Connect with us

Cannabis News

Cannabis Banking Today – Canna Law Blog™



We are helping build out another marijuana banking program here in Oregon. My law firm has done a series of these for credit unions (“CU”s) and other financial institutions (“FIs”) going back to 2014. We have also handled a good bit of hemp banking work– mostly in 2019 and 2020 before that industry cratered. In this post, I’ll sketch out some considerations for FIs looking at banking marijuana-related businesses – or, as they are known in the common parlance, “MRBs”. And I apologize in advance for all the acronyms. That’s banking.

MRB defined

The term “MRB” is used pervasively in cannabis banking, yet this term is not defined in the moldering 2014 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network “FinCEN” Guidance. It’s also not defined in the 2020 National Credit Union Administration Guidance on banking hemp-related business (“HRB”s) (which we helped write) or the 2020 FinCEN Guidance on that related topic.

The lone federal definition we have is from a 2018 Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Policy Notice, as revised, which categorizes MRBs as “direct marijuana businesses”, “indirect marijuana businesses”, and “hemp-related businesses.” Here is my shorthand:

  • Direct Marijuana Business.” A business that grows, produces, processes, distributes or sells marijuana or marijuana products. Applies to personal and medical use activity.
  • Indirect Marijuana Business.” A business that derived any of its gross revenue for the previous year from sales to Direct Marijuana Businesses. Examples include testing labs and sellers of grow lights or smoking devices.
  • “HRB” A business trafficking in hemp which “can demonstrate that its business activities and products are legal under federal and state law.” Examples given are paper, rope and clothing companies.

I have written on this blog that “all businesses are marijuana businesses” in the MRB context. In that piece, I also explained that FIs don’t really use the SBA definitions set forth above. Instead, early, state-chartered CUs began using a three-tiered system to analyze potential MRB clients within the FinCEN framework. That system was first expounded in 2016 by Steve Kemmerling of CRB Monitor, before “hemp” was removed from the definition of “marihuana” under federal law. The CRB Monitor system involved the following categories (which SBA probably referenced):

  • Tier I MRB: “Plant touching” businesses licensed by the state. Cannabis dispensaries, cultivators, processors and testing facilities all fall under this definition. These are the highest risk businesses for banks and constitute the majority of suspicious activity report (“SAR”) filings.
  • Tier II MRB: Businesses that rely on Tier I MRBs for the majority of their revenues and play a large role supporting the industry. See: equipment suppliers, consultants and industry associations. These businesses are lower risk for banks than Tier I. However, banks target them for enhanced KYC (“know your customer”) protocols.
  • Tier III MRB: Businesses that service Tier I businesses, but do not rely on the cannabis industry for their primary source of revenue. Classic examples include lawyers, accountants, property management firms and utility companies.

It’s worth noting that CRB Monitor revised and further parsed its definitions in 2020, but in my experience, most FIs keep it simple with the legacy framework or something similar. It isn’t a legal framework, after all. It’s just an expedient model that has been adopted widely by FIs given the federal leadership vacuum.

The bottom line here is that any FI looking at banking MRBs – or HRBs, for that matter – needs to come up with definitions and criteria for what an MRB or HRB actually is and does. That criteria can be shared with potential clients, or not, during the screening and ongoing KYC processes for industry accounts. In my experience, drawing lines around “indirect marijuana businesses” / “ancillary businesses” / Tier III MRBs is the most challenging area here.

Ownership tracking parameters

Inside and outside the MRB context, FinCEN requires FIs to track and report “beneficial owners” of the businesses they bank. Beneficial ownership reporting is a core industry requirement, with a new rule coming down the pike January 1, 2024, in fact. A “beneficial owner” for FinCEN purposes is anyone who: (a) has significant responsibility to control, manage or direct a legal entity customer; or (b) directly or indirectly owns or controls 25% or more of a company’s equity. (Again, my shorthand.)

In the MRB context, FIs often hold clients to a heightened disclosure standard. This isn’t merely due to the nature of the industry. Most state marijuana programs have ownership disclosure standards which require disclosure of anyone: (a) with control over the cannabis business, or (b) who owns equity in a cannabis business. The thresholds tend to be lower than the “beneficial owner” numbers– sometimes 20%, 10%, or even lower. Disclosure doesn’t always mean vetting, but the names must be surrendered.

