January 13, 2014

The marijuana entrepreneurs are pioneers in a legal twilight zone.

"Banking is the most urgent issue facing the legal cannabis industry today. So much money floating around outside the banking system is not safe, and it is not in anyone’s interest. Federal law needs to be harmonized with state laws," says Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association in Washington, D.C., quoted in a NYT article titled "Banks Say No to Marijuana Money, Legal or Not."

But marijuana is not legal, no matter what the states do with their own laws and no matter how many times the NYT says "legal marijuana" (7, in that one article). It's a crime under federal law, and federal law wins. Banks don't want to be accused of aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise, and until the federal law changes, there are going to be entrepreneurs in the marijuana business holding and moving around large packs of cash.
They pay employees with envelopes of cash. They haul Chipotle and Nordstrom bags containing thousands of dollars in $10 and $20 bills to supermarkets to buy money orders. When they are able to open bank accounts — often under false pretenses — many have taken to storing money in Tupperware containers filled with air fresheners to mask the smell of marijuana.
These people are a type of criminal that we're currently — some of us — pretending are not criminals, and they are also targets for the type criminal — robbers — that we easily see as criminals. (How would you like to be a humble sales clerk, walking to your car late at night?)

The marijuana entrepreneurs are pioneers in a legal twilight zone, and it will be interesting to see how they amass power through acquiring the money to lobby and the trappings of respectability by behaving like other businesspersons, operating in the open, paying taxes, complying with the regulations of the state law that we're encouraged to think has "legalized" what they are doing.

Like other business persons, in the effort to make a profit, they accept risk. But unlike other business persons, part of the risk they are taking is in violating the criminal law. This risk — since they are acting openly — creates pressure on the federal government to change the law. But until that risk pans out, they've got a bad problem with all that cash that the banks won't risk handling.

58 comments:

traditionalguy said...

The illegal trade creating easy to steal cash money is the cause of so many murders in the drug sales culture...it is the enforcement arm of a basic legal system.

One good reason we are seeing this unusual development of legal but illegal trade gone wild is the Obama Gangs desire to erect an excuse to outlaw cash.

As I recall the fast and furious ATF Operation was the legal creation of illegal gun sales to erect an excuse to outlaw gun sales.

Pogo is Dead said...

"...unlike other business persons, part of the risk they are taking is in violating the criminal law."

Not true. The last 20 years has seen a general trend of criminalizing corporate conduct.

Compliance with government rules carry criminal penalties in several arenas, especially in operating multinational corporations.

Jane the Actuary said...

You know, you've posted on this issue multiple times and I haven't really commented -- but I agree with you completely on the fact that it's just wrong to say, "state law says its OK, so it's 100% legal."

I would like to see some pro-pot legislator with integrity propose federal legislation on the topic rather than this farce of the federal government pretending that existing laws don't actually, well, have the force of law. (Or are there no "pro-pot" legislators at the federal level, just in the state legislatures?) And if such a measure fails, then all state laws contradicting federal law should be nullified. It's preposterous, and really undermines the concept of law in a big way.

(Besides which -- I don't find it credible to claim that pot use won't increase, given the prevalence of claims that pot does no harm whatsoever.)

betamax3000 said...

I Have Mixed Feelings on Legalized Pot: I Am a "Live and Let Live" Type, But I Do Harbor a Love for Seeing Hippies Get Hassled By the Man. Conundrum.

betamax3000 said...

Bumper Sticker: "Legalize State Law."

Hagar said...

One would think it also might create some pressure on the Federal Government to actually enforce its laws, but then again, maybe not.

John Lynch said...

Althouse, what you're seeing is institutional decay. The Federal Government cannot enforce its own laws, nor can it force two states to enforce them. This is a rebellion, albeit a small one.

Can you imagine Reagan or LBJ letting a state get away with this? Tip O'Neil's House Representatives would have written a bill punishing the states before the referendum legalizing pot was even voted upon. We saw that when the drinking age was raised.

The problem isn't that we're ignoring federal laws as much as federal law is arbitrary. Some law is enforced, but other law is not.

John Lynch said...

Oh yeah, second point. We've created an interest group that will now dump money into winning elections. The pot industry can now donate to campaigns.

I'm sure that will turn out well.

cubanbob said...

