Departments of Justice and Treasury Release Marijuana Banking Guidance

[Jhhnn]

Yes, you forgot to not speak.

Obama has said that what is happening is against the law in CO. It is also illegal for a bank to knowingly take money from illegally derived sources, and we're reminded by the administration says that it's an illegal activity which he chooses not to prosecute. He makes no claim that this is legal activity. Has that registered yet? No, I'll wager not.
So we have this little thing known as conspiracy. Since you don't know that there are different kinds of conspiracy I'll post a definition.



Note that selling MJ is a violation of federal law. Note that accepting money knowingly from illegal sources is a violation of law. Note that aiding an illegal activity is known as conspiracy. That Obama is above the law doesn't matter. That he gives his permission does not change the law. He promises to give guidelines thereby aiding the commission of a crime. That is conspiracy in the way I meant.

Here's your hat, you'll find your ass in it.

And that's different from the way that the feds have handled MMJ since 1996? It's been schedule 1 all along, completely illegal, so clearly this "conspiracy" goes back a long, long way, huh?

That's probably how Congress got around to creating MMJ in DC w/o actually changing the rest of it as well. Funny that.

Were you saying it really should be legal back then while busting GWB's balls for making it so, at least in a limited way?

 

[LunarRay]

They can't change the State Constitution, nor can the legislature, either. That requires a vote of the people of Colorado.

It's not like any of that bullshit could even begin before 2017, anyway. It's not like Congress will be going anywhere near any of this, either. Righties are betrayed by their own States' Rights rhetoric & libertarian minority, and so called "Leftists" have to consider their progressive constituencies. They sense a shift, a sea change going on, something they don't quite understand. It'll be over before they figure it out, the myth of the necessity of the war on marijuana pushed aside by the reality of legalization. They'll follow, try to say they were leading the whole way.

This really is a healing opportunity, a chance to come together, to give each other the respect we all deserve. The value of legalization towards better community relations for law enforcement is incalculable & enormous. Tax revenues will be significant. Unloading the legal system has its own merits, and drug warriors can turn their efforts towards drugs that actually destroy lives & kill people. An estimated half of Mexican cartels' income will now go to honest businessmen.

If we have to go a roundabout way to get there, at least we're getting there.

Well.... Regarding the bold above, the State Constitution can be changed by any court of jurisdiction subject to appellate review. The Feds can sue CO or they can arrest and when the person moves to dismiss they will simply indicate the State Law (Constitution) is subordinate to the US Constitution or US Code and like that. A CO citizen can move that the State Constitution is at odds with the US Law and the State Court can rule the State Constitution to be unconstitutional regarding the MJ bit. Think about the Prop 8 which changed the CA Constitution... it has been determined to be unconstitutional. The people can speak but the Feds carry the stick.

CO is in the lead here and putting pressure on the Administration to act regarding the CSS... but, the Administration are looking for ways short of that CS Schedule change and that is the rub. Why they opt to act in a manner that is illegal (as I see it) and that can be more easily changed in the next Administration than removal from the CSS is mind boggling for me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And that's different from the way that the feds have handled MMJ since 1996? It's been schedule 1 all along, completely illegal, so clearly this "conspiracy" goes back a long, long way, huh?

That's probably how Congress got around to creating MMJ in DC w/o actually changing the rest of it as well. Funny that.

Were you saying it really should be legal back then while busting GWB's balls for making it so, at least in a limited way?

Well that's nice and all, but completely unrelated to anything I've commented on in this thread. You don't get to define legal terms, which "conspiracy" as I used it would be. You don't get to redefine what I clearly stated. You don't get to change my point by your diversion of the irrelevant. You don't get to pass this decision by the administration off on anyone else at all. Not Congress. Not Bush. Not your ass in your hat. This thread is about this administration and banking and relevant law. The harder you try the less you seem able to understand even the most basic of principles.

But

 

[JEDIYoda]

Especially if the GOP capture the White House....

never happen!

