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….
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….
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….