# The Official Masscops Voter Polls



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

*Question One*
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.

*Question Two*
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 Three*
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.


----------



## TopCop24 (Jul 11, 2005)

1. No 2. No 3. No...first dogs then horses would be my guess


----------



## cmagryan (Dec 15, 2004)

1. No
2. No
3. Yes!


----------



## NewEngland2007 (Dec 31, 2005)

No, No & No.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

No 
Yes
No


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2008)

1. No

2. No

3. No


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Poll Added


----------



## Inspector (Nov 13, 2006)

I live over the border so my vote should not really count. I will speak as the owner or former owner of property in three states, including Massachusetts:

a. No income tax means high property tax. NH supposedly pays the second highest property tax in the nation and while we supposedly pay the lowest overall total tax in the nation we also get very skinny state services and pay state employees very poorly.

b. Marijuana is a drug and recreational use should never be encouraged.

c. I am a dog lover and I don't gamble. I have seen cruelty to dogs at a dog track and know that many retired greyhounds are adopted but many others are quickly killed off if they fail to yield winnings to owners.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

Yeah, we're persona non grata in this thread Inspector, but it's not like we're without our own problems up here in the Granite State.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

All No here


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

All NO, why fuck with anything that appears to be working?


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

no, no, no.


----------



## Sampson (Nov 25, 2006)

1) Yes. 

2) Yes. Puts officer's safety in jeopardy with arresting etc., waste of time, waste of 
money.

3) Yes. No need to strain/injure animals for peoples amusement. Go to a casino if 
you want to gamble.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Sampson said:


> 1) Yes.
> 
> 2) Yes. Puts officer's safety in jeopardy with arresting etc., waste of time, waste of
> money.
> ...


Just a heads up but you will more than likely not fit in too well around here.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2008)

I can't believe all the FOOLISH replies......................

1) Either way, we will pay the piper. Taxes will be taken elsewhere instead of your paycheck.
2) Officer safety from ARRESTS ?????? If you are locking someone up for simple possession of Class D, you are working in some hick town and making CHUMP arrests. I bet ALL of these YES on 2 replies are from NON SWORN NON FT LEOs !!!!!!!
3) These animals are a PRODUCT and BUSINESS. They are not being snatched from little childrens livingrooms for sport. They are bred for a single use. Go hug a tree elsewhere.

NO NO and NO.


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

Sampson said:


> 2) Yes. Puts officer's safety in jeopardy with arresting


BHAHAHA! :L:

I needed a good laugh....

An officer's safety is always in jeopardy as soon as they put their uniform on.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

No across the board.


----------



## nirtallica (Jul 2, 2004)

Sampson said:


> 1) Yes.
> 
> 2) Yes. Puts officer's safety in jeopardy with arresting etc., waste of time, waste of
> money.
> ...


NO WAY IN HELL YOU ARE A COP!!!!


----------



## Oscar8 (Oct 28, 2007)

No
No
No


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

Thanks for adding the polls...I was a bit challenged during the creation of said poll...

1. No, they'll find a way to take taxes from somewhere else (like NH and FL).

2. No, slippery slope; some states anything less than *200 lbs* is a misdemeanor.

3. No, if you want to spend your hard-earned money on doggies chasing a fake rabbit and get some sort of enjoyment out of that...wage on, my friends.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

I just registered again this morning with ACORN so I voted again.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2008)

Have to go no on all three, but #2 has a few redeaming qualities like parent notification and drug classes (of course the law doesn't say by whom and who pays.) for kids under 18. But what a mixed message to send to kids it's not really bad to smoke it but it's really bad if you sell it.


----------



## PBiddy35 (Aug 27, 2004)

Negative all around. Number 2 may be coming to our state eventually, but I like the "no" argument they make that since 2001 HS Marijuana usage is down. Obviously if the penalties on something illicit are reduced, that usage will go up. However, I think if number 2 were to go, more users would be penalized. Where a little pot may be below an officers radar for arrest, a quick civil cite or 9 is more than reasonable. Have to stick to my guns on this, "illegal" drugs should be illegal.


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

PBiddy35 said:


> I think if number 2 were to go, more users would be penalized. Where a little pot may be below an officers radar for arrest, a quick civil cite or 9 is more than reasonable. Have to stick to my guns on this, "illegal" drugs should be illegal.





OCKS said:


> but #2 has a few redeaming qualities like parent notification and drug classes (of course the law doesn't say by whom and who pays.) for kids under 18.


+1

It was tempting to vote yes on the basis that more users would be penalized rather than let off the hook, but a $100 fine for less than an ounce is BS. I might have supported it if the fine for a 1st offense was $1000 and something like $2000 for a subsequent offense. If minors fail to complete the drug awareness program, they have to pay an addtional $2500 fine and basis for delinquency proceeding. I have yet to meet a pot smoker that isn't a shithead and don't want to make their life any better. If cases for possession are being thrown out because the courts are overburdened therefore discouraging arrests, then I'm all for fining them but not with a chicken shit $100 fine. If you want the criminal penalty reduced to a civil penalty, pay for it you pieces of shit.

The city I grew up in had a D.A.R.E. program that I took when I was in middle school. The D.A.R.E. program was done away with because supposedly drug use actually increased since they implemented it so they decided it wasn't worth the money. I doubt a drug awareness program for minors would make anyone change their minds, but it's just one more thing to inconvenience them.

I like the idea of notifying the minor's parents. When the day comes that I have a kid and he/she grows and chooses to disregard my advice on drugs, I'd like to be notified when he/she gets caught with it. Under the current law, in some areas, they would just be given a slap on the wrist and sent on their way without parent notification.

