4 ms·

From what I read in this and other articles there are striking similarities caused by inconsistent policies e.g.: Netherlands: Coffee shops can only store 500g

From what I read in this and other articles there are striking similarities caused by inconsistent policies e.g.: Netherlands: Coffee shops can only store 500g causing multiple deliveries a day exposing couriers to robbery. US: Coffee shops are excluded from the banking system exposing them to an increased risk of robbery. Rules have to make sense and be somewhat consistent otherwise side effects can be severe.

Balgair 10y ago
In CO the local credit unions that are in state only are the banks for pot shops and that is where the (federally) illegal money sits. You know, just like any other business really. Yeah they are restricted to certain credit unions, but those guys are head over heels for the very lucrative business accounts. So the pot shops are excluded from inter-state banking, but they are not excluded from all banking.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >So the pot shops are excluded from inter-state banking // For real. I thought pot had been legalised in some states, how does that work - you can work legally in a field but you're not allowed to bank your proceeds, was that bill sponsored by organised crime syndicates?? Anyway, they should probably do one of those tax-dodge deals that big corps do, buy trademark rights [ostensibly from themselves] and then send the money from the trademark licensing out of state. Surely there's already a similar "method" in place, investing in movies or some crock??
  - sigstoat 10y ago
    > I thought pot had been legalised in some states... what the states think is legal, and what the feds think is legal do not, and have never had to agree. the feds have massively longer lists of illegal things than most states. state legalization generally has no effect on the feds.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      It seems like that should be something to sort out. If it's possible for a State legislature to pass laws making something appear legal that is actually Federally prohibited doesn't that show that the Federation is broken, why doesn't the Federation fix that - either by saying States can't pass laws allowing Federally prohibited activity or by saying the State gets ultimate jurisdiction and only if the State hasn't established a law on something does the Federation's legislation take over. Presumably half the States would go one way and half the other?? Any insights for a European on this? AFAIU in Europe's not quite federated system European laws get ratified and become national laws in time (with selection and modification where the original law allows). That seems a natural and appropriate way to spread laws to member states.
      - sigstoat 10y ago
        you might consider hitting up wikipedia or something to read about how the different layers of government in the US interact. > Presumably half the States would go one way and half the other?? if they want! > That seems a natural and appropriate way to spread laws to member states. allowing them to be differ from one another was part of the system's original goal!
      - Balgair 10y ago
        Oh wow. Yeah, the laws here in the US are not like a lot of other places except maybe Australia. All of our states really are nations in their own sense that then submit certain rights and responsibilities to the federal government. Each state has it's own "army" too (we call it a national guard, again it's weird). When a disagreement between laws happens, which really is pretty often, like daily, then you go to the courts and typically the supreme court if things are really strange and complicated. For other people from other countries, it is a pretty weird system, we know. Umm, you may want to do some research on this stuff, as a HN comment is not even going to come close to covering all the important topics, and there are a lot of them. Essentially, the way it work in the US is that each state will do whatever the hell it wants to do until the Federal government forces them to stop, usually via some sort of money method, but occasionally via the military (bleeding Kansas, civil war, civil rights movement, etc). Our government works because we all hate each others' guts, but we hate equally. Most Americans are very happy/disgusted with the system, typically both at the same time. Again, we know it's strange.
  - yesiamyourdad 10y ago
    I know a couple people involved in the MJ business in CO. My understanding is that the risk is that the feds could seize assets in a federal bank so nobody is willing to take the risk of depositing assets that could be seized. Allowing MJ businesses into the banking system would certainly help things, but that would require removing MJ from the federal controlled substances list. I'm also told that notwithstanding the possibility that some bank might take your deposits, the MJ business is effectively cash-only because of the risk of seizure. It's also not as high margin as I initially thought. Honestly, from talking to a few people, it doesn't look like that great a business to be in. For one thing, CO rules require tracking from seed to sold. For any particular item in your inventory, you have to be able to track back to who grew it, who processed it (for oils and extracts), who manufactured the product - the paper trail is extensive and the penalties for messing up are stiff.
  - Balgair 10y ago
    Well they can do banking, but just inside the state only. You still have to buy lightbulbs and doormats as a business, so you still need a bank to help keep the money and help deal with normal business stuff. It's just that you can't transfer the money out of the state, as it's considered illegal federally. Unless of course there is some agreement with the other state that says they you can, but that has not happened yet. We do have that kinda thing with some firearms. Utah and Arizona have an agreement that a concealed carry in one state is good in the other one too, so you can just walk across the border and not be in legal hot water. That agreement is not true for all the other neighboring states.

