8 ms·

Legal Marijuana Businesses Should Have Access to Banks, Holder Says

79 points by asnyder 13y ago

pstuart 13y ago
This, and Obama's recent admission that cannabis is not dangerous is a hint from the administration that the Feds will cave sooner rather than later (in political time, that is). Once enough states go legal they will have no choice in the matter.
- csense 13y ago
  > Once enough states go legal [the federal government] will have no choice in the matter. I beg to differ. If the federal government doesn't like what's going on in these states, they can prosecute individuals and businesses involved in the marijuana business on the federal level. Even if successful, defendants would face months or years of uncertainty and hefty legal bills. Moreover, the prospect of success looks dim: The Supreme Court has already ruled that the infamous universal loophole in the Constitution known as the interstate commerce clause applies even to growing your own food on your own property for your own consumption [1] and that this ruling applies to marijuana even for medicinal purposes [2]. EDIT: Given that the Supreme Court is at least theoretically bound by precedent, and given that precedent apparently allows federal policy to trump state policy in this area even for strictly intra-state activities, the court isn't the right place to address this anyway. If the President is amenable to the idea, having the executive branch proclaim a policy of non-enforcement of federal marijuana statutes in states that have legalized marijuana is certainly a good place to start -- but the next President could unmake such a policy just as easily as this President can make it. Legislation would be a more permanent fix. The most permanent fix of all would be a Constitutional amendment which altered the balance of power between state and federal governments, perhaps explicitly narrowing the scope of the commerce clause. Some of the reasons why this might desirable are given in the O'Connor / Rehnquist dissent [2]. Unfortunately, due to historical events in the US, the notion that the federal government has too much power and states have too little is inexorably tied in political rhetoric to slavery, repression of African-Americans, and Southern right-wing conservatives. Which means that for the foreseeable future, the balance of power between state and federal governments will continue to tilt toward the latter. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - mtgx 13y ago
    How does that work exactly? If federal laws are above state laws, then what's the point of state laws?
    - joe5150 13y ago
      This is the subject of the Tenth Amendment. There are enumerated powers, duties, etc. of the federal government, enumerated proscriptions for the states, and everything else is up to the states.
    - cstejerean 13y ago
      Some matters are designated by the constitution as belong to the federal government, and any powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states. However, within the context of powers given to the federal government by the constitution, federal laws trump state laws when there is a conflict. For the most part these divisions between state and federal responsibilities, but the commerce clause, which gives the federal government to regulate commerce between the states, has been interpreted very broadly to give the federal government broad powers even over issues that are only tangentially related to interstate commerce. The courts have gone back and forth a few times over how broad the commerce clause should be interpreted. If you are interested in the details including some interesting court cases, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
    - csense 13y ago
      Originally, the United States consisted of thirteen British colonies that saw themselves as culturally similar neighboring individual countries in a military alliance against their faraway British overlords. After the war, the former colonies decided that sticking together militarily and speaking with one voice on foreign policy had worked out pretty well for them -- they'd fought a war against the world's number one superpower and won -- so they ought to continue to do so, and the new government ought to set up uniform rules for the way states trade with each other, and establish a single place to register scientific inventions, etc. Sort of like the European Union today, or maybe the European Community that preceded it. The states had just thrown off the shackles of one overlord and weren't about to put themselves under another. After these concerns resulted in an initial agreement so weak as to border on totally ineffective [1], their diplomats tried again [2] [3], and the states agreed but quickly demanded more limitations on federal power [4]. The ideological divide between states that allowed slavery and states that did not was a crisis on slow boil for the better part of the next century, resulting in various political compromises [5] [6] but eventually leading to a major civil war [7]. After the war was won by the side that favored a stronger national government, one of the side effects of the event was setting a precedent of the federal government imposing its policies on unwilling states at gunpoint [8]. (It's not a typo in that reference when it notes the Republicans pushed for radical expansions of African-American rights; both parties basically completely switched sides with respect to racial issues after World War 2 [9]). The sense of national unity was strengthened through the outcome of the war, increased interstate commerce due to the inventions of the Industrial Revolution, and the crises of the Great Depression and the world wars. All of these events gave the federal government reasons to expand its powers [10] [11] [12], in ways which seemed like good ideas at the time but ended up resulting in a much more powerful federal government, and much weaker state governments, than anyone had envisioned. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war#Reconstruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war#Reconstructi... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Unit... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal
