Marijuana Banking Legalization Gets Scrapped Again
Members of Congress keep saying they want to allow state-legal pot businesses to have access to the banking system, but they keep refusing to actually do it.

For a sixth time, the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act has been scrapped by the U.S. Senate just before earning a vote. The proposal would grant state-legal marijuana businesses access to federally insured banks.
The latest blow to the SAFE Banking Act came Thursday when senators stripped the proposal out of the America COMPETES Act, a House-passed bill that aims to subsidize computer chip manufacturers and other industries. The inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act was one of the few redeemable aspects of the COMPETES Act, which is mostly a cronyist mess of disjointed giveaways to politically connected industries.
House Democrats had included the marijuana banking provision in the otherwise unrelated bill in an attempt to finally get the SAFE Banking Act through the Senate, where it has repeatedly stalled. The most recent failure came in December when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) had the proposal stripped out of the National Defense Authorization Act. As Reason's Jacob Sullum has reported, Schumer wants to prioritize his own, broader marijuana legalization effort over what he sees as piecemeal moves like the banking reforms.
To be sure, Congress should move immediately to legalize weed. But a perfect solution seems to have become the enemy of a good solution, and state-legal pot shops and growers find themselves caught in legal limbo.
"If there is a legislative version of The Twilight Zone, the SAFE Banking Act seems to be stuck in it," says Morgan Fox, political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), a nonprofit that advocates for legalizing marijuana. "It is incredibly disappointing that politics continue to get in the way of saving lives and helping struggling small businesses disrupt and ultimately replace the underground cannabis market."
A standalone version of the SAFE Banking Act has now been sitting in the Senate for more than three years, noted Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D–Colo.), the bill's sponsor, on Twitter. It cleared the House of Representatives in 2019 with a bipartisan vote of 321–103.
"The Senate continues to ignore the public safety risk of forcing cannabis businesses to deal in all cash," wrote Perlmutter, who promised to keep trying to attach the proposal to other bills in addition to pushing the Senate to adopt the stand-alone measure.
Indeed, the lack of access to the federally insured banking system continues to be a very real threat to the country's growing marijuana industry. Some weed entrepreneurs have been able to find access to nontraditional banks, but many others continue to have to act like criminals and deal entirely in cash, making them targets for actual criminals. Beyond those risks, it's obviously harder to do basic business tasks—like paying your taxes and your employees—without access to banks.
There's broad support for the SAFE Banking Act within the banking industry too. Marijuana Moment, a trade publication, points out that banking associations representing all 50 states and one U.S. territory and the Independent Community Bankers of America have voiced support for the bill.
Medical marijuana is now legal in 37 states. Recreational weed is legal in 19 states and quasi-legal in Washington, D.C. There were $25 billion of legal sales of marijuana made last year by an industry that employs over 400,000 Americans. There is, quite frankly, no good reason for Congress to continue excluding those businesses and people from the security of the federal banking system.
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
So went to a friend's funeral over the weekend. Very rural California area, fairly standard rural family. Was talking with the brother in law, a fairly straight laced dude in his 50s, and he's planning on moving to Oklahoma to start a pot farm. Huh? Never thought of him as a stoner, and probably isn't.
Turns out California is still fairly hostile to pot farmers. Gotta tax the shit out of it because all proggies know how to do is tax, tax, tax. But Oklahoma gives pot farmers a tax break. Very business friendly. You got the land you can grow on it, no problem. Apparently legal pot farming is booming there. Tegrity Farms and all that.
Whoa, you want the government to FORCE banks to provide services to marijuana businesses?
What about the whole "MUH PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!"?
Would that be "force" or just getting the fuck out of the way?
Or maybe just delisting it from federal controlled substance schedule [where it remains a class one, along with heroin and LSD] would be a good start.
"Whoa, you want the government to FORCE banks to provide services to marijuana businesses?"
No, we want the federal government to STOP prohibiting banks from providing services to marijuana businesses.
Someone's panties are so bunched they're forgetting that banking is one of the most highly regulated industries in the U.S.. Can we get just one restriction removed?
Let's start with "Stop refusing to do business with people your new hires dislike", then we can move forward to other things.
Jesus. *Allow*, not force. It protects banks from the feds if they want to do business with cannabis companies.
"Liberty" is absolutely a good brand to want to appropriate, but takes a bit to learn how to not give yourself away constantly in doing so.
Chuck Schumer is a fucking retarded howler monkey. Absolutely fucking useless, and his only talent is reaching around to his ass to pull something witty out to throw at the press.
What do you have against Howler Monkeys that you would put even their dumbest members into a class with Schumer?
True, I think I owe howler monkeys an apology. Naw, fuck them too!
Yep. He wants a bureaucracy to regulate and tax marijuana sales, making it so expensive to buy legally that the black market continues, so he can expand Federal drug enforcement agencies, thus hiring more Federal employees, whose unions will contribute to Democrats.
I'd say you're pretty close with that statement.
He wants a bill that caters to Wall St donors rather than independent/smaller banks
They call him Schmuck Schumer for a reason.
and his only talent is reaching around to his ass to pull something witty out to throw at the press.
Someone has been attending Pride events. Still, some things are just best left unsaid, ya know?
Open a bank account, call it "Weed & Seed Landscaping", deposit money. Bob's your uncle.
My uncle Bob died years ago you insensitive clod. 🙂
How's Aunt Sally holding up?
Did Uncle Bob run off the Fire Lake too?
Don't have an Aunt Sally.
Members of Congress keep saying they want to allow state-legal pot businesses to have access to the banking system, but they keep refusing to actually do it.
Keep voting Democrat, Boehm. They swear that they'll do it one day. If only it weren't for the darned Republicans wrecking their plans.
What does the dark green in this map remind me of? Can't quite put my finger on it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/cannabis-legalization-states-map-831885/
Feds will never legalize it. Stop begging Santa.
The most recent failure came in December when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) had the proposal stripped out of the National Defense Authorization Act
, where it so obviously belongs.
A cynic would wonder if they intentionally add it to the most wrong bill possible just so it will be removed.
a Congressman knows they do.
I saw the paycheck which was of $9282, I didn’t believe that my mom in-law was like truly earning money part time from their computer.. (res-15) there neighbor started doing this 4 only months and recently paid for the on their home and got Maserati.
.
More info here:>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/