Balgair 10y ago

In CO the local credit unions that are in state only are the banks for pot shops and that is where the (federally) illegal money sits. You know, just like any other business really. Yeah they are restricted to certain credit unions, but those guys are head over heels for the very lucrative business accounts. So the pot shops are excluded from inter-state banking, but they are not excluded from all banking.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>So the pot shops are excluded from inter-state banking // For real. I thought pot had been legalised in some states, how does that work - you can work legally in a field but you're not allowed to bank your proceeds, was that bill sponsored by organised crime syndicates?? Anyway, they should probably do one of those tax-dodge deals that big corps do, buy trademark rights [ostensibly from themselves] and then send the money from the trademark licensing out of state. Surely there's already a similar "method" in place, investing in movies or some crock??
- sigstoat 10y ago
  > I thought pot had been legalised in some states... what the states think is legal, and what the feds think is legal do not, and have never had to agree. the feds have massively longer lists of illegal things than most states. state legalization generally has no effect on the feds.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    It seems like that should be something to sort out. If it's possible for a State legislature to pass laws making something appear legal that is actually Federally prohibited doesn't that show that the Federation is broken, why doesn't the Federation fix that - either by saying States can't pass laws allowing Federally prohibited activity or by saying the State gets ultimate jurisdiction and only if the State hasn't established a law on something does the Federation's legislation take over. Presumably half the States would go one way and half the other?? Any insights for a European on this? AFAIU in Europe's not quite federated system European laws get ratified and become national laws in time (with selection and modification where the original law allows). That seems a natural and appropriate way to spread laws to member states.
    - sigstoat 10y ago
      you might consider hitting up wikipedia or something to read about how the different layers of government in the US interact. > Presumably half the States would go one way and half the other?? if they want! > That seems a natural and appropriate way to spread laws to member states. allowing them to be differ from one another was part of the system's original goal!
    - Balgair 10y ago
      Oh wow. Yeah, the laws here in the US are not like a lot of other places except maybe Australia. All of our states really are nations in their own sense that then submit certain rights and responsibilities to the federal government. Each state has it's own "army" too (we call it a national guard, again it's weird). When a disagreement between laws happens, which really is pretty often, like daily, then you go to the courts and typically the supreme court if things are really strange and complicated. For other people from other countries, it is a pretty weird system, we know. Umm, you may want to do some research on this stuff, as a HN comment is not even going to come close to covering all the important topics, and there are a lot of them. Essentially, the way it work in the US is that each state will do whatever the hell it wants to do until the Federal government forces them to stop, usually via some sort of money method, but occasionally via the military (bleeding Kansas, civil war, civil rights movement, etc). Our government works because we all hate each others' guts, but we hate equally. Most Americans are very happy/disgusted with the system, typically both at the same time. Again, we know it's strange.
- yesiamyourdad 10y ago
  I know a couple people involved in the MJ business in CO. My understanding is that the risk is that the feds could seize assets in a federal bank so nobody is willing to take the risk of depositing assets that could be seized. Allowing MJ businesses into the banking system would certainly help things, but that would require removing MJ from the federal controlled substances list. I'm also told that notwithstanding the possibility that some bank might take your deposits, the MJ business is effectively cash-only because of the risk of seizure. It's also not as high margin as I initially thought. Honestly, from talking to a few people, it doesn't look like that great a business to be in. For one thing, CO rules require tracking from seed to sold. For any particular item in your inventory, you have to be able to track back to who grew it, who processed it (for oils and extracts), who manufactured the product - the paper trail is extensive and the penalties for messing up are stiff.
- Balgair 10y ago
  Well they can do banking, but just inside the state only. You still have to buy lightbulbs and doormats as a business, so you still need a bank to help keep the money and help deal with normal business stuff. It's just that you can't transfer the money out of the state, as it's considered illegal federally. Unless of course there is some agreement with the other state that says they you can, but that has not happened yet. We do have that kinda thing with some firearms. Utah and Arizona have an agreement that a concealed carry in one state is good in the other one too, so you can just walk across the border and not be in legal hot water. That agreement is not true for all the other neighboring states.