Maryland’s roll-out of its medical cannabis programme has been called “one of the slowest” of the 28 states that allow it. Approved about three years ago, the programme is still months away from being operational — and that may be optimistic.

The length of time, one would hope, means there was careful planning and follow-through, but sadly, that has not been the case. Instead, the process has been tainted by self-dealing and complaints of racial bias, secrecy and political interference.

Getting most of the attention was last Friday’s official censure for a state lawmaker who was less than forthright about his dual roles in the state’s push for medical cannabis. The House of Delegates reprimanded Dan Morhaim, from Baltimore County, after the ethics committee found he had improperly advocated changes to medical cannabis without publicly disclosing his role as a paid consultant to a prospective cannabis dispensary.

Critics saw the punishment as a “slap on the wrist”, but at least lawmakers took some action in response to unacceptable behaviour.

Equal concern should also be directed at the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission and how it selected the businesses to receive the limited number of lucrative licences to grow and process cannabis. Recent revelations in a lawsuit brought by two companies that were abruptly bumped from the list of 15 finalists raise questions about whether political connections may have played a role.

Maryland Cultivation and Processing and Green Thumb Industries had been ranked No 8 and No 12, respectively, by a panel of outside experts advising the selection sub-committee. The sub-committee voted unanimously on July 27 to approve them, but two days later the sub-committee’s chairman, Cheverly Police Chief Harry Robshaw, persuaded three other members to reverse their votes and instead approve two lower-ranked firms.

One of them proposed to do business in Prince George’s County and has political ties that include Maryland Fraternal Order of Police head Vince Canales and former state secretary of health Nelson Sabatini, as well as representation by high-profile Annapolis lobbyist Gerard Evans. The company has said the team was assembled based on experience and expertise, and it never tried to influence the commission. Commission officials have said the change was needed to enhance geographic diversity, something required by the statute legalising medical cannabis.

Why then were applicants not told that geography would be determinant? And how did this emerge as a concern only 48 hours after the initial vote? Robshaw’s explanation that the sub-committee initially did not have complete information on the counties in which the applicants would operate was contradicted in a sworn deposition by former commissioner Deborah Miran, the lone holdout in making the swap, who said the sub-committee had all the geographic information before the unanimous vote.

A spokeswoman for the commission said that allegations of political favouritism are “false, unsubstantiated, and based on rumour and conjecture”. It is clear that more needs to be known about these events, so it is troubling that the state attorney-general’s office has blocked the release of information — including the dissent of Miran, who curiously was subsequently denied reappointment to the commission. It is to be hoped the judge hearing this case will make clear the need for transparency in facts and actions taken by public regulatory bodies.