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

141–150 of 247 posts

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

#141

Post by perardi »

This is frustrating, because I think it’s a near certainty marijuana will be legalized federally. If I was a betting man, which I’m not, certainly not enough to mess with prediction markets, I’d call myself 95% certain.

All this ambiguity is just grinding inefficiency in the meantime. Look at all that states where this is legal or decriminalized:

https://disa.com/maps/marijuana-legality-by-state

And even in states where it’s still illegal, I really have trouble believing they are spending a whole lot of time enforcing that. States have legalized it, they have seen great tax revenue, they have not seen huge swatches of marijuana-related crimes and medical emergencies (though I admit that’s hard to pick out above the noise of all the other stuff over the past few years). It’s going to happen. Everyone knows it’s going to happen. But we have to go through this song and dance where we keep it illegal, because reasons.

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

#142

Post by UnpossibleJim »

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…

>>In any case, it's pretty silly to blame the party that's on your sideNot to be a complete downer, but there is so much special interest money involved in our political system, neither the Democrats or the Republicans are on your side. They are both on the moneyed interest side. These political footballs are, for the most part, to string along voters on "hot button" issues to keep the public disinterested on the numerous things that these parties actually agree on, like expanded military spending, global expansionism, corporate tax reduction, lessening monopoly laws, reducing banking restrictions, reducing spending on interstate infrastructure, cutting education spending and restricting the ability for fair and equal elections through redistricting. All of these (and more I can't think of) are bipartisan efforts.

Sorry... I shouldn't watch the news. It's a bummer =)

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

#143

Post by kneebonian »

sidlls wrote: post #129
kneebonian wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

You're conflating a number of completely unrelated items, at least: individual motivations, catalysts, and the broad-strokes reasons a group fights in a war. The civil war was fought because the southern states wanted to maintain their slave economy. It is as clear, cut and dried as that. Individual southerners may have fought for glory, for Suzy to love them, for money, or for any other reason, but the prosecutors o…

Your wrong. The Civil war was fought because the confederate states of America fired on Fort Sumter, the establishment of the confederacy the freeing of the slaves all of those happened as a consequence or prior to the actual war.

If you want to get that reductive than I am right. The Civil war happened because the Confederate States of America fired on Fort Sumter and everything else was ancillary. Just like WW1 happened because the Archduke Franz Ferdinand got assassinated.

Youre argument is overly reductive and your ignorant of history

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

#144

Post by BurningFrog »

wyldfire wrote: post #119
gamegoblin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> both parties benefit from it. Is that really the case? It is a bias towards the status quo. Regardless, IMO the constituents represented by those parties don't benefit from it.

> It is a bias towards the status quo.

Not a fan of the status quo, but with two largely insane parties fighting for power, I'm thankful for moderating forces.

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

#145

Post by loeg »

perardi wrote: post #141

This is frustrating, because I think it’s a near certainty marijuana will be legalized federally. If I was a betting man, which I’m not, certainly not enough to mess with prediction markets, I’d call myself 95% certain. All this ambiguity is just grinding inefficiency in the meantime. Look at all that states where this is legal or decriminalized: https://disa.com/maps/marijuana-legality-by-state And even in states wh…

> States have legalized it, they have seen great tax revenue, they have not seen huge swatches of marijuana-related crimes and medical emergencies.

States have seen increased theft from marijuana businesses. Both because they need to hold a lot of cash (very related to being locked out of banking) and because the weed itself has some resale value on the black market.

(I still think legalization is obviously worth it, just want to clarify that particular part of your statement.)

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

#146

Post by BurningFrog »

zdragnar wrote: post #91
Doubtme wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cannabis banking came up on this 1.7 trillion dollar bill that just got passed. It wasn't included thanks to Republicans.

I don't think it is unreasonable for them to have blocked it, for the simple reason it would allow banks to engage in businesses that are violating federal law. The only true policy is a coherent policy- anything else is just the whims of whoever holds executive fiat. It should just be fully legalized.

If a criminal has a bank account, it's insane to me that that means the bank is engaged in a criminal business.

