This year has generated increasing hope that a long-overdue bill for addressing the lack of banking options for cannabis businesses would finally be passed, thus alleviating the hassle, expense, and dangers that come with operating as all-cash businesses. That solution manifested as the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act, AKA the SAFE Act. It has a broad bipartisan coalition of 206 House members who are co-sponsors, and is scheduled to receive a hearing this week. Passage would be great for the cannabis industry (and banks), so start chilling that celebratory champagne!
Except maybe wait, because last week a growing chorus of dissenters began making their voices heard, potentially jeopardizing the bill’s passage. And while access to banking for the cannabis industry through the SAFE Act is a well intentioned and worthy goal, those in opposition are making some valid points.
Marijuana Moment has been doing a great job tracking this story. They list some of the groups who are opposed, which include the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Drug Policy Alliance, Center for American Progress, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and JustLeadershipUSA, who want lawmakers to hold off on a vote until some social justice issues are addressed. (Other cannabis advocacy groups such as NORML and National Cannabis Industry Association support the SAFE Act.)
They sent a letter to House and Senate leaders last week, which read in part:
“We are concerned that if the House approves this bill, it will undermine broader and more inclusive efforts to reform our country’s marijuana laws…. The Congress has a unique opportunity to address the myriad injustices created by this nation’s marijuana laws. For decades, people of color have suffered under harsh and racially-biased marijuana laws. The banking bill does not address marijuana reform holistically. Instead, it narrowly addresses the issues of banking and improved access to financial services, measures that would benefit the marijuana industry, not communities who have felt the brunt of prohibition.”
The letter’s writers and co-signers are in support of another bill that would address banking and the other aforementioned issues: the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, put forth by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) this past summer. As Marijuana Moment writes, the bill would
“remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and invest money into programs aimed at repairing the harms of the war on drugs, which has been waged in a racially disproportionate manner.
“Individuals and communities who are still suffering from the destabilizing collateral consequences of prohibition need reform and should not be second in line behind the industry,” said the policy coordinator for Drug Policy Alliance. “We need to ensure that the sequencing of federal marijuana bills, especially under House Democratic Leadership, is well thought out and done in a way that centers the millions directly impacted by overenforcement. We want to avoid the banking bill becoming Congress’ only bite at the apple for cannabis reform this session.”
The MORE Act has thus far had what could charitably be called “modest progress.” None of the eight committees, including Nadler’s own, have scheduled a vote on it yet.
The SAFE Act was recently reworked to be more palatable to Republican House and Senate members, including “banking protections (which) apply to hemp and CBD businesses, and also shields certain businesses such as firearms dealers from being targeted by financial regulators, as was the case under a 2013 Justice Department initiative that flagged various industries as higher risk for fraud and money laundering.” So, as long as we protect the firearms dealers, this should pass then?
Adding to the roadblocks, passage of the bill now faces a parliamentary rule that is being used by supporters to move it along.
