that Barack Obama will run away with MA's electoral college booty and lazyness tells you voting isn't necessary because it's not based on the popular vote. Point taken, but you can still participate in effecting change. So do it. Register to vote if you haven't. Then, go online and find out where to vote.

As far as how I'll be voting, here's a little (p)recap for you. Feel free to disagree, so long as you cast your vote, otherwise shut up and read:

Question 1: Hell no.

In a time where public funding continues to drop for important social programs such as art, music, gym, recess, public works, security, health insurance, etc., etc., etc...why the hell would we take away a HUGE source of state income?

The official ballot booklet you should receive in the mail lists the average return to each MA worker as $3,700. Now, considering that's more than I make in two months these days, I'd love to pocket that type of cash. But, since I have less money than most, that means my total would be less. And that means that those who really need it would get less as well, while those who don't need it would be the ones truly benefiting (sounds rather Republican, doesn't it?). Furthermore, while I'd love more cash, I need public services more than a relatively minor dash of cash. Better infrastructure, better schools, and less time spent at the RMV sound good to me. So, I'm voting "no" on 1.

Queston 2: Yes, with some reservations.

It's somewhat silly to claim moral judgement on others in what they choose to do to their bodies. At the same time, marijuana is acceptable in my mind, but other drugs are not. So, do I draw the line after pot, or do I erase it entirely? Well, neither, because I don't get a chance to vote on that issue.

Essentially, it boils down to this: pot's not a killer any more than alcohol (probably substantially less) and most definitely is safer than tobacco. So, let's shift our priorities from busting petty drug users to using that money and time to better schools and refocus our efforts on lowering violent crime and real abuse.

Question 3: Yes.

While there may well be litigation (as opponents of the bill assure) and it will cost the state money, in this case I feel that not abusing dogs is worth it. There's plenty to be said for forcing animals to live in small cages and train them mercilessly much in the same way China trains its gymnasts--oh, wait, no there isn't. It's wrong. (And yet, I still eat veal...sigh, I supposed it's time to give that up too.)

To make up for the lost tax revenue, let's put in a some slot machines in airports, at rest stops, or state run buildings. I'd rather gamble while high in Massachusetts where my income tax helps fund the construction of a state-run casino/local slot machine hall/cash cow that produces smarter students less likely to shoot me than drive to another state and get drunk where they'll take my $3,700 that MA didn't get.