Pubdate: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 Source: Hanover Mariner (MA) Copyright: 2008 GateHouse Media, Inc. Contact: http://www.wickedlocal.com/hanover/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3164 Author: Carol Britton Meyer Cited: Question 2 http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/ Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Committee+for+Sensible+Marijuana+Policy Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?161 (Marijuana - Regulation) SOME (BALLOT) QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER Hanover - Unlike the recent state primary, which drew only 12.8 percent of Hingham voters, the Nov. 4 State/Presidential election and controversial ballot questions are expected to attract a larger crowd. First, there's the contest between Presidential candidates Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Then there are the three controversial binding statewide ballot questions related to reducing and then eliminating the state personal income tax; decriminalizing marijuana use and instituting a new system of civil penalties; and prohibiting dog races on which betting or wagering occurs. There is also a non-binding wind power question that will be on the ballot in several South Shore communities, including Hingham. (See information box.) State Rep. Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham, said it's important for voters to realize that the first three questions are binding. "These are not [just] questions gauging voters' opinions on these issues [except Question 4]," he said. "No legislative approval is needed for them to become law." While he said he understands voter frustration over the state of the economy and the rising costs of oil and gas, Bradley pointed out that reducing and then eliminating the state personal income tax would have dire consequences. "Property taxes would need to be raised through operating overrides to maintain services including police and fire departments, the schools, and public transportation," he said. "In my opinion, this would be an irresponsible way to address how the people of Massachusetts are taxed." QUESTION 1 -- STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAX Besides concerns centering on the state's need to borrow at higher interest rates and tap funds set aside for "rainy day" use in order to cover current local aid obligations should Question 1 pass, local officials have their own reasons for opposing it. A Yes vote would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the whole tax beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.A No vote would make no change in state income tax laws. Massachusetts has a flat personal income tax rate of 5.3 percent of federal adjusted gross income. Hingham Finance Director Ted Alexiades said such cuts would be devastating. "We're talking about a $3 million cut across the board (after counting all local aid). If this passes and the town wanted to replace the lost amount in order to avoid reducing services, the only way to do that would be through an operational override," he said. "This income tax initiative would not save people money. Rather, it would push the tax burden back onto citizens in other forms, unless they are interested in reducing the current level of services, which I don't believe to be the case." Hingham School Committee members expressed concern during a recent meeting about the implications of Question 1 for the school budget. "People might vote for it out of a sense of frustration or after they have just paid hundreds of dollars for fuel to heat their homes when they might not otherwise vote for it," school committee member Chrisanne Gregoire said. Other members noted that this would not only affect education funding, but also transportation and other services. State Sen. Robert Hedlund, R-Weymouth, said he realizes some people are angry about the then-5 percent personal income tax being raised more than a decade ago (billed as a temporary move) but never restored to the original percentage. Whatever side of the issues citizens are on, though, Hedlund warns, "These binding questions would have the force of law if passed." The Committee for Small Government supports Question 1 on the platform of "eliminating government waste." The Committee claims that a "yes" vote would create many new Massachusetts jobs and would not raise property or any other taxes or require cuts in essential government services. Opponents note that this initiative would slash state revenues by more than $12 billion a year nearly 40 percent of the state budget. QUESTION 2 -- POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA Passage of Question 2 would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties. This would be enforced by issuing citations and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system (CORI). Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Those under the age of 18 caught with an ounce or less would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they successfully complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty. Offenders who do not complete the drug awareness program within one year could also be required to pay a higher penalty as much as $1,000. Offenders under age 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Under the proposed law, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana could no longer be grounds for state or local government entities to impose any other penalty, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. At the same time, the proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws prohibiting 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. Bradley said he thinks decriminalizing marijuana "would be a big step in the wrong direction" and would set a dangerous precedent. "Marijuana is a gateway drug that starts you down the path to more dangerous drugs," he said. "If we minimize its use, we're basically sending the message to young people that it's OK to do this." Some opponents say that decriminalization would embolden and enable drug dealers. Hingham Police spokesman Lt. Michael Peraino, a former D.A.R.E. officer, said that while police departments "don't usually get involved with political issues, this one is important to us. "Passage of this question will put more drugs on the street, empower the drug dealers to sell them, and will put more drivers, particularly young people, behind the wheels of cars while under the influence of drugs," he said. "The fact of the matter is that one ounce of marijuana is worth [hundreds of dollars] on the street, and just one ounce can make up 60 individual