Government

Congressional Candidates’ Silence On Cannabis Reform

Published

4 years ago

September 28, 2022

Most candidates for federal office do not see cannabis as an issue prominent enough to discuss, and deep partisan differences still remain among elected officials.

Cannabis reform has grown in popularity with voters, activists, and state legislators; cannabis is now legal for medical use in 38 states and DC and for adult-use in 19 states and DC. Despite those advances in state level reforms and in the broader conversation nationwide, Congress has failed to pass a major piece of legislation addressing the issue, and many voters and activists wonder why.

One argument is that federal level officials—in the executive branch and in Congress—simply don’t care enough about the issue to address it. To consider this question, I included a coding about cannabis reform in Brookings Primaries Project in 2022. The Brookings Primaries Project examines the publicly stated views—via the websites and social media presence—of all candidates running in U.S. congressional primary races. We coded each candidate on a four-point scale: whether they supported legalization or decriminalization of cannabis, whether they supported medical legalization only, whether their position was complex or indecipherable, and whether they failed to mention the issue at all.

The results provide three general takeaways. First, primary candidates for Congress do not consider the issue important enough to elevate to be included on their website or on social media. Second, on average, candidates who do engage on the issue are at least not harmed by staking out a public position. Third, stark differences exist between Democratic primary candidates for Congress and Republican primary candidates for Congress.

These findings generally reflect a reality that bears out in public opinion polling. While cannabis reform is popular among Americans (68% support in the latest Gallup poll), it is not a salient issue among voters; polling shows that cannabis reform has never jumped into even the top 20 most important issues for voters. That support but lack of salience has a compelling impact on members of Congress and congressional candidates: it gives them the freedom not to engage the issue.

Overall, we coded 2360 candidates running in Democratic and Republican primaries for Congress. As table 1 shows, the vast majority of candidates (81.4%) made no mention of cannabis reform at all on their websites and social media. In fact, clashing against the idea that the popularity of cannabis reform should be pushing legislators to make clear statements of support for reform, 86.4% of candidates either made no mention, staked out an unclear position, or explicitly opposed cannabis reform.

TABLE 1: CANNABIS CAMPAIGN POSITIONS AMONG 2022 CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES

Those publicly stated positions were not uniform across parties however. As Table 2 shows, a pro-cannabis reform position was much more popular among Democratic candidates (30.5%) than among Republican candidates (2.0%). This demonstrates clear differences between the parties that are also reflected in rates of opposition to cannabis. Although more than 90% of Republican candidates failed to mention cannabis at all, 4.1% of them staked out an anti-cannabis reform position. On the other hand, only three of the 962 Democratic primary candidates (0.3%) opposed reform.

TABLE 2: 2022 CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES’ CANNABIS POSITIONS BY PARTY

It is true in public polling that differences exist between Democratic voters’ support (83%) for cannabis reform and Republican voters’ support (50%). However, the polling data above show that there is still a clear disconnect between what voters want and what candidates for office are willing to say about the issue. For example, only 2% of Republican primary candidates supported cannabis reform, despite 50% of GOP voters endorsing that policy. And even while a third of Democratic primary candidates support legalization, that pales in comparison to the more than 80% support Gallup finds among Democrats.

Another way to look at these data are to divide states up according to whether they are running for Congress in the 19 states that are fully legal, the 19 states that have medical only, or the 12 states that have neither. As table 3 shows, the legal status of cannabis in a state has effectively no impact on whether a candidate engages on the issue: between 80.2% and 82.9% of candidates in each type of state are silent on it. Candidates in fully legal states (15.9%) are more likely to support cannabis legalization than in medical only (12.2%) or non-legal states (11.7%).

TABLE 3: 2022 CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES’ CANNABIS POSITIONS BY STATE TYPE

Similarly, as Table 4 shows, Democrats in fully legal states are the most supportive of cannabis reform, with more than a third of candidates in primaries voicing support. The same was not true of Republican candidates. Republicans in cannabis legal states were less likely to support cannabis reform than they were in medical only states and non-legal states. What’s more, this was not an artifact of fewer Republicans running in fully legal states—there were more GOP primary candidates in legal states than in either medical only or non-legal states.