An FI should want to know at least as much about the ownership of its member or customer as state cannabis regulators–  especially in the absence of federal industry regulation on that topic. Typically, the FI will shortcut this inquiry by requiring the MRB to produce its application and license records with the state. And the FI will not open an account until the state has actually issued a marijuana regulatory license, in most cases. Which brings me to my next point.

Working with state regulators

FIs that wish to bank MRBs need to request and receive records from state regulators on a regular basis. This ties into KYC considerations, which include not relying on the customer (or member) representations to the FI. In the cannabis context, FIs have an obligation via FinCEN to double-check state regulators’ work, essentially.

State regulators do tend to publish basic information on their licensees: the company name, type of license it holds, license number, and sometimes published decisions or disciplinary proceedings. However, I don’t know of any state that publishes information on the ownership structure of its cannabis licensees. This means that information which isn’t statutorily subject to redaction (e.g. social security numbers, site security plans) will be available only via a public records request.

Public records requests can be time-intensive and expensive. From experience, cannabis regulators may struggle to fulfill them regardless of legal requirements. Thus, FIs that wish to bank MRBs generally enter into information-sharing agreements with the relevant state regulator(s). At this point, many state agencies are accustomed to such arrangements.


FIs will have various intake forms for all potential members and customers. These forms must be tailored for MRB and HRB applicants, and supplemented to boot. Here’s a typical universe of forms an FI will send to any cannabis industry applicant:

  • Enhanced Monitoring Account (EMA) Cannabis Industry Certification
  • EMA Supplemental Agreement
  • CRB or HRB and Ancillary Business (AB) Supplement
  • CRB or HRB or AB Attestation
  • Consent to Release Form (for state regulators, see supra)

The forms, in turn, will require various submissions by the applicant, from regulatory license packets on down. Here at the law firm, I expect we will revisit many of these forms for FI clients in the near future, owing to changes in the hemp space under the 2023 Farm Bill. And perhaps again with respect to marijuana if moved to Schedule III.

Transaction monitoring, detection and reporting

The federal government has put FIs in a truly awkward position on MRBs. Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering (“BSA/AML”) compliance is a significant undertaking for FIs even outside the cannabis space. However, the FinCEN Guidance bumps things up a level by essentially deputizing FIs as federal law enforcement auditors. FinCEN requires FIs to monitor their MRB customers and members perpetually, including what they sell and to whom, and to watch for indicia of adverse information.

These FI obligations commence immediately and ensue perpetually. Specifically, the FI is required to file an initial SAR within 30 days of onboarding. The FI must also file continuing SARs every 90 days after that, in addition to “marijuana limited”, “marijuana priority” and “marijuana termination” SAR filings, as needed, based on any number of events – or suspected events – set forth in the 2014 FinCEN Guidance. To say nothing of all the currency transaction reports (“CTRs”).

These filing obligations, and all of the software and training that goes with them, are frequently cited by FIs as a primary justification for the increased fees paid by MRBs. Law enforcement may hardly be acting on them, but FIs need to comply.

Services to offer

Most FIs that work with MRBs offer limited services, or basic depository accounts. That said, we’ve worked with a couple of CUs that offer a full suite of banking and lending services. There are limits, of course, to what even the most enterprising FIs can do. They cannot offer bank card transaction processing for cannabis purchases (at least, not anymore). If the FI is smaller, like many state-chartered CUs, it will be limited in its deposit carrying capacity; this makes for an awkward constraint in a cash-laden industry.

Many FIs that get into cannabis banking are pulled into the space by one or two high-net-worth customers. Then, they will slowly branch out to a wider client base and often a wider suite of offerings. Others are more intentional, and set out to target the industry.

Regulatory dynamism

I mentioned the Farm Bill is up for renewal this year, directly affecting banking for HRBs, and that “marijuana” may also move to Schedule III sometime in 2024. In addition, the specter of legislative reform is forever hanging about the industry (via the SAFE Banking Act, though I’ve called it oversold). Locally, new state cannabis programs continue to come online. This sometimes results in modest state-level legislation to insulate FIs from local prosecution for banking cannabis, even if such changes do not create a federal safe harbor or touch on BSA/AML strictures.

Overall, any FI that moves into this space should be prepared to roll with some changes over the next couple of years. Those changes are happening, however, because the cannabis industry is growing. It’s not a bad time to get in right now. It’s probably better than ever, in fact.

Source link

Cannabis News

What is Black Cannabis and Can You Smoke It? Do You Get High?




black weed cannabis

Are you familiar with black cannabis? Exploring various cannabis forums reveals conflicting opinions on the existence of black cannabis. Can certain strains attain such a dark hue that they appear black? Although uncommon, there are indeed strains of cannabis that exhibit deep black/purple/blue coloring.


