As the 2016 presidential election approaches many individuals are still torn on how to vote on the MA 2016 ballot questions. The educated vote would be voting “no” on Question one and Question two, and “yes” on Question three and Question four.

Question One

“This proposed law would allow the state Gaming Commission to issue one additional category 2 license, which would permit operation of a gaming establishment with no table games and not more than 1,250 slot machines.
The proposed law would authorize the Commission to request applications for the additional license to be granted to a gaming establishment located on property that is (i) at least four acres in size; (ii) adjacent to and within 1,500 feet of a race track, including the track's additional facilities, such as the track, grounds, paddocks, barns, auditorium, amphitheater, and bleachers; (iii) where a horse racing meeting may physically be held; (iv) where a horse racing meeting shall have been hosted; and (v) not separated from the race track by a highway or railway."

A YES VOTE would permit the state Gaming Commission to license one additional slot-machine gaming establishment at a location that meets certain conditions specified in the law.

A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws regarding gaming.”

Question one would also allow a fourth casino proposal in the area of Suffolk Downs. Similar questions have been asked three times, and all were turned down. So there is no reason to revisit the issue…yet here we are.

Question one would allow the MA gaming commission (MGM) to issue a slots-only license to a proposed establishment for Suffolk Downs, that is attached to a horse-racing facility. This motion was filed by ONE developer, for one site and one purpose: his own financial benefit. Question one is a blatant abuse of the ballot question process. The ballot question process is meant to give the people a voice on statewide issues, not as a run-around the legislative process for a wealthy developer that missed his deadline to apply for a permit. Not only does it disrupt the process, but it disrupts the limits established by the legislature to protect communities and businesses.

Situations like this, and the growing number of casino permits being granted in MA, is giving casino lobbyists power within Massachusetts legislation. If question one were to pass, it would be used in support of more campaigns for new casino licenses – with idealistic promises of jobs and revenues. The bottom line is the casino industry is growing before we’ve had the opportunity to evaluate the negative impacts it can have on our communities and state.

Only one casino has been opened in MA so far, but up to three resort casinos and one tribal casino could be operational within the next few years. The Wall Street Journal warns that New England already has more casinos than our market needs, or wants. The one slot parlor that has opened in MA is significantly underperforming. The bottom line: legalized casino gambling in the Commonwealth is too new and unproven to need expanding at this time.

Question one does not even guarantee that it will benefit Suffolk Downs. If passed Suffolk Downs would not receive any direct benefit or ownership interest from the proposed casino, because although casinos are state mandated to give a percentage of profits to the statewide Horse Racing Fund, the fund alone may not be enough to save New England horse racing.

Surveys are demonstrating that both Republicans and Democrats tend to oppose casinos in comparable numbers. Some liberal and progressive voters are concerned by the casino industry’s “predatory practices” and how they exploit the poor, POC, and the elderly, to create and sustain the gambling addicts who keep casinos in business. Not to mention McCain's plan is to construct two hotels and a casino on the land which now houses some auto repair businesses, a bar, and a trailer park. Which would then force the residents in this trailer park to vacate their homes, who presumably may not have the resources to secure another home.

Conservatives and libertarians show issues with the industry’s inappropriate influence over state and local governments that could lead to taxpayer-funded bailouts when casinos fail. Along with the widespread social, economic, and other known harms to their host communities, and state.

Massachusetts voters should vote “No” on question one until the effects of casino’s in the Commonwealth are better understood, and it is clear that our communities and states could benefit from a growth in the casino industries.

Question Two

"This proposed law would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansions in existing charter schools each year. Approvals under this law could expand statewide charter school enrollment by up to 1% of the total statewide public school enrollment each year. New charters and enrollment expansions approved under this law would be exempt from existing limits on the number of charter schools, the number of students enrolled in them, and the amount of local school districts' spending allocated to them.

If the Board received more than 12 applications in a single year from qualified applicants, then the proposed law would require it to give priority to proposed charter schools or enrollment expansions in districts where student performance on statewide assessments is in the bottom 25% of all districts in the previous two years and where demonstrated parent demand for additional public school options is greatest.

New charter schools and enrollment expansions approved under this proposed law would be subject to the same approval standards as other charter schools, and to recruitment, retention, and multilingual outreach requirements that currently apply to some charter schools. Schools authorized under this law would be subject to annual performance reviews according to standards established by the Board."

The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2017.

A YES VOTE would allow for up to 12 approvals each year of either new charter schools or expanded enrollments in existing charter schools, but not to exceed 1% of the statewide public school enrollment.

A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to charter schools.”