TABLE 4: 2022 CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES’ CANNABIS POSITIONS BY STATE TYPE AND PARTY

The data also allow for an analysis of a) whether cannabis could be viewed as more than a fringe issue and b) whether taking a position on cannabis potentially harms candidates’ chances of winning. The latter point is of particular interest given the vestiges of drug-war era indoctrination among elected officials that a pro-drug reform position is politically toxic.

To do this, I examine the difference in cannabis position taking among candidates who went on to win their primaries versus those who lost. As Table 5 shows, among all candidates, winners were much more likely to address the cannabis issue (33.3%) than were congressional primary losers (9.5%). Those figures include winning candidates who were more likely to oppose cannabis legalization (6.0%) than were losing candidates (0.5%). However, winning candidates were also significantly more likely to support cannabis reform (22.2%) than were losing candidates (8.4%).

TABLE 5: 2022 CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES’ CANNABIS POSITIONS AMONG WINNERS AND LOSERS

There are a few key takeaways from these findings. First, while cannabis may not be a popular issue for congressional primary candidates to address publicly, it is not a fringe issue only discussed by unserious candidates. Successful primary candidates are addressing the issue significantly more than losing candidates.

Second, successful primary candidates do not see cannabis reform taking as a political liability—like it once was—as more than one-fifth of successful candidates voiced support for that position on their website and/or through social media.

Third, despite gains in cannabis reform in a variety of areas, public opposition to cannabis reform is still embraced successfully by some candidates.

Fourth, the analysis cannot tell us whether support or opposition to cannabis reform helps candidates, however, we can say that in many races, it does not harm those candidates, given the levels of success among cannabis position-taking candidates.

The data also show that cannabis position taking differences by winners and losers is driven largely by party. As Table 6 shows, of the 54 winning primary candidates who publicly opposed cannabis, 94.4% were Republicans. Conversely, of the 199 winning candidates who supported cannabis reform, 95.0% were Democrats. In fact, among all Democratic primary candidates, 64.5% of those taking a pro-cannabis position won their primary, and only 55.1% of winning Democratic candidates opted not to take a position on the issue. For Republicans, 78.1% of all winning candidates opted not to discuss cannabis in any context.

TABLE 6: 2022 CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES’ CANNABIS POSITIONS AMONG WINNERS AND LOSERS, BY PARTY

It is clear that among all candidates, all Democrats, and all Republicans, taking no public position on cannabis was the most popular strategy during the 2022 congressional primaries. However, among candidates who chose to take a clear position on cannabis, Republicans were more likely to oppose legalization than support it, and the reverse is true for Democratic primary candidates who took a position on cannabis.

In sum, cannabis as a political issue has risen in importance over the past 25 years. As state legislatures and voters via referenda have enacted changes to cannabis laws, the issue has become more popular even in the halls of Congress.

However, cannabis reform advocates’ frequent stupefaction at the lack of progress at the federal level bumps up against a stark reality. Most candidates for federal office do not see cannabis as an issue prominent enough to discuss, and deep partisan differences still remain among elected officials, even as support for cannabis in the general public has exploded in recent years. And the true motivator for a member of Congress to take or change a position—whether voters hold their feet to the fire over an issue—has not yet become a reality in the vast majority of Congressional races across the United States.

Source: https://thefreshtoast.com/marijuana-legislation/congressional-candidates-silence-on-cannabis-reform/

Corruption

Four Ganga Land Leases Cancelled in Sambhal After Record Irregularities

Published

2 weeks ago

July 20, 2026

Jon Tru

The Sambhal district administration has cancelled four government land leases issued more than three decades ago after an official investigation found alleged irregularities in the classification and allotment of Ganga river land.

