Marijuana Money Is Still a Pot of Trouble for Banks

Last month the director of the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network claimed marijuana businesses are finally gaining access to banking services thanks to guidance from officials in Washington. As University of Alabama law professor Julie Andersen Hill notes in a paper she delivered at a conference last week, that view is more than a little overoptimistic. In my latest Forbes column, I explain why Hill and other critics say the cannabis industry's banking problems can't be properly addressed without congressional legislation. Here is how the piece starts:
During a visit to the Dixie Elixirs & Edibles plant in Denver last summer, I saw the machines the company uses to produce cannabis concentrates, the kitchen where it makes marijuana-infused chocolates, and the bottling line for its THC-spiked sodas. Toward the end of the tour, I had a semi-serious question for the company's CEO, Tripp Keber: "Where do you keep your piles of money?"
Keber laughed but quickly turned serious. "We actually have strong banking relationships," he said. "We don't talk about them. Asking someone about their banking is like asking them what they wear to bed at night. It's an intensely personal question, even within the industry." You can begin to understand why banking is such a touchy subject for the newly legal cannabusinesses in Colorado and Washington (as well as growers and dispensaries in the 21 states that allow medical but not recreational use of marijuana) if you consider the federal laws a financial institution violates when it does business with a state-licensed company like Keber's.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We don't talk about them. Asking someone about their banking is like asking them what they wear to bed at night.
Name them and shame them. I say we require all entities we don't like to disclose what banks are dealing with them.
I can see where this is head[shop]ing: the feds are trying to weed out ne'er do wells, probably someone named Herb, or Mary Jane, and in the process they're smoking out legit businesses - legit at least on a local or state level. Cause of course FedGov still thinks it's Cannibis of the Hill, and trumps locals, who don't ave a pot to piss in, really.
Makes a man want to move to Mexico to settle down and marry Juana...I tell ya...
They you'll divorce her when you can't hash it out.
But our relationship was just budding!
*runs away crying*
Put a lid on it.
excellent!
I'll toke a memo on that...
This whole pun thread is disjointed and has us writing like dopes. It's a chronic tendency in these dank halls of H&R.
It stems from acute mental illness, the seeds of which were planted years ago.
We just choom through life, not cont-hemp-lating our actions.
"We're from the government, and we're here to help. On the floor, motherfuckers!"
"Should those of us who are not motherfuckers remain standing?"
BLAM!
"I'll take that as a 'No'".
Nice that MJ is "legal", huh?
Mickey and Shorty are going to rob those fuckers blind