3 ms·

>If anyone has suggestions for how we could do this better in a world where stringent prohibitions exist, we're all ears. The author defined his business as "m

>If anyone has suggestions for how we could do this better in a world where stringent prohibitions exist, we're all ears. The author defined his business as "marijuana regulatory compliance software." Therefore, not enough information is given. If the software was purely for medical marijuana regulatory compliance. Then I think Stripe should continue to work with the company, but as it relates to recreational marijuana that is where Stripe should draw the line. This is not a morale position, but a legal one. Why? >it's still illegal at the federal level Yes; however, one may reasonably rely on the representations of the Government. Moreover, in this particular instance the Gov. (via Attorney General Eric Holder) publicly has taken the legal position that the Federal Gov. would not enforce the Federal Marijuana laws against persons who comply with state medical marijuana laws. What Stripe is dealing with is a Software to ensure compliance with these very laws that the Federal Gov is using as the basis for their Federal enforcement (so long as the Software is limited to medical and not extended into recreational).

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Yes; however, one may reasonably rely on the representations of the Government. In criminal law, the only case that I am aware of where this is a defense against later prosecution is where you reasonably rely on the advice of those responsible for enforcing a particular law that a particular act is not against the law -- a representation by law enforcement that something is a violation of the law but is not a current enforcement priority would not suffice for (indeed, would directly oppose) such a defense. If you have cases, etc., that suggest otherwise, I'd like to see them.
- will_brown 11y ago
  I'm sure we are both speaking of US v. Barker. And your distinction is well taken, i.e. interpretation of law vs enforcement of law. That said based on Holder's statements I think the argument extends to existing case law of mistake of law. A hypothetical Defendant could certainly argue there was reasonable reliance on the misinterpretation of the law. Moreover, argue that Holder's statements were not simply limited to issue of enforcement, but more generally applicability to persons in compliance with State Medical Marijuana laws. Certainly, the Gov. could not simply trick people into committing crimes by saying we will not enforce "x",then begin mass arrests and later at trial argue the defense of mistake of law does not exist because the Gov's official statement was limited to enforcement not interpretation. Again your distinction is correct, and may be pushes this to a case of first impression.
edoceo 11y ago
Our software is intented for the recreational market
- will_brown 11y ago
  I personally wish you the best of luck. I am not sure the impact practically or legally, but obviously lawyer's can advise these businesses (even in the recreational realm) in these states, so maybe pivot your software as legal service software, license it to law firms and have them re-license it to their own clients. Sucks to inject an otherwise unnecessary middleman into the equation, but you already have that with payment processors, banks, card issuers, ect...

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Yes; however, one may reasonably rely on the representations of the Government. In criminal law, the only case that I am aware of where this is a defense against later prosecution is where you reasonably rely on the advice of those responsible for enforcing a particular law that a particular act is not against the law -- a representation by law enforcement that something is a violation of the law but is not a current enforcement priority would not suffice for (indeed, would directly oppose) such a defense. If you have cases, etc., that suggest otherwise, I'd like to see them.

will_brown 11y ago
I'm sure we are both speaking of US v. Barker. And your distinction is well taken, i.e. interpretation of law vs enforcement of law. That said based on Holder's statements I think the argument extends to existing case law of mistake of law. A hypothetical Defendant could certainly argue there was reasonable reliance on the misinterpretation of the law. Moreover, argue that Holder's statements were not simply limited to issue of enforcement, but more generally applicability to persons in compliance with State Medical Marijuana laws. Certainly, the Gov. could not simply trick people into committing crimes by saying we will not enforce "x",then begin mass arrests and later at trial argue the defense of mistake of law does not exist because the Gov's official statement was limited to enforcement not interpretation. Again your distinction is correct, and may be pushes this to a case of first impression.

edoceo 11y ago

Our software is intented for the recreational market

will_brown 11y ago
I personally wish you the best of luck. I am not sure the impact practically or legally, but obviously lawyer's can advise these businesses (even in the recreational realm) in these states, so maybe pivot your software as legal service software, license it to law firms and have them re-license it to their own clients. Sucks to inject an otherwise unnecessary middleman into the equation, but you already have that with payment processors, banks, card issuers, ect...