Joseph D. Sandy
Upcoming Candidate, Maryland Delegate 2018
Reflecting on the Maryland General Assembly Session
2017
On state’s attorney general with
power to sue drug companies for price gouging:
I’m generally in agreement with the state’s attorney general being able
to sue for gouging. There’s a good argument for the importance of regulations
around price gouging. The ‘transaction under duress’ argument makes the most
sense to me – that is, that in times when there is literally no choice but to
purchase a product, the demand curve isn’t flexible and the usual trends in
supply & demand no longer apply.
On the Maryland General
Assembly’s failure to expand the marijuana industry further:
To be brief, any further expansion in medical marijuana would have been beneficial in our state. I understand that there were hang-ups regarding whether or not companies who were suing the state for being ‘booted down the line’ in applications for licenses should just be permitted said licenses. But nonetheless, any expansion would have been beneficial, in my opinion. Regarding medical marijuana in this state, there is allegedly evidence suggesting that the heroin epidemic may be combated in part through use of medical marijuana. While there is clearly much research to be done, my stance is as follows: if it yields promising results in helping to combat our debilitating opioid epidemic, that’s a primary reason why I support growing the medical marijuana industry in our state. I’m a realist, but we should have seen further progress this year. We did away with alcohol prohibition in the country many years ago when we tried it and it failed – but I'm only currently willing to endorse expansion of the marijuana industry as a medical product, just as I'm unwilling to endorse legalization of other presently-illegal drugs for legal recreational use, because I believe we need to further study the potential implications and drawbacks it may have on the society as a whole.
On banning fracking in Maryland:
We probably should have left the fracking debate alone as much as
possible – and not moved to ban it altogether in Maryland – and here’s my
justification. Fracking is a technology, and as we know, given several years’
time, we are liable to develop technology that is considerably more
environmentally-sound than our present methods. Secondly, we don’t know the
extent of the environmental risks, and that being said, given several years’
time, we are liable to have a much better understanding of the risks, and the
cost associated with methods to combat those risks. Thirdly, we know that natural
gas is at a low price which will gradually rise over time, as does most or all
forms of energy we use. Altogether, the idea is that if we do nothing now as
far as banning it, we could develop much more cost-effective, sound,
environmentally-friendly methods to tapping into a limited resource
efficiently.
On mandating most Maryland
employers to provide five paid sick days’ leave to employees:
I’m most always opposed to government mandates regarding competitive
incentives within the market – they should be left largely, if not entirely, to
the market.
On providing Baltimore’s school
system with extra funding to close a $130 million gap:
The fact that there is an alleged $130 million gap is yet another sad
example of the failure of the public school system, and why we need to look at
expanding alternative education options that actually address the needs of
growing young minds. Preferably, alternative means to education than those that
cost the taxpayers in Maryland $20 billion annually. Even charter schools are a
move in a better direction, despite being funded by taxpayers, because they at
least get the government out of the curriculum and operations within those
centers of learning.
On the nation’s first law to
protect Planned Parenthood from federal budget cuts:
Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be federally funded, period. It's one of far too many private business entities receiving federal funding. I know a lot of people who question the morality of some of the services provided by Planned Parenthood - I am myself pro-life, by the way - regardless, this is more about whether every taxpayer should have to foot the bill for the services provided by Planned Parenthood, whether they like it or not - and I don't believe they should have to. It is within the means of Planned Parenthood to ensure that it continues to be able to provide services to the communities it serves – without federal funding. That’s where philanthropy, charity, and voluntarism come into play.
On a law to grant tax breaks to
manufacturing firms that bring jobs to areas with high unemployment:
I generally support this, because I support tax breaks, period –
although truthfully, I’m more focused on state tax breaks for the individual
working taxpayer.
On the legislature rejecting
plans to let an independent commission draw legislative boundaries, rather than
politicians:
Of course politicians on both sides of the aisle in the General
Assembly rejected it! I completely support Larry Hogan’s idea to let an
independent commission decide the district boundaries. We would eliminate
gerrymandering that way. About the only way to combat the gerrymandering, in my
opinion, is by gubernatorial executive order, if that is possible. But
naturally, it isn’t high on the priority list. It should be.
On the General Assembly
overriding a veto of limits on how the state can intervene to help failing
schools:
The State should not be intervening in failing schools. All that the
State is doing, then, is throwing more money at a growing problem – at a
sinking ship. The proof is right there. We shouldn’t be trying to mask the
problem. If anything, we need to drive new strategies for educating our
students. We need free market alternatives – many already exist, and we need to
open up to those possibilities, draw awareness to them, promote charter
schools, alternative schooling options, etc.
On tax breaks for retirees and
law enforcement:
Excellent – not only am I a proponent of any and all individual tax
breaks for taxpaying citizens in Maryland, but I feel it’s important to
acknowledge and show respect to the public servants in law enforcement who have
dedicated their working lives to keeping our communities safe. I’m a proud
member of my local area’s Police Community Relations Council and believe in
collaboration and open communication at the local community level between the
citizens of those communities and the public servants who are here for the
safety of those citizens.
On the prospect of legislative ban
of guns on all college campuses:
I’m not sure why a bill was proposed to ban guns on college campuses,
since they’re already banned on college campuses by the colleges themselves. Personally,
I disagree with colleges’ decisions that guns should be banned on their campuses,
just as I believe that gun-free zones promise absolutely no safety to the
individuals within them (and quite possibly point out ‘sitting duck ranges’ for
those who would do harm to such innocents). But I believe that colleges have
the right to ban guns on their campuses if they choose, just as students have a
choice about whether or not to attend a college when considering its rules. I
don’t think there should be a legal mandate coming from the General Assembly and
passed through the Governor that essentially overrides a college’s rules.
Luckily, no such bill made it through to any level of fruition.
To get in touch, reach
out directly!
Submit an inquiry via one of the below-listed means of contact.
Expect a posting within 24-48 business hours.
CONTACT JOE SANDY
FriendsOfJosephSandy@gmail.com
facebook.com/ElectJoeSandy
