3 ms·
Yes, federal vs. state. For example, many early dispensary owners - after wading through mountains of red tape, paying license fees, getting inspected, etc - ha
by Liquix 4y ago
Yes, federal vs. state. For example, many early dispensary owners - after wading through mountains of red tape, paying license fees, getting inspected, etc - had to get "creative" with their accounting and investment strategies, as the legal profits their business generated cannot be deposited into (federally monitored) bank accounts. It doesn't make much sense and seems to be arbitrarily enforced.
- adolph 4y agoYes, it is an effort on the part of federal government to create an unfavorable business climate for certain activities that are not otherwise prosecuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
- notch656c 4y agoThey are not legal profits. And what they are doing in getting creative is pretty much vanilla money laundering. But to enforce the law would just invite the more violent cartels to do it instead. The whole system of a patchwork of half-measures is really insanity in the face of the simplicity of just de-scheduling cannabis.
- dekhn 4y agoAh, I see. Dispensaries, not consumers. As pointed elsewhere in this thread, lands under federal jurisdiction also apply federal limits. Hopefully, a bill like this will get passed into law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4591 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/459... and provide much more structure for removing the remaining barriers. At this point it doesn't seem like many people in the fed world really want to do any gatekeeping, but apparently elected reps are more cautious.