My Position On the 2008 Massachusetts Ballot Questions

Question One: State Personal Income Tax

This question would halve the income tax for 2009 and eliminate it altogether in 2010.

The yes argument claims it saves the people money, creates jobs, will not affect property taxes or government services, and will cut government waste.

The no argument claims it would lead to cuts in aid to cities & towns, reduce state funding for services, prevent infrastructure maintenance, and force tax increases in other areas.

Tremick is voting: NO

I can't believe how this wouldn't lead to cuts in government services. It is my belief this would in fact raise taxes in other areas and/or affect needed services. Like I wrote below, if you don't pay it in taxes, you'll pay it somewhere else anyway.

Question Two: Possession of Marijuana

This question would replace criminal consequences of marijuana possession with more lenient civil penalties.

The yes argument claims that current criminal consequences, like jail, loss of driver's licenses & college loans, are unreasonable, and taxpayers would save money if these consequences were replaced with fines and community service or the like.

The no argument claims decriminalization is dangerous because it sends the wrong message to young people and emboldens drug dealers.

Tremick is voting: YES

I took a college course on drugs, and while I do not agree with or condone use of marijuana, it's not much more dangerous that smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. I do not think that possession of small quantities of marijuana should lead to such harsh and overblown consequences. That being said, I think the same consequences as drunk driving etc. should be applied to its use if its use leads to harm to others, and that the government should be actively involved in educating children against its use.

Question Three: Dog Racing

This question would prohibit dog racing where betting or wagering on the speed/ability of dogs occurs.

The yes argument claims this is abusive to dogs on a number of levels.

The no argument claims the dogs are well cared for, that dog racing creates jobs, and that the industry is well regulated.

Tremick is voting: YES

I am fine with gambling, but using animals is exploitative. I don't trust human nature in this where money is involved. Dog racing and its potential for harm to dogs makes it abusive in my mind.

Those are my positions, folks!