• 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are a middle man between my bank and the store in purchasing from, nothing more. They shouldn’t stop anything unless it’s theft.

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While I get your sentiment, this announcement comes months before GOP primaries start. As a business, you don’t want to be on the chopping block when the extremists accuse you of drug peddling. A Trump, DeSantis, or similar presidency won’t care about facts.

      Edit: if this has 5 downvotes 2 minutes after I comment, it’s my stalker. Idk what to do about it either

      • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe Biden can… Who the fuck am I kidding. Presidents will ride the “maybe I’ll legalize” train for decades to come. I’m shocked the giant tax revenue called legal green isn’t incentive enough.

    • Baby Shoggoth [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What liability? These are in government-licensed facilities regulated by the same government institutions which regulate the sale of alcohol, which require you, just like a bar or liquor store do, to verify your identity and that you are an adult with a government-issued ID, where all products are subject to government testing and taxation.

      This isn’t about liability, it’s about outdated federal regulations which remain in place only because alcohol producers continue to pay off / “donate to” congresspeople to prevent a different inebriant, consumption and usage of which is demonstrably safer for both the direct consumer and the general public, from affecting alcohol profits.

      • Spacemanspliff@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s about outdated federal regulations

        That’s the liability, the feds can theoretically go after it still even if the state has allowed it.

          • Spacemanspliff@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because you sound like you’re arguing that it’s not a liability while making the point of why it’s a liability.

            Also you have 3 down votes. Chill.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Mastercard is a several hundred billion dollar company.

      They’re actually literally the kind of institution that should be willing to open themselves up to liability to fight for citizens rights, instead of always taking a hard-line against citizens at the behest of the Federal government. They absolutely have the money to fight such a thing in court, if the Federal government cracked down on them… and to remind you… The Fed’s haven’t done that. I would say they had a leg to stand on vis a vis liability if the Federal government had made an example of them in the past nearly 30 years since medical marijuana was first legalized in California in 1996.

      This is just puritan bullshit with a hand-wavey excuse as to why.

      They have the money to fight it and easily win, if they cared. They don’t. It’s not about liability. The Federal government has a long history of not bringing a case unless they’re absolutely going to win it, they don’t waste the money. They haven’t been liable yet in decades, so why now?

      Why now is an exercise in puritan control. Just like these chucklefucks do to sex workers in the porn industry.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not like the DOJ would put anyone in jail. They would get fined and then move on with their fucking day.

          • MariaRomanov@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They could lose millions and third party payment processors would potentially cut ties with them. It could literally tank their entire business. Don’t get me wrong. I wish weed was legal and I also wish there wasn’t financial pressure from banks and lending institutions to blackball the weed industry, but if there is any industry that is going to stick strictly to federal law, it’s the financial sector. I don’t think they have anything against weed, I think they have something against loosing millions of dollars.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think you really overestimate how hard the US government is willing to go against rich private corporations, no matter what they do.

              Norfolk Southern got complete control of the situation when they derailed a train with toxic chemicals in a small Ohio town. Their losses have not been catastrophic to the company, they’re still chugging along.

              And they poisoned an entire town of people! Feds slapped em on the wrist and moved on.