Question two is the first ballot measure relating to school of choice in Massachusetts ballot measure history. Question two would give the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education the authorization to approve 12 new charter schools, or to expand existing charter schools by increasing enrollment each year beginning on January 1, 2017. Priority would be given to those charter school applicants who seek to open a charter school in public school districts that are in the bottom 25 percent in the two years before application. The Board would also then establish standards by which annual performance reviews would be judged.

More than 80 elected school committees and city councils oppose question two. Along with the Massachusetts Parent Teacher Association and the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Dozens of local officials are against the passage of question two. Even Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (who has been a longtime charter-school supporter and who formerly sat on the board of a charter school) opposes question two because of the irreversible harm it would do to the Boston Public Schools. She states that question two does not provide substantial charter school growth that supporters are looking for, and instead it would destroy MA municipal finances.

Save Our Public Schools asserts that every time a new charter school opens or expands it takes funding away from the public schools in those areas. Question two would triple the number of charter schools in MA in 10 years, which would cost local public school districts more than $1 billion every single year. Additionally, Diana Marcus points out that allowing the charter schools to triple in numbers would remove the requirement that charter schools have to located in our lowest performing districts. This would open up towns to lucrative sources of income, and impact student programs funding with dramatic loss. This proposal can affect hundreds of thousands of children in MA, and education is about creating opportunity for all our children, not leaving many of them behind, as Senator Warren has stated.

Currently Boston Public Schools lose $2,500 per BPS student per school year to charter schools, which equates to roughly $158 million. This means BPS are seeing a decrease in the amount of resources they can provide to their students. This means BPS will suffer immensely if this $158 million lose in resources doubles in three or four years. Losses like this would eventually destabilize public schools because districts are going to have to start making cuts to things like art, music, or language programs.

If you want to see a real-life example of how poorly this proposal will play out, just look at what happened to Chicago. Chicago’s “experiment” of adding charter schools has not been as successful as supporters had anticipated. A report issued by the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity at the University of Minnesota Law School, headed by Myron Orfield, concluded that charter schools do little better than conventional schools and in some ways lag behind.

The assertion is that charter schools should do better than typical public schools. However, Orfield found that after controlling for the mix of students and challenges faced by individual schools, Chicago’s charter schools actually UNDER perform traditional neighborhood schools in most ways. Reading and math pass rates, reading and math growth rates, and graduation rates are lower in charter schools. Yes, charters have reading and math pass rates that are generally only two to three percent higher. But when controlled-enrollment magnet and gifted schools are added, the charter school’s numbers turn south, scoring charter schools below the overall non-charter total.

Beyond education scores, charters tend to be significantly less diverse than regular schools. Only seven percent of Chicago charter schools were found to be diverse, compared to 20% of neighborhood public schools. When everything is adjusted for factors including racial mix, native language, income, and whether charter schools were open to all comers or had selective enrollment, charters schools in Chicago scored more poorly by almost every performance measure, even graduation rates.

The Chicago Teachers Union have also argued fervently that charters have effectively shifted resources away from local schools. In 2013 the charter school expansion efforts forced nearly 50 district-run schools to close because of under-enrollment – forcing those students to have to find alternative schooling options, when they might not have the resources to afford other options or transportations to other education options. In addition, it also caused tens of millions of dollars in budget cuts at schools.

If question two were to pass in Massachusetts, we can expect similar results in our schooling system, as Chicago has experienced. As Alexandra Griffin argued, education in Massachusetts should be a public good guaranteed to all. Allowing an increase of charter schools would increase privatization, creating the education system into a market system.

Voting no on question two is pertinent in protecting and strengthening Massachusetts public schools.

Question Three

“This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items.

The proposed law's confinement prohibitions would not apply during transportation; state and county fair exhibitions; 4-H programs; slaughter in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; medical research; veterinary exams, testing, treatment and operation if performed under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian; five days prior to a pregnant pig's expected date of giving birth; any day that pig is nursing piglets; and for temporary periods for animal husbandry purposes not to exceed six hours in any twenty-four hour period.

The proposed law would create a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation and would give the Attorney General the exclusive authority to enforce the law, and to issue regulations to implement it. As a defense to enforcement proceedings, the proposed law would allow a business owner or operator to rely in good faith upon a written certification or guarantee of compliance by a supplier.

The proposed law would be in addition to any other animal welfare laws and would not prohibit stricter local laws.

The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022. 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 any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely.

A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals.”

If approved, this law would ban breeding pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens from being held in confined spaces. Question three defines “confined” as meaning: “that which prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely”. Question three would also apply to business owners who knowingly sell pork, veal, or eggs from animals held in this way, even if the source is outside of Massachusetts. Exceptions to this confinement rule include: temporary holding cells for transportation, fairs, medical research, veterinary exams, and other purposes. The state attorney general would administer the new law, which would enforce a maximum fine of $1,000 for each violation.

