4 ms·

The problem is not the banking system, it's that businesses can be legal in states while being illegal under federal law. Any company with business across state

by dx034 9y ago

The problem is not the banking system, it's that businesses can be legal in states while being illegal under federal law. Any company with business across states is at risk dealing with those companies. Banking is heavily regulated for a reason (terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud) and I doubt many would appreciate if you stop banking regulation altogether. The only solution I see here is to change federal law.

uiri 9y ago
Are local, state-chartered banks with no branches outside of their home state just as squeamish when it comes to marijuana businesses?
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  Feds don't care, all they have to do is find a single dollar bill printed outside the state and they have jurisdiction.
- asmithmd1 9y ago
  Until the interstate banking act of 1994, all banks had branches only in their own state.
- Feniks 9y ago
  Banks will be blacklisted if they finance drugdealers. The US war on drugs is no joke and it is international. If your bank participates in the global financial system it can't ignore the US.
qwerty456127 9y ago
> businesses can be legal in states while being illegal under federal law It still sounds a way ridiculous for a thing to be legal and illegal at the same time. There ought to be a non-ambiguous mechanism to decide whether a business is legal or not. As long as the feds let the states decide on their own they shouldn't consider something to be a crime as long as it is done in a state where it is legal. E.g. pot money from Colorado should be considered perfectly clean while pot money from Idaho can be treated as criminal. Doesn't this make sense? > Banking is heavily regulated for a reason (terrorist financing Doesn't seem to help much, terrorists still get everything they need.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It still sounds a way ridiculous for a thing to be legal and illegal at the same time. It's not legal and illegal at the same time. It is not prohibited by state law, and prohibited by federal law. It is, therefore, illegal, plain and simple. Much like California's prison policies few years back: they were exactly what state law specified, but violated federal law. They weren't in some weird legal-illegal contradictory state, they were illegal. > As long as the feds let the states decide on their own Federal law does not allow states to decide on their own, in fact, it prohibits them from doing so (OTOH, on state authorized medical marijuana, there is also federal law tied to spending bills for the last several years prohibiting federal enforcement that interferes with the state implementation, but an enforcement moratorium isn't legalization.)
- azernik 9y ago
  In a unitary state (i.e. one without a federal system) you don't have this particular source of ambiguity - the central government passes laws, and they define what's legal [1]. The USA, however, has a federal system; the essence of that system is a separate of powers between Federal and state governments, which means you also have conflicts of power between Federal and state governments over whose law applies. Drug policy is a classic example; so was segregation, for example. In this case, the act in question is the Controlled Substances Act, which makes a whole host of drug offenses federal crimes. It was ruled constitutional [2] in the early 2000s, in response to a challenge from California pot growers obeying the local medical marijuana laws who were raided by the DEA. That is supposed to be the mechanism by which to decide these questions; go to the Supreme Court. However, it turns out that even if states don't actively prevent the feds from enforcing drug laws, most of drug enforcement is in fact done by local police. If the SFPD isn't going to arrest you for smoking joints or selling potklava in Dolores Park, what's the federal government going to do? Put DEA agents on patrol on street corners in SF? Which leaves the federal government in the situation of having declared something illegal, but without having anywhere near the resources to enforce those laws - and the states passively encouraging disobedience of those laws. Welcome, young folk, to the USA's first real-life (if small) constitutional crisis since Watergate! [1] Leaving aside the conflict between constitutional law and regular law. [2] Under the Commerce Clause, which I think is a bit of a stretch, but hey, that's the Commerce Clause for ya

by dx034 9y ago

uiri 9y ago

Are local, state-chartered banks with no branches outside of their home state just as squeamish when it comes to marijuana businesses?

UncleEntity 9y ago
Feds don't care, all they have to do is find a single dollar bill printed outside the state and they have jurisdiction.
asmithmd1 9y ago
Until the interstate banking act of 1994, all banks had branches only in their own state.
Feniks 9y ago
Banks will be blacklisted if they finance drugdealers. The US war on drugs is no joke and it is international. If your bank participates in the global financial system it can't ignore the US.

qwerty456127 9y ago

> businesses can be legal in states while being illegal under federal law It still sounds a way ridiculous for a thing to be legal and illegal at the same time. There ought to be a non-ambiguous mechanism to decide whether a business is legal or not. As long as the feds let the states decide on their own they shouldn't consider something to be a crime as long as it is done in a state where it is legal. E.g. pot money from Colorado should be considered perfectly clean while pot money from Idaho can be treated as criminal. Doesn't this make sense? > Banking is heavily regulated for a reason (terrorist financing Doesn't seem to help much, terrorists still get everything they need.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> It still sounds a way ridiculous for a thing to be legal and illegal at the same time. It's not legal and illegal at the same time. It is not prohibited by state law, and prohibited by federal law. It is, therefore, illegal, plain and simple. Much like California's prison policies few years back: they were exactly what state law specified, but violated federal law. They weren't in some weird legal-illegal contradictory state, they were illegal. > As long as the feds let the states decide on their own Federal law does not allow states to decide on their own, in fact, it prohibits them from doing so (OTOH, on state authorized medical marijuana, there is also federal law tied to spending bills for the last several years prohibiting federal enforcement that interferes with the state implementation, but an enforcement moratorium isn't legalization.)
azernik 9y ago
In a unitary state (i.e. one without a federal system) you don't have this particular source of ambiguity - the central government passes laws, and they define what's legal [1]. The USA, however, has a federal system; the essence of that system is a separate of powers between Federal and state governments, which means you also have conflicts of power between Federal and state governments over whose law applies. Drug policy is a classic example; so was segregation, for example. In this case, the act in question is the Controlled Substances Act, which makes a whole host of drug offenses federal crimes. It was ruled constitutional [2] in the early 2000s, in response to a challenge from California pot growers obeying the local medical marijuana laws who were raided by the DEA. That is supposed to be the mechanism by which to decide these questions; go to the Supreme Court. However, it turns out that even if states don't actively prevent the feds from enforcing drug laws, most of drug enforcement is in fact done by local police. If the SFPD isn't going to arrest you for smoking joints or selling potklava in Dolores Park, what's the federal government going to do? Put DEA agents on patrol on street corners in SF? Which leaves the federal government in the situation of having declared something illegal, but without having anywhere near the resources to enforce those laws - and the states passively encouraging disobedience of those laws. Welcome, young folk, to the USA's first real-life (if small) constitutional crisis since Watergate! [1] Leaving aside the conflict between constitutional law and regular law. [2] Under the Commerce Clause, which I think is a bit of a stretch, but hey, that's the Commerce Clause for ya