WA officials: Challenges still exist around new pot law

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Officials tasked with creating a regulated marijuana system in Washington state said Tuesday they are moving forward with a timeline of issuing producer licenses by August, but said that several challenges and uncertainties still exist surrounding the new law.
Pat Kohler, director of the state Liquor Control Board, told lawmakers on the House Government Accountability & Oversight Committee that those concerns include continued uncertainty about what the federal government will ultimately do about Washington and Colorado's voter-approved marijuana legalization laws.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson met with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder last week, but were offered no further clarity on how the federal government will respond to last fall's votes in both states that set up legal markets for marijuana.
The two states voted to legalize recreational marijuana use by adults over 21 and to create state-licensed systems of growers, processors and retail stores that sell heavily taxed pot. The creation of those regulatory schemes poses a possible conflict with federal law, which outlaws marijuana, and the Justice Department hasn't said whether it will sue to block the state laws.
Inslee is expected in the coming days to send Holder a memo outlining key regulatory and enforcement issues that the state will be looking at.
Kohler said another concern has to do with banking and how, if at all, they'll be able to get federally-insured banks to do the banking for taxes and other revenue related to marijuana.
"I think it would be a public safety issue for it to be a cash operation," Kohler told lawmakers, and said the Liquor Control Board is working with the state Department of Financial Institutions to discuss alternatives.
Rep. Steve Kirby, D-Tacoma, a member of the committee who also serves as chairman of the House Business & Financial Services Committee, said that banks and credit unions aren't interested.
"They just won't go there," he said.
He raised the issue of the idea of a state bank, a measure that previously has not gained traction in the Legislature.
"That just might be a way to have a regulated system for handling the finances in this large industry," he suggested.
Kohler said that several other concerns have been raised during the first two of six public forums on the issue that have been held to date, including concerns about the proposed taxation structure driving the price so high that it creates a black market, as well as how to deal with past criminal histories of potential licensees.
Rep. Chris Hurst, a Democrat from Enumclaw who is chairman of the committee, said he believed anyone who dealt in the recreational marijuana market, not medical marijuana, before the new law took effect should be considered a criminal and looked upon as such.
"They have been breaking state and federal drug laws, they have not been paying taxes, they're engaged in money laundering," he said. "What would cause you to think they would obey the law in the future?"
The agency is charged with regulating marijuana under Washington's measure. It will hold four more public forums through the end of February, and a draft of proposed rules for producer licenses is expected to be filed by mid-April. Under their timeline, the board said that producer licenses would be effective in August, and processor and retailer licenses would become effective on Dec. 1.
___
Follow Rachel La Corte at http://www.twitter.com/RachelAPOly or http://www.facebook.com/news.rachel
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
"Challenges still exist around new pot laws." - Who would have guessed?  Stupidity, round 22......
De-criminalize "POT" and treat it like tobacco: Drug crime an crowded jails fixed overnight!
It's called the DEA. State legalization just gives them more easy targets.
The banks are only interested in breaking laws that bring *them* billions, not their customers mere thousands or millions.
 Challenges stil exist around cannabis laws. They could speak with the CARTELS. They have a lot of experience deal with the challnges of cannabis laws.
The only challenge the state has is how to extract the maximum amount of cash from the citizenry.
It's not much of a challenge, as they have a lot of experience in that.
Â
Hahahaha... the banks don't want that ill begotten money. Too funny.Â
Yes, the biggest challenge is grinding up that huge Bureaucratic structure designed to serve nobody but the bureaucrats.Â
Â
Oregonians just legalize weed for personal consumption and allow people to grow up to six plants at home unrestricted.  All the other laws already exist.
Hopefully when the money starts rolling in the President will pull his head out of his posterior and move Marijuana to a more appropriate place on the Federal Drug Schedual.
Where to begin, there is so much irony in this story.
Â
Â
"They have been breaking state and federal drug laws, they have not been paying taxes, they're engaged in money laundering," he said. "What would cause you to think they would obey the law in the future?"
Â
In reading this statement from Chris Hurst, a Democrat, I can't help but wonder how he feels about illegal aliens, their history of breaking laws, and their future propensity for lawlessness. As far as banks, they will line up to get access to the hundreds of millions that legal cannabis generates. That is, if the Feds pull their head out of their rear.
 @Torino_v2Â
Â
The whole intention is to pave the way for corporate interests like big-pharma to take over.
So banks will help launder billions for drug cartels, but aren't interest in collecting credit card fees from legal sellers?
Â
Yeah, right. Just let it start raining money, and they will kill each other to get a piece of the pie.
 @al_02Â
Federal laws do not allow banks to make any transactions that violate federal state or local laws. In case you were not aware marijuana sales at the federal level is illegal and a felony. Banks could find themselves charged with federal criminal laws.
Â
And were are banks laundering billions for drug cartels?
 @RalphCramden  @al_02Â
Â
Yes, that is exactly what prevented all the banks in FLORIDA in the 1980's from accepting wheelbarrow loads of money from coke dealers.
 @RalphCramden Federal laws do not allow banks to make any transaction that violate federal law? Really?
Â
Were (sic) are banks laundering billions? Take your pick.
Â
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/news/companies/hsbc-money-laundering/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/los-zetas-laundered-money-bank-america_n_1658943.html
 @al_02Â
Big banks used to handle any business that came their way. Once laws were passed banning laundering of money that started in the 70's and really got hit hard in the 1990's banks have been very careful to institute controls to prevent that.
Â
WIth every new law, drug dealers found a way to get around it. Banks are caught in the middle and because of the bad press and possible prosecution few will risk laundering money. If they get caught doing it, it is not a deliberate act of defiance. Much of that is due to their sheer size and the number of transactions they do each day.
Â
So they are not aware that they are laundering money and most will stop once they are informed of it and will institute measures to prevent it from happening again.
 @RalphCramden  @al_02Â
Â
Go down to Humboldt County and look at all the people without jobs driving nice cars and witness at all the killer little coffee shops and muffin shops, 1 for every 25 citizens, that rake in $5K a day.
 @RalphCramden  @al_02Â
Â
Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy? A big dude with no job in a tutu handing out money and in search of children's teeth?
 @RalphCramden So which is it you are arguing? They don't do it, they don't know they are doing it, they have admitted to doing it but haven't been officially convicted, or they are just so big that they can't help but do it?
 @al_02Â
These banks are so big and see trillions of dollars go through there systems. Some of that will be illegal money.
Â
The banks do not do that knowingly and in the cases you cited were never adjudicated in court. One was just a suspicion.
Â
Banks try to keep this from happening but with the number or transaction it would nearly be impossible to catch it all.
Â
Knowing that the banks will not be processing any funds from an illegal enterprise at any level. This is the dilemma that Washington is in.