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.