Reporter: "How much money are you making?"If you were to legally acquire tons of cash, cash you couldn't take to the bank, and, there was more cash on the way, everyday, what would you do with it? where would you hide it?
Dispensary Owner: "Last month we did about a million in sales."
Reporter: "A million plus in a month?"
Dispensary Owner: "In one month, yeah."
We wanted to know what happens with those pot profits. So we agreed to hide this dispensary-owner's identity for safety reasons.
Reporter: "What do you do with all this cash?"
Dispensary Owner: "Well we're fortunate enough to have a bank. We bank with a company and, quite honestly, it's a don't ask/don't tell relationship."
Some of the businesses have turned to security subcontractors.
With big stashes of cash locked away in safes and guard dogs to discourage attackers, security is a huge concern for everyone in this federally illicit business. All dispensaries are required to have surveillance cameras eying every corner. And a lot of dispensaries have alarm systems and panic buttons like this...just in case of an emergency. Then there are dispensaries that are taking security to a whole other level."WDAY6 video at the link
Leo Pavlushkin – Blue Line Protection Group: "My theme is that I say 'you mess with the Russian, you face the repercussions.'"
At 6'4, 275 pounds, Leo Pavlushkin is a former member of Russian Special Forces.
Leo Pavlushkin: "'Spetsnaz,' Russian special forces, yeah
26 comments:
Are the profits subject to federal taxation?
@lemondog,
Are the profits subject to federal taxation?
I'm sure they are in some fashion, but you know what -- because the business is illegal under Federal law, the business cannot deduct business expenses on its taxes.
I thought this issue had been dealt with:
Link
Link
You'd think the air in CO would be thin enough already.
I have that several dispensaries have been attacked and robbed by the Mexican cartels.
True?
Now that you mention it, Shout, I recall a few months ago a dispensary was robbed and the clerk castrated. Don't recall Mexicans being mentioned.
Russian guy sounds like Jack Reacher.
"dispensary was robbed and the clerk castrated. Don't recall Mexicans being mentioned. ".
Lesbian Mafia
I thought this issue had been dealt with:
WRONG.
From the top R&B LINK...
On Friday, the administration went a step further by laying out a path for banks to bring marijuana commerce out of the shadows and into the mainstream financial system.
The Treasury Department issued new rules that could make it easier for banks to do business with marijuana dispensers. In separate guidance, the Justice Department directed U.S. attorneys not to pursue banks that do business with legal marijuana dispensers as long as the dealers adhere to the guidelines issued in August.
Essentially Obama is saying his administration (Lawless Justice dept. under Holder) is not going to enforce the laws on the books. Which used to be an impeachable offence... but, who's checking?
“Marijuana trafficking is illegal under federal law, and it’s illegal for banks to deal with marijuana sale proceeds under federal law. Only Congress can change these laws. The administration can’t change the law with a memo,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.
R&B likes anarchy, fuck 'the man', you know. Order is disorder.
The NYT still smarming over the legal chances Bush implemented post 9/11 to combat what we believed at the time was an existential threat from Al Qaeda.
Nothing on the current president who openly defies laws he disagrees with.
Bags, the lesbian mafia would have made him clean the toilet before they left.
Far as I'm concerned the only reason to read the NYT's is to see what the enemy is up to. Otherwise its real usefulness is to wipe ones ass.
Yes, I've known and appreciated, or not, a great number of outhouses, where cleaning ones ass was a crapshoot.
Sears catalogs were the favored, but had my unappreciated relatives known of the Times, at the time, I'm sure their allegiance would have shifted.
Solution:
Wait till dark.
Put money in Tupperware.
Dig hole under house.
Fill hole with money.
Repeat.
(earns the sames interest as a bank account now days)
Alternate strategy:
Buy a car wash.
WRONG.
RIGHT.
What should be impeachable is trying to enforce the the increasingly unenforceable farce of keeping non-hazardous natural substances out of your body in states that have sensibly recognized that fact. Hilarious that you thought my sympathies were with federal tyranny, simply because the right loophole hasn't been found out of an old, paranoid clause as unworkable and outdated as slavery. Lol!
Everyone knows about the supposed conflict, Dude. It's the Fed that has to and will bend. The idea that you think anti-weed legislation is enforceable and should comprise a higher budgetary and moral priority on the part of any administration is laughable.
War over. Drugs win.
Lem said...
The NYT still smarming over the legal chances Bush implemented post 9/11 to combat what we believed at the time was an existential threat from Al Qaeda.
I didn't believe it was an existential threat. I believed that politicians deliberately panicked the populace into believing that they faced an existential threat or, even worse, the politicians were so panicked by their own incompetence and cowardice that they actually believed it was an existential threat.
