Not surprising. You can’t expect a company like Mastercard to open themselves up to that kind of liability.
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.
I’m not sure Mastercard can easily win a suit by the DOJ over enabling Schedule I drug transactions.
It’s not like the DOJ would put anyone in jail. They would get fined and then move on with their fucking day.
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.
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This isn’t about liability, it’s about outdated federal regulations which remain in place only because alcohol producers continue to pay off / “donate to” congresspeople to prevent a different inebriant,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.
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.
Exactly. Not sure why everyone is down-voting me to hell. I didn’t say I like it, but it is a liability.