- rdl 13y ago
  I wonder if we will see a change before the midterm elections. If it doesn't happen very soon, it will become an election issue. The failed drug war causes enough pain that I'd probably vote single issue to get it changed, above virtually any other congressional issue right now (an exception might be reigning in NSA or election/campaign finance reforms); above immigration, taxes, IP reform, the war in Afghanistan, or guns.
- spindritf 13y ago
  I know this is frowned upon but it seems fair to say that we're brushing against reddit when the top story about marijuana is accompanied by a top comment that starts with "this."
  - icebraining 13y ago
    It wasn't "This.", it was "This [statement] and ..."
- rhizome 13y ago
  My theory is that they will cave almost-last.
erikpukinskis 13y ago
Huge amounts of cash not being deposited surely worries banks' shareholders too.
milesokeefe 13y ago
It makes sense that banks don't want a part in it until it's legal on the federal legal.
excellence24 13y ago
Be your own bank and use bitcoin in the meantime
- Pitarou 13y ago
  I would if I could, but I'm in no position to force my suppliers and customers to use BTC.
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    You can at least store a part of your money in BTC, so you don't have the cash lying around somewhere unsafe.
    - dagw 13y ago
      Honest question. Where would you go if you regularly wanted to buy say $5000-10000 worth of bitcoins using cash? (or for that matter wanted to quickly convert $5000 worth of bitcoins into cash)
      - mschuster91 13y ago
        LocalBitcoins and non-US-based bitcoin exchanges (funding via e.g. Western Union) for the cash-in. The problem remains the cash-out, but for smaller quantities one can use Localbitcoins again.
        dagw 13y ago
        The buy sell spread on LocalBitcoins seems to be in the region of $150-200/bitcoin for cash deals. That doesn't seem too attractive for using bitcoin as an alternative to a checking account.
    - Pitarou 13y ago
      You're solving the wrong problem. The combination of checking account, debit card, and local bank branch helps businesses: - take care of the cash that accumulates on premises. - take care of routine bills. - purchase goods by distance sales The article discusses the loss of these benefits. Bitcoin won't solve them until it's more widely accepted. Sure, you can convert your cash to other stores of value (bitcoin, gold deposits, and so on) and that may be better than keeping cash on premises. But, again, I think most business owners have better things to do with their time than deal with these kinds of transactions, and they don't like the exchange rate risks.
dr_doom 13y ago
Our governor in Texas recently said he is working toward decriminalization. Change is coming. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Gov-Rick-Perry-for-decriminalization-of-pot-5168667.php http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Gov-Rick-Perr...
guelo 13y ago
And yet Holder refuses to reign in his attorney for Northern California, Melinda Haag, who has been aggressively raiding and shutting down legal California dispensaries. She is currently trying to seize the property of a large Oakland dispensary prompting Oakland city government to intervene to try to prevent it. She refuses to drop the prosecution even after everything that has happened in Colorado and Washington and the statements by Obama and Holder.
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  The "Cole Memo",[1] from DAG James Cole, is the most recent directive on prosecution of marijuana distribution in states that have legalized it either for recreational or medical use. It permits weighing the likelihood of illegal trafficking on a number of factors, including size and for profit nature (although it states that this cannot be the only basis for prosecution). Even so, US Attorneys have a great amount of autonomy, and Holder directly "reigning in" Haag could be seen as political interference (it is still a violation of federal law, after all). The US Attorney firing scandal in the Bush Administration was an example of backlash for interfering with this autonomy. [2] [1] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_c...
  - guelo 13y ago
    Her office said they'll continue the crackdown even after the Cole memo[1]. Makes you wonder whats really going on with these guidelines that can be ignored at will. The Bush firing scandal was purely political, it was done to protect Republicans from investigations. That is nowhere in the same league as requesting that prosecution guidelines be followed. And anyway, even in the firing scandal no one got into trouble over it. I don't buy the idea that Holder or Obama are powerless to stop her if they wanted to. http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2013/08/30/us-attorney-melinda-haag-to-continue-crackdown-despite-white-house-directive http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/20...
  - bagels 13y ago
nlh 13y ago
Why is there still such resistance at the highest levels to legalization / decriminalization? Obama and Holder have made it pretty clear (at least personally) that they don't see marijuana as a risk, and yet when the discussion about removing it from Schedule 1 status comes around, the answer seems to be "no". Why is this? Obviously politics, but I'm curious where the big resistance is coming from. What would happen if Obama just said "You know what, we're taking it off Schedule 1 status. Done." Who would fight back and why?
