Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah I'm glad they changed it, it wouldn't have made a huge amount of sense otherwise.

In Washington and Colorado it's legal to grow and sell with the correct paperwork.

Thats the thing, its not legal. Not according to the Fed.

 LordofHats wrote:
Come on, lets give the banks a little credit beyond 'selling pot is bad.' There's a lot of uncertainty in how this will play out. Banks are subject to federal regulation, and who knows that the next congress or administration or the courts might do about 'legal' weed.

Agreed. The banks are just doing what good governance dictates, and staying clear of a really murky legal area.

Its the legal mess that needs to be fixed, and I'm guessing that will happen some time in the next decade or two, as people realise that states will legal marijuana sales haven't collapsed in to hellish anarchies.


In the meantime, anyone in the Seattle area looking to make a share of 50 grand for a day's work? Must bring your own automatic weapon.

Must bring your own automatic weapon.

Is Nike acceptable?

As a result, banks, including state-chartered ones, are reluctant to provide traditional services to marijuana businesses. They fear that federal regulators and law enforcement authorities might punish them, with measures like large fines, for violating prohibitions on money-laundering, among other federal laws and regulations.

Ha ha ha ha yeah, okay. Sure.

If you're going to legalize something at least go the whole hog, and make it so that the businesses can actually function.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If you're going to legalize something at least go the whole hog, and make it so that the businesses can actually function.

That would require federal legislation.

Perhaps the States in question should have been more concerned about having the legal infrastructure in place before pot became legal.

As I understood the report, the problem the banks have is that they have to report large and frequent deposits of cash due to money laundering laws.

There must be a solution or what would Las Vegas do?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understood the report, the problem the banks have is that they have to report large and frequent deposits of cash due to money laundering laws.

There must be a solution or what would Las Vegas do?

The problem the banks have is that they're federally regulated, and marijuana is not a legal substance, according to the federal government.

Bear in mind the federal government could step in at any time and say, "By the way, Washington and Colorado, weed's not actually legal. We're arresting you all." They won't, but they could.

I can see why Banks are exercising caution, after all the legislation is brand new and is still in the experimental stage. It’s going to be very risky to invest in a business that man well not be legal by this time next year. Most Banks probably won’t touch it for a while.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understood the report, the problem the banks have is that they have to report large and frequent deposits of cash due to money laundering laws.

Not quite, because the report mentions the suppliers in question also being unable to access eftpos facilities, so the banks are clearly reluctant to provide any kind of services to these businesses.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Perhaps the States in question should have been more concerned about having the legal infrastructure in place before pot became legal.

Unfortunately the laws run along the gap between state and federal law as I understand. That is the problem with living in a federal country, gray areas in law and jurisdiction. And in this case, as I understand it, in the states in question the change in law was widely wanted and popular. Unfortunately as a nation the opposite is true. This leaves your state government in a difficult place. Agree a law that MIGHT be illegal and annoy the national electorate or refuse a law that MIGHT be legal and annoy your local electorate.

If you guys get fed up with this silliness at any time your always welcome back. You just have to agree to apologizes for destroying all that tea.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Banks are the bastion of morality after all. If they don't keep us right, who will?

Its not like banks are laundering cocaine money...




Hey who said that?

 azazel the cat wrote:

As a result, banks, including state-chartered ones, are reluctant to provide traditional services to marijuana businesses. They fear that federal regulators and law enforcement authorities might punish them, with measures like large fines, for violating prohibitions on money-laundering, among other federal laws and regulations.

Ha ha ha ha yeah, okay. Sure.

You absolutely don't know what you're talking about.
Banks steer clear of any drug business in the US that can be identified as such. Most banks also steer clear of cigarettes, the adult whatevery, and firearms manufacturers for reputational risk reasons.

Now a state only bank or credit union would have more leeway, but again can be subject to regulation.

I would imagine he was referencing the OWS talking point regarding the US government never prosecuting banks for anything, as evidenced by the fact that nobody ever went to jail for causing the housing bubble to burst.

Its important to violate an actual law before being thrown in jail, especially when the govenrment itself is forcing compliance with their cool new scheme to loan to parties that are not creditworthy.

Lots of banks have been hammered in the past about laundering money for illegal purposes, which is what this is.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its important to violate an actual law before being thrown in jail, especially when the govenrment itself is forcing compliance with their cool new scheme to loan to parties that are not creditworthy.

Lots of banks have been hammered in the past about laundering money for illegal purposes, which is what this is.

Eh.... point of fact, several major banks did break the law in the course of their dealings in the housing bubble. It's just the practice of making loans to people with bad credit itself wasn't illegal.


And it's not illegal in the states that have legalized it. This is one of the more interesting cases in a while of state law vs Federal law. It also shows that when the states refuse to enforce Federal Law, the Fed is pretty powerless to do anything about it short of order in the National Guard.