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

#147

Post by eldritch_4ier »

perardi wrote: post #141

This is frustrating, because I think it’s a near certainty marijuana will be legalized federally. If I was a betting man, which I’m not, certainly not enough to mess with prediction markets, I’d call myself 95% certain. All this ambiguity is just grinding inefficiency in the meantime. Look at all that states where this is legal or decriminalized: https://disa.com/maps/marijuana-legality-by-state And even in states wh…

I think right now is exactly where I want weed to be in society: a taboo, not normalized in the mainstream, you get in trouble if you’re stupid with it, but otherwise if you’re just an occasional user you can get it just fine. This is pretty much perfect to me.

What I don’t want is broad normalization of it. Maybe some cultures do just fine with that, but the trend is America has been to maximize the individual liberty without any concept of duty or decency to others, and the obvious consequence is rampant abuse and widespread degeneracy that everyone is subjected to whether they consent to it or not. In other words, I don’t think we’re mature enough as a society to have easy access to the cookie jar without deciding to eat cookies for every meal. Walk through the streets of NYC or SF to see what I mean. People don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves, and giving them more tools to be self indulgent while avoiding social responsibility + spewing externalities is just a no-go at the moment.

I imagine a world with legal weed is a lot like a world with legal porn: it’s everywhere, even children get exposed to it insanely young, people treat it like “a human right” and so fight any reasonable restrictions made to curb the broader social effects, and the externalities hit everyone whether they like it or not.

Not every vice needs to be legal. Keep it illegal and weaken enforcement. Keep it a taboo, and for those who really need it they can still find it.

And for the record: I have edibles at home. I’m not against responsible weed use at all, I just don’t think society at large will be responsible users and I don’t want to live in a society full of that. Porn went through the exact same evolution as weed is and now it’s everywhere

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

#148

Post by salawat »

sgjohnson wrote: post #53
adam_arthur wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s illegal everywhere due to federal law… states altering their laws doesn’t change that. The federal government just doesn’t enforce it in most cases. The DEA can start enforcing tomorrow if they wanted

> The DEA can enforce and arrest people tomorrow if they wanted I’m sure it would go down really really well if the DEA started arresting people for simple possession in states where it’s perfectly legal.

The problem is the process of producing it (manufacture) and selling it (commerce), are inextricably tied to Interstate commerce, thanks to some stupid case about how wheat grown for intra-state non-commerce is inextricably still covered by Federal jurisdiction because that intra-state non-sale effects the interstate market.

I kid you not. Link below, read it.

The same logic that is applied to making production of fully automatic weapons for personal use a no-no in a State that explicitly allows it is the exact same legal logic that makes THC prosecutable at will by the Feds.

You can't take out one without taking out the other, because they both stem from the most abusable pieces of jurisprudence ever admitted to the U.S. code.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Enjoy. If you are a U.S. citizen, this is the case that basically gave the Feds carte blanche to drop in on anything because of whatever tenuous excuse the judges/DA's in question decided to apply to link it to Interstate Commerce.

I have come across few cases that make me scream more than Wickard v. Filburn.

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

#150

Post by jonathanlb »

BurningFrog wrote: post #146
zdragnar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is unreasonable for them to have blocked it, for the simple reason it would allow banks to engage in businesses that are violating federal law. The only true policy is a coherent policy- anything else is just the whims of whoever holds executive fiat. It should just be fully legalized.

If a criminal has a bank account, it's insane to me that that means the bank is engaged in a criminal business.

In some cases it is. Wachovia (acquired by Wells Fargo) laundered drug money: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico...

> Primarily, these involved deposits of traveller's cheques in euros. They had sequential numbers and deposited larger amounts of money than any innocent travelling person would need, with inadequate or no KYC [know your client] information on them and what seemed to a trained eye to be dubious signatures. "It was basic work," he says. "They didn't answer the obvious questions: 'Is the transaction real, or does it look synthetic? Does the traveller's cheque meet the protocols? Is it all there, and if not, why not?'"

Post reply on HN