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  If that were to happen, Congress could immediately reschedule it as Schedule 1. They've done this before with GHB when they disagreed with the existing schedule.
  - anonymoushn 13y ago
    They could do that. And Obama could pardon every offender currently in jail and every offender that goes to jail until he leaves office. I wonder why he doesn't.
    - shykes 13y ago
      It's one thing to implement common sense progressive marijuana legislation, and probably quite another to make headlines as "the marijuana president" for possibly months in a row.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Because he cares more about party politics. He is not going to be re-elected of course, but his party still needs to win elections and he won't do anything that he thinks will jeopardize that.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Congress doesn't determine the Schedule, the DEA and FDA do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
spiritplumber 13y ago
Anything that makes the banks less relevant is good in my book.
iamwithnail 13y ago
Absolutely gobsmacked that they don't have access to banks. Incredible scenes.
- icebraining 13y ago
  http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/12/04/166514067/episode-420-the-legal-marijuana-business http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/12/04/166514067/episode-...
reuven 13y ago
I don't live in the US (although I'm a citizen), I don't smoke pot, and never have. But I find this to be a completely fascinating set of circumstances, and one which is leading to confusion and a lack of standardized rule of law. You basically have federal US laws outlawing anything having to do with marijuana, and many people serving jail time for having possessed, grown, or distributed it. You also have states that have said it is completely legal to possess, grow, and distribute it. Right there, that strikes me as a weird combination: Don't federal laws trump state ones? (And wasn't this sort of a central part of the Civil War, that states can't just make up their own laws that contradict federal ones?) The federal government is now saying, "Don't worry about those laws on our books. We won't prosecute you." They're even saying, in this article, that they won't prosecute banks. (Well, after the regulations are clarified.) But that strikes me as an extremely inconsistent message, and one which can change at any point in time. If everyone believes Holder, but then Holder changes his mind a year from now... well, then there's nothing you can do, because he is doing nothing more than enforcing the laws -- laws that have been around for many years, and didn't come as a surprise to anyone. Moreover, what happens when another president or attorney general comes into office, and decides to enforce these laws to the max? You'll have banks, growers, and others suddenly prosecuted for federal crimes just because someone else came into office. I think that these problems are likely to continue, until and unless marijuana use is decriminalized at the federal level. Which, given the state of US politics right now, doesn't strike me as very likely.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  > You basically have federal US laws outlawing anything having to do with marijuana, ... On the theory that growing hemp in your garden is "interstate commerce". The laws are unconstitutional. It's all just vote whoring by the princes of Washington, D.C. Decriminilazation is inevitable. It will take the form of a constitutional amendment, just like the one that stripped the feds of control of alcoholic beverages.
  - jpatokal 13y ago
    Unfortunately there's Supreme Court precedent that growing wheat in your own backyard for your own use is "interstate commerce". Why? Because by growing your own wheat, you're not buying somebody else's wheat, and that affects interstate commerce. boggle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
nmodu 13y ago
One key component that neither the article nor the commenters have explicitly mentioned is the threat that cartels pose to the the legal marijuana business. Since legalization could potentially eat away at a sizable chunk of a cartel's marijuana revenue stream [1], dispensaries already run the risk of being targeted by cartels/gangs. The fact that these dispensaries are forced to hold large cash balances in their back rooms makes them even more appealing as a potential target. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-us-marijuana-legalization-would-hurt-mexican-cartels/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-us-marijuana-legalization-...
kolbe 13y ago
Given how the US has treated JP Morgan in the past couple years, it would be stupid of any bank to partake in any illegal activity simply based on this: "The rules are not expected to give banks a green light to accept deposits and provide other services, but would tell prosecutors not to prioritize cases involving legal marijuana businesses that use banks."
josefresco 13y ago
"To try to keep the banks from catching on, he said, he even sprays his cash with Febreze to disguise the scent of marijuana." Wow, somewhere there's a storage locker (probably more) with a stack of cash just like we all saw on Breaking Bad. Except this cash was made "legally" and yet the owners still have to operate like an illegal enterprise just to pay bills and employees.
ergoproxy 13y ago
Illegal drug businesses already have access to Banks. Quoting from another NYTimes article (January 2, 2013): "LAST month, HSBC admitted in court pleadings that it had allowed big Mexican and Colombian drug cartels to launder at least $881 million." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/how-bankers-help-drug-traffickers-and-terrorists.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/how-bankers-help-d...

