Cannabis industry should have access to banks
GUEST EDITORIAL

Cannabis industry should have access to banks

  • 0
{{featured_button_text}}

Editor’s note: Today’s editorial originally appeared in The Columbian. Editorial content from other publications and authors is provided to give readers a sampling of regional and national opinion and does not necessarily reflect positions endorsed by the Editorial Board of The Daily News.

Imagine a legal billion-dollar industry in Washington that is shunned by banks. Proprietors cannot secure loans, accept credit card payments or access payroll services. Customers have to make a stop at the ATM before visiting the store.

That is the case with Washington’s burgeoning marijuana industry, which remains an all-cash endeavor. Although voters approved recreational marijuana in 2012 and retailers set up shop two years later, banks still treat the industry as though it is the back-alley pariah of yore. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, bankers are understandably wary of risking the wrath of federal regulators.

That might be changing — as it should. While marijuana legalization should be left up to each state, legitimate businesses in states that have approved cannabis should be allowed to operate as other companies do. That covers a lot of territory; 33 states have approved medical marijuana, and 10 of those, along with the District of Columbia, have approved recreational marijuana.

Now, Congress is considering the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 (H.R. 1595), which would allow banks to serve marijuana businesses without fear of reprisal. The measure has broad support, with 184 co-sponsors in the House, including eight of Washington’s 10 representatives (Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, is not a co-sponsor). The bill recently passed the Financial Services Committee by a 45-15 vote and is expected to be brought to the floor next month.

Another solution to the issue might be budding in California, where the state Senate has approved the establishment of state-chartered cannabis banks. But Congress still should take the lead in allowing financial institutions to do business with legitimate companies.

Approving banking services for cannabis growers and shops should not be conflated with approval of marijuana. Even the American Bankers Association writes: “While the ABA takes no position on the moral issues raised by legalizing marijuana ... ABA believes the time has come for Congress and the regulatory agencies to provide greater legal clarity to banks.”

The need has been echoed in congressional testimony. Gregory Deckard of Spokane Valley-based State Bank Northwest told lawmakers: “We have a major energy provider. Naturally, their customers include cannabis-related businesses. For that reason alone my bank cannot bank this utility without assuming legal risk and additional compliance burdens.”

Legislators also heard tales of the risks of all-cash businesses. In California, the state’s treasurer said, cannabis companies have dropped off duffel bags and suitcases full of cash to pay their taxes. And Rep. Denny Heck, D-Olympia and a co-sponsor of the bill, said: “We have the power in this committee to prevent murders and armed robberies and we must use it. We must use it now.”

That might or might not be a bit of hyperbole, but the situation does seem to be generating unnecessary risks.

It also is generating unnecessary inconveniences. If customers had to use cash every time they stopped for their favorite pint of microbrew, we’re guessing that Congress would get an earful.

State Treasurer Duane Davidson said: “This is not about legalizing cannabis nationwide ... this is about creating a safer cannabis industry by allowing these mostly cash-based businesses to bank with their local financial institutions.”

0
0
0
0
1

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion interpreting the Civil Rights Act is a comforting reminder of President Trump's consistent inability to accomplish his goals. The opinion was authored by Trump's first pick for the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch. Flatly rejecting the Trump administration's arguments, Gorsuch held that the Civil Rights Act prevents employers from discriminating against gay and transgender employees. 

When it comes to COVID-19, a college campus is like a cruise ship, a cinema multiplex and a restaurant all rolled into one. Yet many U.S. institutions of higher education are forging ahead with on-campus, in-person classes and activities for fall terms, making campuses likely hotbeds of illness. Some students, faculty and staff will likely have permanent damage. Some will probably die.

Employer-based health care is a fine system — if you have an employer. And no pandemic. And an administration that is actually interested in the health of Americans.

July 1 is not a date Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is likely to forget anytime soon. Some of the most iconic and biggest spending brands in American life — including Coca-Cola, The Hershey Company and Ford Motor Company, have joined a call for the suspension of advertising on Facebook this month. From Adidas to Verizon, many of the brands you see every night advertising on TV have signed on, according to a list at the boycott's website.

Our country's systemic racism combined with inequities exacerbated by COVID-19 threaten a 15-year trend of improving educational advancements of low income and minority students. Unless we take bold action, we are on the precipice of creating a lost generation of students, without secure pathways to adult success, further increasing racial injustice and economic dislocation. A key, immediate step is to expand AmeriCorps to enable all students to receive the supports they need when schools reopen.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

News Alert

Breaking News