 

[Jhhnn]

Well.... Regarding the bold above, the State Constitution can be changed by any court of jurisdiction subject to appellate review. The Feds can sue CO or they can arrest and when the person moves to dismiss they will simply indicate the State Law (Constitution) is subordinate to the US Constitution or US Code and like that. A CO citizen can move that the State Constitution is at odds with the US Law and the State Court can rule the State Constitution to be unconstitutional regarding the MJ bit. Think about the Prop 8 which changed the CA Constitution... it has been determined to be unconstitutional. The people can speak but the Feds carry the stick.

CO is in the lead here and putting pressure on the Administration to act regarding the CSS... but, the Administration are looking for ways short of that CS Schedule change and that is the rub. Why they opt to act in a manner that is illegal (as I see it) and that can be more easily changed in the next Administration than removal from the CSS is mind boggling for me.

Sounds great, but cannabis legalization does not threaten anybody's federal constitutional rights like Prop 8 did. Apples and aardvarks.

Suit could be filed on the basis of what, exactly? What do you call it? All the talk of that was about a restraining order wrt retail sales, not an attempt to invalidate A64.

Of course federal law reigns supreme, but Colorado doesn't have to help 'em enforce it, and now state officials cannot because of clear state constitutional constraints. We can't be forced to adopt state laws outlawing MJ by anybody, either. If the feds want to enforce federal law, nobody's stopping them.

I also think your assumptions wrt leaving it to a future admin are premature, at best. I fully expect the classification of cannabis to be changed prior to the end of Obama's term.

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the fact that MMJ is every bit as illegal at the federal level as retail MJ yet 3 admins have done the same with it as Obama is wrt retail. I don't recall any nitpicking about that.

It's taken a long time to get to this point, the point where people are allowed to act responsibly wrt cannabis consumption, and to suffer no legal repercussions if they do. Previously, use was considered irresponsible under all circumstances, subject to legal penalties. Responsible behavior is exactly what's happening so far in Colorado, and what is likely to continue. Once that's seen to be true, the rationale for prohibition is gone. That's how they kept it illegal for so long, by never allowing that to happen, and by playing on fear of the unknown. We intend to dissipate that fear, replace the unknown with the known, something a lot more benign than the malevolence of prohibition.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well that's nice and all, but completely unrelated to anything I've commented on in this thread. You don't get to define legal terms, which "conspiracy" as I used it would be. You don't get to redefine what I clearly stated. You don't get to change my point by your diversion of the irrelevant. You don't get to pass this decision by the administration off on anyone else at all. Not Congress. Not Bush. Not your ass in your hat. This thread is about this administration and banking and relevant law. The harder you try the less you seem able to understand even the most basic of principles.

Heh. You just want it to be unrelated, quite desperately. Now that you're up on your high & mighty about Obama & Conspiracy, getting all technically illegal & so forth, dancing on the head of a legalistic pin, you probably don't want to acknowledge that exactly the same legal inconsistencies have been tolerated wrt MMJ since... 1996!

Explain the difference between the legalities of that & Obama's allowing retail in Colorado & Washington. Have at it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Heh. You just want it to be unrelated, quite desperately. Now that you're up on your high & mighty about Obama & Conspiracy, getting all technically illegal & so forth, dancing on the head of a legalistic pin, you probably don't want to acknowledge that exactly the same legal inconsistencies have been tolerated wrt MMJ since... 1996!

Explain the difference between the legalities of that & Obama's allowing retail in Colorado & Washington. Have at it.

Why should I argue a point I didn't make? Obama is not permitting an illegal activity, but overtly aiding in committing a federal crime. You are done.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why should I argue a point I didn't make? Obama is not permitting an illegal activity, but overtly aiding in committing a federal crime. You are done.

You made the argument back on page 1-

In other cases I've ignored cries for impeachment as baseless but this is ridiculous. Aiding another in an illegal activity is conspiracy, and no mistake that Obama says it's illegal. The rationale? The DOJ will be to busy to prosecute. Well if the banks take the money they've committed a felony and any time within the statute of limitations the DOJ gets "unbusy", they can be prosecuted and frankly so should those who participated in the crime.