However, this distinctive coloration only manifests under specific conditions. Let’s delve into the factors that contribute to the development of black cannabis strains.

What Causes Some Plants to Have a Darker Hue?

The prevailing climate heavily influences the alteration of color in plants. Cannabis cultivated in the warm Mediterranean typically displays a vibrant green color, while plants grown in cooler climates tend to produce compounds resulting in a purple hue.


The critical agents behind this phenomenon are anthocyanins, which serve as natural antifreeze for the plant. This antifreeze property aids in water retention, preventing water from escaping the leaves and forming ice crystals between leaf cells in freezing conditions. The cooler the growing climate, the greater the production of anthocyanins.


Some researchers propose that anthocyanins act as sunscreen, shielding plant leaves from specific light intensities and enhancing the absorption of other soft types. Anthocyanins stimulate the absorption of blue and green light wavelengths, with cannabis responding by producing more anthocyanins under certain stress conditions.


Furthermore, it is plausible that the coloration serves as an attractant for specific pollinators while deterring potential pests. Much like various flowers exhibiting a spectrum of colors, cannabis flowers can produce an array of hues.


During periods of drought, plants also tend to increase anthocyanin production. These theories collectively suggest that anthocyanin production is an adaptive trait enabling plants to thrive and endure specific environmental conditions.


If anthocyanins elucidate the purple coloration in cannabis, how does black come into play? Well, anthocyanin in cannabis is the same compound found in plants such as black rice, eggplant, black currants, and black/blue tomatoes. Consequently, the greater the presence of anthocyanins in a plant, the more profound its coloration becomes.

Color Genetics

The interplay between environmental conditions and genetics governs the coloration of plants. Cool climates stimulate increased anthocyanin production in plants, yet certain purple strains exhibit superior capabilities in generating this compound. For instance, strains like Black can produce leaves and buds with a deep purple, almost black hue in nearly any environment.


The hypothesis suggests that the Black strain possesses a recessive phenotype enabling enhanced conversion of glucose into anthocyanins. Offspring from the Black strain hybrids can display a diverse range of colors, ranging from purple to reddish and even white. To maintain a black coloration, the progeny must inherit a recessive gene from both parent plants.

pH Influence

Anthocyanins, responsible for red, purple, blue, and black hues, are influenced by pH levels. Cannabis plants naturally thrive in slightly acidic soil. However, the redder coloration intensifies with more acidic soil, while neutral pH promotes blue and purple hues.


To enhance the purple tones in your herb, maintaining a slightly higher pH within the optimal range of 5.8 to 6.8 on the pH scale is recommended.

Color and Potency

While some individuals perceive black strains as highly psychedelic and rich in THC, the color of the plant may not directly contribute to potency. Instead, certain strains with black phenotypes may have been selectively bred to produce elevated levels of THC. Indica plants, known for their propensity to turn purple more readily, are also believed to produce higher THC amounts naturally.

Effects on Consumption Experience

While color may or may not directly impact the overall consumption experience, anthocyanins, the compounds responsible for vibrant colors, offer many health benefits. Much like the advice to “eat the rainbow,” anthocyanins contribute to the reds, purples, and blues in the food color spectrum.


In humans, anthocyanins provide various health advantages, including protection against cardiovascular disease, antioxidant properties, cancer prevention, memory enhancement, anti-aging effects, immune regulation, and anti-inflammatory benefits.

Black Cannabis Varieties

Currently, some of the sought-after black strains available include:

1. Black Domina

Black Domina boasts captivating, uniform specimens distinguished by broad, dark green leaves and compact, resinous buds. With a sweet, incense-infused flavor, this Indica-dominant strain delivers a profound and potent relaxation experience, making it an ideal choice for those seeking medicinal and therapeutic benefits due to its elevated CBD levels.

Properties of Black Domina:

  • Sativa/Indica: 5/95%.

  • Flowering: 8-9 weeks indoors, end of September outdoors.

  • Yield: 400-500 g/m2 indoors, up to 1 kg per plant outdoors.

  • Height: 60-90 cm indoors, 1.5-2.5 m outdoors.

2. Black Jack

Formulated by Sweet Seeds, Black Jack is an intensely fragrant plant with a sweet, slightly lemony aftertaste reminiscent of the legendary Jack Herer. With high resin production, it allows for extract creation. Its balanced sativa and indica hybrid genes induce a euphoric sensation that transitions into a relaxing state, offering a unique experience.

