Making the banking system marijuana friendly

[ProSense]

Making the banking system marijuana friendly

In some parts of the United States, it is now legal to sell marijuana to adult consumers. But an unforeseen problem recently popped up that hadn’t received much attention before: businesses that sell pot can’t open a bank account.

Because federal law still classifies cannabis as a “Schedule I” illegal narcotic, federally regulated banks don’t want to do business with pot retailers or dispensaries, even when they’re legal. Indeed, they can’t – banks would be subject to criminal penalties under money-laundering laws.

For policymakers, there are a couple of options. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), for example, wants to reform the Controlled Substances Act so that marijuana is no longer a “Schedule I” illegal narcotic and banks won’t have anything to worry about. Since that would require congressional approval, it’s unlikely we’ll see this change anytime soon. (See the correction below.)

<...>

* Update: I heard from Blumenauer’s office this afternoon, which said congressional action on reforming the Controlled Substances Act may not be necessary – the Attorney General’s office can act unilaterally without lawmakers’ approval. With this in mind, it would appear Holder can declassify marijuana as a “Schedule I” illegal narcotic at his discretion and without congressional input.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/making-the-banking-system-marijuana-friendly

National Cannabis Industry Association Applauds Attorney General...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024381790

[Jesus Malverde]

1. Good news if we don't need to wait for congress to reclassify it

The time to study it as a potential medicine is long overdue and puts this back towards a saner drug policy.

Thanks ProSense

[ProSense]

5. You're welcome, and

thanks for not posting a crazy comment.

Yikes!

[Logical]

2. The AG needs to immediately act on this. Someone is going to get robbed or murdered in CO....

and it will be on the Feds hands.

[Sgent]

3. Its the banking regs

not the schedule of the drug.

Cocaine is a Schedule II drug, and bankers would be every bit as terrified to deal with a federally illegal cocaine distributor as they are MJ distributors (which are federally illegal). They have no problem dealing with existing pharmacies, doctor's office's, and hospitals which use cocaine in treatment and abide by federal drug laws.

In addition, there are multiple Schedule I drugs that are used in research, and universities don't have trouble using banks as they abide by the DEA regulations for handling schedule I drugs.

[RainDog]

4. In 2011, I mentioned Holder could unilaterally reschedule/remove

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117069

Drug Schedules are part of the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970, that defines federal drug policy. There are five schedules, or classifications for drugs, to determine federal policy on those substances. Cannabis is currently listed as a Schedule I substance.

Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.

Other schedules and substances designated for various schedules are available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

The DEA and the FDA determine the scheduling of various substances, although Congress scheduled a substance via legislation in Feb. 2000. The Attorney General of the United States may also initiate a drug rescheduling hearing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/811b.html

Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute provides this information about the way in which a rescheduling may be put in motion, in this case, by the Attorney General:

...Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General

(1) on his own motion,
(2) at the request of the Secretary, or
(3) on the petition of any interested party.

The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance.

...if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled , the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.

Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules

In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.

[Sgent]

6. But it wouldn't fix the banking problems

the banking issues don't come from the schedule of the drug, but rather from illegal sales. Rescheduling would fix a lot of the problems, but wouldn't help the current banking issues.

[RainDog]

7. They're already on that one tho, right?

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2014/01/feds-will-grant-banking-rights-marijuana-businesses/

Posted on January 24, 2014 by Joshua De Leon •
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday that the U.S. Treasury and Department of Justice will allow legal marijuana sellers to conduct business with banks and credit unions. The DOJ will provide operating guidelines to marijuana businesses and banks similar to those provided to Colorado and Washington.

Banks will now be able to deposit and withdraw money in and out of bank accounts, obtain loans, build credit, and accept debit and credit cards payments.

Banks did deny opening their doors to legal marijuana businesses for fear of being an accessory to perceived illegal activities such as money laundering. Having the DOJ’s blessing for such a relationship, banks can now rest assured that they can hold legal marijuana money without fear of law enforcement interaction. Holder said that barring legal marijuana business from financial institutions causes the pot sellers grave problems.

[Sgent]

8. Yes

but it requires co-operation of the Dept of Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Without all three agencies signing off on changing the money laundering laws (and I'm not sure if congress still doesn't need to change the law) then the actual banks, Visa, et al will be scared of not just criminal but civil and tort claims.

The only way the DEA could fix the problem by itself is to legalize pot entirely (de-list it from all schedules). Reschedule to level II doesn't fix the banking problems. It fixes a LOT of other issues, but which schedule isn't the determinative factor -- but rather that its considered a controlled substance at all.

[RainDog]

10. The DEA will not fix the problem

They are part of the problem.

As one physicist said: If All Science Were Run Like Marijuana Research, Creationists Would Control Paleontology

Holder, however, as noted above, can decide to reschedule. He then seeks medical research to determine if it is reasonable to remove cannabis ENTIRELY from the Controlled Substances Act.

The research necessary to determine whether cannabis should be remove has already been done, decades ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117085
The CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 that was created by Congress to serve as federal policy on drug enforcement.

The act created 5 schedules for drug classification. Although Congress created the drug schedules, they appointed the DEA and the FDA to decide which substances to add or remove from schedules.

Therefore, changing a substance from one schedule to another, or removing a substance altogether does not require the passage of a law by Congress.

Instead, such as in the case of the scheduling of cannabis, a rescheduling hearing may be called to correct mistakes made by politicians in their haste to declare themselves enemies of this or that.

Marijuana was provisionally placed as a Schedule I substance based upon the recommendation of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. This classification was pending the outcome of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, led by Republican Raymond P. Schafer.

What did the Schafer Commission find?

You can read the full report here: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

Schafer's commission funded 50 studies.

Here's the recommendation they made:

We have carefully analyzed the interrelationship between marihuana the drug, marihuana use as a behavior, and marihuana as a social problem. Recognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about marihuana as a drug, we have tried to demythologize it. Viewing the use of marihuana in its wider social context, we have tried to desymbolize it.

Considering the range of social concerns in contemporary America, marihuana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize marihuana as a problem.

Schafer noted: Marihuana’s relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.

Schafer, handpicked by Nixon, didn't give Nixon the "facts" he wanted, so Nixon ignored the study and Schafer didn't get the judicial appt. he expected. A DEA yes-man overrode the commissions recommendation to decriminalize.

There is a lot of research that indicates cannabis has medical value.

Holder needs to simply remove cannabis from the drug schedule entirely and, as Democrats in the House have requested, put it under the control of ATF (and then, M) bureau.

Any medical uses from synthetics or natural cannabis would go through standard trials, etc. and be classified like Marinol. GW Pharma/Bayer wants to be able to bring Sativex on the U.S. market for MS and cancer treatment pain. Since Sativex is whole plant cannabis, there's no way the Feds can pretend "marijuana" is a schedule I substance, even tho some of them have tried.

[Sgent]

11. Oh I don't disagree

but I doubt that medical marijuana will ever be removed from the controlled substance list. Marinol is schedule III, and alcohol would be a schedule IV or V if it weren't for historical issues.

It may (hopefully) be treated as a different class of substance such as alcohol, but for medical use I don't see it being delisted.

[Cha]

9. HaHa!

* Update: I heard from Blumenauer’s office this afternoon, which said congressional action on reforming the Controlled Substances Act may not be necessary – the Attorney General’s office can act unilaterally without lawmakers’ approval. With this in mind, it would appear Holder can declassify marijuana as a “Schedule I” illegal narcotic at his discretion and without congressional input.

[ProSense]

12. Kick! n/t