This is going to result in a mess when the state legal dope sellers get nailed with tax and money laundering charges. Just imagine the dope sellers trying to pay their FICA and income taxes in cash. Federally chartered banks won't take their deposits so they can't issue checks or pay the taxes by EFT. So what are the sellers going to do? Go to their nearest IRS office with duffle bags of cash to pay their taxes? How is the state supposed to get paid their taxes? How are the sellers supposed to comply with the federal cash reporting regulations? What a mess.

Skyler said...

The Feds say they won't prosecute. Anyone who believes that is a sucker. I don't know the statute of limitations for federal drug laws but every advertisement and bank deposit is evidence. Anyone in that business is a fool to be open. Better to continue in the shadows.

cubanbob said...

Now that the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare ruling ruled that there is an outer limit on what Congress's powers are under the commerce clause and that Feds can't coerce the states the question becomes can the Feds coerce a state to overturn its own laws in a area where it has the right to make those laws?

SGT Ted said...

Federal law was passed based on corporate cronyism, racism and "reefer madness" lies.

The genie is out of the bottle. It is a defacto legal product in the Medical States. The legal business side is a very, very tiny part of the industry right now. The tax free part of the industry has bred a lot of libertarian minded entrepreneurs out of what are normally left-liberal people.

Add in that these people also see Government as acting more and more like a gangster collection racket when it comes to having their hand in everybodys wallet.

It will be legal in 10-15 years I think, but most people will stay in the UG economy until the price drops to that of tobacco or booze.

Bruce Hayden said...

My view is that the pot stores should be able to bank their proceeds, just like their brethren in the alcohol business. Not allowing them to do so is just asking for crime - both the money laundering type, as well as those preying on them. And, all cash businesses are prime targets for organized crime, in order to launder their own ill gotten gains.

Still, wonder if this will be an emphasis for the growth of other types of money. We have seen some of this already, and maybe this will cause the trend to increase. If the stores can take non-bank non-govt money in payment, and then move that to an account somewhere, they may be able to avoid the dangers of having too much cash on hand.

SGT Ted said...

We've created an interest group that will now dump money into winning elections. The pot industry can now donate to campaigns.

Well, it was such that got pot outlawed to begin with. It would be fitting karma for the turnabout.

There are plenty of instances of Approved Federal Law-Breaking allowed that have already undermined the concept of the Rule of Law for me to not give a shit about Federal Laws on pot smoking.

Non-enforcement and under enforcement of Immigration Laws via Federal policy and the two political parties promising to legalize vast swaths of law breakers via Amnesty, while disregarding the will of the people, has already done enormous damage to the Rule of Law and shown our Government to be lawless. Add in all the other Obama "executive" shenanigans and how can one NOT preach peaceful rebellion against tyrannical Government that flouts the Rule of Law for it's own convenience. We, the people are sovereign, which means we can reject their tyranny as individuals. Lots of people are doing this.

If that disturbs you, don't vote for Democrat politicians that are doing what the pot farmers are doing; ignoring Federal Laws that they don't like. The pot farmers have more integrity; they didn't swear an oath to uphold the law.

cubanbob said...

Bruce the problem is federally chartered banks won't accept the deposits or accept transfers since that will put them in the position of not complying with federal banking laws and regulations.

Thorley Winston said...

“Medical” marijuana was always as much about medicine as Granny Clampett’s spring tonic in the jug with the three X’s on it. Having said that, I’m open to arguments for legalization so long as those who use pot are held strictly liable for any criminal offenses and torts they commit while impaired, are ineligible for any form of public assistance (including welfare and financial aid for college) and landlords and employers have the right to discriminate against drug users.

RAH said...

I guess will have a new private banks that will take cash and then launder in deposits. etc . Like the family Chinese banks.

I do like the idea that taxes will be paid in cash rather than EFT or checks. There is more freedom in a cash economy. The government can not trace the transactions

SGT Ted said...

so long as those who use pot are held strictly liable for any criminal offenses and torts they commit while impaired, are ineligible for any form of public assistance (including welfare and financial aid for college) and landlords and employers have the right to discriminate against drug users

Tell that to tobacco and alcohol users and see how far you get with that bullshit.

Funny how people say they want it "legal" as long as Government and society will continue to treat people like its illegal and treat casual smokers as if they were scumbags.

Your attitude deserves only a hearty "fuck you" from the liberty minded. I can do without your faux "support", along with your bullshit modern Temperance Movement moralizing based on reefer madness idiocy. Save it for Church, pal.

Bruce Hayden said...

