Legality day one netted my state $250,000 in tax revenue.

[Da6s]

What? How does that even work?

Surely most stores were set up as business enterprises which require a bank/accountant/tons of other bullshit to set up and everyone tends to be pretty clear about what/where/why the revenue stream will appear.  This is basic fucking business.
If anyone can explain this to me it'd be appreciated because I can't understand this at all.

Here's  starting point. Will add other articles as I find em.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2014/01/pot_sales_denver_5_million_five_days.php

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4552371/

[LMNO]

Here's the legality of it:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-07/making-it-safe-for-banks-to-take-legal-pot-money
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/159453

That changed, Jammaron said, in September of 2011, when he got a newsletter from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the agency that insures all U.S. bank deposits.

"We heard from them that anyone doing this would be considered to be money laundering," he said. "At that point in time, our only real course of action was to ask [the marijuana businesses] to close their accounts."

Because marijuana is illegal under federal law, it's also illegal for banks to handle money generated from its sale. Yet a federal review of banking rules is now underway at the U.S. Justice Department, and the law could change in the coming months. 

[Da6s]

Fucking AspenDaily.

[Junkenstein]

Thanks gents, will get to reading. From what I've gathered so far these business all operate pretty much cash only?

I had a thought - What if banks can't touch it, but there was some other currency, separate from the dollar, possibly some kind of electronic coin, maybe managed by some sort of federal bureaux which made every transaction traceable all the time.

Then I remembered I'm paranoid fool.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Federal rules consider it money laundering so banks won't touch the "drug money"?

Where's HSBC when you need 'em?

[Junkenstein]

That too. It'd wonderful too see pot shop owners protesting this outside a branch.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

The above marks 8 areas "of particular importance", with the final paragraph of "Fuck you, buddy".


I'm still stunned with the whole banking angle, I had just assumed that the states that had gone for this had built in financial regs accordingly, otherwise, well, this. It's impossible to take any cash from it and you're still totally complicit at all times according to the feds.

I can think of a couple of ways to get cash from shop to back pocket but I wouldn't like to risk the defence in court. Is it wrong to worry that despite the increasing prevalence/availability of such laws that it may just be safer in the long run to stick to the black market or private enterprise?

[Da6s]

Thanks gents, will get to reading. From what I've gathered so far these business all operate pretty much cash only?

Fed law won't allow currency for legal pot to cross state lines. As a result of this, credit cards are not "allowed" . There are ways around this including lying about your business for credit card statements or using your register as a functioning ATM, typically requiring a pin be entered.

Hickenlooper appealed to the feds 3 months ago about banking and financial regulations for legal retail. Nothing was done. So now here we are.

[Junkenstein]

I sense mileage in a fake ad campaign along the lines of "HSBC staff promise their support in the drug war. We know which side we are on!"

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The regulations are protection for the black market, as always. Legalization poses a pretty big threat to established illegal drug trafficking organizations, and those organizations own a lawmaker or two either directly or indirectly. Banks won't open accounts for legal marijuana sellers, but they'll launder billions for cartels in Mexico. Why? Because they're more afraid of what will happen to them for aiding legal businesses than what will happen for actually laundering drug money for cartels, which is nothing.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The regulations are protection for the black market, as always. Legalization poses a pretty big threat to established illegal drug trafficking organizations, and those organizations own a lawmaker or two either directly or indirectly. Banks won't open accounts for legal marijuana sellers, but they'll launder billions for cartels in Mexico. Why? Because they're more afraid of what will happen to them for aiding legal businesses than what will happen for actually laundering drug money for cartels, which is nothing.

Sounds like a bunch of conjecture with nothing to back it up, good sir.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The regulations are protection for the black market, as always. Legalization poses a pretty big threat to established illegal drug trafficking organizations, and those organizations own a lawmaker or two either directly or indirectly. Banks won't open accounts for legal marijuana sellers, but they'll launder billions for cartels in Mexico. Why? Because they're more afraid of what will happen to them for aiding legal businesses than what will happen for actually laundering drug money for cartels, which is nothing.

Sounds like a bunch of conjecture with nothing to back it up, good sir.

Nothing to back it up? Clearly you are unfamiliar with the David Icke school of just knowing stuff intuitively.

[Junkenstein]

From legalisation to reptoids in less than 2 pages.

SEE THE DAMAGE POT BRINGS.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

From legalisation to reptoids in less than 2 pages.

SEE THE DAMAGE ENHANCED PERCEPTION POT BRINGS.

Fixed that for you, matrix-slave.

[Left]

From legalisation to reptoids in less than 2 pages.

SEE THE DAMAGE ENHANCED PERCEPTION POT BRINGS.

Fixed that for you, matrix-slave.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Didn't someone we know once insist that tax revenue would be nowhere NEAR the millions predicted?