Lately,here in Canada,the banks,at least two of them are trying to distance themselves from the marijuana business,That business is currently legal with respect to the production and sale of marijuana for medical use.And we are told that legislation will be introduced within a year to legalize and regulate marijuana for recreational use.The present cancellation of accounts by Scotia Bank and Royal Bank though,apply not only to those producing and handling the plants,but to those selling secondary products,such as pipes and bongs,and other,fully legal products associated with marijuana.
A lot is being left to the imagination as to why major banks would take such a stand in regards to an industry which is in some sense legal,and which is being further legalized as a statement of public policy under our current government.One possible reason,and it seems a good one, involves banking south of our borders,where it is still illegal to hold funds taken from the sale of marijuana.Obviously banking in Canada,as in the rest of the world, is highly interconnected with American banking and thus,I can see how this might pose a problem for Canadian banks.Banks,as a rule and wherever they are located tend to be among the most conservative,cautious institutions in the world.They are intensely concerned with reputation and,so far as we know given to taking great pains to comply with the law.So then,is this simply a matter of the banks in question having done their due diligence in terms of identifying and avoiding possible legal exposure?Or is there something more afoot here?
We really need to take a look at the presence of banking in our lives.Normally it's something we don't give a lot of thought to.We are conditioned to taking banks, with all of their attendant conveniences and evils,for granted.Being able to undertake banking is a fundamental necessity,especially for those operating their own businesses.But the current position of some Canadian banks with respect to marijuana production and distribution raises some important questions as to just how much intrusion a bank can or should have into the lives of it's customers.
First,let me say that it's wholly reasonable for a bank to undertake,as a matter of policy and practice to avoid breaking specific laws,including those that apply to the marijuana trade.But we have to wonder why the banks are waiting until now to take a very strait laced moral high road in a debate which is ongoing and controversial.It makes me wonder what other activities,including legal activities might be frowned upon in the towers of Bay Street,and what potential consequences they might hold to bank customers.
The thing is though,banks are not government,and they are certainly not police.Accordingly,they do not,or at least should not have unbridled power over the lives of people who seek the privilege of engaging in the economy in a more or less legal way.We all have privacy rights,allegedly.So does the bank have the right to ask that I disclose detailed descriptions of what my business does,who it does business with and who I as a bank customer choose associate with? They may have some limited rights in this area if they hold a note on a particular business,but what if they do not? Will I be faced with the possibility of having a routine savings account canceled because I indulged in legal marijuana ten minutes before entering the bank? Will mortgages or loans be called in if a bank knows a customer indulges in marijuana use? Will the day come that I will have to prove that I'm drug free to partake of ordinary banking transactions?
Banks have a lot of power over businesses and individuals.Apparently they have the power to exclude some customers from ordinary,legal participation in the economy.And I would like to know what limits are placed on these powers.Are they totally arbitrary,completely at the discretion of the bank.That would mean,in theory,though perhaps not in practice that banks could dictate outright the ability of a person,persons or organization to participate in the economy.So then,with that in mind,who else,aside from marijuana dealers are they policing? The KKK,perhaps?How about the John Birch Society,or the local abortion clinic? I don't recall this being an issue in years past when abortion was the burning issue,but maybe times and morals have changed.And they will continue to change.So will banks continue to have their current latitude when it comes to deciding what is sufficiently controversial to warrant limiting or curtailing banking privileges?
It should be noted,in this current controversy that banks,in the effort to keep their hands scrupulously clean,are in fact contributing to some social problems that could otherwise be mitigated.By excluding persons involved in the marijuana trade from banking,I suspect much of that trade is cash only in nature.Moreover,at least here in Toronto,pot shops tend to be located in relatively busy,and in many cases high crime neighborhoods.The presence of large sums of cash in such places poses a risk to the public,and requires additional policing and security,with the additional expense that involves.Further,it tends to extend the current stigmatization of those businesses,even though the trend is towards greater legalization of marijuana and it's complimentary products and services.
We are told,or at least left to speculate that increased legitimacy of the marijuana industry will eventually result in banks accepting marijuana producers as customers.Once banks can draw sufficient profit from the enterprise that is.Well.does anyone really think banks don't currently participate in questionable industries.Such as tobacco companies,for instance,or companies that produce and sell weapons? Or maybe the producers of dirty oil,genetically modified organisms,or mining companies that remove whole mountains,destroying eco systems in the process In that event,we must wonder why the moral opinions of banks are taken to out weigh those of the rest of society.Especially in a debate far less consequential than many.
blyndpapaya
No comments:
Post a Comment