Question 3
Prohibitions on Gaming and Gambling
Question 3 – The proposed law (The Affordable Casino Repeal Initiative) would undo the Expanded Gaming Act, which was signed into law in 2011 by Governor Deval Patrick. This would once again make it illegal for casinos to operate in Massachusetts.
A Yes vote - Would prohibit casinos, slot machines, and betting on greyhound races.
A No Vote- Would do change absolutely nothing; casinos would continue to be legal.
Argument in Favor- Voting “Yes” would basically ban casinos from Massachusetts. This would bring the construction of any currently licensed casinos to a halt. The logic behind this is all of the ills that casinos bring to whatever areas that they come to. Casinos are generally associated with high rates of crime and delinquency. One Indiana district need to establish an additional court in order to deal with crimes resulting from casinos. Also, many Massachusetts communities have worked hard to prevent casinos from popping up in their backyard. The Expended Gaming Act was signed into law during the economic crisis, after over $11.4 million was poured into Beacon Hill by pro gaming lobbying groups. Before that, Massachusetts had always banned casinos and had been all the better for it. Massachusetts does not need casinos and does not want them. The only reason they were made legal was a result of outside interest groups. Vote yes on Question 3 to return things to how they should be; no casinos.
Argument Against – Voting “No” would continue allow for the construction and operation of casinos and Massachusetts under the Expanded Gaming Act. This would create thousands of jobs in Massachusetts in construction and later in service industries. Also, this would generate millions of dollars for the towns and cities of Massachusetts. Repealing the Expanded Gaming Act would put a major brake on our economic growth. In addition, every year Massachusetts citizens spend over $900 Million in the casinos of neighboring states. This money allows these states to fund various projects. By Building casinos in Massachusetts, we would be able to bring those dollars back to Massachusetts and use them to fund our own projects. The current law also ensures that no community will have a casino built within its borders without its consent. The law also has many consumer safeguards and dedicated public health funding. Vote No on Question 3 to bring our money back to Massachusetts, create jobs, and help our economy grow.
Question 4
This proposed law would allow employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time under to certain conditions. These conditions being that employees of companies who employ eleven or more people can earn up to 40 hours of paid sick time while employees of smaller companies would still earn these hours, but they would not be paid while on sick time . Employees could keep up to 40 hours of unused sick time to use the next year, but they could not use more than 40 hours in one year. Employees would earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. They would begin accumulating this sick time either the day they are hired or by July 1, 2015, the date in which this law would take effect, whichever is later. Employees could begin to use this earned sick time 90 days after they are hired. Employers would be prohibited from punishing someone based on their use of earned sick time rights. The Attorney General would enforce the proposed law.
Prohibitions on Gaming and Gambling
Question 3 – The proposed law (The Affordable Casino Repeal Initiative) would undo the Expanded Gaming Act, which was signed into law in 2011 by Governor Deval Patrick. This would once again make it illegal for casinos to operate in Massachusetts.
A Yes vote - Would prohibit casinos, slot machines, and betting on greyhound races.
A No Vote- Would do change absolutely nothing; casinos would continue to be legal.
Argument in Favor- Voting “Yes” would basically ban casinos from Massachusetts. This would bring the construction of any currently licensed casinos to a halt. The logic behind this is all of the ills that casinos bring to whatever areas that they come to. Casinos are generally associated with high rates of crime and delinquency. One Indiana district need to establish an additional court in order to deal with crimes resulting from casinos. Also, many Massachusetts communities have worked hard to prevent casinos from popping up in their backyard. The Expended Gaming Act was signed into law during the economic crisis, after over $11.4 million was poured into Beacon Hill by pro gaming lobbying groups. Before that, Massachusetts had always banned casinos and had been all the better for it. Massachusetts does not need casinos and does not want them. The only reason they were made legal was a result of outside interest groups. Vote yes on Question 3 to return things to how they should be; no casinos.
Argument Against – Voting “No” would continue allow for the construction and operation of casinos and Massachusetts under the Expanded Gaming Act. This would create thousands of jobs in Massachusetts in construction and later in service industries. Also, this would generate millions of dollars for the towns and cities of Massachusetts. Repealing the Expanded Gaming Act would put a major brake on our economic growth. In addition, every year Massachusetts citizens spend over $900 Million in the casinos of neighboring states. This money allows these states to fund various projects. By Building casinos in Massachusetts, we would be able to bring those dollars back to Massachusetts and use them to fund our own projects. The current law also ensures that no community will have a casino built within its borders without its consent. The law also has many consumer safeguards and dedicated public health funding. Vote No on Question 3 to bring our money back to Massachusetts, create jobs, and help our economy grow.
Question 4
This proposed law would allow employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time under to certain conditions. These conditions being that employees of companies who employ eleven or more people can earn up to 40 hours of paid sick time while employees of smaller companies would still earn these hours, but they would not be paid while on sick time . Employees could keep up to 40 hours of unused sick time to use the next year, but they could not use more than 40 hours in one year. Employees would earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. They would begin accumulating this sick time either the day they are hired or by July 1, 2015, the date in which this law would take effect, whichever is later. Employees could begin to use this earned sick time 90 days after they are hired. Employers would be prohibited from punishing someone based on their use of earned sick time rights. The Attorney General would enforce the proposed law.