Federal authorities would no longer be able to punish banks that work with businesses that grow, process and sell hemp products under an amendment up for consideration in the U.S. Senate this week.
The measure, submitted on Tuesday by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), seeks to include the protections for hemp banking in the large-scale Farm Bill, which is currently on the Senate floor. The legislation, as currently drafted, already includes provisions that would legalize the cultivation of the non-psychoactive marijuana cousin.
Paul’s fellow home-state senator, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has been the leading force for hemp legalization in Congress this year.
“American consumers are buying hemp but thanks to heavy-handed regulation, the only option at scale is importing hemp from foreign producers,” he said in a Senate floor speech on Wednesday. “Enough is enough.”
It is unclear if Paul’s amendment will receive a floor vote.
See the full text of the new hemp banking amendment below:
______ SA 3198. Mr. PAUL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of subtitle F of title XI, add the following: SEC. 11618. SECURE AND FAIR BANKING ENFORCEMENT. (a) Safe Harbor for Depository Institutions.--A Federal banking regulator may not-- (1) terminate or limit the deposit insurance or share insurance of a depository institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.) or the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) solely because the depository institution provides or has provided financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business; (2) prohibit, penalize, or otherwise discourage a depository institution from providing financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business or to a State or Indian tribe that exercises jurisdiction over hemp-related legitimate businesses; (3) recommend, incentivize, or encourage a depository institution not to offer financial services to the owner, operator, or an individual that is an account holder of a hemp-related legitimate business, or downgrade or cancel financial services offered to an account holder of a hemp- related legitimate business solely because-- (A) the account holder later becomes a hemp-related legitimate business; or (B) the depository institution was not aware that the account holder is the owner or operator of a hemp-related legitimate business; and (4) take any adverse or corrective supervisory action on a loan to an owner or operator of-- (A) a hemp-related legitimate business solely because the business owner or operator is a hemp-related business without express statutory authority, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act; or (B) real estate or equipment that is leased or sold to a hemp-related legitimate business solely because the owner or operator of the real estate or equipment leased or sold the equipment or real estate to a hemp-related legitimate business. (b) Protections Under Federal Law.-- (1) In general.--In a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian country that allows the cultivation, production, manufacturing, transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, sale, or purchase of hemp pursuant to a law (including regulations) of the State, political subdivision of the State, or the Indian tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian country, as applicable, a depository institution and the officers, director, and employees of the depository institution that provides financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business may not be held liable pursuant to any Federal law (including regulations)-- (A) solely for providing the financial services pursuant to the law (including regulations) of the State, political subdivision of the State, or Indian tribe; or (B) for further investing any income derived from the financial services. (2) Forfeiture.--A depository institution that has a legal interest in the collateral for a loan made to an owner or operator of a hemp-related legitimate business, or to an owner or operator of real estate or equipment that is leased or sold to a hemp-related legitimate business, shall not be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative forfeiture of that legal interest pursuant to any Federal law for providing the loan or other financial services solely because the collateral is owned by a hemp-related business. (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall require a depository institution to provide financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business. (d) Requirements for Filing Suspicious Activity Reports.-- Section 5318(g) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(5) Requirements for hemp-related businesses.-- ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph-- ``(i) the term `financial service' means a financial product or service, as defined in section 1002 of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5481); ``(ii) the term `hemp' has the meaning given the term in section 10111 of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018; ``(iii) the term `hemp-related legitimate business' has the meaning given the term in section 11618(e) of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018; ``(iv) the term `Indian country' has the meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18; and ``(v) the term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a). ``(B) Reporting of suspicious transactions.--A financial institution or any director, officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution that reports a suspicious activity related to a transaction by a hemp-related legitimate business shall comply with appropriate guidance issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The Secretary shall ensure that the guidance is consistent with the purpose and intent of this paragraph and does not inhibit the provision of financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business in a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian country that has allowed the cultivation, production, manufacturing, transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, sale, or purchase of hemp, or any other conduct relating to hemp, pursuant to law or regulation of the State, the political subdivision of the State, or Indian tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian country.''