RAH - the problem with cash in these businesses is that there is so much of it, and it makes a big target for criminals. And, yes, it greatly increases the probability that some of it will go unrecorded and thus untaxed.

CubanBob - much of the cash inevitably gets into the regular banking system. The question is how. The feds can't really prevent people from depositing cash into their own accounts.

But what I was really driving at were digital currencies, such as BitCoin, and their like, which are, so far, mostly unregulated in this country (and, surprisingly, the U.S. is considered friendly to them, in contrast to countries such as China).

MomRunningFromCancer said...

We are in Steamboat on a skiing vacation and stopped at a dispensary yesterday. They accepted credit cards, so that would indicate to me that they have a bank account, etc. There were at least 6 cameras in the room, but no security guard visible. There was a back room, so maybe a security guard was in the back. There were about 10 - 12 people ahead of us in line and the wait took about 30 minutes. There were three people working behind the counter and they spent considerable time with each customer, opening up different jars and explaining the 'expected effects' of the different varieties.
They also sold, soda, starburst, caramels, and other candies laced with weed.
As a side note, we paid in cash.

Thorley Winston said...

Your attitude deserves only a hearty "fuck you" from the liberty minded.


Actually all three of the conditions I’ve placed on supporting legalization are consistent with a pro-liberty standpoint. What they are not compatible with is someone who thinks that they have the force others to pay them welfare benefits or give them a job and a place to live and do not have to be responsible for their actions.



NotquiteunBuckley said...

***weed
/wēd/
noun
noun: weed; plural noun: weeds
1.
a wild plant growing where it is not wanted and in competition with cultivated plants.

any wild plant growing in salt or fresh water.

informal
marijuana.

informal
tobacco.
noun: the weed

informal
a leggy, loosely built horse.
verb
verb: weed; 3rd person present: weeds; past tense: weeded; past participle: weeded; gerund or present participle: weeding
1.
remove unwanted plants from (an area of ground or the plants cultivated in it).***

First off, I don't think the word "weed" is reflective of marijuana grown (cultivated) with great care for large profit.

Secondly, my understanding is the dispensary's close at 7 p.m. in CO per state law so I am not sure the walking "late night" with a bag of money would be a common scenario.

Finally, if someone wants to lend me the start up costs (roughly 100K) I will operate a security business for the dispensaries in the Denver area, running money from the retail locations to our attorney's and CPA's and Others per individual agreement.

The secret is to hire off-duty cops. That way, if shit gets real, they call their buddies and handle it like the Denver PD handles shit. They will be there so fast it will make your head spin.

They don't work cheap.*

*Hat Tip The Man With No Name

Dust Bunny Queen said...

much of the cash inevitably gets into the regular banking system. The question is how. The feds can't really prevent people from depositing cash into their own accounts.

Under the CTR rules Banks are required to report cash transactions and even to complete an SAR. If the employee or the bank doesn't do these things then they themselves can be subject to prosecution, fines and even jail time. Structuring or layering of deposits to be under the $10K threshold is also suspect and subject to reporting. Smurfing is also an illegal way to deposit.

The bank and the bank employee CAN refuse to deposit the cash and can close the accounts of those who are suspected of money laundering or depositing illegally gained funds.

Look it up.

Since the proceeds of the transactions are from FEDERALLY illegal activities and Banks are subject to the federal rules, it is understandable that they won't touch the illegal pot money until they have some sort of confirmation that they won't be embroiled in federal actions.

This whole half baked system is just ready for graft, theft, tax evasion, criminal extortion, gang activity and probably many lives lost through murder and mayhem. Carrying around or holding huge amounts of cash that you can't deposit, can't spend on legal fees, taxes etc is just asking for a crime wave to happen.

Hell is paved with good intentions. Welcome to it.

cubanbob said...

CubanBob - much of the cash inevitably gets into the regular banking system. The question is how. The feds can't really prevent people from depositing cash into their own accounts. "

Bruce have you ever had to undergo an IRS form 8300 audit? Trust me, it's no joke. Sure much of the underground economy cash gets laundered in to the banking system simply because for legal business either it isn't that much of their revenues so it doesn't really raise red flags with the bank's compliance dept. not to mention that those businesses are not facially illegal under federal law.

