Posted on 02/16/2016 12:04:23 PM PST by TroutStalker
The Sacramento branch of the California tax collection agency reeks of marijuana.
That's because it's cash day at the collection center - when marijuana dispensary owners are allowed to bring in paper money to pay their quarterly sales tax bill - and the smell of their inventory clings to everything.
California, like all states with any form of legalized marijuana, faces a growing problem over the federal government's position that cannabis remains a Schedule 1 illegal drug, classified the same way as meth or cocaine, with no legal uses - and therefore no legal access to traditional banks.
That means medical marijuana dispensaries, along with growers, distributors and other marijuana-related businesses that are operating legally under state laws, have no choice but to be cash-only businesses. They can't write checks, deposit money in financial institutions or make credit card transactions.
"We've been a cash industry for ever and it has been quite a problem," said Kimberly, the director of a non-profit dispensary in Sacramento who asked that her last name not be used for safety reasons. "We don't want to drive around town paying our bills in cash. We want to be able to just go to the bank."
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
They’re as above-board as possible because they must be.
It sounds like risky business.
OK, so if you have the Idiot Feds legalize it - are you going to FORCE the banks to accept illicit drug money accounts and deposits?
<><><><><
Um, one small issue with your statement above.
If it’s legalized, the drug money is not illicit.
Try working with the primary definition, which is not legally permitted.
If it is legally permitted, it is not illicit.
the 2nd definition relates to morality, not the law.
It is illicit if the feds say it is illicit.
Wait till they ban the $100 bill:
It’s time to kill the $100 bill
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3397859/posts?q=1&;page=1
The only reason the banks aren’t accepting the money is because in the 80s to cut down on bank participation in laundering and drug lords getting great lawyers we put in some “poison source” laws that can seize money (and even stuff bought with the money) that eventually came from an illegal source. If the fed legalizes pot it’s no longer a poison source, the banks will take the money.
Can’t believe you don’t know the meaning of the word ‘illicit’.
See post 14.
If the fed legalizes pot it’s no longer a poison source, the banks will take the money.
____________________________________
Not necessarily. My bank (top 50 in the US) does not accept accounts from sex industry businesses or from predatory payday lenders.
May be legal businesses, but they are illicit.
Some banks might hold out. But most won’t. Banks need money so they can lend money and make money, as long as said money doesn’t come with a threat of seizures most don’t care where it came from. Once pot is legal free enterprise will make sure legal pot businesses have somewhere to put the money, just like the legal sex industry and payday lenders.
Can’t they use ATM machines?
Some banks will not do business with firearms dealers and related products.
Are you saying they are illicit?
2 problems with your argument.
Since when did anyone force a bank to take money?
2. When prohibition is repealed it will no longer be illicit.
It's way past time for Harry's Reefer Madness aka Jim Crow II to end.
why don’t they just deposit it to a personal account and then write a check to their business account????Big deal....
Because that's not how real accounting is done. It is also highly illegal.
“Cash only business with no regulation - as pro conservative as it gets. No?”
No. Unless the rest of trade is done so.
2 problems?
Well, relax. You have more than that with your pro-dope reasoning.
Lots of banks are forced by law into making illicit transactions. Just like I said citizens are forced into accepting illicit queer marriages.
And.
You need to learn what illicit means.
<><><<
You may have noted that your definition from the interwebs had 2 parts, one dealing with the law and the other dealing with morality/ethics.
since we are discussing the law, the definiton based in morality simply does not apply.
I've recopied what you posted because apparently you've not really read what you posted, and simplified it for ease of reading (again, because you clearly did not read it the first time):
1.not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful.
2. disapproved of or not permitted for moral or ethical reasons.
Get it now? When discussing matters of law (as we are doing here), definition 1 applies. When we are discussing what you believe to be right/wrong, please feel free to use definition 2. Remember, those are 2 entirely different things.
Waiting for your reply as to firearms being an illicit transaction. It must be immoral only because the second amendment makes it legal.
Keep waiting. There are some questions so stupid that they don’t deserve an answer.
Yours is one of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.