Loading

House Appropriations Committee Blocks Cannabis Banking Amendment

  • by Justin Strekal, NORML Political Director June 14, 2018

    The House Appropriations Committee took up and defeated language known as the Safe Banking Amendment offered by Congressman Dave Joyce (R-OH) on Wednesday, June 13th.

    If adopted, regulators would not be authorized to use federal funds to threaten sanctions against banks working with marijuana-related businesses and entrepreneurs.

    The defeat of the Safe Banking Amendment was not a vote about marijuana, but rather it was about normalizing a nascent industry that serves hundreds-of-thousands of customers in the majority of US states where cannabis is currently regulated. Once these companies have an easier time conducting their day-to-day operations, then they should be willing to offer more consumer-friendly prices instead of inflating them at the point of sale to cover backend costs associated with operating as an all-cash business.

    Currently, hundreds of state-legal, licensed, and regulated businesses do not have access to the banking industry and are unable to accept credit cards, deposit revenues, or write checks to meet payroll or pay taxes. This situation is untenable. No industry can operate safely, transparently, or effectively without access to banks or other financial institutions. Congress must move to change federal policy so that these growing number of state-compliant businesses, and their consumers, may operate in a manner that is similar to other legal commercial entities.

    As an appropriations amendment, this funding restriction would have only been in place for one year.

    There is pending bicameral legislation introduced by Representative Perlmutter (D-CO) and Senator Jeff Merkley that the banking amendment was based, known similarly as the SAFE Banking Act. You can click here to send a message to your lawmakers in support of that legislation. 

    11 responses to “House Appropriations Committee Blocks Cannabis Banking Amendment”

    1. Matt says:

      Gonna be worse than they thiiiink, maintain pro-family anti-mariHUana stiiiiink. Gotta keep that pot CONTRABANNNND, give me an attitude cop and court will show their haaaand….protect the communityyyy….can’t allow ANY legal weeeed GET ON THE GROUND! Banks and finances are a CRITICAL and TOO OFTEN FORGOTTEN/OVERLOOKED casualty of slow or no action. Very important for legalization!

    2. Matt says:

      round and round we goooooo… backwards counties and states too sloooow.

    3. Justin says:

      I say the next move is to create a crypto currency specifically for the mj business. If these people want to keep ignoring the will of the people, then we should insure that the politicians’ banking cronies never make a dime.

    4. Julian says:

      Worth clicking on the link and pushing cannabankng forward.

      Oddly, the trojan hemp horse rolls right through the Senate, priming Congress for the STATES Act:

      https://www.marijuanamoment.net/bill-to-legalize-hemp-poised-to-advance-in-key-senate-committee/

      For the first time in more than 80 years of prohibition, a hemp legalization bill gets out of committee. For that we can thank the people of Kentucky pushing the majority leader to get it through the Agricultural Committee, chaired by Senate Majority leader McConnell by bypassing the prohibitionist Judicial Committee, chaired by prohibitionist and one of the mean old men from the Muppets, Chuck Grassley. And boy was Grassley pissed off! His amendment to gut hemp legalization and make CBD a schedule 1 substance was mocked publically by McConnell.

      It’s difficult to put into context how significant this hemp bill in the farm bill is both economically and historically. This is setting us up for a path to pass the STATES Act as well. Even if Paul Ryan fails to give the House version a vote, the Hemp Bill is likely to pass bicameral conference committee and become law. Even Jeff Sessions has told McConnell that although he doesn’t agree with the hemp law, he won’t oppose it.

      And for that we have to thank ourselves for buying hemp products at a premium, imported price. Every time I buy my hemp granola cereal at the store I’m in effect voting for the passage of hemp legalization. And the same goes for legally sold marijuana.

    5. Stew Greene says:

      How can they bitch about cannabis-related crime if they don’t make anything even remotely associated with it illegal?
      SSDD

    6. John A Gilson says:

      pass the banking ammendment

    7. Victor Cummings says:

      Follow the money trail. Who blocked it? Big pharma in their pocket

    8. toby keith says:

      Everyone knows its to protect then kids! Because they use a bank…wait a second, no kids use banks, have fake id’s & buy legal canny! Ridiculous.

    9. Michael Dee says:

      ` Criminal laws are not a political question. They present a justiciable controversy to be adjudicated by the judiciary. Being arrested is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty. Seizing drugs is deprivation of property. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Due process of law requires laws that authorize police power to deprive fundamental rights be justified buy a compelling government interest
      ANY State Attorney General should to file a lawsuit v U.S.A. in Supreme Court of the United States, original jurisdiction claiming the operation and effect of criminalizing marijuana by Congress is deprivation of liberty, property without reason, without a compelling gov’t interest, without due process of law contravening the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Judicial review is strict scrutiny not rational basis. Lawyers don’t get it. Being arrested is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty.
      “We yet like to believe that wherever the Federal courts sit, human rights under the Federal Constitution are always a proper subject for adjudication, and that we have not the right to decline the exercise of that jurisdiction …..” Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 248 (1967).

      “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 1943.

      Saving face this will not happen because it will show that millions of persons have been willfully deprive of liberty and property under the color of law, a federal crime. Title 18 USC 242

    10. Jack Stinnett says:

      The why is the clinton foundation allowed to use banks?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.