79 points by asnyder 13y ago

This, and Obama's recent admission that cannabis is not dangerous is a hint from the administration that the Feds will cave sooner rather than later (in political time, that is). Once enough states go legal they will have no choice in the matter.

csense 13y ago
> Once enough states go legal [the federal government] will have no choice in the matter. I beg to differ. If the federal government doesn't like what's going on in these states, they can prosecute individuals and businesses involved in the marijuana business on the federal level. Even if successful, defendants would face months or years of uncertainty and hefty legal bills. Moreover, the prospect of success looks dim: The Supreme Court has already ruled that the infamous universal loophole in the Constitution known as the interstate commerce clause applies even to growing your own food on your own property for your own consumption [1] and that this ruling applies to marijuana even for medicinal purposes [2]. EDIT: Given that the Supreme Court is at least theoretically bound by precedent, and given that precedent apparently allows federal policy to trump state policy in this area even for strictly intra-state activities, the court isn't the right place to address this anyway. If the President is amenable to the idea, having the executive branch proclaim a policy of non-enforcement of federal marijuana statutes in states that have legalized marijuana is certainly a good place to start -- but the next President could unmake such a policy just as easily as this President can make it. Legislation would be a more permanent fix. The most permanent fix of all would be a Constitutional amendment which altered the balance of power between state and federal governments, perhaps explicitly narrowing the scope of the commerce clause. Some of the reasons why this might desirable are given in the O'Connor / Rehnquist dissent [2]. Unfortunately, due to historical events in the US, the notion that the federal government has too much power and states have too little is inexorably tied in political rhetoric to slavery, repression of African-Americans, and Southern right-wing conservatives. Which means that for the foreseeable future, the balance of power between state and federal governments will continue to tilt toward the latter. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- mtgx 13y ago
  How does that work exactly? If federal laws are above state laws, then what's the point of state laws?
  - joe5150 13y ago
    This is the subject of the Tenth Amendment. There are enumerated powers, duties, etc. of the federal government, enumerated proscriptions for the states, and everything else is up to the states.
  - cstejerean 13y ago
    Some matters are designated by the constitution as belong to the federal government, and any powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states. However, within the context of powers given to the federal government by the constitution, federal laws trump state laws when there is a conflict. For the most part these divisions between state and federal responsibilities, but the commerce clause, which gives the federal government to regulate commerce between the states, has been interpreted very broadly to give the federal government broad powers even over issues that are only tangentially related to interstate commerce. The courts have gone back and forth a few times over how broad the commerce clause should be interpreted. If you are interested in the details including some interesting court cases, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
  - csense 13y ago
    Originally, the United States consisted of thirteen British colonies that saw themselves as culturally similar neighboring individual countries in a military alliance against their faraway British overlords. After the war, the former colonies decided that sticking together militarily and speaking with one voice on foreign policy had worked out pretty well for them -- they'd fought a war against the world's number one superpower and won -- so they ought to continue to do so, and the new government ought to set up uniform rules for the way states trade with each other, and establish a single place to register scientific inventions, etc. Sort of like the European Union today, or maybe the European Community that preceded it. The states had just thrown off the shackles of one overlord and weren't about to put themselves under another. After these concerns resulted in an initial agreement so weak as to border on totally ineffective [1], their diplomats tried again [2] [3], and the states agreed but quickly demanded more limitations on federal power [4]. The ideological divide between states that allowed slavery and states that did not was a crisis on slow boil for the better part of the next century, resulting in various political compromises [5] [6] but eventually leading to a major civil war [7]. After the war was won by the side that favored a stronger national government, one of the side effects of the event was setting a precedent of the federal government imposing its policies on unwilling states at gunpoint [8]. (It's not a typo in that reference when it notes the Republicans pushed for radical expansions of African-American rights; both parties basically completely switched sides with respect to racial issues after World War 2 [9]). The sense of national unity was strengthened through the outcome of the war, increased interstate commerce due to the inventions of the Industrial Revolution, and the crises of the Great Depression and the world wars. All of these events gave the federal government reasons to expand its powers [10] [11] [12], in ways which seemed like good ideas at the time but ended up resulting in a much more powerful federal government, and much weaker state governments, than anyone had envisioned. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war#Reconstruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war#Reconstructi... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Unit... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal
rdl 13y ago
I wonder if we will see a change before the midterm elections. If it doesn't happen very soon, it will become an election issue. The failed drug war causes enough pain that I'd probably vote single issue to get it changed, above virtually any other congressional issue right now (an exception might be reigning in NSA or election/campaign finance reforms); above immigration, taxes, IP reform, the war in Afghanistan, or guns.
spindritf 13y ago
I know this is frowned upon but it seems fair to say that we're brushing against reddit when the top story about marijuana is accompanied by a top comment that starts with "this."
- icebraining 13y ago
  It wasn't "This.", it was "This [statement] and ..."
rhizome 13y ago
My theory is that they will cave almost-last.

