The Washington Post

Here’s yet another strange side effect of the government’s position on pot


(Ed Andrieski/AP)

Here’s another weird side effect of the government’s balancing act when it comes to weed that is newly legal in two states: the FBI will run background checks for Colorado, but it won’t for Washington, according to the Associated Press.

Both states want the checks on prospective marijuana business owners because they want to keep organized crime out of the newly legal industry. The fact that the FBI will help one and not the other underscores the bizarre position the feds find themselves in.

The federal government’s response to the legalization laws in both states was critical to their success. The administration could have fought legalization, but it didn’t. In late August, Deputy Attorney General James Cole released a now-famous memo urging federal prosecutors to focus their “limited” resources on more serious violations when it comes to legal pot. The subtext was fairly clear: We won’t go after your new laws as long as you legalize pot safely. The trouble is background checks would help states do just that. The AP summed it up nicely:

The Obama administration has said it wants the states to make sure pot revenue doesn’t go to organized crime and that state marijuana industries don’t become a cover for the trafficking of other illegal drugs. At the same time, it might be tough for the FBI to stomach conducting such background checks — essentially helping the states violate federal law.

The government is basically telling Washington to keep crime out of legal marijuana but without the help of the FBI, which, by the way, is helping Colorado.

AP asked FBI about the discrepancy. The agency directed comment to the Department of Justice, which only issued a written statement saying “the department has been reviewing its background check policies, and we hope to have guidance for states in the near term.”

The AP report unveils a strange inconsistency is the federal government’s approach, but even some efforts to add clarity haven’t worked out. For instance, all businesses, including pot dispensaries, need banks. The problem is banks are banned from supporting illegal activity. The government issued guidance last month that, as with the Cole memo, suggested it would look the other way, but banks are still reluctant until the drug is legalized federally.

“[G]uidance or regulation doesn’t alter the underlying challenge for banks,” American Bankers Association President Frank Keating said in a statement last month. “As it stands, possession or distribution of marijuana violates federal law, and banks that provide support for those activities face the risk of prosecution and assorted sanctions.”

States can legalize pot, but businesses will have to deal with various kinds of uncertainty unless the federal government does, too.

Niraj Chokshi is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
The Democrats are debating tonight. Get caught up on the race.
What to expect tonight
Tonight's debate is likely to focus on the concerns of African American and Latino voters. Clinton has focused in recent days on issues like gun control, criminal-sentencing reform, and the state of drinking water in Flint, Mich. Sanders has been aggressively moving to appeal to the same voters, combining his core message about economic unfairness with his own calls to reform the criminal-justice system.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
Upcoming debates
Feb. 11: Democratic debate

on PBS, in Wisconsin

Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.