Supporters such as the MSPCA said that the measure seeks to avoid needless suffering of animals raised for eggs and slaughter.

Stephanie Harris, Massachusetts state director for the Humane Society of the U.S., States: “Right now farm animals are kept in close confinement, crammed in cages so small they can’t turn around. This ballot measure will go a long way to improving their welfare”. On industrial farms livestock are confined to crates measuring only slightly larger than their own bodies. These animals are so tightly confined they cannot even turn around for months at a time. This practice of tightly confining these animals is abusive and increases the risk of food safety problems, like Salmonella.

Alternatives to these extreme confinement methods already exist, and are in widespread practice and are economically viable. MA voters have an opportunity to take a stand in support of more humane housing, and object to the suffering of animals as a pathway to profit, by supporting question three. As Paul Shapiro, vice president of farm animal protection at the Humane Society, said: “there have to be some rules with regard to our conduct towards those who can’t defend themselves”.

The cost to protecting these animals and increasing their quality of life is extremely modest. The average American eats roughly 150 shell eggs a year, and the passage of question three is expected to raise retail prices for consumers in the Commonwealth by between 1-5 cents per shell egg. If this projection is even roughly accurate that translates to an additional cost of about $10 per MA resident per year, and probably even less so.

Yes, when it comes to raising the cost of food essential by ANY amount it should never be done lightly, because it’s people that are the most vulnerable that are affected the most by these changes. But when it comes to passing question three it seems like a price worth paying.

The passing of question three would put pressure on food producers nationally to treat confined animals with more decency.

Question Four

“The proposed law would permit the possession, use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana in limited amounts by persons age 21 and older and would remove criminal penalties for such activities. It would provide for the regulation of commerce in marijuana, marijuana accessories, and marijuana products and for the taxation of proceeds from sales of these items.

The proposed law would authorize persons at least 21 years old to possess up to one ounce of marijuana outside of their residences; possess up to ten ounces of marijuana inside their residences; grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences; give one ounce or less of marijuana to a person at least 21 years old without payment; possess, produce or transfer hemp; or make or transfer items related to marijuana use, storage, cultivation, or processing.

The measure would create a Cannabis Control Commission of three members appointed by the state Treasurer which would generally administer the law governing marijuana use and distribution, promulgate regulations, and be responsible for the licensing of marijuana commercial establishments. The proposed law would also create a Cannabis Advisory Board of fifteen members appointed by the Governor. The Cannabis Control Commission would adopt regulations governing licensing qualifications; security; record keeping; health and safety standards; packaging and labeling; testing; advertising and displays; required inspections; and such other matters as the Commission considers appropriate. The records of the Commission would be public records.

The proposed law would authorize cities and towns to adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of operating marijuana businesses and to limit the number of marijuana establishments in their communities. A city or town could hold a local vote to determine whether to permit the selling of marijuana and marijuana products for consumption on the premises at commercial establishments.

The proceeds of retail sales of marijuana and marijuana products would be subject to the state sales tax and an additional excise tax of 3.75%. A city or town could impose a separate tax of up to 2%. Revenue received from the additional state excise tax or from license application fees and civil penalties for violations of this law would be deposited in a Marijuana Regulation Fund and would be used subject to appropriation for administration of the proposed law.

Marijuana-related activities authorized under this proposed law could not be a basis for adverse orders in child welfare cases absent clear and convincing evidence that such activities had created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child.

The proposed law would not affect existing law regarding medical marijuana treatment centers or the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence. It would permit property owners to prohibit the use, sale, or production of marijuana on their premises (with an exception that landlords cannot prohibit consumption by tenants of marijuana by means other than by smoking); and would permit employers to prohibit the consumption of marijuana by employees in the workplace. State and local governments could continue to restrict uses in public buildings or at or near schools. Supplying marijuana to persons under age 21 would be unlawful."

The proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2016.

A YES VOTE would allow persons 21 and older to possess, use, and transfer marijuana and products containing marijuana concentrate (including edible products) and to cultivate marijuana, all in limited amounts, and would provide for the regulation and taxation of commercial sale of marijuana and marijuana products.

A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to marijuana.”

Question four would legalize and create a commission to regulate marijuana in Massachusetts. Currently in Massachusetts, marijuana is only permitted for medicinal purposes. Under this new law, Individuals at least 21 years old would be able to use it, grow it, and possess it. The measure stipulates that individuals could possess under ten ounces of marijuana inside their homes and under one ounce in public. They could also grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes. The ballot measure would create a regulatory structure called the Cannabis Control Commission. This body would oversee marijuana legalization and issue licenses to firms that seek to sell marijuana products. Marketing to minors is strictly prohibited, as is public use and driving under the influence. Local cities and towns can limit or ban marijuana businesses, and will govern operating hours, locations, and signage.