The action follows an inquiry that concluded approximately 31 bigha of land in Surpur village of Gunnour tehsil was leased after its original revenue classification was allegedly altered, allowing land categorized as riverbed to be treated as agricultural property.

Inquiry Reveals Alleged Record Manipulation

The decision was taken by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) based on an investigation conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Gunnour.

Officials found that while the current revenue records listed the land as transferable agricultural property, older consolidation documents identified it as Category-6(1) submerged river land, making it ineligible for such allotments.

Following the findings, the administration ordered the cancellation of all four leases and directed revenue officials to restore the land’s original classification in official records.

Leases Issued in 1991 Declared Invalid

According to the inquiry, the disputed leases were granted on November 17, 1991, in the names of Shrinivas, Sher Singh, Shakuntala, residents of Surpur village, and Prakash Chandra of Patei Kayasth village.

Authorities stated that the allotments did not comply with the provisions of Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, prompting their cancellation.

Officials said corrective entries are now being made in the revenue records to reflect the land’s original legal status.

Wider Probe Into Ganga Riverbank Land Allotments

The latest action is part of a broader investigation into alleged irregularities involving government land located along the Ganga riverbank in Sambhal district.

Earlier investigations uncovered suspected illegal allotments involving nearly 845 bigha of government land in Sukhailla village under Gram Panchayat Asadpur, where 162 leases are also under scrutiny.

Investigators believe a similar pattern may have been followed in multiple cases, with riverbed land allegedly reclassified as agricultural land before being leased to individuals.

Field inspections reportedly found that much of the land was unsuitable for conventional farming and was instead being used for activities such as sand mining.

Government Land Worth ₹18 Crore Under Review

District officials estimate that approximately 850 bigha (around 71.5 hectares) of government land, valued at nearly ₹18 crore, is currently under investigation.

Authorities have launched a comprehensive review of historical land leases issued across villages situated along the Ganga river in the Rajpura, Gunnour, and Junawai blocks.

The objective is to determine which allotments were made legally and identify cases where land records may have been manipulated.

Officials’ Role Also Being Examined

The investigation has also raised questions about the possible involvement or negligence of officials from the revenue and consolidation departments.

District authorities said responsibility will be fixed after the inquiry is completed, and legal or departmental action will be taken against anyone found to have violated land allotment rules.

Officials indicated that the ongoing review could reveal additional cases involving unauthorized occupation or irregular leasing of government land.

The administration has reiterated its commitment to restoring government property and ensuring transparency in land management across the district.

Education & Training

NTA Warns NEET UG 2026 Candidates Against Fake OMR Sheets

Published

2 weeks ago

July 19, 2026

Jon Tru

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has issued a warning to NEET UG 2026 candidates and their parents against submitting fake, altered, or AI-generated OMR sheets while raising objections related to examination results.

The examination authority said that candidates found providing fabricated documents or misleading information during the verification process could face legal consequences.

The warning comes after several students approached the agency with complaints alleging discrepancies between their expected scores and the marks published in the final results.

NTA Finds Suspicious Documents During Verification

According to the NTA, some candidates submitted OMR sheets while requesting score verification, but officials found that certain documents appeared to be manipulated or artificially generated.

The agency clarified that only original OMR sheets issued during the examination process will be accepted for reviewing complaints.

NTA officials said they are examining all grievances carefully and will consider only verified examination records while deciding on score-related concerns.

Students Raise Questions Over NEET UG Results

After the announcement of NEET UG 2026 results, several candidates reported differences between their estimated marks based on the official answer key and their final scorecards.

Some students claimed that their expected scores were significantly higher than the marks awarded in the results.

In some reported cases, candidates alleged that uploaded OMR sheets did not match their original answer sheets or that the displayed scores were inconsistent with their calculations.

The complaints prompted several students and parents to seek clarification and request a detailed review of the evaluation process.

AI-Generated Fake Records Create New Challenge

The NTA has highlighted the growing misuse of artificial intelligence tools to create fake examination documents.