CO needs better schools and better roads. Democrat campaigns and unions need money.
I'll bet the money will be wasted. Poof. Gone.
ARM - al Qaeda brought down two of our largest sky scrapers and you think that the pols did it to create panic?
So you're a 9-11 conspiracist?
April Apple said...
ARM - al Qaeda brought down two of our largest sky scrapers and you think that the pols did it to create panic?
So you're a 9-11 conspiracist?
You are a complete fool if you believe that is what I said. You are just embarrassing yourself.
I've never heard a good explanation for why we have not experienced a crippling amount of terrorists attacks. There is absolutely nothing stopping a motivated and even lightly funded group from doing extreme damage to water supplies, food, transportation, buildings, infrastructure and our very psyche if they wanted to. I know a dozen ways it could be done with a small group of people and simple to get tools. There certainly are enough people around the world who would like to do it, and have the money to fund it.
I don't understand why they have not.
bagoh20 said...
I don't understand why they have not.
There hasn't been much terrorism anywhere in Europe either in recent years. The obvious answer is that most terrorism is a response to local issues - 'think locally, don't act globally'. If the US sensibly limits its involvement in other countries affairs it will reduce its risk. Unfortunately the risk will never be zero, making it difficult to disassemble our surveillance state.
ARM, your explanation is basically that nobody wants to do it bad enough, but that can't be it. There are literally millions of people around the world who would love to see the U.S. hurt like that. Many of them are quite wealthy, connected, and capable. There are many Bin Ladens out there with no shortage of motivation. They have many friends and relatives killed by U.S. policy, and that's often the reasoning even when it's not the truth. They tell us openly of their hatred and and desires, and yet not even a single poisoned reservoir, or exploding bus, or destroyed Amtrak train. It doesn't make sense to me. Outside of 9/11, a few teenage American boys have done more damage for their own reasons than all those America-hating groups and individuals combined.
The only explanation (and I'm not convinced) is that our response to 9/11 was so devastating to their interests that they fear us going ballistic again. It cost them a lot of money, and thousands of them were killed, many at the highest levels. The Islamists lost two entire nations from that one attack. That's all the explanation I can muster, and it's not really good enough in my opinion.
ARM said...
I didn't believe it was an existential threat. I believed that politicians deliberately panicked the populace into believing that they faced an existential threat...
So what do you mean?
politicians deliberately panicked...
Sounds like something out of Mother Jones.
bagoh20 said...
The only explanation (and I'm not convinced) is that our response to 9/11 was so devastating to their interests that they fear us going ballistic again. It cost them a lot of money, and thousands of them were killed, many at the highest levels. The Islamists lost two entire nations from that one attack. That's all the explanation I can muster, and it's not really good enough in my opinion.
I don't think this is right because if any one country was to blame it was Saudi Arabia and they got off pretty lightly.
There are literally millions of people around the world who would love to see the U.S. hurt like that. Many of them are quite wealthy, connected, and capable. There are many Bin Ladens out there with no shortage of motivation. They have many friends and relatives killed by U.S. policy, and that's often the reasoning even when it's not the truth. They tell us openly of their hatred and and desires, and yet not even a single poisoned reservoir, or exploding bus, or destroyed Amtrak train. It doesn't make sense to me. Outside of 9/11, a few teenage American boys have done more damage for their own reasons than all those America-hating groups and individuals combined.
The US media likes to play up these verbal threats but what do they really mean? McCain sang 'Bomb bomb Iran' but Iran remains unbombed. Even Bin Laden was primarily motivated by the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia. People are motivated by local issues. I don't think there is any global struggle going on here. The US is still too locked up in a cold war mentality. Even back then it wasn't really a global struggle in many cases. The Vietnamese hate the Chinese. Played more adroitly, with less paranoia about communism, Vietnam could have been an ally, much as it is starting to become now.
My point is that almost anyone could pull off a major attack. It really doesn't matter what nation they are from. Even a domestic group or individual could do it easily. They are out there, the means are readily available, but they don't happen. You could do something as simple as poison the hamburger in a school cafeteria, and in one day with mere minutes of effort, and almost no risk, kill hundreds.
bagoh20 said...
My point is that almost anyone could pull off a major attack. It really doesn't matter what nation they are from. Even a domestic group or individual could do it easily. They are out there, the means are readily available, but they don't happen
Much the same is true of simple murder. You could no doubt knockoff a few locals without being detected. People are basically good and want to get on with their lives, which doesn't normally require the killing of others.
Post a Comment