“You don’t want just huge amounts of cash in these places. They want to be able to use the banking system,” [Holder] said. “There’s a public safety component to this. Huge amounts of cash, substantial amounts of cash just kind of lying around with no place for it to be appropriately deposited, is something that would worry me, just from a law enforcement perspective.”This is the problem we discussed last week, here.
January 24, 2014
"Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday that the Obama administration will 'very soon' issue some regulations that would make it easier for commercial banks to do business with legal marijuana operations..."
So begins the article at The Nation, which uses the misnomer "legal marijuana operations." Selling marijuana is a criminal offense under federal law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Given that there is federal law on the books and the Dems have made no moves to do anything about that --- the only thing Holder can do is what they've done since 2009.
Further erode respect for the law by openly advocating ignoring the law.
Eric Holder is the answer to that interesting and heretofore entirely speculative question: what if a sociopathic criminal were chosen to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer?
The DOJ writes banking regulations? Well, now, you learn something new every day.
Somebody should have thought this through.
It's a good thing that our head law enforcement officers don't need to follow the law.
I mean, even if you agree here that Marijuana should be legal and the proceeds should be treated as legal proceeds, is this how we want to make our laws?
This isn't going to end well.
Tari:
Through positive and negative enforcement. Perhaps the novel aspect of this declaration is that they have overtly vested themselves with the power of legislation.
The executive branch has proven to be an insolent, demanding child. A product of sabotaged character development, which is often an outcome of absent or insufficient parental guidance.
So not only are they failing to enforce the law, they are enabling its avoidance.
Carl said...
Eric Holder is the answer to that interesting and heretofore entirely speculative question: what if a sociopathic criminal were chosen to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer?
Why posit a sociopath when an everyday sleaze bag will suffice?
OK, so a state (oh Hell, let's say Idaho) decided to legalize possession and recreational use of fully automatic firearms -- sub-machine guns, M-60's, AK-47's, mini-guns, the whole enchilada. And dealers in the state were licensed by the state to sell such weapons to state residents or visitors without obtaining a federal permit.
Well, that could be big money, but it's money made in direct violation of federal law. Do you think Eric Holder would be sympathetic to the pleas of Idaho gun dealers to protect their deposits against regulations that apply to those who receive the proceeds of activities that violate federal law?
This is a bad idea. Holder should not do this thing.
[Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with decriminalizing or even maybe legalizing marijuana. But, there's a process to do that. 'Cause I said so' is not a process.]
If the sales are in cash and they pay their employees with cash, how do the state and federal governments know they are getting paid the proper taxes?
If the DEA is pressuring armored truck companies to not do business with marijuana retailers, will they take responsibility if someone is killed during a robbery? (I already know the answer to that.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ann, but the Atty General could direct the FDA to remove marijuana from all schedules of controlled substances if he chose to, right?
To me this is good. I want to see marijuana legalized. So this is a step forward.
n.n.,
It is Holder's assumption that bothers me the most, yes. If this is truly a verbatim quote from him, that is what's most wrong about this. He can't "issue regulations" - unless he's just going to decide that he can, and who will stop him if he does?
Actually, I think I agree with whatever "expert" was quoted in the article. Having done business with big banks for years, I find it hard to believe their lawyers will fall all over themselves approving these actions based solely on Holder's "regulations", assurances of non-prosecution, or however he chooses to do this. Then again, if those banks are threatened by the administration in the right way, maybe the business folks who run those banks tell their lawyers to shut up. I'm sure Obama and Holder assume those bank execs were bought and paid for long ago with "stimulus" money ... and maybe they were.
Tari:
I envision a convergence of interests. A social contract brought through coercion and agreement. The terms of signatories will vary, but the outcome will be a tenuous consensus. There will also be opportunistic, or, perhaps, compensatory, followers.
Actually, I think I agree with whatever "expert" was quoted in the article. Having done business with big banks for years, I find it hard to believe their lawyers will fall all over themselves approving these actions based solely on Holder's "regulations", assurances of non-prosecution, or however he chooses to do this.
Agreed what one administration can do by administrative rulemaking can be undone by the next. What bank is going to want to make long-term decisions based on last-minute rules issued by an administration that's goning to be gone in two and a half years?
You've written on this before -- it's hugely bothersome, both this and Obama's "pot is just a bad habit" quote in the papers a couple days ago. It shows a lack of respect for the law to just decline to enforce it, rather than attempt to change it by bringing legislation to Congress.
Yeah, I know, there's the issue of whether it would go anywhere -- but for Obama to say that there's nothing criminal about pot smoking and be indifferent to laws on the books says that fundamentally he thinks laws are pretty arbitrary anyway.
Tried to write about this (you be the judge of how artfully) a couple days ago here: http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/01/is-pot-smoking-merely-bad-habit.html
Legality aside, doesn't this set a precedent reinforcing state rights over federal law? (or some such thing).
Now apply the same attitude/law breaking to any other topic at hand which pits individuals, states and the federal government against one another (for example, guns, abortion, death penalty). Further, consider a more conservative federal government. Should we feel the same way about such 'regulations'?
Post a Comment