Officials said digitally altered OMR sheets and fabricated records could create difficulties in identifying genuine grievances and may affect the integrity of the complaint resolution system.

The agency advised candidates to avoid using unofficial documents or modified materials while submitting objections.

Candidates found involved in producing false evidence may face action under applicable laws, the NTA warned.

NEET UG 2026 Conducted Again After Paper Leak Allegations

The NEET UG 2026 examination process faced controversy after allegations of a paper leak led authorities to cancel the original exam held on May 3.

A re-examination was conducted on June 21 for affected candidates, following which results were announced on July 16.

After the controversy, the government announced plans to move future NEET UG examinations from the traditional pen-and-paper format to a computer-based testing (CBT) system.

Verification Process Continues

The NTA said the review of complaints submitted by candidates is still underway and further decisions will be taken after completing the verification of all documents.

The agency has urged students to rely only on official communication channels and submit genuine records while seeking clarification about their results.

Corruption & Governance

Goa PWD Tenders Worth ₹1,000 Crore Come Under Government Probe

Published

3 months ago

May 8, 2026

Jon Tru

The Goa government has initiated a detailed investigation into alleged irregularities in Public Works Department (PWD) tenders worth nearly ₹1,000 crore, following complaints of document manipulation and misuse of contractor eligibility credentials.

The probe focuses on claims that certain construction firms may have secured high-value infrastructure contracts by submitting falsified or altered work completion certificates to qualify for top contractor categories.

Allegations of Fake Experience Certificates in Tender Bids

According to complaints filed by engineers and contractors, several companies allegedly used questionable documentation to obtain Class IAA contractor status, a designation that allows participation in large-scale government infrastructure projects.

Investigators are examining whether manipulated work completion certificates were used to falsely demonstrate prior project experience, thereby inflating eligibility during the tender evaluation process.

One of the key concerns involves references to infrastructure projects executed under Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, including the “Mudi Tank Filling Scheme.” Authorities are verifying claims that duplicate or inconsistent completion certificates may have been issued for the same project.

JV Structure Alteration Under Scrutiny

Officials are also investigating alleged changes in joint venture (JV) agreements submitted during tender applications. In one case under review, a 2019 JV reportedly listed Amrita Constructions Private Limited as the lead partner, with another firm as a supporting entity.

However, documents submitted to Goa PWD allegedly reversed these roles, naming Bagkiya Constructions as the lead partner. This change is suspected to have significantly enhanced the company’s technical eligibility and past performance record.

Authorities believe such alterations may have allowed firms to qualify for contracts they would otherwise not have been eligible for under standard procurement norms.

Allegations Linked to Karnataka Project Documentation

Another complaint under review concerns the “Akka Mahadevi Memorial Project” in Shivamogga, Karnataka, valued at over ₹51 crore. It is alleged that the project, executed in phases, was incorrectly represented as a single completed contract to meet eligibility requirements for higher-value tenders.

Investigators are verifying whether such representations were used to gain unfair advantage in experience-based qualification criteria.

Government Launches Comprehensive Inquiry

Following the emergence of these allegations, the Goa government has ordered a preliminary inquiry into all related contracts, approvals, and supporting documentation.

Officials have stated that every stage of the tendering process—including eligibility checks, certificate validation, and contract award decisions—will be examined in detail.

If irregularities are established, possible actions may include contract cancellation, blacklisting of firms, recovery of funds, and legal proceedings against those involved in submitting false documentation.

Concerns Over Procurement Transparency

The case has raised broader concerns about transparency and verification systems in public infrastructure procurement. Experts point out that reliance on manual documentation without robust digital verification increases the risk of fraud in large-scale government contracting.

Transparency advocates have called for stronger auditing systems, centralized contractor databases, and real-time verification of project credentials to prevent misuse of public tender processes.

Probe Continues

Authorities have confirmed that the investigation is ongoing and a detailed report will be prepared after reviewing all evidence and documentation. Further action will be taken based on the findings in accordance with applicable laws and procurement rules.