←back to thread

662 points JacobHenner | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.807s | source
Show context
mannyv ◴[] No.40214223[source]
One major effect of this is that weed stores will be able to use banks and payment processors legally once the regulators catch up.
replies(17): >>40214302 #>>40214371 #>>40214681 #>>40214723 #>>40214802 #>>40214840 #>>40215087 #>>40215094 #>>40215242 #>>40215259 #>>40215926 #>>40216092 #>>40216174 #>>40217047 #>>40217090 #>>40218919 #>>40227379 #
bregma ◴[] No.40215094[source]
That's so sad.

Here in Ontario Canada I can walk into a local neighbourhood cannabis store (one of many on every block, it seems) and make a purchase using my debit or credit card. I'm not sure if any of them even keep a cash float although I imagine they must, just in case granny comes in "for medicinal use". Alternatively, I could just go to the government-run web store and get home delivery through Canada Post at no extra charge.

replies(2): >>40215155 #>>40219842 #
oooyay ◴[] No.40215155[source]
You can in the U.S. too. For instance, in Portland we have a neighborhood shop and you can use a debit card there because each transaction is classified as an ATM transaction. All the ban ever did was making accounting and reporting more complicated, it didn't stop state legal sales or transactions.
replies(2): >>40215371 #>>40216367 #
jkaplowitz ◴[] No.40215371[source]
The difference is in Canada it's actually fully legal at all levels of government, so the transaction is a normal point of sale transaction, it can also go through a credit card as a normal purchase without being subjected to the expensive cash advance interest rates, and so on. It can even be a tax-deductible and reimbursable business entertainment expense under similar conditions to alcohol.
replies(1): >>40215907 #
bawolff ◴[] No.40215907[source]
Its super weird how america can make things half legal. In canada the responsibilities are divided up between different levels of government. None of this legal at one level but not another level bullshit.
replies(3): >>40216639 #>>40216883 #>>40217474 #
1. callalex ◴[] No.40216883[source]
It’s easier to pull this off when the number of states fits on one hand.
replies(1): >>40222494 #
2. jkaplowitz ◴[] No.40222494[source]
If you mean provinces in Canada's context, then no, the number of provinces does not fit on one hand. In fact it barely fits on two, and that's only if you don't count the territories as well.

A bigger factor is that the Canadian prohibition was only controlled at the federal level in the first place, like all Canadian criminal law, so only the federal government had to legislate to change it. The provinces have however done lots of subsequent legislation to regulate the details (e.g. distribution channels and the exact minimum age limit) in a wide variety of ways.