Residents across Massachus-etts voted definitively yesterday to decriminalize petty marijuana possession and to leave the state income tax intact.
Voters struck down Question 1, a proposed repeal of the state income tax, but supported Question 2, the decriminalization of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. They also chose to abolish dog racing in the Commonwealth in the last of three binding ballot measures.
With 81 percent of precincts reporting this morning, 65 percent of voters had voted yes on Question 2 and 35 percent had voted no, the referendum suggesting decriminalization. Sixty-nine percent had voted no on Question 1, the income tax repeal, with 31 percent voting yes.
With the passage of Question 2, voters effectively changed the law by lessening the civil penalties associated with the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. The referendum needs no passage by lawmakers and is set to be implemented immediately.
Offenders who are 18 years old or older will be forced to relinquish the marijuana and pay a $100 fine, the spoils of which go to the offender's municipal government, not the state government. In addition to facing the same penalty, minors will have to enroll a drug awareness program to be completed within one year of the offense.
State Rep. Carl Sciortino (34th-Middlesex), who won reelection yesterday in an unopposed race, supported the proposal.
"I think our policy around drug use needs an overhaul in reform and I think this gives voters an opportunity to make their voices heard," he told the Daily. "If a minor were caught under current law they would have a criminal record and be arrested and put in jail, and that would eliminate that student qualifying for any financial aid in college — really problematic."
Todd Corbett, a Medford resident who was voting at the polling station at Tufts' Gantcher Center yesterday, agreed. "I think bogging up the courts system is not doing us any good," he said. "Most of my friends smoke it, I'll smoke it occasionally ... You don't see anybody smashing up cars."
Ina, a 29-year-old registered Democrat voting in Somerville who requested her last name be withheld, agreed that such a transgression should not affect offenders indefinitely.
"I think it would be something young kids do and have on their record for a long time, which would hurt them with things like getting into college and getting scholarships," Ina said.
Valerie, a Medford schoolteacher who opted not to give her last name, voted yes on Question 2, saying that current rules punish marijuana-related offenses too heavily.
"People should not be permanently penalized for being caught with marijuana," she said.
Brian Given, a 54-year-old Republican from Medford, said he voted yes on Question 2 because he thinks the police waste resources fighting what amounts to a petty crime.
"The police department has more important things to chase people around for," Given said.
But Republican Nicole Jalbert disagreed, suggesting that reducing penalties for marijuana possession "would start a bad precedent."
Question 1, a binding proposal to eliminate the state income tax by January 2010, received a large amount of attention across the Commonwealth this fall.
If it had passed, the measure would have slashed the roughly 40 percent of the state's $28 billion budget that the tax brings in. This would have reduced the average Massachusetts taxpayers' tax burden by over $3,600, according to proponents. But detractors worried that it would cripple the government and force lawmakers to raise other, less egalitarian taxes, like the property tax.
Valerie, a 30-year-old registered independent and schoolteacher who asked that her last name not be used, voted no on the referendum. She offered a grim picture of Massachusetts without the financial support of an income tax.
"I think that would collapse the society of Massachusetts," she said. "We're used to a certain amount of money."
A similar ballot measure in 2002 received about 45 percent of the vote. This time, a number of major national and local organizations, ranging from non-profits to labor groups, spoke out against it.
Sciortino opposed the proposal. "There is no way that local government could function if it passed. Its effects would be devastating," Sciortino said.
Corbett voted yes on Question 1 to secure some economic relief in troubled times. "I'd rather get a little raise in my paycheck," he said. "Yeah we'll probably get a raise in the property tax but I don't own anything."
"If the government stopped wasting all of our money, they could get by on a little less money."
But Given expressed concern that Question 1, if passed, would hamstring the ability of public services to operate efficiently.
"We need protection for the police and fire in the cities and that would be one of the first things they try to cut," Given said.
Question 3 passed by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent, with 81 percent of precincts reporting, and will force the closure of the two pari-mutuel greyhound racetracks in Massachusetts. This could put hundreds of people out of work.
Corbett said he cast his ballot to ban dog racing. "I'm an animal lover," he said. "It's kind of sad to see what happens to those dogs."
Ben Gittleson and Giovanni Russonello contributed reporting to this article.