Now suppose a legal dope seller in CO does $500,000 a year in his/her storefront a year. His/her business is legal in CO but facially illegal under federal law. It isn't likely that he can take credit or debit cards since the banks will probably not accept merchant accounts for legal dope dealers. He takes cash but the banks won't accept the deposits since under the know your customer regs they can't say they weren't aware that a dope retailer wasn't engaged in federally illegal activity. The owner can't legally pay his employee since the cash is the fruit of the poisoned tree and neither can his suppliers and presumably neither can the state as well through a federally chartered bank. So what if CO chartered it's own state bank to accept the cash deposits for the dealers if for no other reason just to have a method to collect the dope taxes. It will over time wind up with a horde of cash the state can't unload on to the federal banking system. Then what? Create a state Ft. Knox to warehouse the cash? And then what? How would the state be able to spend the collected revenues? Pay state employees in cash? And if they did every time the employee deposited the cash the banks would have to report it to the IRS when the reporting requirements come in to effect. And you still have the fruit of the poisoned tree problem, a problem criminal defense lawyers often have when federal prosecutors impound their collections from their clients. What a cluster. Now will this parade of horribles happen? Probably not since I suspect the Feds will largely turn a blind eye but that itself creates another parade of horribles for the Feds since it's going to become more difficult for the Feds to justify blanket enforcement waivers in one or more state while enforcing those very same laws in others.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Just call Saul.

SGT Ted said...

Actually all three of the conditions I’ve placed on supporting legalization are consistent with a pro-liberty standpoint.

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that pot is responsible for lazy people being lazy and collecting public benefits. That's what happens when social policy is informed by Cheech and Chong movies and not reality.

Reefer madness lives.

Jim said...

You haul around that much cash you'll need a more capacious magazine on your sidearm. Oh, I'm sorry, you live in Colorado.

gerry said...

What if enough UG bucks elect enough pothead-supporting senators that approve pro-smoking-choice USSC justices that discover that most FDR-LBJ legacies are violations of the Tenth Amendment?

Cool, dude.

Thorley Winston said...

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that pot is responsible for lazy people being lazy and collecting public benefits. That's what happens when social policy is informed by Cheech and Chong movies and not reality.


The three conditions I laid out all boil down to: if you use pot, then you should be responsible for your own welfare and the consequences of your choices and not be able to use the force of government to infringe on the rights of others or to subsidize your lifestyle choice.

Right now I image a lot of people who are reading this are wondering “why is SGT Ted answering with anything other than ‘I’ll take that deal’ if he’s so sure that expanding drug use won’t lead to an increase in crime and accidents and a greater use of taxpayer funded-social programs?”

chuquito said...

bitcoin

Kirk Parker said...

My take:

1. Federal Law here is completely illegitimate*.

2. Thus I don't care that the now-legal-by-state-law folks in WA and CO are still breaking federal law.

3. And I do want them to have ready access to normal banking and credit services.

---------------------------------
*If you disagree with #1, please tell me what Constitutional Amendments were passed between the time of Prohibition and now that allows the Feds legislate about this?

SJ said...

@Jim,

You haul around that much cash you'll need a more capacious magazine on your sidearm. Oh, I'm sorry, you live in Colorado.

And then they have to worry about whether or not people in the business of selling marijuana fit somewhere under the list of Prohibited Persons. (See also here.)

This has the largest effect on people trying to buy from an FFL.

(Even at a gun show, an FFL-holder has to run a background check, per the 1968 law and the 1991 Brady Bill. Private citizens who don't hold FFL's still break the law when selling to a Prohibited Person, but there is no enforcement mechanism until the Prohibited Person is arrested and fesses up who they bought their firearm from.)

Thorley Winston said...

1. Federal Law here is completely illegitimate*.

The courts through over a 110 years (arguably more like 190 years) of jurisprudence do not share your opinion. Unfortunately for you, theirs is the one that matters.

SGT Ted said...

I consider pot to be akin to booze.

The angsty drama over a flood of users accessing welfare benefits upon legalization to be overblown, seeing as how there are currently many boozers that are not held to the same standard, as well as current recipients that happen to smoke pot that aren't required to meet your standards.

If you want to talk welfare reform, fine. You say your position is consistent with liberty, but the problem with your idea, liberty-wise, is that you still want Government to monitor pot use in someone's home. That would require either un announced home visits by Government officials with no warrant required, or random unannounced piss tests, no warrant required.

So, if I am a pot smoker while paying my taxes and nobody cares, suddenly I must prove my bodily purity to then take benefits that I paid into if times get tough? For what would be a legal product?


