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.

 kronk wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?

I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?

If I'm not mistaken... it's because they fear that the Feds could confiscate the money.

But why would the Feds necessarily just confiscate the money, when it came from a legal product?

Legal in Colorado. State Law.

Pot is still a controlled substance, federally speaking.

If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
But why would the Feds necessarily just confiscate the money, when it came from a legal product?

Despite the mainstream acceptance of pornography, it's actually of dubious legality, depending on jurisdiction. For example, at least once that I know of, a porn studio did one of those fishing expeditions where they sued people who were torrenting their films, and the filesharer prevailed in court with the understanding that the film was obscenity, and obscenity is not legally protected.

A pornographic producer\film star named Max Hardcore was in, 2007, federally prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail for producing pornographic films with consenting adults under obscenity laws. Mind-boggling, but there you have it.

It doesn't help that obscenity is defined as "I know it when I see it" in many jurisdictions.

 d-usa wrote:
It doesn't help that obscenity is defined as "I know it when I see it" in many jurisdictions.

I agree, and yet; how would you define it? It's a tricky one.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It doesn't help that obscenity is defined as "I know it when I see it" in many jurisdictions.

I agree, and yet; how would you define it? It's a tricky one.

Well BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEp. Oh, and there is also BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?

I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?

There's also the reputational risks associated with it as well.

I can't imagine your local regional bank would be that interested in being known as the 'porn bank.'

 cincydooley wrote:


I can't imagine your local regional bank would be that interested in being known as the 'porn bank.'

While true, why would a bank be "advertising" who's money theyre holding? It seems a bit of a violation of trust (not that there's a doctor/patient or lawyer/client thing with banks and businesses) to be talking about who's money you're holding onto.

People are complaining that sales of guns are 'heavily regulated'.
The horror, now if it was something dangerous like milk, or tampons or toothpaste then I could understand heavy regulation, but guns; why, what could possibly go wrong?

Guns are harmless so there is no need to regulate how they are stored, conditions for postal oer online sale etc etc.
Could you imagine what would happen if people tried to purchase dangerous stuff like socks online and have it delivered to their homes. You know those socks could be bought by anyone, masquerading as a registered sock owner.

 Orlanth wrote:
People are complaining that postal sales of guns are 'heavily regulated'.
The horror, now if it was something dangerous like milk, or tampons or toothpaste then I could understand heavy regulation, but guns; why, what could possibly go wrong?

A Brit for gun control?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
People are complaining that postal sales of guns are 'heavily regulated'.
The horror, now if it was something dangerous like milk, or tampons or toothpaste then I could understand heavy regulation, but guns; why, what could possibly go wrong?

A Brit for gun control?

Brits are mostly for gun control, some went way too far.
The correct legislation came in after Hungerford, the knee jerk legislation came in after Dunblane. It was entirely politically motivated, dogmatised and stigmatised gun ownership in the UK. It also directly and indirectly led to rise in gun related crime.

The US is still too laise faire on gun control though. Methinks if you took a halfway point between the Blairites and the NRA you would get some fairly decent gun laws.

 Orlanth wrote:

The US is still too laise faire on gun control though. Methinks if you took a halfway point between the Blairites and the NRA you would get some fairly decent gun laws.

Thing is, IMO, the issue isn't about "needing" more control laws, we in the US do need to do better about enforcing the ones already on the book. Once that's done, THEN I think we'd have a better picture on what may need to be done.

Well, I think pretty much anyone reasonable is for some measure of gun control. I doubt even the most Libertarian, Ron Paul T-shirt wearing person in the country is OK with the idea of some random idiot walking into Walmart and buying an RPG and some jerky. We all just argue about where the line is.

So, any minute now, the invisible hand should force a Porn Bank to open, right?

Also it would help if the Justice Department didn't sell guns to the Mexican cartels. Maybe I'm thinking out of the box on that.

 Frazzled wrote:
Also it would help if the Justice Department didn't sell guns to the Mexican cartels. Maybe I'm thinking out of the box on that.

Everyone is entitled to a hobby.

I am going to have to look into opening up my own bank...

Easysauces bank of porno, guns, and debautchery.

The promos practically write themselves....

OFSI will shut you right down, too.