erikpukinskis 13y ago

Huge amounts of cash not being deposited surely worries banks' shareholders too.

milesokeefe 13y ago

It makes sense that banks don't want a part in it until it's legal on the federal legal.

excellence24 13y ago

Be your own bank and use bitcoin in the meantime

Pitarou 13y ago
I would if I could, but I'm in no position to force my suppliers and customers to use BTC.
- mschuster91 13y ago
  You can at least store a part of your money in BTC, so you don't have the cash lying around somewhere unsafe.
  - dagw 13y ago
    Honest question. Where would you go if you regularly wanted to buy say $5000-10000 worth of bitcoins using cash? (or for that matter wanted to quickly convert $5000 worth of bitcoins into cash)
    - mschuster91 13y ago
      LocalBitcoins and non-US-based bitcoin exchanges (funding via e.g. Western Union) for the cash-in. The problem remains the cash-out, but for smaller quantities one can use Localbitcoins again.
      - dagw 13y ago
        The buy sell spread on LocalBitcoins seems to be in the region of $150-200/bitcoin for cash deals. That doesn't seem too attractive for using bitcoin as an alternative to a checking account.
  - Pitarou 13y ago
    You're solving the wrong problem. The combination of checking account, debit card, and local bank branch helps businesses: - take care of the cash that accumulates on premises. - take care of routine bills. - purchase goods by distance sales The article discusses the loss of these benefits. Bitcoin won't solve them until it's more widely accepted. Sure, you can convert your cash to other stores of value (bitcoin, gold deposits, and so on) and that may be better than keeping cash on premises. But, again, I think most business owners have better things to do with their time than deal with these kinds of transactions, and they don't like the exchange rate risks.

dr_doom 13y ago

Our governor in Texas recently said he is working toward decriminalization. Change is coming. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Gov-Rick-Perry-for-decriminalization-of-pot-5168667.php http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Gov-Rick-Perr...

guelo 13y ago

And yet Holder refuses to reign in his attorney for Northern California, Melinda Haag, who has been aggressively raiding and shutting down legal California dispensaries. She is currently trying to seize the property of a large Oakland dispensary prompting Oakland city government to intervene to try to prevent it. She refuses to drop the prosecution even after everything that has happened in Colorado and Washington and the statements by Obama and Holder.

ewoodrich 13y ago
The "Cole Memo",[1] from DAG James Cole, is the most recent directive on prosecution of marijuana distribution in states that have legalized it either for recreational or medical use. It permits weighing the likelihood of illegal trafficking on a number of factors, including size and for profit nature (although it states that this cannot be the only basis for prosecution). Even so, US Attorneys have a great amount of autonomy, and Holder directly "reigning in" Haag could be seen as political interference (it is still a violation of federal law, after all). The US Attorney firing scandal in the Bush Administration was an example of backlash for interfering with this autonomy. [2] [1] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_c...
- guelo 13y ago
  Her office said they'll continue the crackdown even after the Cole memo[1]. Makes you wonder whats really going on with these guidelines that can be ignored at will. The Bush firing scandal was purely political, it was done to protect Republicans from investigations. That is nowhere in the same league as requesting that prosecution guidelines be followed. And anyway, even in the firing scandal no one got into trouble over it. I don't buy the idea that Holder or Obama are powerless to stop her if they wanted to. http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2013/08/30/us-attorney-melinda-haag-to-continue-crackdown-despite-white-house-directive http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/20...
- bagels 13y ago

nlh 13y ago

Why is there still such resistance at the highest levels to legalization / decriminalization? Obama and Holder have made it pretty clear (at least personally) that they don't see marijuana as a risk, and yet when the discussion about removing it from Schedule 1 status comes around, the answer seems to be "no". Why is this? Obviously politics, but I'm curious where the big resistance is coming from. What would happen if Obama just said "You know what, we're taking it off Schedule 1 status. Done." Who would fight back and why?

