Vote no on 3

Question 3, if approved, would ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. I'm going to vote no on Question 3, but not for the same reasons as most of its opponents.

Opponents of Question 3 tend to argue that closing down the state's two dog racing tracks would put people out of work and would decrease the state's tax revenues, and only mention as a side note that racing really isn't bad for dogs. I don't think this is a very good strategy. If greyhound racing actually harmed dogs, then I would want it to be banned regardless of its impact on people's work and government revenues. It's wrong to imply that people's jobs are more important than dogs' lives.

But I oppose Question 3 because greyhound racing, in itself, doesn't hurt dogs. Take a look at these statistics if you're not convinced. Sure, racing can lead to dogs being hurt if individual people decide to mistreat them, but this need not be allowed to happen. Mistreatment of dogs is what should be banned, not racing itself. The law should require trainers and owners to give their greyhounds adequate space, food, and medical care, and not to physically hurt them in any way. That way, dogs can have great lives and enjoy running, and people can enjoy the sport of dog racing.

The government only has the right to ban things that are immoral in themselves or that violate rights. Dog racing falls into neither of these categories, and the government cannot ban things merely because they could have bad consequences.