. (e) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Company.--The term ``company'' means a partnership, corporation, association, (incorporated or unincorporated), trust, estate, cooperative organization, State, or any other entity. (2) Depository institution.--The term ``depository institution'' means-- (A) a depository institution as defined in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)); (B) a Federal credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752); or (C) a State credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752). (3) Federal banking regulator.--The term ``Federal banking regulator'' means each of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union Administration, or any Federal agency or department that regulates banking or financial services, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. (4) Financial service.--The term ``financial service'' means a financial product or service, as defined in section 1002 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5481). (5) Hemp.--The term ``hemp'' has the meaning given the term in section 10111. (6) Hemp product.--The term ``hemp product'' means any article which contains hemp, including an article which is a concentrate, an edible, a tincture, a hemp-infused product, or a topical. (7) Hemp-related legitimate business.--The term ``hemp- related legitimate business'' means a manufacturer, producer, or any person or company that-- (A) engages in any activity described in subparagraph (B) pursuant to a law established by a State or a political subdivision of a State; and (B)(i) participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling hemp or hemp products, including cultivating, producing, manufacturing, selling, transporting, displaying, dispensing, distributing, or purchasing hemp or hemp products; or (ii) provides-- (I) any financial service, including retirement plans or exchange traded funds, relating to hemp; or (II) any business services, including the sale or lease of real or any other property, legal or other licensed services, or any other ancillary service, relating to hemp. (8) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code. (9) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a). (10) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a person or company who manufactures, compounds, converts, processes, prepares, or packages hemp or hemp products. (11) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person or company who plants, cultivates, harvests, or in any way facilitates the natural growth of hemp. (12) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States. ______
Google Execs Told Marijuana Jokes To Lighten The Mood After Trump’s Election, Leaked Video Shows
Shortly after the 2016 presidential election, Google executives spoke at an all-hands meeting about the political ramifications of Donald Trump’s victory and fielded questions from employees about the path moving forward.
And to lighten the mood, they also cracked a few jokes about marijuana, which had just been fully legalized in California, the home of Google’s headquarters.
“Let’s face it, most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad because of the election,” Google co-founder Sergey Brin said at the beginning of the meeting. “But there’s another group—a small group—that we should also think about who are very excited about the legalization of pot.”
Employees are heard applauding and laughing in the video, which was leaked to Breitbart by an anonymous source. (The video cannot currently be embedded, but it appears at the top of the page linked above).
“I was asking if we could serve joints outside on the patio, but apparently these things take a little while to take effect,” Brin continued. “It was a huge, huge disappointment.”
“I’ve been bemoaning that all week, I’ll be honest with you.”
Of course, the meeting took on a more serious tone as executives discussed the policy implications of the incoming Trump administration and the role of Google in the modern political landscape. But the meeting didn’t wrap without one final nod to the passage of Proposition 64 in California.
Asked to weigh in on speculation that economist Jefferey Eisenach would be named as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Google’s chief legal officer Kent Walker brushed it off with his own marijuana joke.
“Anybody who thinks they know of the likely members of the Trump administration is taking premature advantage of Sergey’s favorite California proposition,” Walker said. “Nobody knows.”
Just as a matter of housekeeping, California’s adult-use marijuana law went into effect immediately after the proposition’s passage. So technically speaking, anyone 21 or older who would have consumed cannabis after the election wouldn’t be taking “premature advantage” of the law.
Perhaps to that end, Brin closed the post-election event by telling Googlers that “there’s food and drink on the patio,” but warned them to “be careful of the cookies.”
Workers In These Industries Are Most Likely To Consume Marijuana
It’s become increasingly clear that there’s no single “type” of marijuana consumer. But research has identified certain cultural trends, including a new study that examines the prevalence of cannabis consumption among workers in different industries.
The study, published this month in the International Review of Psychiatry, demonstrates that cannabis use is represented in a wide range of employment backgrounds—and some of the industries where using cannabis is most common might come as a surprise.