Properties of Black Jack:

  • Sativa/Indica: 50/50%.

  • Flowering: 60-70 days indoors, mid-October outdoors.

  • Yield: 500 g/m2 indoors, 700 g per plant outdoors.

  • Height: up to 1.8 m indoors, 1.8-2.5 m outdoors.


3. Black Domina (Sensi Seeds)

Another classic cannabis strain, Black Domina by Sensi Seeds, is a product of crossing three potent Indica strains—Northern Lights, Ortega, Hash Plant, and Afghani S.A. Rich in resin content, this strain is perfect for enthusiasts of cannabis extracts. Its Indica dominance ensures high levels of relaxation, effectively alleviating muscle pain.

Properties of Black Domina:

  • Sativa/Indica: 5/95%.

  • Flowering: 8 weeks indoors, end of September outdoors.

  • Yield: up to 500 g/m2 indoors, 750 g per plant outdoors.

  • Height: 60-90 cm indoors, 1.5-2.5 m outdoors.

Black cannabis, though less known, is a unique and distinctive variety with its dark appearance, providing a distinct touch to cannabis cultivation.


The mystique of black cannabis goes beyond its unique appearance. It results from a fascinating interplay of environmental conditions, genetics, and the plant’s adaptive mechanisms. Whether you’re drawn to the allure of black cannabis for its potential potency or its distinct aesthetic appeal, these strains continue to captivate the cannabis community, adding a touch of enigma to the world of cultivation and consumption.





Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Dating a Narcissist, Try an Ayahuasca Weekend Getaway!




ayahuasca for narcissism

A recent study, released earlier this year proposes that ayahuasca may serve as a remedy for excessive self-love. Published in the Journal of Personality Disorders in April, the research is based on a three-month analysis involving over 300 adults. The study indicates that “ceremonial use of ayahuasca” led to self-reported alterations in narcissism.


However, the researchers advise caution, noting that the changes in effect size were marginal. Results varied across convergent measures, and observers reported no significant shifts. Despite these nuances, the study cautiously supports the notion of adaptive changes in narcissistic antagonism within three months following ceremonial experiences, suggesting potential efficacy for treatment.


Nevertheless, the study did not reveal significant shifts in narcissism. The researchers emphasized the need for further investigation to comprehensively assess the applicability of psychedelic-assisted therapy in addressing narcissistic traits and ego death, mainly through studies involving individuals exhibiting higher antagonism and employing antagonism-focused therapeutic approaches.


Ayahuasca and Narcissism: A Three-Month Analysis

Conducted with 314 adults participating in ayahuasca ceremonies at retreat centers in Peru and Costa Rica, the study imposed a minimum age requirement of 18 years. It excluded individuals with a personal or family history of psychotic disorders. Recruitment occurred through emails sent two weeks before the reservation start date at an ayahuasca retreat center.


Participants were incentivized with a detailed report on their personality changes and the opportunity to enter a raffle for a week-long retreat at one of the ayahuasca centers, valued at $1580, as compensation for their involvement, as reported by the publication.


The researchers mandated participants to fill out three surveys, with an added incentive of $20 or $30 for each survey completed. These surveys took place eight days before participants’ attendance at an ayahuasca retreat center, during their stay, and three months post-retreat.


The assessments encompassed evaluations of narcissism, utilizing tools such as the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Psychological Entitlement Scale, and a composite derived from the five-factor model personality facets.


Additionally, 110 informants, the participants’ peers, carried out these assessments at the initiation and conclusion of the three months post-retreat.


Ayahuasca’s Growing Acceptance and Transformative Impact

In recent years, ayahuasca and other psychedelics have gained widespread acceptance, with the public, research community, and governments increasingly recognizing their potential for enhancing mental health.


A study published last year revealed that individuals who have used ayahuasca generally experience more benefits than adverse effects from the drug. Originating from researchers in Australia, the study also acknowledged adverse effects among participants.


Many individuals are turning to ayahuasca as an alternative to conventional Western mental health treatments, driven by dissatisfaction with the latter.


However, the study emphasized that the transformative impact of this traditional medicine should not be underestimated, often leading to mental health or emotional challenges during the assimilation process.


While these challenges are typically temporary and viewed as part of a positive growth process, the authors cautioned that the risks are heightened for vulnerable individuals or when used in unsupportive contexts.