This is insane.

With factual inaccuracies, of course.

Quote the passage in the article that says the rationale is that the Doj is too busy, for starters. If you can't, you've made false attribution.

Then explain how banks can be held liable if they're following official guidelines. Certainly statutes need to be changed to prevent reversion by future admins, but that doesn't mean banks would need to do more than cease & desist should such an unlikely event occur.

Not to mention that two previous presidents have engaged in much the same "conspiracy" when they directed the DEA to not enforce federal law wrt state level MMJ. Federal law makes no distinction between "medical" & "recreational" does it? No? Then why is Obama singled out for abuse?

That was a rhetorical question, of course. I already know the answer- pure partisanship. Hate-um Obama! Hate-um!

I'd love to see your impeachment hearings proceed as every internal non-enforcement memo, guideline & statement issued by previous admins is dragged out into evidence. It'd be a joy.

It's easy enough to criticize Obama over this, obviously. The one thing lacking in all of that is even a hint of proffered alternative & practical ways that the Admin should deal with WA & CO.

Perhaps you'd care to offer up some? Probably not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good grief you are such a hack.

An informative article. Try reading.

The JD says it's not important and they are spending their resources on other things. They are too busy with those to enforce the law. I don't care much about that. It wasn't my point.


How can banks be liable? The article explains that again. The administration says that the law hasn't changed. MJ is still illegal. Issuing guidelines on how to take money from illegal sources doesn't change the law. If that were the case then no future administration, no one in fact, could hold them accountable, but you say the law would have to change to prevent that. Then you again try to link "conspiracy" to something I never mentioned. I don't know if English is your third language but I never said anything at all against CO MJ laws although I have said it's illegal, which your "boss" tells you is true. Argue with him. I didn't say there was a conspiracy not to enforce laws against CO. Presidents selectively enforce all the time, and therefore you are foolish to keep your own false attributions going. My point addresses the substance of the thread you keep trying to change, which is about banking.

I love your gems of nonsense. If I were to offer up points for impeachment I wouldn't be bound to things you claim which I never said. The Administration isn't being passive, but actively participating by issuing "acceptable" guidelines for supporting an illegal activity. You can't even stick to the topic at hand, which is the issuance of guidelines for an illegal activity. Aiding another in the commission of a crime IS criminal conspiracy. Get over it. Why do you insist on dumping a pot roast on your chest by saying I'm talking about any other issue when I haven't wandered into something completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Oh, you answered that. Pure partisanship. Why should I blame any other President for something they did not do and I never complained about Obama doing? Hate-um? Sounds like something you personally eat for a daily sandwich.

As far as offering an alternative, it's been already done and I and others covered it, AND it's mentioned in the article I linked to. Obama has the authority to change the schedule to something other than a Class I which will at least mitigate the severity of criminal penalties. You played puppet and defended him saying that's not his place although the Executive Branch has the authority as stated in law. No, he can't do what he's entitled to do but he can commit criminal conspiracy, and if the activity wasn't illegal no changes would be needed in the future.

It's also amusing that you bring partisanship into the mix. I think both parties are despicable. I beat up on the ones in power currently because they happen to currently be in power. If are so delusional to think I was a supporter of Bush you ought to look up my comments about the Iraq War, something you would have defended to the last breath if Obama were in power at the time. You sir are at the top of partisan hackery on these forums. The sad thing is that it seems to be of such a pathological depth that you don't even know it.

You defend him not acting on a thing he has legal authority to do by deflection then you deflect when he supports a thing which is illegal by linking to a point that was never made to begin with.

I'm putting you back on ignore because I feel like I'm pulling wings off a fly. A botfly to be sure, but it's becoming cruel.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh.Love the wall o' text obfuscations & denials.

Which federal statutes has Obama "conspired" to circumvent? The same ones his predecessors have circumvented since 1996.

Your article? Your interpretation of what the author attributes to a federal official? What did the author actually say?

This was not, federal officials said, a change in the law itself. Marijuana was still illegal, as far as the federal government was concerned, in all 50 states. Instead, it was just a declaration that the Justice Department had bigger things to worry about.

