I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, using the banking system to promote the use of a lucrative recreational drug seems to be an acknowledgement that there is a lot of money to be made and a normalization of marijuana policies. On the other hand, I believe that the states should set up their own cooperative banks for the sale of marijuana and leave the big banks out of the profit stream. Eric Holder Just Announced A Major Shift On U.S. Marijuana Policy Reuters | By David Ingram Jan 23 (Reuters) - U.S. treasury and law enforcement agencies will soon issue regulations opening banking services to state-sanctioned marijuana businesses even though cannabis remains classified an illegal narcotic under federal law, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Thursday. Holder said the new rules would address problems faced by newly licensed recreational pot retailers in Colorado, and medical marijuana dispensaries in other states, in operating on a cash-only basis, without access to banking services or credit. Proprietors of state-licensed marijuana distributors in Colorado and elsewhere have complained of having to purchase inventory, pay employees and conduct sales entirely in cash, requiring elaborate and expensive security measures and putting them at a high risk of robbery. It also makes accounting for state sales tax-collection purposes difficult. "You don't want just huge amounts of cash in these places," Holder told the audience at the University of Virginia. "They want to be able to use the banking system. And so we will be issuing some regulations I think very soon to deal with that issue." Holder's comments echoed remarks by his deputy, James Cole, in September during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill. Colorado this month became the first state to open retail outlets legally permitted to sell marijuana to adults for recreational purposes, in a system similar to what many states have long had in place for alcohol sales. Washington state is slated to launch its own marijuana retail network later this year, and several other states, including California, Oregon and Alaska, are expected to consider legalizing recreational weed in 2014. The number of states approving marijuana for medical purposes has also been growing. California was the first in 1996, and has since been followed by about 20 other states and the District of Columbia. But the fledgling recreational pot markets in Colorado and Washington state have sent a new wave of cannabis proprietors clamoring to obtain loans and make deposits in banks and credit unions. The Justice Department announced in August that the administration would give new latitude to states experimenting with taxation and regulation of marijuana. But with the drug still outlawed at the federal level, banks are barred under money-laundering rules from handling proceeds from marijuana sales even in states where pot sales have been made legal. The lack of credit for marijuana businesses, however, poses its own criminal justice concerns, Holder said. "There's a public safety component to this," he said. "Huge amounts of cash - substantial amounts of cash just kind of lying around with no place for it to be appropriately deposited - is something that would worry me just from a law enforcement perspective." Holder did not offer any specifics on a timeline for action on banking services for marijuana. Cole in September said the Justice Department was working on the issue with the Treasury Department's financial crimes enforcement network. Critics of liberalized marijuana laws have said the lack of credit faced by pot retailers was beside the point. "We are in the midst of creating a corporate, for-profit marijuana industry that has to rely on addiction for profit, and that's a much bigger issue than whether these stores take American Express," said Kevin Sabet, co-founder of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. (Reporting by David Ingram in Charlottesville, Virginia; Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Steve Gorman and Lisa Shumaker)
Maybe this will fill in some of the gap. US law specifically prohibits federal banks from handling moneys from illegal substances. Disregarding whether or not Holder/Obama can selectively enforce laws, that law remains in effect even after Obama/Holder have left office. Their regulations do not change the law as passed by Congress. Their regulations can go with them and whoever comes next can write their own regulations. As best I can figure, that includes punishing those who did not follow the law under Obama. I suspect federal banks will be averse to handling drug moneys. Not sure how this affects state banks or other such institutions.
I disagree and I even believe that it is the banks pushing for the change. They simply want access to all the money being made from the sale of this new legal drug. Banks don't care where the money comes from, they simply want it. I think this is an opportunity for the states to keep the money from these sales locally. Much the same as North Dakota does with it's state banking system.
Absolutely banks are pushing for a ruling. They would certainly like to know their standing. However, you cannot possibly be arguing that the executive branch can overrule Congress whenever they desire, can you? The law remains as passed. If Obama can selectively enforce the laws, so can those who come after. BTW, one of the symptoms of your fascism was government's "protection of business". You opinion that business is dictating this "change" and that Congress is irrelevant in this matter fits well into you definition.
Cannabis was a schedule 1 controlled substance although many argued that it really didn't fit that category. It could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. It seems that the executive branch is making it's move.
That point is highly debatable. Besides, even if it can be done through the executive branch, it can be undone through the executive branch. Exactly the point I made previously. With Obama being so popular , I really doubt anything like that could be passed legislatively.
I completely agree that it can be undone through the executive branch. I would just hate to be the person who did it. I figured that you guys were going to come down on the side of State's rights as you usually do. How come that didn't happen in this case?
State's right for FEDERAL banks? BTW, It is way over you head and mine, but you have no proof that the executive branch can declassify cannabis from a schedule 1 drug.
This is a serious blow to the anti-marijuana crowd. Once banks say they accept it's use, they'll make it happen. Money is the only real political power in the World, and greed just agreed to allow marijuana usage. You anti's are @#$%ed. hehhehheh
Just for the record, I am pro legalization of weed/marijuana. Now with that, I dont currently smoke it, haven't in lots of years. But its a better option than pills IMO. If the laws ever get straightened out who knows. On federal form 4473 ( buying a gun) there is a box to check that you don't use illegal drugs. This is a FEDERAL form, not a state form. Im taking no chances until the law is clear.
If they are going to make money from it then keep it within the state and out of the hands of anyone else
