SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
How state marijuana legalization became a boon for corruption
In the past decade, 15 states have legalized a regulated marijuana market for adults over 21, and another 17 have legalized medical marijuana. But in their rush to limit the numbers of licensed vendors and give local municipalities control of where to locate dispensaries, they created something else: A market for local corruption.
Almost all the states that legalized pot either require the approval of local officials – as in Massachusetts -- or impose a statewide limit on the number of licenses, chosen by a politically appointed oversight board, or both. These practices effectively put million-dollar decisions in the hands of relatively small-time political figures – the mayors and councilors of small towns and cities, along with the friends and supporters of politicians who appoint them to boards. And these strictures have given rise to the exact type of corruption that got [Jasiel] Correia in trouble with federal prosecutors. They have also created a culture in which would-be cannabis entrepreneurs feel obliged to make large campaign contributions or hire politically connected lobbyists.
For some entrepreneurs, the payments can seem worth the ticket to cannabis riches.
For some politicians, the lure of a bribe or favor can be irresistible.
[...] It's not just local officials. Allegations of corruption have reached the state level in numerous marijuana programs, especially ones in which a small group of commissioners are charged with dispensing limited numbers of licenses. Former Maryland state Del. Cheryl Glenn was sentenced to two years in prison in July for taking bribes in exchange for introducing and voting on legislation to benefit medical marijuana companies. Missouri Gov. Mike Parson's administration is the target of law enforcement and legislative probes into the rollout of its medical marijuana program.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @06:52PM (9 children)
I think the Russian interference smokescreen is just intended to get certain cybersecurity 'defense' bills passed. The explanation for that is very simple ... money. Those saying that such interference in the elections exist have confusing and nebulous arguments at best. Money is simple and not confusing so I'm going to take Occam's razor on that one.
If we have strong measures to avoid cheating then how can the Russians interfere with the elections and cheat them? I don't see how weakening voting integrity can help the Russians.
As far as gerrymandering I'm mostly against the whole electoral college but I'm also against a straight FPTP system as well when it comes to congress, for instance. I'm more in favor of proportional representation where the number of seats in parliament would depend on the actual number of voters that voted for a specific party. I get to vote for my party and I get to vote for my favorite candidate within that party. Members within that party enter parliament in rank of how many voters within the party voted for them and the number of people within a party that enter parliament depends on what percentage of the voters voted for that party.
Disclaimer, I would vote pirate party and I feel disenfranchised by the two party system so I guess a proportional representation system would benefit me the most.
If we're going to have our current system then it should depend on where state borders fall and how many people within a given state voted for a given candidate.
Regarding local elections everyone should vote for candidates that are able to regulate them and the boundaries shouldn't really change over an extended period of time.
Regarding death panels I never even heard the term until now and trying to read up on it suggests that it has nothing to do with election integrity and so isn't relevant to this discussion (I'm assuming this is what you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel [wikipedia.org] ). I would have to read up on it more to maybe form an opinion but after about five minutes of reading various website what I'm reading seems to be confusing, I can't even find a straightforward definition of the term and even Wikipedia doesn't seem to be helping me much. I would have to investigate further but don't really have the interest, at least not right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @08:04PM (8 children)
I really hope you don't live in the United States.
Because if you do, you're incredibly ignorant about how the system works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @08:16PM (7 children)
Can you be more specific. What is your specific criticism. Do you have a specific argument with evidence you can present or just some unspecific nebulous claims backed by 'intelligence hearsay'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @08:37PM (5 children)
Sure. Sorry about the multi-syllabic words. I imagine they're hard for you to understand. Maybe if you sound them out?
Gerrymandering is completely irrelevant to the electoral college.
There is no "parliament" in the United States.
Which is *exactly* how it works. In the US Senate, two senator are elected from each state. And while the House of Representatives is divided into districts by population, every House district falls within a single state's borders.
Boundaries don't change in *local* elections.
So yes. If you're actually an American, you are completely ignorant of how your own government works. If you're not from around these parts, it shows. Either way it's not a good look, friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @08:57PM (1 child)
I know that the U.S. doesn't have a proportional representational system. I'm saying it should. If it doesn't then what should happen is as stated above. Do you not know how to read?
"the House of Representatives is divided into districts by population"
and I'm saying that this whole setup is not a good thing. The setup should be changed so that gerrymandering is not possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @09:05PM
Retconning your post, eh?
You go, girlfriend!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @09:22PM (2 children)
"Boundaries don't change in *local* elections."
It's like you don't know how to read. I never said that they do or don't. I am just stating that they shouldn't.
The point is that elections at all levels should be such that gerrymandering is not possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @10:44PM (1 child)
I can read. You said [soylentnews.org]:
Gerrymandering has no role to play in Presidential elections (which is the only place where the "electoral college" has a role).
So yes, I can read. And you were talking out of your ass.
13 states already have non-partisan or bi-partisan redistricting entities [wikipedia.org], and that redistricting is *required* by the Constitution [congress.gov] every ten years.
If you don't have a non/bi-partisan redistricting commission in your state, that's your fault and you have no one to blame but yourself and fellow citizens of your state.
That you are unaware of these things just makes me even more sure you're really fucking dumb or don't live in the US at all.
Either way. That's all the feeding you get, asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @11:02PM
You're right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @11:00PM
Ooh, and look! I found your ex. [asianstreetmeat.com] [NSFW]
She became that after she took what little money you had right? So now you're not only an idiot, but bitter too. Life is hard as an incel, I hear tell.
Too bad. It's good to have an LBFM.