The study’s press release outlined the key findings, revealing that 69.9% of the sample reported acute physical health adverse effects.


The most prevalent physical effects included vomiting and nausea (68.2% of participants), headache (17.8%), and abdominal pain (12.8%). Only 2.3% of participants experiencing physical adverse events sought medical attention for their issues.


In terms of mental health effects, 55% of all participants reported adverse outcomes, such as hearing or seeing things (28.5%), feeling disconnected or alone (21.0%), and having nightmares or disturbing thoughts (19.2%).


Despite these mental health effects, 87.6% of respondents attributing them to a positive growth process believed that they were either entirely or somewhat part of such a process, as stated in the press release.


The researchers also identified several factors that make individuals more susceptible to experiencing adverse physical events. These factors include older age, the presence of a physical health condition or substance use disorder, lifetime ayahuasca use, and consuming ayahuasca in a non-supervised context.


The authors noted that ayahuasca can lead to notable adverse effects, albeit rarely severe, as evaluated by the criteria typically applied to assess prescription medicines.


They emphasize that assessing ayahuasca practices using the same parameters as prescription medicines is challenging because the diverse effects of ayahuasca encompass difficult experiences that are inherent to the overall experience, some of which are considered integral to its healing process.

Policy Shifts and Legal Landscape: The Case of Berkeley, California

In Berkeley, California, this past summer, city officials endorsed a measure to decriminalize ayahuasca. The effort articulates the City of Berkeley’s intent not to allocate city resources for investigations, detentions, arrests, or prosecutions stemming from alleged violations of state and federal laws related to the use of Entheogenic Plants.


It explicitly establishes the policy that no entity within the city, including but not limited to the Berkeley Police Department personnel, shall employ any city funds or resources to aid in the enforcement of laws that impose criminal penalties for the use and possession of Entheogenic Plants by adults who are at least 21 years old.


The decriminalization of ayahuasca in Berkeley, California, signifies a progressive shift in the city’s approach to entheogenic plants. The approved measure reflects the city officials’ determination to prioritize a stance of non-interference and non-utilization of resources concerning adults’ use of these substances.


By adopting a policy that explicitly disengages city departments, agencies, and law enforcement from contributing to the enforcement of criminal penalties for the possession and use of Entheogenic Plants, the City of Berkeley embraces a more nuanced and open-minded perspective.



The conclusion drawn from the study and the broader discussion is clear: the therapeutic potential of ayahuasca, particularly in addressing narcissistic traits, is a nuanced and evolving area that warrants continued exploration. The study provides a window into potential adaptive changes, underscoring the need for a cautious approach to psychedelic-assisted therapy. It emphasizes acknowledging such treatments’ transformative impact and possible adverse effects.


With the increasing interest in alternative mental health approaches, it becomes imperative to conduct further research and cultivate a comprehensive understanding of the risks and benefits associated with ayahuasca.





Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Same Old Banana in the Tailpipe for the SAFER Banking Act




SAFER Banking Act needs republicans

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is actively working to secure Republican support for the long-awaited marijuana banking reform bill. Schumer has invested considerable political capital in advancing the SAFER Banking Act.


The proposed legislation, if enacted, would prevent federal regulators from penalizing financial institutions for providing essential services like bank accounts, payroll services, and credit card transaction processing to marijuana businesses that are legal at the state level.


The SAFER Banking Act underwent two Senate hearings this year, with approval during a significant markup hearing in September. However, before Schumer can bring the bill to a floor vote, he seeks the backing of “10 or 11 Republican” senators, as he shared with Yahoo News. Achieving 60 votes is crucial to overcoming Senate cloture rules and passing the legislation in the upper chamber of Congress.


Presently, the SAFER Banking Act has four Republican co-sponsors. Given the Senate’s composition of 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans, bipartisan agreement is essential for progress. The absence of such agreement failed a bill allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs to explore cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder, garnering only 57 votes in April.


Despite the prior stalling of cannabis banking measures in the Senate after multiple House approvals, this year’s committee hearings signify a potential shift. Nonetheless, with Republicans controlling the House, passage in the Senate does not guarantee overall approval by Congress or the signature of President Joe Biden.


Publicly expressed opposition from several Republican lawmakers centers on specific grievances with the current bill language. They argue that certain provisions from the Obama era unfairly target non-marijuana industries, including firearm merchants.


The Journey of the SAFER Banking Act


The SAFER Banking Act’s legislative odyssey has been marked by setbacks and recent strides, shedding light on the complexities surrounding marijuana banking reform. Despite gaining approval during significant Senate hearings this year, the bill’s history reveals a stalling pattern in the Senate following seven successful passages in the House of Representatives.


