There’s no doubt marijuana is a hot topic. Some people support its legalization in South Carolina largely citing medical benefits. Others believe it only impairs a person’s judgment and leads to increased crime. Recently, one Lowcountry lawmaker weighed in on the drug.
“I have never used any drug and don’t want our boys using them,” Congressman Mark Sanford wrote on Facebook.
Sanford’s remarks came after voting in support of two amendments that would make it easier for marijuana businesses to receive full access to the federal banking system in states where the drug is now legal. The lawmaker explained in detail why he supports the amendments.
“Some say that because marijuana is illegal on the federal level, and banks are federally regulated, that the federal government should use its powers under the interstate commerce clause to block banks from doing any business with these companies,” Sanford stated. “In my mind though, the genius of what our founding fathers intended, and explicitly laid out in the Constitution, was that most powers were to be left to the states and individuals rather than the federal government.”
In the wake of Colorado and Washington’s decision to legalize marijuana, federal banking laws have come under scrutiny. Under current law, banks are forbidden from accepting money from known illegal sources.
Since selling marijuana in these states is still illegal under federal law, banks in Colorado and Washington are not be allowed to accept money stemming from the purchase of the drug. In many cases, legally held marijuana businesses in those two states have turned to cash-only operations.
“Cutting off access to the banking system for businesses in Colorado that are legal strikes me as overreach and leads one to wonder what other businesses the federal government would try to shut down if it could,” Sanford explained. “Should states that manufacture automatic rifles not be able to use banks because other states outlaw them? Should Coca-Cola not have access to banks because New York City banned big sodas? These might sounds like “out there” examples, but when the federal government starts traveling down the road to expanding its own power, it is hard for states and individuals to get that power back.”
This tug of war between states’ rights and federal government rights has the banks caught in the middle, and earlier this year, President Obama began the process of untangling the legal mess.
According to Sanford, this issue is a prime example of states’ rights at its core.
“Whatever side of the debate you fall on for having marijuana be illegal, applying the founding principle of federalism leads me to believe that states should not be constrained by the federal government in matters that most concern their own businesses and citizens,” Sanford added.
The amendments passed in the U.S. House of Representatives last week. They now head to the U.S. Senate.
Prior Story:
Should South Carolina legalize marijuana?
Berkeley Co. lawmakers weigh in on SC marijuana legalization
- Solicitor Wilson announces indictments against former sheriff Wayne Dewitt - February 10, 2015
- Ex-SLED agent recommended for interim sheriff of Berkeley Co. - February 5, 2015
- Berkeley Co. Sheriff Wayne Dewitt resigns from office - February 4, 2015
Recent Comments