Let’s start with the numbers. Here’s a list of industries where workers use the most and least cannabis, which the researchers compiled based on 2013 and 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data. The survey asks respondents whether they’ve used marijuana at least once in the past year.
|Industry||% marijuana use|
Note: Not all industries are represented in this list, which is limited by the data submitted by NSDUH respondents. Also, the study does distinguish different “job categories,” but not within each specific industry.
The point of the study wasn’t simply to show what kind of workers are using marijuana, but also for what purposes. If a survey respondent reported using cannabis in the past year, their use was then categorized as either medical, recreational or mixed (i.e. some of their cannabis consumption was recommended by a doctor, but not all of it).
You can see that breakdown in the table below, but in general, the study reveals a diversity of use types among different industries. People in construction tend to be mixed-use consumers, for instance, and people in food services tend to skew recreational. It’s difficult to explain these sub-trends without more data, however.
That said, the researchers were especially interested in cannabis use among construction and mining employees.
“One key difference between the user groups is the higher percentage of medical cannabis users in the construction and mining industries,” they wrote. “This is likely due to the higher injury rates in these industries: construction and mining work require physical stamina, often involve irregular schedules, and expose workers to weather, dangerous tools, and equipment.”
The study notes that there’s conflicting research about marijuana use in these industries, with some arguing that frequent use can result in increased workplace injuries and others contending that the therapeutic use of cannabis “addresses pain and other health problems… that often result from work-related injuries.”
That latter point is also consistent with a study released last month showing “evidence that legalizing medical marijuana improved workplace safety.”
Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Worker Rejected For Medical Marijuana Use
A Connecticut woman’s rights under that state’s medical marijuana law were violated when a company refused to hire her on the basis of her legal cannabis use, and a lawsuit seeking damages against her would-be employer may proceed, a federal judge ruled.
In 2016, Katelin Noffsinger filed suit against Bride Brook Health and Rehabilitation Center, a federal contractor, after a job offer was rescinded following a positive test for cannabis on a pre-employment drug test.
Noffsinger had accepted a management-level position with the firm, which then scheduled a drug test. Prior to the test, Noffsinger informed Bride Brook that she was a qualified cannabis patient under Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act, and used the drug—namely, synthetic marijuana pills, consumed in the evening—to treat post-traumatic stress disorder following a 2012 car crash.
After learning of Noffsinger’s patient status, Bride Brook officials debated over email the best way to inform her that she could not be hired because of her marijuana use.
After the positive drug test and the subsequent rejection, Noffsinger filed an employment-discrimination lawsuit in state court. The case was elevated to federal court after Bride Brook used federal drug laws—including federal cannabis prohibition—to justify their actions.
Unlike some other states including California, Connecticut’s medical-marijuana law, passed in 2012, offers specific employment protections for cannabis patients.
Employers don’t have to accommodate cannabis use during work hours or employees who are intoxicated in the workplace, but any off-hours marijuana use by a certified patient following state law is protected.
In court filings, Bride Brook argued that the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act preempted such protections.
Because Bride Brook was a federal contractor, it was required to perform such drug tests—and had the firm still hired Noffsinger after the positive drug test, it would have been “defrauding” the federal government, the firm argued.
In a ruling issued last week, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer disagreed.
While Meyer rejected Noffsinger’s requests for summary judgment and attorney’s fees, his ruling means that Noffsinger can now seek monetary damages in a jury trial.
The federal Drug Free Workplace Act requires only that employers make a “good faith effort” to maintain a drug-free workplace, Meyer ruled.
Such efforts include posting warnings about drug use and setting an office policy.
A “zero-tolerance” policy that includes actively testing and then rejecting protected applicants on the basis of a test go above and beyond that threshold, Meyer wrote.
A previous ruling in Noffsinger’s case, also by Meyer, was the first instance in which a federal judge ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act does not preempt state medical-marijuana laws that provide employment protections.
Other classes of workers, including workers in “safety-sensitive” positions and employees of the federal government, may have to wait for similar protections.