Republican Controlled House Backs Obama Rules Enabling Marijuana Banking

Shandar

New Member
If you run a medical marijuana dispensary, or a legal marijuana business in Colorado, how do you get paid? Federal laws enacted during the war on drugs in the 1980s barred banks from doing business with "drug traffickers."

If your bank found out that your health center was a medical marijuana dispensary, it shut down your credit card processing service, canceled your account, and would not take your deposits.

Legal marijuana was being paid for the "old fashioned way," with cash.

The cash has been piling up in Colorado and getting hard to handle.

The Obama Administration, realizing that this increased the risk of robbery and undermined effective accounting practices, issued "guidance" on Feb. 14, 2014, to enable banks to start taking deposits of cash from marijuana businesses, even recreational marijuana businesses. The Treasury Department guidance can be found here. But the banks remained very leery of breaking federal law.

U. S. Rep. John Fleming (R-Louisiana) was outraged by the Obama initiative. He offered an amendment that would block the Obama Administration's guidance to the banks.

But on Wednesday afternoon, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted to uphold the Obama Administration regulations to let marijuana growers and sellers deposit their revenue in federally regulated banks. The 186 Yes -- 236 NO vote defeated Fleming's amendment.

This is HUGE. Even though most Republicans (179) voted yes with Dr. Fleming, the Republican leadership allowed this vote to support the Obama Administration. Obama, many Republicans (46) and the House Democrats (190 out of 199) are united that where marijuana growers and sellers are legally operating under state medical marijuana and recreational marijuana laws, they can use the banking system they have been excluded from since 1986.

In 1986, when I was counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, I played a major role in developing the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986. That law provided that anyone who engaged in a transaction like making a bank deposit of more than $10,000 from an illegal business, like a marijuana store, could go to prison for up to 10 years (Section 1352 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, P.L. 99-570, Oct. 27, 1986 (18 U.S.C. 1957)). That was then!

Today's vote to allow marijuana businesses to use banks was by a bigger margin of victory than the June 30 vote barring the DEA from interfering with medical marijuana in states where it is legal, and this vote included recreational marijuana.

If you support ending marijuana prohibition and your representative voted NO (supporting the Obama guidance to let marijuana money be deposited in banks) write to her or him or send her or him a tweet to praise his or her vote.

As Members of Congress feel the praise for voting to let marijuana profits get deposited in banks, they will become comfortable with similar votes such as legalizing medical marijuana and legalizing marijuana all the way!

potbanks.jpeg


News Moderator: Shandar @ 420 MAGAZINE ®
Source: Huffington Post Canada - Canadian News Stories, Breaking News, Opinion
Author: Eric E. Sterling
Contact: Contact us
Website: Republican-Controlled House Backs Obama Rules Enabling Marijuana Banking | Eric E. Sterling
 
It's not a REP-DEM issue but a generational issue. Pretty much everybody is saying yes to cannabis, including the feds...except for Andy Harris, Sheldon Adelson, Project SAM, Big Alcohol Big Rehab, Big Drug Test Lab, Big Police and DEA, and Big Prison are against it.
 
It's not a REP-DEM issue but a generational issue. Pretty much everybody is saying yes to cannabis, including the feds...except for Andy Harris, Sheldon Adelson, Project SAM, Big Alcohol Big Rehab, Big Drug Test Lab, Big Police and DEA, and Big Prison are against it.

It's still a bit of a Republican issue since they are the party with older demographics.
 
Two reasons I see this development: the increased presence of a libertarian voice in the republican caucus and the party-wide desire for the millennial generation vote in 2016. Say anything you want, the republican party has more "independent" voices that vote their constituents vs. the democrat party that often at the expense of their constituents vote in a national block.
 
Two reasons I see this development: the increased presence of a libertarian voice in the republican caucus and the party-wide desire for the millennial generation vote in 2016. Say anything you want, the republican party has more "independent" voices that vote their constituents vs. the democrat party that often at the expense of their constituents vote in a national block.

Totally not my experience.
About 40% of Massachusetts voters are registered independent. They overwhelmingly vote for their favorite candidates, usually a democrat.

The Republican party is capable of lip service about courting votes that are not their traditional "old White man base" but they inevitable revert to their core beliefs and abandon their "New" constituents when it comes up for a vote.

I also don't equate Tea Party (slogan based) voters with Libertarian (ideology based) voters - but the meaning of a Libertarian is going through rapid change these days
 
I also don't equate Tea Party (slogan based) voters with Libertarian (ideology based) voters - but the meaning of a Libertarian is going through rapid change these days

This I will completely agree with. I would say that the presence of the Tea Party is in part due to an influence of some Libertarian ideas, but they'd have a long way to go to match up with the traditional definition of a libertarian.

It is interesting....as someone who has lived their entire life in either NC or the midwest, I look at many of the Dems from those regions that have served in national offices (house and senate) going along with the more powerful members of their party- often from your state rather than vote what sometimes may have been along slightly more conservative lines.
 
This I will completely agree with. I would say that the presence of the Tea Party is in part due to an influence of some Libertarian ideas, but they'd have a long way to go to match up with the traditional definition of a libertarian.

It is interesting....as someone who has lived their entire life in either NC or the midwest, I look at many of the Dems from those regions that have served in national offices (house and senate) going along with the more powerful members of their party- often from your state rather than vote what sometimes may have been along slightly more conservative lines.

Massachusetts loves their liberals, more than my native California, but they also admire practicality and scrupulous honesty.
While the coasts have a liberal influence on the center (in the Democratic party) it always seems to be the center states that drive national politics.
California, as big as its population, has virtually no influence on national party politics except fund raising.
Nationally, western votes never matter. They are never the battleground states.

It is in national movements (recycling, gay rights, marihuana) where the West Coast shines _ often too the disapproval of the middle states.
 
It is pleasing to see more intelligent comments here than in the HuffPo comments section.

It's amazing what a plant can do to instigate calm, intelligent conversation between someone whom I'm guessing has a higher percentage of liberal votes (Radogast) and someone with a higher percentage of conservative votes (myself).

And for the record Radogast, rockin' name.
 
Back
Top Bottom