States don't generally enforce Federal law.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its important to violate an actual law before being thrown in jail, especially when the govenrment itself is forcing compliance with their cool new scheme to loan to parties that are not creditworthy.

Now when the jury has the power of outrage on their side!

Juries can indeed be interesting. In their defense, they only hear what they are allowed to hear by the court, and can only charge/decide based on their charge instructions.

I'd love to serve on a jury sometime.

"Your honor we know the defendant has only been charged with speeding, but the jury has a question, a two part question: A. can we sentence them to hanging?; and B would we have to use our own rope?"

I don't think I want you on my jury...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't think I want you on my jury...

On the other hand, I believe absolutely nothing The State says. You might want me after all...

"You honor, the jury's funmeter is low. Can you liven this thing up a little by having the bailiff punch out one of the lawyers?"

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't think I want you on my jury...

On the other hand, I believe absolutely nothing The State says. You might want me after all...

"You honor, the jury's funmeter is low. Can you liven this thing up a little by having the bailiff punch out one of the lawyers?"

"No your honor, I did not burn down GW's main office, although if I did they would have completely deserved it."

 Frazzled wrote:
States don't generally enforce Federal law.

Actually they do. Without the cooperation of state law enforcement, the number of Federal agents is pitifully small. Admittedly, this is the res, but I've seen DEA agents actually arrested (they charged them with vandalism) for trying to make busts where pot is legal.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
States don't generally enforce Federal law.

Actually they do. Without the cooperation of state law enforcement, the number of Federal agents is pitifully small. Admittedly, this is the res, but I've seen DEA agents actually arrested (they charged them with vandalism) for trying to make busts where pot is legal.

Actually they generally don't. Hence the reason the FedGov is suing border states for enforcing Federal Immigration laws.

 djones520 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
States don't generally enforce Federal law.

Actually they do. Without the cooperation of state law enforcement, the number of Federal agents is pitifully small. Admittedly, this is the res, but I've seen DEA agents actually arrested (they charged them with vandalism) for trying to make busts where pot is legal.

Actually they generally don't. Hence the reason the FedGov is suing border states for enforcing Federal Immigration laws.

What he said.
The Fed doesn't generally interact with state controllers in regards to banking regulation.

 djones520 wrote:

Actually they generally don't. Hence the reason the FedGov is suing border states for enforcing Federal Immigration laws.

*sgh*


The states employ north of 700k Police officers, the Fed approx (last I read) has about 44k sworn officers for all agencies. Given the expansion of Federal police powers under the Patriot Act, this creates as situation where the Fed simply does not have the manpower.

Most federal cases come about because state law enforcement discovered a Federal crime in the midst of another investigation. Or had it become a federal crime when the suspect fled, etc. Without state lw enforcement cooperation, they don't have much of a case, and might not even learn about it. This was the issue with Youngstown, Ohio, where the local and even state police were in bed with the Mob. To say they were uncooperative with Federal investigators would be an understatement. What normally would have been a relatively simple operation instead ended up taking five years+ and lead to a surprisingly large number of overturned convictions.

Frazz does have a point about bank regulations, though.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Actually they generally don't. Hence the reason the FedGov is suing border states for enforcing Federal Immigration laws.

*sgh*


The states employ north of 700k Police officers, the Fed approx (last I read) has about 44k sworn officers for all agencies. Given the expansion of Federal police powers under the Patriot Act, this creates as situation where the Fed simply does not have the manpower.

*sigh* You may want to update your reading.

Presents data from 73 federal law enforcement agencies that employed full-time officers with authority to make arrests and to carry a firearm while on duty. The report describes federal law enforcement agencies by the number of sworn officers, type of agency, primary state of employment, and law enforcement function. It details data by sex and race of officers for agencies with 500 or more federal officers; presents overall growth patterns in employment; and summarizes Federal Bureau of Investigation data on federal officers killed and assaulted.

Highlights:

In September 2008, federal agencies employed approximately 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States.
The four largest agencies, two in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and two in the Department of Justice (DOJ), employed 4 in 5 federal officers.
Women accounted for 15.5% of federal officers with arrest and firearm authority in 2008. This was a slightly lower percentage than in 2004 (16.1%), but higher than in 1996 (14.0%).

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4372

 CptJake wrote:
Presents data from 73 federal law enforcement agencies that employed full-time officers with authority to make arrests and to carry a firearm while on duty. The report describes federal law enforcement agencies by the number of sworn officers, type of agency, primary state of employment, and law enforcement function. It details data by sex and race of officers for agencies with 500 or more federal officers; presents overall growth patterns in employment; and summarizes Federal Bureau of Investigation data on federal officers killed and assaulted.

Highlights:

In September 2008, federal agencies employed approximately 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States.
The four largest agencies, two in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and two in the Department of Justice (DOJ), employed 4 in 5 federal officers.
Women accounted for 15.5% of federal officers with arrest and firearm authority in 2008. This was a slightly lower percentage than in 2004 (16.1%), but higher than in 1996 (14.0%).

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4372