sales. The $100 fine is less than the fine for a speeding ticket. Drug dealers will accept the fine and pay it rather than go to court." Marijuana use is harmful to the user, Peraino said. "I've seen teenagers in our town ruin their lives by getting involved with marijuana. It affects their ability to do well in school and to make good decisions. The active drug used in marijuana today is nine to 10 times stronger than it was in the 1970s. There is a strong correlation between teen use and suicide and depression," he said. Peraino said Hingham Police have arrested a number of people for breaking into houses, and a common thread in many cases is that "they are drug addicts. We interview them when we book them and one of the things we ask is when they started using drugs. Many of them, some heroin addicts, said they started using in their late teens and that the first drug they did was marijuana." Peraino said parents might be tempted to vote "yes" because they fear criminal charges if their children are caught using marijuana. "But all first time offenders have a chance to go through a diversion program. Upon completion, the charge is dropped and there is no criminal record. The myth that kids will have a criminal record for the rest of their lives for first-time marijuana use is just that - a myth." Whitney A. Taylor of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy holds an entirely different view. One of the committee's biggest arguments against the current law is that when individuals are placed under arrest, their names are entered into the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) system. "It lists what the individual was arrested for but not the outcome, and that information is available to the public," Taylor said. "We don't support or condone marijuana use. This is just a smart criminal justice reform. The sky is not falling in and more people will not be breaking the law." She notes that penalties for other marijuana-related crimes, such as sales or DUIs, remain untouched. Furthermore, Taylor said, taxpayers would save $30 million a year in arrest costs. "Do the citations and confiscate the marijuana, but keep the cops on the streets to fight more violent and serious crimes," she said. "That money should be kept in police coffers." Conversely, Peraino said that in Massachusetts, 80 percent of the prisoners are incarcerated for crimes not involving drugs and that "17 percent are in there for drug offenses not involving marijuana; 0.3 percent of the people in our prisons are in there for marijuana possession only, and 2.4 percent are in there for offenses involving marijuana but excluding possession only they are in there for dealing. Our jails aren't full of marijuana users." Taylor claims that passage of Question 2 would not increase marijuana use. "Eleven other states have similar laws and have shown no increase in marijuana use," she said. The committee's platform is, "Let the punishment fit the crime." Last month, Attorney General Martha Coakley's office threw out a claim by the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy that the state's district attorneys had been intentionally spreading false information about the effects of decriminalization, The Statehouse News Service reported at the time. Question proponents claimed that the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association had falsely asserted that the measure would "normalize" marijuana use, reverse a decline in youth marijuana use, lead to an increase in drug-related crime, and increase DUIs. The Statehouse News Service had earlier reported, following a Sept. 17 press conference, that "opponents of Question 2 incorporated everything from alcohol use to OxyContin to gangster rap in their argument against the proposal, a stark contrast from the proponents who described the measure as a benign effort to refocus police on violent crime and to save costs on unnecessary arrests." Opponents of Question 2 also include Gov. Deval Patrick, Mayor Thomas Menino, the Black Ministerial Alliance, The Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Supporters of marijuana decriminalization, on the other hand, note that laws governing the sale, trafficking, and purchase of marijuana would be left unchanged, as would any laws related to impaired driving. Taylor said that "if everyone would stop and listen and consider what Question 2 would do, they would realize that personal possession of one ounce or less remains illegal, but would not carry a criminal penalty." In 2004, Hingham voters supported a non-binding policy question placed on the ballot by the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts calling for marijuana decriminalization, 7,316 to 3,692. The majority of Hull and Cohasset voters also voted "yes." Hanover and 10 other South Shore communities will have four ballot questions to consider Tuesday, Nov. 4. Questions 1, 2, and 3 are binding, while Question 4 is a non-binding Public Policy Question to register public opinion with legislators. Question 1 State personal income tax: A Yes vote would reduce the state personal income tax rate of 5.3 percent of federal adjusted gross income to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax altogether after Jan. 1, 2010.A No vote would make no change in state income tax laws. Question 2 Possession of marijuana: 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. Question 3 Dog racing: A Yes vote would prohibit dog races on which betting or wagering occurs, effective Jan. 1, 2010. A No vote would make no change in the laws governing dog racing. Question 4 Alternative energy wind policy: This is a non-binding Public Policy Question on alternative energy wind policy to register public opinion to legislators representing the towns of Hanover, Hingham, Hull, Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield, Norwell, Rockland, Braintree and parts of Holbrook and Randolph. The question reads: Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would support the development of Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound and other possible future onshore and offshore wind power developments in Massachusetts?" Voters will be asked to vote either "Yes" or "No" on this question. For further information about the statewide ballot questions, refer to "The Official Massachusetts Information for Voters" pamphlet recently mailed to every household or view this information online at: www.sec.state.ma.us. Click on the "Election Division" link and then click on the "Information for Voters Online Book" link under the "State Election 2008" heading. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake