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

101–110 of 247 posts

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

#101

Post by AlbertCory »

aliqot wrote: post #65
AlbertCory wrote: post #61

In the first episode of Tulsa King (which is on a streaming service, so I haven't watched any more of it), Sylvester Stallone is a mobster who gets out of prison after a long term, and is surprised to see a marijuana dealership. He realizes that they must keep a lot of cash, because banks won't deal with them. So he sees his opportunity and becomes their "partner." If it's a legal business, banks should not discrimin…

state legality and federal legality are two different parts of the equation. A store is licensed by the state, the bank is overseen by the federal jurisdiction, which has no reciprocity with the state for marijuana.

I'm aware of that. That was a "common sense" argument, not a legal one.

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

#102

Post by xeromal »

wdb wrote: post #85

Still amazing that the country that started the drugs war is more liberal on this subject than The Netherlands were cannabis is illegal

This is kind of a tangent, not so great point, but I listen to Dan Carlin who is a pop-style historian who isn't really credentialed but manages to tell history in a fun way.

One of his episodes involves a medieval Germany who has outlawed a ton of things and has tortured people hanging high in the sky off a massive church. One of his points in the episode is that if you end up making too many things illegal, people just stop caring and continue to do the illegal thing. Makes me wonder if my country's heavy handed approached just ended up making people more curious and now cannabis is very popular.

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

#103

Post by quadrifoliate »

scifibestfi wrote: post #56
gamegoblin wrote: post #16

Prediction: Dems will make a move on federal legalization in the months before the 2024 presidential election, or at least make federal legalization a major election issue. A lot of right wing / libertarian adjacent people were hoping Trump would come out in favor of it as a 2020 election issue, to outflank Biden on at least one issue. It didn't happen, but I bet it would have made the election a bit closer -- it wou…

It sucks how everything is a political football instead of just doing the right thing. They had full control and could have legalized it. But no, they keep holding onto just to drag voters along every election.

It sucks how uneducated about basic things US voters are.

The Affordable Care Act is probably the most impactful law passed by Democrats in the recent past. In a survey of 2000 voters, a staggering thirty-five percent did not know [1] that the ACA and the colloquial "Obamacare" were the same thing. Bizarrely, an additional number didn't know that 'Obamacare repealed = ACA repealed'.

I cannot blame either party for playing political football when dealing with this sort of electorate.

----------------------------------------

[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/02/11/514732211/obamacare-and-affor...

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

#104

Post by gamegoblin »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #94
scifibestfi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks how everything is a political football instead of just doing the right thing. They had full control and could have legalized it. But no, they keep holding onto just to drag voters along every election.

>They had full control and could have legalized it That's not how the Senate works. A 50-50 "majority" is not full control. In any case, it's pretty silly to blame the party that's on your side for not being able to overcome the bad-faith obstructionism of the opposing party. It's not about political "footballs", it's about having finite time and public attention to be able to get things done. If every single fight h…

Yes, the current fillibuster rules require a 60-40 supermajority to get anything done, but the fillubuster rule itself can be changed with a simple majority of 50%+1. But the incentive structure is not there to actually change this rule -- both parties benefit from it.

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

#105

Post by kneebonian »

sidlls wrote: post #42
nonethewiser wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The context is important: southern states were fighting specifically for the right to continue to enslave people. Any argument that doesn't focus on slavery in the context of the civil war we had isn't valid, or at least is incomplete, because it elides the reason for the war in the first place.

So I've been a big fan of studying warfare in all it's dimensions throughout my life, including the causes of various conflicts, one thing I gave come to realize is that we talk about "the reason" for a war or "the cause" but there really isn't a single cause or reason, because for a war to happen you have to have thousands of people willing to march off and die and each of them have their own reasons and their own cause they were fighting for. I mean for Johnny Scott who marched off to war the reason for the war for him was to win a medal so Size Bradshaw will finally love him. Or the Crusades there were probably plenty of people who the war was about going and fighting for absolution of their sins by reclaiming the holy land.

At the end of the day there are as many causes for the war as there are people participating, there can be various factors that led to the outbreak of the war, and sometimes we are lucky and they are clear cut, but often there will be several different prominent factors and trying to attribute the war to any one of them is just historical masturbatory navel gazing, or more insidiously trying to rewrite history to fit an agenda.

So those who claim the Civil War was only about slavery are just as disingenuous as those who claim the Civil war was only about states rights. Ultimately these were both major contributing factors and trying to attach primacy to one of them is unproductive and pointless.

If you want a perfect example go ahead and tell me what caused WW1.

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

#106

Post by kube-system »

33955985 wrote: post #93
kube-system wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is inherently technical. "Technically illegal" is simply "illegal". And it is completely false that this only affects the "industry itself". There are other federal laws that concern the rights and privileges of people who use illegal drugs. For instance, if you use federally illegal drugs, you may not legally purchase (or possess) a firearm. There are other examples in terms of employment, etc.

The law outside its application is meaningless. That’s why there’s so many “Did you know it’s illegal to wash your aardvark on Wednesday” laws still on the books. Regarding drugs and guns — how is that enforced? Can’t see how a gun dealer would know. Also, employers can drug test for nicotine, which is legal, and deny employmet.

I picked those examples specifically because they are enforced.

> Regarding drugs and guns — how is that enforced? Can’t see how a gun dealer would know.

All gun dealers must record form ATF form 4473 for each gun purchase, which specifically asks questions about drug use. If you say yes, you will be denied the gun. If you lie, you may face up to 5 years in prison plus $10K fines. If your state has a medical marijuana registry, this may be cross referenced. If you are later found to be in possession of a gun and marijuana (or evidence of use like a marijuana card), you are a "prohibited person" in illegal possession of a firearm. These still happen, they just get reported as "weapons charges" because that's what they are.

> Also, employers can drug test for nicotine, which is legal, and deny employmet.

Federal jobs (or federally regulated jobs, i.e. being a pilot[0]) don't ban it.

0: https://www.kgns.tv/content/news/Colorado-pilot-fired-after-...

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

#107

Post by satellites »

cm2187 wrote: post #68
AlbertCory wrote: post #61

In the first episode of Tulsa King (which is on a streaming service, so I haven't watched any more of it), Sylvester Stallone is a mobster who gets out of prison after a long term, and is surprised to see a marijuana dealership. He realizes that they must keep a lot of cash, because banks won't deal with them. So he sees his opportunity and becomes their "partner." If it's a legal business, banks should not discrimin…

There are also lots of references to being "raided by the feds" which I don't understand. Is it still a federal offense even though it is legal at the state level?

Yes. It’s farcical at this point.

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

#108

Post by 10000truths »

33955985 wrote: post #93
kube-system wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is inherently technical. "Technically illegal" is simply "illegal". And it is completely false that this only affects the "industry itself". There are other federal laws that concern the rights and privileges of people who use illegal drugs. For instance, if you use federally illegal drugs, you may not legally purchase (or possess) a firearm. There are other examples in terms of employment, etc.

The law outside its application is meaningless. That’s why there’s so many “Did you know it’s illegal to wash your aardvark on Wednesday” laws still on the books. Regarding drugs and guns — how is that enforced? Can’t see how a gun dealer would know. Also, employers can drug test for nicotine, which is legal, and deny employmet.

An "unenforced" law is more dangerous than a repealed law because it provides the opportunity for selective enforcement. A perfect avenue for discrimination of protected classes, parallel construction to bypass due process, and other such abuses of people's civil liberties with impunity - all stemming from pushing people into the precarious status of "you technically violated the law but we'll ignore it as long as..."

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

#109

Post by sebzim4500 »

kube-system wrote: post #74
33955985 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not misleading. It reflects the lived experience of most Americans. That it’s “technically illegal” under federal law means nothing to anyone except — as the article points out — for the industry itself. And since when were national laws made by consumers? Federal legalization will happen when a big industry partner wants it it be legalized and not before.

The law is inherently technical. "Technically illegal" is simply "illegal". And it is completely false that this only affects the "industry itself". There are other federal laws that concern the rights and privileges of people who use illegal drugs. For instance, if you use federally illegal drugs, you may not legally purchase (or possess) a firearm. There are other examples in terms of employment, etc.

What is written on some bit of paper somewhere is irrelevant. What matters is what is being enforced.

If you can wave cannabis around in front of a policeman and have no fear of repercussions than it is legal in practice.

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

#110

Post by shkkmo »

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...

I suspect there is also a desire to avoid creating cases that might reach the Supreme Court and challenge enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act based on several potential constitutional issues. This is a not just a fringe legal theory, but one endorsed by several supreme court justices in their dissents to Gonzales v. Raich. I think there is a good chance that if the right case made it to this supreme court, the federal government would lose.

> Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently.

> If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.

I would also note that the Cole memo was rescinded in 2018 by Sessions and decisions about enforcement were pushed back onto federal DAs. I do not believe that Garland has reversed Sessions memo so the blind eye policy is informal.

Post reply on HN