Which isn't what the DoJ official actually said, but rather the author's interpretation. You then add your own interpretation, represent it as fact. It's a game of telephone.

Are you arguing that neither Clinton's nor GWB's DOJ offered no guidelines about how to handle MMJ states? Really? And the difference between that & current actions by the Obama Admin are, well, what, exactly?

But now, of course, when Obama's DoJ issues guidelines pertaining to banking, why, that's conspiracy!

Hogwash. It's just an extension of the same MJ policy of his predecessors, going along with state level citizen initiatives. That's a matter of practicality, as well. How do state legal MJ outfits pay their taxes if they don't have bank accounts? What level of money tracking & accountability could possibly exist if they didn't?

Alternatives? I said practical alternatives, but you now obfuscate around that, too. Nothing you've offered provides the Admin a way to actually deal with it, at all.

Change the classification of MJ? So what? Obama can't rescind federal statutes about possession, sale or importation of MJ, can he? Obviously not. All that would accomplish is to focus on Obama rather than on state level initiatives, shift the argument away from a proven winning strategy. Nobody with a lick of sense is taking the bait offered up by concern trolls. Take the Failboat? I don't think so.

It's pretty simple, really. Changes to banking guidelines are just a small part of the greater issue, and we shouldn't lose track of that. If you actually support legalization, then you support actions enabling it. Two previous presidents have done their part to move us in that direction, and Obama continues. Neither were faced with outright legalization via citizen initiative. If you don't support legalization, then you'll use whatever means you can to discredit it, including all sorts of concern troll tactics & attempts at focus shifting, which sums up your efforts entirely.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Then explain how banks can be held liable if they're following official guidelines.

The DOJ memo falls short of expressly protecting banks that work with state-compliant marijuana businesses from prosecution. It states only that banks that work with businesses that don't violate one of DOJ's eight areas of concern related to the pot trade, like distribution of marijuana to minors, violence and the use of firearms, are less likely to be targeted by federal prosecutors.

In the memo, Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote (emphasis added), "If a financial institution or individual offers services to a marijuana-related business whose activities do not implicate any of the eight priority factors, prosecution for those offenses may not be appropriate." That "may not" isn't going to help worried banks sleep at night. The Justice Department has lessened, but not eliminated, the threat of federal prosecution.

The "official guidelines" you mention are hardly reassuring.

If I were a banker I think I'd decline to participate. Looks like you're playing with fire by the risk that your banking client, unbeknownst to you, may be engaging in any of the 8 prohibited acts. Then even if they aren't there are no guarantees.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

The "official guidelines" you mention are hardly reassuring.

If I were a banker I think I'd decline to participate. Looks like you're playing with fire by the risk that your banking client, unbeknownst to you, may be engaging in any of the 8 prohibited acts. Then even if they aren't there are no guarantees.

Fern

I'm sure that bankers who provide services to MJ businesses will follow the guidelines to the best of their abilities. They know what the memo means, in context, even if we don't. If they see the risk as too great, they obviously won't. They are not compelled. I doubt that they'll ever have an issue when dealing with state legal businesses.

As has been pointed out, it's merely a start in the right direction. There's only so much that can be done w/o Congress.

The other side of it is that we need to recognize that bankers aren't risk averse when there's enough money involved. The industry attracts liars, cheats, thieves & charlatans like no other who rise to the top by exercising greater skill at such endeavors than their competitors.

The only time to worry about them is when they have the potential to crash the economy, and this isn't it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The "official guidelines" you mention are hardly reassuring.

If I were a banker I think I'd decline to participate. Looks like you're playing with fire by the risk that your banking client, unbeknownst to you, may be engaging in any of the 8 prohibited acts. Then even if they aren't there are no guarantees.

Fern

listening to the radio this morning, someone said basically this in explaining the guidelines - you are technically doing something illegal, but the DoJ would essentially look the other way provided you are able to help them with enforcement on illicit drug trade and other issues.

playing with fire, as you said.