I suggest Caymans or Vegas might be a better jurisdictional venue...

 easysauce wrote:
I am going to have to look into opening up my own bank...

Easysauces bank of porno, guns, and debautchery.

"Ma'am, I'm here to... make a deposit."
"Oh... my. Sir, I'll have to get my manager, I need her approval to handle such.. large deposits."

(cue the music)

bow cheeka bowbow...

The overdraft fees are real though.

 Grey Templar wrote:


If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.

I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?

What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.

I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?

What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?

1) You don't have a personal freedom to break the law.

2) Its no more a legal business than someone who is involved in human trafficking.

Tempted to see on Kickstarter if Easysauce is going to try that endeavor

 Grey Templar wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.

I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?

What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?

1) You don't have a personal freedom to break the law.

2) Its no more a legal business than someone who is involved in human trafficking.

Except when it's not illegal. Aren't you right wingers always going on about State's Rights? Or does that only apply to guns?

And comparing slavery to pot is honestly the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.

I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?

What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?

1) You don't have a personal freedom to break the law.

2) Its no more a legal business than someone who is involved in human trafficking.

Except when it's not illegal. Aren't you right wingers always going on about State's Rights? Or does that only apply to guns?

And comparing slavery to pot is honestly the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Think I've got to take Colorado's side on this one. As far as I'm aware, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, so unless Colorado starts doing pot deals with Washington, they have no grounds to step in on Colorado/Washington's turf over this issue.

As for the guy I qouted, could we watch the name calling. I refrain from referring to you as a lefty communist loving moonbat.

 djones520 wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.

I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?

What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?

1) You don't have a personal freedom to break the law.

2) Its no more a legal business than someone who is involved in human trafficking.

Except when it's not illegal. Aren't you right wingers always going on about State's Rights? Or does that only apply to guns?

And comparing slavery to pot is honestly the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Think I've got to take Colorado's side on this one. As far as I'm aware, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, so unless Colorado starts doing pot deals with Washington, they have no grounds to step in on Colorado/Washington's turf over this issue.

As for the guy I qouted, could we watch the name calling. I refrain from referring to you as a lefty communist loving moonbat.

Please do tell where I called someone a name?

I would think comparing pot growers to sex slave traffickers is much worse. One grows a plant, the other sells people into slavery. Kinda apples and oranges.

 djones520 wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.

I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?

What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?

1) You don't have a personal freedom to break the law.

2) Its no more a legal business than someone who is involved in human trafficking.

Except when it's not illegal. Aren't you right wingers always going on about State's Rights? Or does that only apply to guns?

And comparing slavery to pot is honestly the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Think I've got to take Colorado's side on this one. As far as I'm aware, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, so unless Colorado starts doing pot deals with Washington, they have no grounds to step in on Colorado/Washington's turf over this issue.

See... That's logical and I support this. However, past SC rulings rendered all controlled substances regulated by the DEA.

It's still illegal federally. Banking institutions are federally regulated.

Not an easy relationship there.

I can see a state run bank firing up in Washington and Colorado to handle the money.

The instant that money enters a bank with branches in multiple states it becomes Interstate commerce, and thus subject to federal regulation.

Is the ISC clause overreaching? Yeah.

But I am opposed to drugs of any kind being legalized, with exceptions for real medical needs for pain relief. And no, moderate arthritis and migraines shouldn't allow a doctor to give you a pot license.

It should be very severe things. Like chronic back pain which cannot be treated by other means. It should also be distributed like other medical drugs, not grown by the patient.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But I am opposed to drugs of any kind being legalized, with exceptions for real medical needs for pain relief.

I'd prefer the government not to legislate protecting people from themselves, especially when doing so for decades has creating a wholly untenable prison population and the associated apparatus thereof.

I believe you are fond of the argument we should have less gun laws because they don't work, right? Well... people haven't stopped getting high, why do we still make cocaine illegal?

That Coke and Weed are still illegal is probably not for the best. Weed is no worse than tobacco or alcohol. Most people killed by Coke weren't killed by the coke itself but all the crap its cut with (I.E. illegal coke is more deadly than legal coke).

Some drugs should stay illegal. Heroine, Meth, LSD, that Russian stuff that literally rots you from the inside out. Legalizing that is madness.