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: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @05:56PM (12 children)
"Don't elect corrupt politicians"
I think the first step is to ensure the integrity of the election process. We should probably
A: Do away with mail in ballots. You can fill your ballot out at home but you need to individually drop it off to a designated location with various election guards and monitored cameras that stream online and guards need to be present and the cameras need to continue to stream until the election results are finalized.
B: Photo ID needs to be required. Each person that votes should be on camera for everyone online to see on the cameras so that everyone can identify voters and see if anyone votes twice.
C: Photo ID should be presented and individuals should be crossed off a list as they vote. We need to know how many people actually voted to avoid vote stuffing.
This nonsense where voting laws are abruptly changed last minute in swing locations should not be tolerated.
Many other procedures should also take place. For instance perhaps I can select a random pseudonym that gets presented next to my vote on a list that's presented online (could this allow vote buying? Well, we already have mail in ballots ATM so that could just as well allow vote buying. Vote buying is illegal and should be which would make large scale vote buying more difficult).
The DNC should also require IDs to vote for the primaries just as well (for every state). I don't like Biden (nor do I like Trump), I would much rather one of the other candidates (though I'm not a democrat I would have preferred someone like Bloomberg over Trump though I would have to have done more reading). Regardless Biden is part of the (pro copy'right') establishment and the IP cartels have huge incentive to cheat to make sure he gets selected. IP extremists are not honest, they would go to great lengths to cheat. We need to make sure cheating doesn't happen.
The establishment and special interests want to find every way possible to work against the public interest in favor of their own interests. They are more than willing to cheat. IMO, the only good reason to oppose strong measures to ensure cheating doesn't happen is if you plan to cheat. We need to DEMAND that strong measures are in place to avoid cheating because how can we vote for such measures if the integrity of the voting system itself is what's in question.
I do agree that the government should ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to vote (even if they live in a remote location for instance) and I don't even mind the federal government offering states money in exchange for opening more polling stations and whatever is necessary (I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger even used his own money to open more polling stations to give more people the opportunity to vote. This shouldn't be necessary, the state should provide those). I get that these things are left up to the states but states should provide everyone the opportunity to vote and I think more should be done to allow for this as well. But allowing more people to vote is no excuse to compromise the potential integrity of the election process whatsoever. We can both have an honest election and allow everyone a fair opportunity to vote.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @06:05PM
and the shills that are against a such a pseudonym system that I mention above in the name of preventing vote buying are the same shills paid shills that are in favor of mail in ballots despite the fact that this also enables vote buying.
I'm against mail in ballots not because it may enable vote buying but because it makes vote stuffing more easy. Diluting my vote is a way of basically invalidating it.
I think the best way to protect against mass scale vote buying is to make it illegal and impose huge penalties for it against the entity buying the votes and smaller penalties against the entity who is having their vote bought. Perhaps even criminal penalties against the individuals buying the vote. So if a company buys votes and gets caught someone is going to jail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @06:18PM (10 children)
What's your position on gerrymandering? Death panels? Russian interference? Hm?
(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.