These pot smoking douchebags are the same people shouting "peace not war" and trying to take away my guns. Screw them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm voting,

1. NO

2. Hell NO; and

3. YES


----------



## ems1234 (Jul 31, 2008)

*MA - QUESTION 2 - Question?*

*QUESTION 2: Possession of Marijuana*

If this law were approved, I am curious to know if Law Enforcement officers would have to carry scales around with them and weigh marijuana at the site of the offense? I am not sure if this is something that they already carry with them?


----------



## CPT Chaos (Mar 1, 2006)

1. No, They would just jack up your excise tax, property tax and up the fees on everything.

2. Negative, You want to get high, knock yourself out. Any cop that would arrest a kid with a few joints has way to much time on their hands.
The pot gets broken up in front of them and they get sent on their way.

3. Nada, Let the dogs run, that's what greyhounds do. I would also let slot machines into the tracks and give Foxwoods a run for their money.


----------



## dgold127 (Feb 3, 2008)

1. :NO:

2. :NO:

3. :NO:

Somebody please tell me McCain is going to pull an upset! Please....please....anybody?


----------



## jettsixx (Dec 10, 2005)

NO
NO
Yes- These dogs cost shelters thousands of dollars after thier use at the track is done. They are in need of medical care etc. I would have no problem with dog racing if the tracks would step up when the dogs retire. I say just replace the tracks with casinos they are going to attract the same crowd anyway.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2008)

jettsixx said:


> Yes- These dogs cost shelters thousands of dollars after thier use at the track is done. They are in need of medical care etc. I would have no problem with dog racing if the tracks would step up when the dogs retire. I say just replace the tracks with casinos they are going to attract the same crowd anyway.


More false propaganda from the animal rights whackos; every greyhound retired from a MA track is adopted. And, this is hardly the time to be booting large businesses off the tax rolls and forcing people out of work.

The really ironic thing is that if these beanbags get their way, greyhounds will probably cease to exist in Massachusetts within 10 years.


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

Q1 was rejected and Q2 was passed.

*Mass. voters reject eliminating state income tax*

By STEVE LeBLANC - 50 minutes ago

BOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts voters have rejected a call to eliminate the state's income tax.

The measure would have cut the 5.3 percent tax rate in half in January, and then killed it completely in January 2010.

Supporters had argued that the best way to cut government waste and overspending was to cut tax revenues by 40 percent or about $12.5 billion. They said it would have saved the average taxpayer about $3,700.

But critics, including virtually every elected official in the state, said the cuts would cripple state services, drive up property taxes, harm the state's credit rating and scare away business.

Lawmakers would have had the option of repealing or amending the measure.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gN1MV3w5CrwL5UZrvnYq0kmfqrWwD948FRLO0

*Mass. voters OK decriminalization of marijuana*

November 4, 2008 09:34 PM

By David Abel, Globe Staff

Massachusetts voters today approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, making getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. The change in the law means someone found carrying as many as dozens of marijuana cigarettes will no longer be reported to the state's criminal history board.

"The people were ahead of the politicians on this issue; they recognize and want a more sensible approach to our marijuana policy," said Whitney Taylor, chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which campaigned for the ballot initiative. "They want to focus our limited law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes. They recognize under the new law that the punishment will fit the offense."

The proposition will become law 30 days after it's reported to the Governor's Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. But the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they've done with some prior laws passed by the voters, said Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley. The Associated Press called the race at about 9:20 p.m.

The proposition will require those younger than age 18 to complete a drug awareness program and community service. The fine would increase to as much as $1,000 for those who fail to complete the program.

Proponents of the initiative, who spent about $1 million promoting it, argued the change in the law would maintain the state's existing penalties for growing, trafficking, or driving under the influence of marijuana, while ensuring that those caught with less than an ounce of pot would avoid the taint of a criminal record. They also argued it would save the state millions of law enforcement dollars and match similar marijuana possession laws in 12 states, all of which have adopted some form of decriminalization.

The opponents, who included the governor, attorney general, and district attorneys around the state, argued that decriminalizing marijuana possession would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers at a time when they say marijuana has become more potent. They warned it would increase violence on the streets and safety hazards in the workplace, and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths drive under the influence.

The opponents said that most of those charged with marijuana possession are arrested for other reasons, such as driving under the influence or possessing a more potent drug like crack cocaine. They also said most people arrested for marijuana possession have their records cleared within six months.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/question_2_setu.html


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

resqjyw0 said:


> "The people were ahead of the politicians on this issue; they recognize and want a more sensible approach to our marijuana *policy*," said Whitney Taylor, chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which campaigned for the ballot initiative. "They want to focus our limited law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes. They recognize under the new law that the punishment will fit the offense."


Its not a "policy", its a law you hemp freak. Policies are charging you $25 for extra luggage or 10 days to return a purchase without a receipt



> The proposition will become law 30 days after it's reported to the Governor's Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. *But the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they've done with some prior laws passed by the voters, said Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley*. The Associated Press called the race at about 9:20 p.m.


For once, just once in their life, maybe they can do the right thing and stop this insanity before we have "Marijuana & Munchies" day at our local high schools.


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

resqjyw0 said:


> *Mass. voters OK decriminalization of marijuana*
> 
> November 4, 2008 09:34 PM
> 
> ...


And so the slippery slope begins...

"So what Dad, it's not a crime to smoke pot!"


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Time to close this thread also, we know how the sheeple voted


----------