Are you for that with alcohol consumption for welfare recipients? How about tobacco?
If not, why not?

Since the War on (some) Drugs is a failure that has seriously eroded civil liberties, why would you want to enable Government to keep doing it to citizens?

"I'm for Liberty. Now, pee in this cup in you want to money to eat if you lost your job and cannot get another."

Ok then.

Revenant said...

The situation the business owners (and buyers) are in is unfortunate, but legalization has to start somewhere.

Simultaneously repealing both the federal AND state laws isn't realistic (unless the Supreme Court discovers economic rights in the Constitution), so we have to go through this transition period where the activity is legal at one level but illegal at another.

Revenant said...

The courts through over a 110 years (arguably more like 190 years) of jurisprudence do not share your opinion.

More like 80. There's a reason they had to pass a Constitutional amendment before Congress was allowed to ban the sale and production of alcoholic beverages.

The Supreme Court didn't get around to granting Congress the power to ban anything and everything it pleased until the FDR era.

Revenant said...

Actually all three of the conditions I’ve placed on supporting legalization are consistent with a pro-liberty standpoint. What they are not compatible with is someone who thinks that they have the force others to pay them welfare benefits or give them a job and a place to live and do not have to be responsible for their actions.

If you think nobody has the right to force you to pay for their food, clothing, and shelter, then you should be in favor of banning ALL Welfare and Social Security benefits -- not just the benefits of drug users.

What you're arguing here is that it is fine to force us to feed and clothe the people you like -- needy non-users -- but wrong to force you to feed and clothe people you don't like. That's not a position consistent with a pro-liberty standpoint. It is a position consistent with thinking only your opinion matters. :)

Douglas said...

Not only is selling marijuana illegal under federal law, so is money laundering, and the Feds come down much harder in this day of global terrorism on money laundering than they do on selling pot. No wonder the banks don't want anything to do with it!

Seeing Red said...

What was really priceless was the guy who was interviewed was thinking about getting a concealed carry permit in Colorado to protect the money.

eric said...

I've always wondered why the left in this country is so good at getting away with and undermining federal law, but the right sucks so badly at it.

When we pass constitutional amendments declaring marriage between one man and one woman, we don't even get standing in court to defend that law.

When the left wants to destroy their mind with drugs, the doors open boys!

I mean, they even have news media and politicians calling it, "Legal Marijuana" when it is no such thing.

This isn't going to end well, and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Marijuana. The Right in this country is slow but it isn't stupid.

If the left can get Marijauna "legal" in a state when it is federally outlawed, I'll bet the Right will find a few things to do in their states as well.

And then we'll all be asking ourselves, "How did we get here?"

And the only reasonable answer is going to be, "Obama. Because you can't lead from behind."

Bruce Hayden said...

You haul around that much cash you'll need a more capacious magazine on your sidearm. Oh, I'm sorry, you live in Colorado.

Love that comment - Colorado last year limited the size of detachable magazines for handguns and long guns. The reality though is that the limit on handgun magazines is probably not as onerous as on rifles and carbines, since most standard sized magazines, like those shipped with new firearms, appear to be legal - unlike some other states like CA and NY (I think), where almost all existing semiautomatic handgun magazines are now illegal.

Still, it shows the schizophrenic nature of the state, which both legalized pot for general sale and consumption, while passing some of the more limiting gun laws in the country.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If you think nobody has the right to force you to pay for their food, clothing, and shelter, then you should be in favor of banning ALL Welfare and Social Security benefits -- not just the benefits of drug users.

I am!!!! With the exception of Social Security for those who actually worked and paid into the system it all should be done away with or cut to the barest minimum. If you and your employer paid into the SS system you can get your 'annuity'. Better yet----> Give us who paid into the Social Security system the lump sum of what we paid into it plus a modest 3% compounded interest and we will go away and leave you all along. I figure the US Government owes me at least $600,000. My husband about the same amount. With 1.2 million dollars I think we can make do.

Medicare. Quit using it as a piggy bank and a welfare fund for those who never paid into it. Also. Don't MAKE us sign up at 65 if we don't want to or don't need to. If you don't sign up...you get fined 10% annually and it costs more when you do. You should be happy that I don't want to use Medicare until I absolutely need it.