ewoodrich 13y ago
If that were to happen, Congress could immediately reschedule it as Schedule 1. They've done this before with GHB when they disagreed with the existing schedule.
- anonymoushn 13y ago
  They could do that. And Obama could pardon every offender currently in jail and every offender that goes to jail until he leaves office. I wonder why he doesn't.
  - shykes 13y ago
    It's one thing to implement common sense progressive marijuana legislation, and probably quite another to make headlines as "the marijuana president" for possibly months in a row.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Because he cares more about party politics. He is not going to be re-elected of course, but his party still needs to win elections and he won't do anything that he thinks will jeopardize that.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Congress doesn't determine the Schedule, the DEA and FDA do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

spiritplumber 13y ago

Anything that makes the banks less relevant is good in my book.

iamwithnail 13y ago

Absolutely gobsmacked that they don't have access to banks. Incredible scenes.

icebraining 13y ago
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/12/04/166514067/episode-420-the-legal-marijuana-business http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/12/04/166514067/episode-...

reuven 13y ago

I don't live in the US (although I'm a citizen), I don't smoke pot, and never have. But I find this to be a completely fascinating set of circumstances, and one which is leading to confusion and a lack of standardized rule of law. You basically have federal US laws outlawing anything having to do with marijuana, and many people serving jail time for having possessed, grown, or distributed it. You also have states that have said it is completely legal to possess, grow, and distribute it. Right there, that strikes me as a weird combination: Don't federal laws trump state ones? (And wasn't this sort of a central part of the Civil War, that states can't just make up their own laws that contradict federal ones?) The federal government is now saying, "Don't worry about those laws on our books. We won't prosecute you." They're even saying, in this article, that they won't prosecute banks. (Well, after the regulations are clarified.) But that strikes me as an extremely inconsistent message, and one which can change at any point in time. If everyone believes Holder, but then Holder changes his mind a year from now... well, then there's nothing you can do, because he is doing nothing more than enforcing the laws -- laws that have been around for many years, and didn't come as a surprise to anyone. Moreover, what happens when another president or attorney general comes into office, and decides to enforce these laws to the max? You'll have banks, growers, and others suddenly prosecuted for federal crimes just because someone else came into office. I think that these problems are likely to continue, until and unless marijuana use is decriminalized at the federal level. Which, given the state of US politics right now, doesn't strike me as very likely.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> You basically have federal US laws outlawing anything having to do with marijuana, ... On the theory that growing hemp in your garden is "interstate commerce". The laws are unconstitutional. It's all just vote whoring by the princes of Washington, D.C. Decriminilazation is inevitable. It will take the form of a constitutional amendment, just like the one that stripped the feds of control of alcoholic beverages.
- jpatokal 13y ago
  Unfortunately there's Supreme Court precedent that growing wheat in your own backyard for your own use is "interstate commerce". Why? Because by growing your own wheat, you're not buying somebody else's wheat, and that affects interstate commerce. boggle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

nmodu 13y ago

One key component that neither the article nor the commenters have explicitly mentioned is the threat that cartels pose to the the legal marijuana business. Since legalization could potentially eat away at a sizable chunk of a cartel's marijuana revenue stream [1], dispensaries already run the risk of being targeted by cartels/gangs. The fact that these dispensaries are forced to hold large cash balances in their back rooms makes them even more appealing as a potential target. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-us-marijuana-legalization-would-hurt-mexican-cartels/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-us-marijuana-legalization-...

kolbe 13y ago

Given how the US has treated JP Morgan in the past couple years, it would be stupid of any bank to partake in any illegal activity simply based on this: "The rules are not expected to give banks a green light to accept deposits and provide other services, but would tell prosecutors not to prioritize cases involving legal marijuana businesses that use banks."

josefresco 13y ago

"To try to keep the banks from catching on, he said, he even sprays his cash with Febreze to disguise the scent of marijuana." Wow, somewhere there's a storage locker (probably more) with a stack of cash just like we all saw on Breaking Bad. Except this cash was made "legally" and yet the owners still have to operate like an illegal enterprise just to pay bills and employees.

ergoproxy 13y ago

Illegal drug businesses already have access to Banks. Quoting from another NYTimes article (January 2, 2013): "LAST month, HSBC admitted in court pleadings that it had allowed big Mexican and Colombian drug cartels to launder at least $881 million." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/how-bankers-help-drug-traffickers-and-terrorists.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/how-bankers-help-d...