Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 247 posts

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#31

Post by mynameisvlad »

shanebellone wrote: post #8
acapybara wrote: post #2

For these businesses, I'd set up something like a myNode [1] or a RaspiBlitz [2]. This way, all the merchant needs is an internet connection. Granted, customers will need something like BLW [3]. If they've got no other options to pay the merchant, then that should be sufficient. Accept either physical Federal Reserve Notes, or decentralized electronic payments. 1. https://mynodebtc.com/ 2. https://shop.fulmo.org/rasp…

They'll never accept crypto. They generally take cash, debit card, and a prepaid debit card (something prepaid like that) and use modern PoS. Bank access is coming soon too.

Some local stores actually tried crypto back when Bitcoin was exploding. It was so inconvenient and volatile that it only lasted months.

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#32

Post by djbusby »

jjulius wrote: post #20
shanebellone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll never accept crypto. They generally take cash, debit card, and a prepaid debit card (something prepaid like that) and use modern PoS. Bank access is coming soon too.

>... debit card... Technically, at least in CA/OR, they're often just processed as an ATM withdrawal that occurs at point of sale.

Cashless ATM is now blocked

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#33

Post by jjulius »

kube-system wrote: post #30
jjulius wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it inaccurate? Cannabis is legal in much of the country (at the state level) and the businesses are blocked from much of the banking system because it's federally illegal. Edit: OP, if you're going to completely change the last sentence of your post after people respond, which then changes your point, at least highlight that you've made a significant change.

Cannabis is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act everywhere within the US. The feds are voluntarily [0] turning a blind eye to states that have changed their own state laws... but federal law has not changed. 0: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/305201382913275685...

Fully aware. This discrepancy is exactly what this article is about.

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#34

Post by Dawnyhf2 »

funstuff007 wrote: post #3

Didn't we fight the bloodiest war in the history of this country based on which laws (State or Federal) had primacy? And it's still not settled due to Obama's weed policies.

I noticed there’s a huge push on this site to link Obama with negative policy’s. Look how many comments are flat out confused by the above post. It’s literally just a name drop. Like “something-something holocaust something-something George W Bush” level of criticism, not really adding anything to the conversation.

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#35

Post by dragonwriter »

nonethewiser wrote: post #28
tyre wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the US fought a war over slavery. The "states' rights" framing of the US Civil War skips over which specific right the southerns states were willing to die for. It wasn't abstract, though it was papered over as such. The history of later southern political leaders (e.g. Richard Russell) confirms that the fundamental issue was the enslavement (ideal, for them) or segregation and oppression of blacks in the US. Whi…

> No, the US fought a war over slavery. Seems to me these aren't mutually exclusive. I find your argument to be overly concerned with injustice of slavery. No one is defending it. And the southern states absolutely did not want to adhere to the laws set by the northern states.

> Seems to me these aren't mutually exclusive

In the abstract, they are not.

Its just that the slavery explanation is factually true and the other is false, though it represents part of one sides propaganda (and more strongly that of the retrospective sympathizers of that side than the actual side, which was quite explicit about slavery specifically as the motivation.)

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#36

Post by [deleted] »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #27

UN has moved to stop resticting it's use for medicinal purposes, but it is still banned for private consumption. As a signatory to the UN drugs convention, US has voted againsy decriminalisation. This is a clumsy summary, ANAL https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1079132

[deleted]

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#37

Post by jjulius »

djbusby wrote: post #32
jjulius wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... debit card... Technically, at least in CA/OR, they're often just processed as an ATM withdrawal that occurs at point of sale.

Cashless ATM is now blocked

I purchased via this method in Oregon this morning. Perhaps it'll change here soon.

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#38

Post by Retric »

nonethewiser wrote: post #28
tyre wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the US fought a war over slavery. The "states' rights" framing of the US Civil War skips over which specific right the southerns states were willing to die for. It wasn't abstract, though it was papered over as such. The history of later southern political leaders (e.g. Richard Russell) confirms that the fundamental issue was the enslavement (ideal, for them) or segregation and oppression of blacks in the US. Whi…

> No, the US fought a war over slavery. Seems to me these aren't mutually exclusive. I find your argument to be overly concerned with injustice of slavery. No one is defending it. And the southern states absolutely did not want to adhere to the laws set by the northern states.

It’s mutually exclusive because it wasn’t the internal rights of individual states that set off the civil war, but the question of which way western states would be. In other words southern states wanted to impose rules on the union outside their borders.

Florida trying to tell California what to do is by definition not a states rights issue.

Re: Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

#39

Post by prottog »

nonethewiser wrote: post #29
ksherlock wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Interstate commerce clause is the federal government's loophole for this inconvenient fact.

The same interstate commerce clause that the federal government interpreted as giving them regulatory authority over intrastate non-commerce, in Wickard v. Filburn.
Post reply on HN