If you didn't work and didn't pay into Social Security, tough. You don't get the welfare benefits. No SSI for non citizens or people who didn't contribute. Using the SS funds as a piggy bank for welfare is why it is going broke. Not because the people who paid in have gotten old and are collecting. It isn't a slush fund...or shouldn't have been use as such.

Same with Disability. Really? Everyone is now disabled and can sit around collecting MORE from the Social Security funds. Unless you have lost your arms, legs and have gone blind....there is SOME job you can do. Become an annoying telemarketer. DO SOMETHING to earn your keep.
If you need food and shelter there are lots of charitable organizations who will give you a hand UP and temporary assistance.

If you are unemployed and your EMPLOYER paid for the unemployment insurance you should collect only what the benefit is. No more. No extensions. The purpose of UI is to help you get by WHILE looking for a job. Get one.

Is there a need for 'some' public assistance, paid for by the tax payers. Some. But it should be limited and not enough to support a lifestyle for those who are too lazy to work. Not enough to subsidize flat screen televisions, $200 Nike shoes, tattoos, nose rings, eyebrow piercings and a host of other things that are not necessary to survival. Welfare is to help you survive.....survive...NOT thrive.

There are plenty of jobs out there. People just don't want to take them....and why should they if they can sit on their asses and be fed money, free housing, free phones, free food.

If you are addicted to drugs or an alcoholic you should not get public money. [I think your children should be taken from you as well.....give them a fighting chance at least] You won't be able to work if you are stoned, drugged up or drunk all the time. If you are a smoker, get a job and buy your own cigarettes and die early.

If people don't like being drug tested, tuff cookies. No one is forcing you to take free money or welfare benefits. Do what you like with yourself, you aren't entitled to be paid to do it. They ARE forcing the rest of us to pay for your lifestyle though.

I didn't signup to adopt the wastrels and welfare sucking creeps. You aren't my family and if you were, you would get this same advice. Get a job you leech. Enough is enough. Cut off or shrink the flow of goodies and watch how suddenly there will be people available to work again.

Michael said...

The police can, of course, pull you over and search you. If you have loads of cash they can confiscate it. And your car. Homeof the brave!

Kirk Parker said...

Thorley,

Excuse me, you need to upgrade brand of whatever you're smoking. Your links both go to interstate commerce links. I fully agree with the federal government has the power to regulate interstate trade in marijuana (and everything else), which is why I didn't mention any interstate-commerce aspects in my comment.

I presume that the WA- and CO-legal shops are making efforts to deal only in in-state-grown product, thus avoiding the issue.

What I maintain is, the feds have no more power to ban cultivation, consumption, or possession of marijuana, any more than they did with alcohol. Its just that our forbears were more judicially/intellectually honest than we are, so they went ahead and passed and actual amendment giving that power to the federal government.

Kirk Parker said...

What's our excuse for not doing the same?

Bruce Hayden said...

I presume that the WA- and CO-legal shops are making efforts to deal only in in-state-grown product, thus avoiding the issue.

Not sure how well that will work. I think that there was that Depression era case that found stuff grown on a farm and consumed there was in interstate commerce because of the food that they didn't need to buy.

That said, as I understand it, the states have specifically limited the pot sold to that grown in the states for just that reason. Could be wrong there.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

the states have specifically limited the pot sold to that grown in the states for just that reason. Could be wrong there.

That still doesn't solve the conundrum of what to do with all that cash, since the Banks are not going to know if your 'pot' was grown in or out of State. Or care much either. It doesn't matter to the bank since the Federal law is that marijuana is illegal and the proceeds from illegal activities being deposited into the bank will/may constitute money laundering and subject the bank as well as employees to fines and even incarceration.

Kirk Parker said...

DBQ,

Right. The only issue the instate-only requirement solves is staying out of the way of the legitimate exercise of federal power in this regard.

I'm guessing this is not really the foremost* concern of the new shops, but it probably in the the forefront forefront of the legislators' minds.

----------------------
* Althouse: Heh.

SGT Ted said...

When the left wants to destroy their mind with drugs, the doors open boys!

More reefer madness.

SGT Ted said...

Actually, except for the piss test part, I mostly agree with DBQ about Welfare requirements. I partook in and administered piss tests for 20 years, they only catch the stupid ones.

When they piss test politicians and judges every month randomly, I will be for piss tests to get welfare bennies.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I partook in and administered piss tests for 20 years, they only catch the stupid ones.

Well, that should be quite a few and a fine start IMO.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ SGT Ted.

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17233217

This guy wasn't too smart.

