Source: Rolling Stone
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/safe-banking-act-passes-house-marijuana-bank-bill-890525/
The House recently voted to give the marijuana industry access to banks, pushing the U.S. another step closer
towards legalization.
towards legalization.
Previously, banks that served marijuana dispensaries could be prosecuted for money laundering laws crafted under
the War on Drugs. This forced the marijuana industry to operate only in cash. Handling massive amounts of money
is, of course, extremely impractical, especially for an 11 billion dollar industry.
the War on Drugs. This forced the marijuana industry to operate only in cash. Handling massive amounts of money
is, of course, extremely impractical, especially for an 11 billion dollar industry.
The bill marks a turning point in federal attitude towards marijuana- although the bill makes no change to
marijuana’s federal legal status as a Schedule I drug, it is the first time the feds have taken a step to protect its
recreational status in some states.
marijuana’s federal legal status as a Schedule I drug, it is the first time the feds have taken a step to protect its
recreational status in some states.
This a great example of pluralism at work. Rep. Earl Blumenaur wraps things up pretty neatly-
“The states aren’t waiting for us. This is an $11 billion industry and growing. And it’s growing because
the people and the states are demanding it. We need to step up.” There is a clear coalition of interest groups
pushing for policies in support of the marijuana industry, as well as widespread public support among the people
themselves.
“The states aren’t waiting for us. This is an $11 billion industry and growing. And it’s growing because
the people and the states are demanding it. We need to step up.” There is a clear coalition of interest groups
pushing for policies in support of the marijuana industry, as well as widespread public support among the people
themselves.
Question Prompts:
- Do you think this is pluralism gone too far? What would someone wary of hyperpluralism think of this debacle?
- Is penalizing banks for serving the marijuana industry constitutional? Or do you think that it is an over-interpretation of the commerce clause?
- Now that the bill has passed the house, it’s on to the Senate. What are some actions an individual or an interest group can take to greater the chance that the bill passes?
3 comments:
I don't necessarily think that this is an instance of pluralism gone to far. By protecting the ability of Marijuana dispensaries to access banks legally the federal government in gaining a way to regulate one of the most commonly used drugs in America. If the federal government had not protected the rights of the dispensaries it would not alleviate the demand people have for the product, and instead people would just go to more illegal sources to satisfy their craving. And to answer your question of people wary of hyper pluralism, I think they would say this incident is quite the success of pluralism as a concept. The whole deal with hyper-pluralism is that the factions/single-issue groups would have such strong opinions that government wouldn't be able to function. That is not the case with this situation at all.
Like Steven, I also don't think that pluralism has gone too far in this case. It's true that the passage of this bill in the House was probably motivated by the strong support behind marijuana legalization, but it isn't only the influence of the groups supporting legalization that is encouraging the passage of this bill. In addition to the notion that denying legalization completely would bring more harm to people through search of illegal and possibly more dangerous substances, there might also be discussion on the possible positive effects of legalizing marijuana on the U.S. economy, seeing as how big an industry it is already. Judging by how the Supreme Court has used the commerce clause in the past, penalizing banks for serving the marijuana industry seems to be constitutional. It's not unlike Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court identified the marjiuana industry as part of a national market and therefore qualifying it as interstate commerce.
Similar to the comments above, pluralism has not gone too far based on the definition that pluralism is where the national and state governments co-exist. A hyperpluralist might even complain that the small factions or state governments do not get enough power. However, the government would essentially attempt to penalize banks for serving the marijuana industry on the basis of its unconstitutionality previously proven in the Gonzales v. Raich court case. Although it was stated that congress has the power to regulate home-grown medical marijuana because it violates the national trade concept of the commerce clause, I believe it is an over-interpretation of the commerce clause. If this drug is legal in a certain state, it should be entirely legal as addressed in the law. The SAFE Banking Act helps regulate state-legal marijuana business and access to banks and financial services, protecting marijuana business companies from possibly being a target for robberies because of their excessive amount of cash. The government established the bank for a reason, and that should not exclude or prohibit the banking of an item proven legal.
Post a Comment