Md. Legislators Consider Bills That Would Increase Medical Marijuana Business Owner Diversity

Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
What, like aspirin? Like cough syrup? Like alcohol?

You're entitled to all the control issues you like and can get passed into law or to protect those existing controls. None of that gets one ray of sunshine on the disingenuous and deceitful basis of the outlawing of marijuana in the first place, an intoxicant, a medicine, that has killed exactly ZERO users since the dawn of time.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to all the control issues you like and can get passed into law or to protect those existing controls.
Click to expand...

Yup: That's pretty much the way all laws are made Larry.

Remember. You are the one who likes it's medicinal use.
If it's a medicine restrict it like a medicine.
If it's a recreational drug stop calling the laws disingenious and deceitful.
 
Last edited:
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
Which would be all well and true if they released the scores. They're not. You can figure that out for yourself.

At the end of the day, this is an artificial gold rush and it is artificial based on gummint, not market, limits. When you do that, create an artificial gold mine, it's reasonable to expect people are going to want to see it benefit the state and benefit the state in a fashion that is spread around pretty even. Black folks make up 30% of Maryland residents. Given this is a gummint controlled deal, it's not unreasonable for a constituency that large to wish to see what they see as their fair share of the spoils.
Click to expand...

This is not true at all. It IS unreasonable to base decisions on who gets a license on their race. We would say so if it were blacks being denied, and it is equally true if it is blacks getting an advantage.

We do not have a racial split in the NFL or the NBA that is akin to the national populace, we do not have a racial split in tax-paying that is akin to the national populace (or, sexual split either).

So, if it is discriminatory to have licenses handed out by some reasonable measure that includes where the pharmacies will be throughout the state and the other standard things that are not racial or sexual based at all, it is neither likely nor unlikely to see the split reasonable to the state split in race or sex - it's going to be split based on who wants to get into this game, and where they live.

If racial and sexual divide are all that matters, then we can reasonably say the tax laws are racially and sexually discriminatory, because white males pay a disproportionate percentage of taxes. Since that would be stupid, because the laws are based on income and not sex or race, it is equally stupid to say that blacks should, by definition of their proportion within the state, make up a certain percentage of college scholarships or who gets a license to do something. If we're going to hold one thing equal, we MUST hold them all equal. When we provide tax breaks to white men, to even out the tax bounty, and we even out college scholarship money, and we even out the NFL and the NBA, etc., etc., etc., we can also include evening out everything else based on sex and race.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Hijinx said:
Yup: That's pretty much the way all laws are made Larry.

Remember. You are the one who likes it's medicinal use.
If it's a medicine restrict it like a medicine.
If it's a recreational drug stop calling the laws disingenious and deceitful.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly have missed the point that entirely.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This_person said:
You're going to have to explain that logic for me. I see zero connection at all.
Click to expand...

You see zero understanding as to why black people in the US would want stuff from the gummint when the gummint is handing stuff out? Especially when they're 30% of a states population.

Really?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
You see zero understanding as to why black people in the US would want stuff from the gummint when the gummint is handing stuff out? Especially when they're 30% of a states population.

Really?
Click to expand...

Can I see why people would want it? Of course. Can I see why race should be a determining factor? Of course not. Can I see what any of that has to do with "the vote"? Of course not.
 
R

Restitution

New Member
Larry Gude said:
That's the first thing I can say I've read from you that was actually dumb. We have our disagreements but they are matters of principle and genuine difference of opinion. Pot, dope, weed, is medicinal. You may not like it but it is and it is, for some treatments, better and much better than other solutions we have.
Click to expand...

Cocaine is/was medicinal too at some point. Hell, it was in soda!

Your point??? :shrug:
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Can I see why people would want it? Of course. Can I see why race should be a determining factor? Of course not. Can I see what any of that has to do with "the vote"? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Larry, the two bolded portions are what I was looking for you to explain.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This_person said:
Can I see why people would want it? Of course. Can I see why race should be a determining factor? Of course not. Can I see what any of that has to do with "the vote"? Of course not.
Click to expand...

So, in a democratic process whereby the gummint is handing out millionaire caps, 30% of the voters should just say '#### it' if they don't get much?
 
O

officeguy

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
As far as geographical diversity goes, again, not much of an issue - one license per X people in an area. Choose "county" for area, and you're done.
Click to expand...

That's what they DID.

There are two licenses per senate district and one license each for the growers/processors. The senatorial districts are distributed by population.

License applicants had to receive support from the senator in whose district the retail operation is located. The preferences of the candidates assigned by the senators was one of the factors taken into account during the process to assign licenses. I suspect that that part of the process introduced some of the bias against AA applicants that the end result seems to suggest. Most of the MD state senators are white dudes. Chances are the black senators sponsored black license applicants, but unless those applicants had all their ducks in a row on the other aspects of the process, they would have still lost out against those who had professional help to put together their applications.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
So, in a democratic process whereby the gummint is handing out millionaire caps, 30% of the voters should just say '#### it' if they don't get much?
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing; 30% shouldn't self-identify as 30%. Where you see them as African-Americans, I see (and I feel they should see) them as Americans. They're not a 30% subset, they are just Americans. So, Individual A, if they applied and did not receive a license, should probably ask what about their application was lacking. The government should not ask or care if they are women, or of a particular subset, etc., and neither should you or I or the artificial subset.

You said if we treat everyone as equals (my point, my rewording of what you said), then some people should have the vote taken from them. How does treating everyone equally mean we should take the vote from some people?
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You're not willing to look at the weed biz in maryland for what it is: a political spoils racket.
So, we're not going to agree on this one either.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
officeguy said:
That's what they DID.

There are two licenses per senate district and one license each for the growers/processors. The senatorial districts are distributed by population.

License applicants had to receive support from the senator in whose district the retail operation is located. The preferences of the candidates assigned by the senators was one of the factors taken into account during the process to assign licenses. I suspect that that part of the process introduced some of the bias against AA applicants that the end result seems to suggest. Most of the MD state senators are white dudes. Chances are the black senators sponsored black license applicants, but unless those applicants had all their ducks in a row on the other aspects of the process, they would have still lost out against those who had professional help to put together their applications.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of "suspecting" and assuming in there. One assumption is that black people would inappropriately support black people over others, and white people would inappropriately support white people over others. I definitely see that a lack of transparency on how the selections were ultimately made is a huge problem, but I think it should never, ever include race as a determining factor one way or the other. No one should be separated out by race for support - that's discriminatory.

But, saying that's what they did does not answer why GTI is upset that someone else got a license after GTI was told they would get a license and then it was pulled from them, when even GTI suggest the reason was the other business was in a better geographical area.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
You're not willing to look at the weed biz in maryland for what it is: a political spoils racket.
So, we're not going to agree on this one either.
Click to expand...

Every limited license and/or limited contract award is a political spoils racket. That's not the point. The point is that race should not be a factor in who gets the license.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top