The reporting seems top-notch to me but I ain't no lawyer neither.

Revenant said...

When the left wants to destroy their mind with drugs, the doors open boys!

Legalization isn't a left-wing issue. Anyone who is serious about wanting small government supports it, too.

You can't get to 58% support with nobody but lefties on your side. It is mathematically impossible.

Revenant said...

If you are addicted to drugs or an alcoholic you should not get public money.

You just got finished saying people shouldn't get public money even if they *aren't* addicts, so that's a given. What I don't see is a reason to make the distinction.

Also, there is no medical test for marijuana addiction, because there is no such thing as chemical dependence on marijuana. People become "addicted" to marijuana the same way people become addicted to anything that feels good, like food, sex, or watching television. So how do you go about identifying these "addicts"? How is a guy who spends the day stoned different from a guy who spends the day watching TV, reading the Bible, or compulsively masturbating?

"Feel free to screw around on public assistance all you want, just don't consume one of this list of substances" is kind of a retarded message to send.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Revenant said:

there is no medical test for marijuana addiction, because there is no such thing as chemical dependence on marijuana. People become "addicted" to marijuana the same way people become addicted to anything that feels good, like food, sex, or watching television. So how do you go about identifying these "addicts"? How is a guy who spends the day stoned different from a guy who spends the day watching TV, reading the Bible, or compulsively masturbating?

There is no difference. All of those examples are non- productive, non-contributing wastes of time. Who cares about marijuana whether it is addictive or not. I don't think it is anymore than eating Twinkies is addictive[although I must admit that one enhances the other :-)] That isn't the point. If you aren't willing to be a contributing member of society you do not deserve to get free *anything*.

Are there people who are unable to ever be able to help themselves? Yes. But they are few, not in the millions, and they should be helped as best we can.

Personally, I could give a shit if you want to smoke pot all day long. I see no harm in smoking pot. It is pretty innocuous. I've smoked and used my fair share. I just do not want to be forced to subsidize your lifestyle, to support you. Smoke pot. Do it on your own time. Smoke pot and work. That can happen. I have practical knowledge of this. Just don't expect that anyone should be obligated to put up with you or support you.

I don't give a rip if you want to use meth until all your teeth fall out. Shoot heroin and drown in your own vomit, drink yourself into a stupor until your liver explodes. Go for it. Have at it. Actually, the faster the better. DO IT. Don't expect the rest of us to help you out and pay for your lifestyle.

Useless is useless, and I have no use for you. If that is what you want to do, do it.

people shouldn't get public money even if they *aren't* addicts, so that's a given. What I don't see is a reason to make the distinction.

There isn't any distinction. No one, or hardly anyone, should be getting public money. Period! Everyone, UNLESS you are severely disabled through no fault of your own, by birth, by accident, from war wounds...then you should do SOMETHING. Work!! Be productive. Be useful. Stop being an anchor.

If people are temporarily on hard times....OK...this happens, I've been there too....TEMPORARY help.

It should be charities that provide the main assistance for these circumstances and at the very last resort the government. LAST RESORT and not a permanent lazy chair to support you.

"Feel free to screw around on public assistance all you want, just don't consume one of this list of substances" is kind of a retarded message to send.

Well, that isn't MY message. I don't want "anyone" to screw around on public assistance. I don't believe we should have public assistance in the massive overreach that we have. [see above]

I believe that attrition and letting the law of Darwin progress is the best thing that can happen for the human race.

Eggs Omelets

Revenant said...

I believe that attrition and letting the law of Darwin progress is the best thing that can happen for the human race.

Hm, not the way you're proposing:

"I think your children should be taken from you as well.....give them a fighting chance at least"

In that scenario the addict not only successfully passes along his or her genes (the only measure of "success", evolutionarily speaking) but does so on your dime. He or she can keep pumping out unsupported kids willy-nilly while you pick up the tab -- and leave yourself with that much less money to spend on your own offspring.

Of course, all of that assumes that the behavior in question has a genetic component in the first place. But if it does, helping an addict's kids survive actually helps the "addiction gene" thrive.

sdharms said...

So the state of CO makes them targets by making them hold on to cash, but wont let them defend themselves with guns. Ha! CO legislators did not think this thru. the only reason it was on the ballot is to get the potheads out to vote for Obambi. 7 car pileup on I25 south of Pueblo yesterday. You have to wonder if any of the drivers were high.