Colorado's marijuana money and banking

[csh]

I know that banks don't want to take the weed shop's deposits due to the whole violation of federal law issue. My question is, is there any number of legitimate business transactions after the pot sale that could be made where a bank wouldn't have to fear the above issue? For example, if the cash was used to purchase real estate, would the revenue from the rent be considered "dirty" money, and thus be rejected by the banks out of fear of participating in some form of money laundering? Or, if a contractor roofs a pot distributor's house and is paid with pot cash, is the money then still dirty, and not "depositable" into the contractor's checking account? The topic came up at work, and nobody really had any answer on how the law works with that stuff.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

The question here is why people aren't questioning the legitimacy of federal law banning marijuana. Regardless of Supreme Court ruling federal drug laws are clearly unconstitutional. The police powers were reserved by the states. This is why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. Federal drug laws technically require the same.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[squeak]

I think banks will accept the money now b
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Stinking phone. According to Madison and Jefferson the states should nullify federal drug laws, should they wish to do so, and they should interpose and protect their citizens from federal prosecution.

The supremecy clause does not apply as congress was not granted police powers under article 1 section 8 and supremecy only applies in that situation. The commerce clause does not apply as Colorado's legalization does not extend past state lines nor does it prevent commerce from being regular.

Someday people will realize the evils of nationalism.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Staye banks are probably the place to look btw
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[squeak]

It will be too late the thor
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by ThorOdinson13:
Staye banks are probably the place to look btw
Posted from Rivals Mobile

State banks ate still subject to a multitude of federal regulations such as BSA and Anti-money laundering, and are covered by FDIC deposit insurance.

The he current administration is coercing a multitude of financial institutions into turning politically incorrect, but perfectly legal businesses such as gun manufacturers.

 

[Chillwell]

Originally posted by ThorOdinson13:

Someday people will realize the evils of nationalism.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

The Commerce Clause is nationalism trumping federalism, and I think it's been one of the primary reasons for the growth and success of our country. For the most part, the CC has created the greatest free and open marketplace in the history of the world, while keeping the states from practicing vindictive, petty protectionism and giving businesses a unified set of rules under which to operate.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by Chillwell:

Originally posted by ThorOdinson13:

Someday people will realize the evils of nationalism.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

while keeping the states from practicing vindictive, petty protectionism and giving businesses a unified set of rules under which to operate.

The last part of your post describes exactly what the Commerce Clause was intended to achieve, and that's it. It was certainly never intended to act as "nationalism trumping Federalism".

 

[Chillwell]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by Chillwell:

Originally posted by ThorOdinson13:

Someday people will realize the evils of nationalism.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

while keeping the states from practicing vindictive, petty protectionism and giving businesses a unified set of rules under which to operate.

The last part of your post describes exactly what the Commerce Clause was intended to achieve, and that's it. It was certainly never intended to act as "nationalism trumping Federalism".

Really, then how is the Commerce Clause to be enforced? Are states supposed to constantly run to court and sue each and every other state that might be exercising protectionism against their products? Or is it easier for the Supreme Court, exercising common sense, to simply create the dormant commerce clause that, for the most part, creates a national standard of how states should treat one another?

But generally, I agree...nationalism does suck... and why we should continue to just spout of phrases like "the evils of nationalism" without any nuanced thought as to what that actually means.

For instance, the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV that keeps states from discriminating against citizens of other states...Personally, I say F Oregonians, bunch a birkenstock-wearing effeminate men & angry lesbians; don't come down here to So Cal, expecting I don't know...to earn a living even though you're the best qualified for the position. No, I think So Cal jobs should be for So Cal residents, no matter how high most of us are! Not to mention the Contracts Clause that prevents state and local governments from voiding the obligations of private contracts, even those of "outsiders" from like Kentucky... that pisses me off. Why should I be forced to honor some contract I signed with some dick from Kentucky?! And, of course, the grand daddy of them all, the Equal Protection and Due Process of the 14th Amendment, what a bunch of crap! Just think, if we didn't those ideas of nationalism, Mississippi could still be enforcing Jim Crow and Texas keeping women from voting. But noooo, the freakin' national government says Mississippi has to give black people the "same rights" under the law as whites and that we can't even keep women from being executors, when everybody knows they are too emotional and not good with numbers...total dickishness by the Feds.

Oh yes, the total awesomeness of "states rights."

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I guess you didn't read very closely. The part about states running to sue each other is what the Commerce Clasue was intended to address solely, and that is what I agree with you on from your original post.

The part where the Federal government assumes the ability to control commerce and whole swaths of the economy, e.g. through EPA, FCC, Obamacare was NOT. That is where the damage from nationalism trumping Federalsim has been writ large.

 

[Poke_4_Life]

To the OP, your original post was a big concern in CO originally. However, banks will now take money from dispenseries. Well some banks will, from what I can tell not all are at this time.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[HighStickHarry]

Wtf chillwell didn't think you would ever come back. Hope everything is good for you these days.

 

[csh]

Originally posted by Poke_4_Life:
To the OP, your original post was a big concern in CO originally. However, banks will now take money from dispenseries. Well some banks will, from what I can tell not all are at this time.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Was there something that put them at ease? Or did some of them simply decide to accept the risk?

 

[Poke_4_Life]

State of CO made some kind of move to ensure they could have access to banks. I dont remember the details now.

Some banks still refuse to bank them due to BSA/AML. Others will only bank grow shops (no weed sold, only hydroponics and other growing accessories). Some banks will deal with the dispensaries but Im sure they are covering their risks in some way (higher fees and minimum balances would be my guess).
Posted from Rivals Mobile