Under the measure, retail marijuana would be subject to the state sales tax with an additional 3.75% excise tax. A local municipality could add another 2% tax, if they choose. Revenue from excise taxes, license application fees, and fines for minor violations of this law would be placed in a Marijuana Regulation Fund, which would help to pay for administrative costs of the new law. If approved, marijuana legalization would take effect on December 15, 2016.

Regulating marijuana will replace the dangerous underground market with a system of licensed businesses that ask for ID, only sell to adults, and track what they’re selling and to whom. Products will be tested, packaged, and labeled to ensure marijuana is not contaminated and consumers know EXACTLY what they are getting – for example Marijuana, both in plant form and infused in products, can be tested for potency and contaminants, and sold in child-resistant containers. By opposing the initiative these groups are implicitly endorsing a market that benefits gangs and cartels and guarantees unchecked access to young people.

Many are concerned that “pot shops” will be widely advertised and commercialized, but truthfully the locations of these shops are generic-looking retail establishments from the outside, and do not advertise their locations.

Marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol to consumers and to society. It is less addictive, less damaging to the body, and less likely to contribute to violent and reckless behavior. If adults can legally consume alcohol they should not be punished for using a less harmful substance.

Treating marijuana as a health and education challenge, rather than a criminal problem is a pragmatic harm reduction tactic. Carol Rose, executive director of ACLU MA said: “Legalization is the smartest and surest way to end targeted enforcement of marijuana laws in communities of color, regulate who has access to marijuana, and eliminate the costs of enforcement while generating revenue for the Commonwealth”. The passage of question four also means that Law enforcement officials will be able to spend more of their time and limited resources on serious crimes – and dare I say, addressing the heroin epidemic.

Taxing marijuana sales will raise millions of dollars in new revenue each year. The opening of the legitimate marijuana industry will create thousands of good jobs for MA residents, and utilize the products and services of other MA businesses. Taxing marijuana will generate an estimated $100 million in annual revenue for state and local governments. Regulation and taxation is working in Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon, generating millions of dollars for education, infrastructure and more.

The legalization of marijuana in these locations has had positive effects on the states. In Colorado there have been no widely felt negative effects on the state since marijuana became legal, and a crop of retail stores, cultivation facilities, and manufacturers have been created across the state. The legalization has created thousands of new jobs and brought $135 million into state coffers last year. This money has gone to education for youth and law enforcement on the drug.

Colorado’s increase in youth usage rates since the legislation has not been statistically significant, and federal statisticians say the findings are not sufficient enough to draw conclusions about the changes in youth usage rates.

In Colorado there have been no large troubling public health trends. There have been sporadic reports of impaired driving and people getting violently ill from ingesting too much marijuana in edibles – but these are mainly seen in out-of-staters that may be naïve about the drug’s effects. Also, these ER trips and accidents could happen even without legalization – especially when the drugs go untested for contamination, and the users go without being education on what they’re using.

Research has also shown that marijuana is not the cause of Denver’s recent increase in crime and accidents. In any given year marijuana-related crimes in Denver make up less than 1% of all offenses counted in the Uniform Crime Report, and less than a half-percent of all NIBRS offenses. There is absolutely no evidence that the marijuana legalization has contributed to any specific crime increase, and if it has the measurement is considerably small. Since 2012 Colorado has seen a dramatic increase in population growth which can contribute to this growth in crime.

Washington has seen similar results since making the usage of marijuana legal. They’ve had a dramatic decrease in marijuana arrests and convictions, and an increase in tax revenues. The state has also experienced a decrease in violent crimes, and youth usage rates and traffic fatalities have remained stable.

Vote YES on question four to create a new job market and increase tax revenue. Vote yes on question four because making it legal would make accurate research on the effect of marijuana more accessible, and make it more safe and beneficial for individuals and our communities all over MA.

An educated vote would be voting NO on questions one and two, and voting YES on questions three and four. This would greatly protect our communities, increase jobs, create revenue, and better our communities well-being.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES:

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_2016_ballot_measures

http://www.wbur.org/morningedition/2016/09/27/question-1-slots-parlor-massachusetts

https://btu.org/vote-no-2-battle-looms/

http://commonwealthmagazine.org/education/why-ques...

http://www.citizensforfarmanimals.com/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/201...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20141013/BL...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-amid-protests-cps-considers-up-to-17-new-charter-schools-20140122-story.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/02/21/from-...

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/02/17/marijuana-leg...

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2015/07/marijuana-l...

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2015/07/marijuana-l...