Do I have this right: your State says your medicine is legal to buy, the Federal government says it's not illegal, but whoever controls "federal insurance" prevents normal use of the banking system for companies that are in the supply chain?
Who decides on the rules for those using "federal insurance" and why do they override state law on what's legal to sell?
> Do I have this right: your State says your medicine is legal to buy, the Federal government says it's not illegal
No, the second half is wrong; the Feds say it is absolutely illegal, but also not a prosecution priority. Well, except the “not a prosecution priority” part just got a little less clear.
As far as I understand, your state says it’s legal but the federal government says it’s illegal. However, there’s a standing directive from the Justice department that they won’t prosecute individuals complying with state laws (when those state laws legalize marijuana).
So it’s still illegal at a federal level, but the department that would ostensibly enforce that simply let it be known that they would defer to state law and not prosecute when state law legalized it.
But since it was never actually legalized at the federal level, it’s little more than a gentleman’s agreement (which could be pointed to as a valid defense if someone was prosecuted federally). But since the directive came from the executive branch, it can also revoke/revise that directive as it wants, and begin enforcing those federal laws regardless of state level legalization. Congress still has the power to pass actual laws that decriminalize it federally, but they’ve conveniently been spared from that politically charged topic by the Justice Department directive. Now they’ll be forced to address it. And with hundreds of millions of dollars in state tax revenue at stake, there will likely be more pressure to not white wash over it than their has been previously.
> there’s a standing directive from the Justice department that they won’t prosecute individuals complying with state laws (when those state laws legalize marijuana).
The state could just arrest the federal agents for breaking state law, and throw them in with the drug dealers and stall the fed's efforts to spring them with maximal paperwork.
Let the 'system' sort them out and see how keen they are.
Only in regards to things where the federal government has authority to begin with. There are very good reasons (the Enumerated Powers clause, the 9th and 10 amendments, etc.) to question if the federal government actually has all the authority it claims for itself.
That’s true, but it’s been squarely presented and decided in Reich v Gonzales, relying on Wickard v Filburn that Congress does have this power. And through application of stare decisis / precedent it will be difficult to undo that.
It might. That happened in legalizing states prior to the policy; Rohrabacher-Farr, as long as it keeps getting renewed, legally limits this for state-authorized medical marijuana, but the effect in states with broader legalization is unclear.
No, what Sessions specifically said is it will be up to the state attorneys. In most cases their goals are aligned with the citizens who voted these laws into place.
> No, what Sessions specifically said is it will be up to the state attorneys. In most cases their goals are aligned with the citizens who voted these laws into place.
No, he said that US Attorneys should follow preexisting prosecutorial principles rather than the restraint policy which, in his words, “undermined the rule of law”. [0]
US Attorneys are federal executive-branch political appointees, not state officials whose goals are aligned with the interests of the voters of the state.
Someone will be able to explain this better than I can right now but the short and dirty version is that actual banks in the US operate with authority given by the federal government. This relationship grants them perks like being able to operate across states lines, etc., but also FDIC protection which insures the deposits they hold for customers. Since marijuana is illegal at the federal level, banks cannot have customers who are in essence violating federal law. Allowing dispensaries to be customers opens the bank up to a level of risk they are not willing to bear. My comment referencing being "federally insured" is in reference to FDIC, which is the easiest way to tell whether or not a bank is regulated at the federal level. Many credit unions are in fact not "banks" in the traditional sense as they are not federally regulated and do not offer FDIC insured deposits (although IIRC there is another form of deposit insurance that is not federally backed).
So again, the short version is your payment path in the marijuana industry cannot touch any corp that is federally regulated.
Pot is still illegal at the federal level. Though the Obama-era DOJ deprioritized enforcement. Jeff Sessions just rescinded this policy. So I'd expect to see some new cases dealing with pot end up in federal court.
This is still the case as of today - this protection has been extended to January, 18 when this last came up for vote. It'll likely get extended again.
So if they start targeting places, it'll be recreational pot stores and farms that sell to them, not medical dispensaries.
Who decides on the rules for those using "federal insurance" and why do they override state law on what's legal to sell?
Why can banks refuse your cash? Why do they?