The bill began with the House’s repeated endorsement, underscoring the widespread acknowledgment of the need for comprehensive marijuana banking reform. However, each time the bill reached the Senate, it faced obstacles that prevented its passage into law. This historical context adds weight to the current efforts spearheaded by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is determined to break the cycle and usher in a new era for marijuana-related financial services.


This year’s committee hearings represent a turning point, providing a platform for comprehensive discussions on the SAFER Banking Act. The September markup hearing, in particular, symbolizes progress, signaling that the Senate is giving due attention to the bill’s potential impact on the financial landscape. This shift in momentum offers a glimmer of hope for advocates of marijuana banking reform, although challenges persist in securing the bipartisan support necessary for the bill’s success.


As the SAFER Banking Act stands at the cusp of potential advancement, its historical journey serves as a backdrop, emphasizing the resilience required to navigate the intricate legislative process and the evolving attitudes toward marijuana-related financial policies. The next crucial steps hinge on the ability to learn from past challenges and build a bipartisan consensus that paves the way for meaningful reform in the banking sector for state-legal marijuana businesses.


Quotes and Insights on the Path Forward


Senator Chuck Schumer’s commitment to advancing the SAFER Banking Act is underscored by his unwavering optimism for the bill’s future. In navigating the intricacies of bipartisan cooperation, Schumer has provided key insights into his strategic approach and the transformative potential he envisions for marijuana banking reform.


Expressing confidence in the importance of collaboration across party lines, Schumer has emphasized the necessity of gaining support from “10 or 11 Republican” senators to secure the 60 votes required for Senate cloture. His belief in the bill’s ability to address crucial issues faced by state-legal marijuana businesses is evident in his persistent efforts to rally bipartisan backing.


In a statement to Yahoo News, Schumer highlighted the significance of the SAFER Banking Act, particularly in shielding financial institutions from federal penalties when offering essential services to marijuana-related businesses. His vision extends beyond partisan divides, focusing on the positive impact that the legislation could have on both the financial sector and the broader cannabis industry.


As Schumer steers the bill toward a floor vote, his quotes reflect the challenges faced and the potential for historic change in marijuana banking policies. His optimism serves as a rallying cry for supporters, signaling a determination to overcome obstacles and deliver on the promise of reform. According to Schumer, the success of the SAFER Banking Act hinges on the ability to forge bipartisan consensus, and his strategic vision provides a roadmap for navigating the path forward.


Examining the Criticisms of the SAFER Banking Act


The road to bipartisan support for the SAFER Banking Act faces notable hurdles, primarily from specific objections from some Republican lawmakers. A focal point of contention revolves around grievances concerning certain provisions within the bill, particularly those dating back to the Obama era. Critics argue that these provisions unfairly target industries beyond the realm of marijuana, with specific concerns directed at firearm merchants.


Publicly expressed opposition from these Republican lawmakers underscores a broader challenge in gaining unified support for marijuana banking reform. The critique revolves around the perceived punitive impact of the bill’s language on non-marijuana industries, raising questions about the scope and unintended consequences of the proposed legislation. This internal dissent within the Republican ranks adds complexity to the delicate balance required to achieve bipartisan backing.


Despite the opposition, examining Republican concerns provides valuable insights into the nuanced debate surrounding the SAFER Banking Act. Balancing the interests of different industries within the context of marijuana banking reform remains a critical challenge, highlighting the need for careful negotiation and potential amendments to address the specific grievances raised. As the legislative process unfolds, finding common ground that addresses both the concerns of Republican detractors and the bill’s objectives will be pivotal for the SAFER Banking Act’s advancement in Congress.


Bottom Line


The SAFER Banking Act’s journey reflects historical challenges and present-day optimism, encapsulated by Chuck Schumer’s determined efforts to secure bipartisan support. Recent progress in committee hearings signals a potential shift. Yet, the delicate dance of overcoming Republican opposition, particularly regarding specific grievances with the bill’s language, adds complexity to the path forward. Schumer’s strategic vision and emphasis on collaboration underscore the transformative potential of marijuana banking reform. As the SAFER Banking Act teeters on the cusp of advancement, the bottom line is clear—a nuanced, bipartisan approach is essential to balance industry concerns and legislative goals, ultimately determining the fate of this critical reform in the realm of state-legal marijuana businesses.





Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media