Marijuana busines are STILL Illegal under US Fedral Law …

I have had this discussion with some here at the PDog…

There answer back to me on this is….’sure..but NOT really’

Several states have made recreational pot use legal….

That maybe….

But the Fed’s STILL have laws on the books that supercede local and state law’s….

And while US Attorney’s across the country may follow instructions from the Justice Department to lay off pot arrests ?….The Laws are still there….

Those laws are done in the US Congress….

Not the White House….

So we have one branch of governmenet going one way, while others are going another……

Because of the this we have situation where marijuana grows are consisdered law breakers by the IRS…They can’t get tax relieve for their busines expenses like other business do….

Soem banks* even won’t deal with taking their money….

Instead of Olive v. CIR being a bad decision issued by activist judges that usurps federal law, the opinion is a good one that puts a spotlight on the inconsistencies in federal law and the challenges that they present for marijuana users, enterprises, and even regulators.

As I wrote a few weeks ago regarding Coats v. Dish Network— a case where the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a medical marijuana user could be terminated for using cannabis in a state that allowed it for medical treatment—these problems stem not from the judiciary but from Congress and the President. Under federal law, cannabis is an illegal substance. However, Congress has tried to limit the enforcement of the law in medical marijuana states and the Department of Justice has taken a laissez-faire approach in states with regulated “legal” marijuana systems. Despite the latter two efforts, the federal government is far from offering a holistic legal solution. Instead, it offers a patchwork of fixes, sticking a piece of gum on leaky pipes only to ignore other leaks in the system.

It creates a bizarre legal landscape that both marijuana supporters and opponents should see as disjointed. While the Controlled Substances Act is clear about cannabis, legislative and executive actions have actively encouraged states to experiment with relaxed marijuana policies. That has created a system of marijuana federalism wherein marijuana users get access to state-regulated marijuana (often) from state-legal enterprises. Those policy and commercial sub-systems operate in an environment that some parts of the federal government approve and other parts actively hinder.

Marijuana’s current status under federal law is unsustainable, and frankly difficult to understand. Good public policy should be consistent, treat everyone equally, and provide a navigable process which achieves the ends that policy makers intend. It is unclear what “end” policy makers aim for with cannabis. It should either be illegal or not, but not both….

More…

*Note….

The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidelines [Feb. 2014] that Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery said was intended to signal that “it is possible to provide financial services” to state-licensed marijuana businesses and still be in compliance with federal anti-money laundering laws.

The guidance falls short of the explicit legal authorization that banking industry officials had pushed the to government provide.

But because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, classified alongside heroin as among the most dangerous substances, officials say this is as far as the government can go….

More….

Share on Facebook

8 thoughts on “Marijuana busines are STILL Illegal under US Fedral Law …”

  1. maybe….

    you have a Conservative influenece in Congress….

    as I have pointed out?

    There is in fact NO great rush by other states into the recreational use of marijuana….

    in fact here in NY …The media just showcased a story about the arrest of someone running their own pot selling business….

    the changes needed COULD come…But they will be later…if at all….

  2. this isn’t just about recreational use of marijuana. Insurance carriers will not reimburse for medical use as long as long as the federal government keeps it illegal. So insurance carriers pay for opiods that are far more toxic, addictive, expensive and sometimes even less effective than marijuana. Makes no sense whatsoever.

  3. When have you ever “pointed out” anything concerning insurance companies and opioids?Ive never seen it.

    What you “point out” at least once a month is that there are federal laws against Marijuana which,of course, everyone knows.

    What I point out is that the Feds are not going to come into a state like Colorado which has legalized marijuana and start enforcing “possession” laws.

    The article that you are playing off here concerns the authors contention that the present situation is not good governance.

    I agree.

    What he’s hinting at is that the federal government revise certain laws to take into account the changing landscape for such matters at the state level.

    Finally I think everyone here can plainly see mp by your continuing harping on this subject us that you are opposed to Marijuana legalization.

    Fine,but I think you are mistaken if you believe this genie once out of the bottle is going to be put back in.Even in states where marijuana remains illegal,enforcement ,particularly for mere possession ,is spotty and federal enforcement ,except for Major seizures ,is nonexistent

  4. As usual
    What you think and what I think are two entirely different things sometimes
    I started my view

  5. Everyone has the right to their own view

    No one has the right to their ” own” facts.

    My first sentence was factual.You have NEVER said such a thing here.

    You often claim to be have “pointed out” things before when you never have and every time you do I will “point” it out.

  6. For those interested in the selective enforcement of federal laws,

    There is a federal law adopted several years back that prohibits one convicted of violating any state law prohibiting Domestic abuse from EVER owning a firearm.

    Most attorneys easily recognize this for what it is,more of a declarative statement for public consumption ,rather than a realistic effort to enforce such.(As Thousands of people are convicted yearly of these type charges such enforcement would be well nigh impossible) .

    In my role as a Prosecutor I am obligated to inform those I’m prosecuting for DV related offenses of this federal law as are the presiding Judges, knowing full well that such won’t be enforced.

    I have a friend who is an Assistant U.S Attorney .I asked him one day had they ever brought a prosecution in such a case..He laughed heartily and answered,”of course not.”

    Just last month the state of SC reluctantly adopted a state law which is similiar to the federal law and I believe that will be enforced to an extent.

Comments are closed.