By Guy Page
Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark has joined a coalition of attorneys general from across the country in urging Congress to pass a law allowing state-regulated cannabis businesses to use the federally-regulating banking system.
Cannabis growing, production and sale is currently illegal under federal law, and state-legal businesses are not permitted to access any banking services.
In a letter sent this week to congressional leaders, the attorneys general argue that federal restrictions preventing banks from working with legal cannabis companies have created serious public safety and financial oversight problems. Because most cannabis businesses are forced to operate in cash, they are at increased risk of robbery and financial crimes, the letter states.
Opponents of SAFER (Secure And Fair Enforcement Regulation) banking legislation, long sought by the marijuana industry, say it could lead to higher THC levels and money laundering by cartels. (VDC was unable to find current SAFER legislation on the Congress.gov website.)
In 2023, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Nevada) and three other senators expressed their concerns about how the SAFER Banking Act would facilitate money laundering for drug cartels as well as investments in the industry that could lead to even higher THC potency in marijuana products. The letter was signed by Ricketts and Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Ted Budd (R-NC), and James Lankford (R-OK).
“The growth of the marijuana industry has already caused THC potency to skyrocket from 2-5% in the 1970s to 99% in many concentrates sold today,” the senators wrote. “The significant mental health damage to youth caused by these products will only worsen with the passage of the SAFER Banking Act, as the industry will use new investments to increase potency further and bring in new users, including children. Marijuana use is associated with psychosis, motor vehicle accidents, respiratory problems, and low birth weight.”
“This legislation also compromises the integrity of the United States banking system by giving banks government approval to participate in illegal activity, setting a dangerous new precedent,” the senators continued. “Allowing banking access to a Schedule I drug sets a dangerous legal precedent and will help facilitate money laundering for drug cartels.”
“Cannabis businesses that operate legally under state law shouldn’t be forced into the shadows of the financial system,” Clark said. “The SAFER Banking Act would provide clear, common-sense guidelines for financial institutions while supporting public safety, tax enforcement, and state regulatory oversight.”
48 out of 247 Vermont towns and cities have opted into retail sales, which is about 32% of municipalities throughout the state, according to Vermontgrowers.org. Sales from Vermont’s legal marijuana industry for the first four months of 2025 was $46 million.
Public safety and economic concerns
According to the coalition’s letter, the lack of access to traditional banking services places employees and customers at greater risk of violence, hinders tax collection, and makes it harder for regulators to track transactions and enforce the law. The attorneys general argue that integrating cannabis operations into the banking system would improve transparency and security.
The legal cannabis industry reported $30.1 billion in retail sales in 2024, with an estimated 425,000 jobs nationwide, according to the letter. Annual sales could reach $34 billion by the end of 2025.
Nearly 75% of Americans now live in jurisdictions where some form of cannabis is legal, Clark claims. Currently, 39 states, three U.S. territories, and Washington, D.C. allow medical cannabis, while 24 states and two territories have legalized adult-use cannabis.
Despite legalization at the state level, cannabis remains illegal under federal law. This inconsistency has led many banks and credit unions to refuse service to cannabis businesses, even when they are fully compliant with state laws.
Supporters of the SAFER Banking Act say it would provide a safe harbor for financial institutions that choose to serve cannabis-related businesses in states with appropriate regulatory systems.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Congress
Isn’t that their goal, money laundering and more potent product?
I brought these very issues up to my State Senator at our town meeting when the legalization law was pending and was told, to paraphrase, “The State is finding workarounds to handle the federally illegal funds collected.” It was at that time that Colorado had recently legalized cannabis and was experiencing the problems with robberies and everything else associated with having to deal with large amounts of cash on hand.
In a state beside itself with a fentanyl crisis, the greedy VT legislature saw fit to legalize another drug creating a hot smoking industry in the Green Mountains.
Those famiar with caring for addicts know “a drug is a drug”, meaning to become sober, addicts wanting success need to ignore ALL psychoactive drugs. Instead, the state facilitates wide spread use of one of the most popular psychoactive compounds, marijuana. To now learn that the State’s own legal caretaker, the Attorney General herself, is pushing the industry’s funding, and encouraging other state AG’s to go along, is wrongheaded, misdirected and counterproductive. It makes a mockery of the State’s crying over fentanyl abuse.
Since when has Charity Clark ever cared about our children and public safety?
Despite whatever virtue-signaling narratives she hopes to propagate with the content du jour of her recurring “letters signed by nineteen attorneys general,” her actions are always antithetical to truly doing what is in the best interests of children, women, families, and public safety.
There are always logical arguments in support of doing something dumb—not to mention illegal. If the merchants of haze are so worried that someone might make off with their ill-gotten gains, then let them go do an honest day’s work. I don’t recall when the job description of the Vermont Attorney General was amended to include protection of those who violate federal law.
This all about tax revenue, bottom line.
How do dispensaries pay their state sales taxes? Do they drive cash to Montpelier every 4 months?
I’m not sure of the transaction methodology, but there are a few banks in Vermont that are “cannabis friendly” and hold the Cannabis Regulation Fund monies at risk as they are unable to be insured by the FDIC. I believe one of those institutions in the Vermont State Employees Credit Union . . . no surprise.
Whatever the government grants – it shall reserve the right to take away, regulate to extremes, multi-tax, surveil, and social credit score at their discretion. A cannabis operation is a means to weaponize, profiteer, and manipulate however they choose. The recent VSC decision is proof of such – they just granted municipalities the right to say: you can’t grow that here, you can’t raise that here – you must bow down, obey and comply to our rules and Acts of enormity. It is not about being pro-cannabis – it is pro-control, submission, and obedience to their beast system. Not exactly the way this movement started out – same as alcohol – it’s legal, but criminalized, taxed, and controlled by the State. Right in line with what Oregon is doing to regulate and control what happens on private farm lands.
ruralvermont.org: July 23, 2025
“The Vermont Supreme Court ruled on May 30, 2025, that farming is not exempt from all municipal regulation. Instead, the court interpreted the “ag exemption” in 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) [the Municipal Zoning Statute] as a reference only to the policies and standards intended to reduce agricultural water pollution. The court concluded that municipalities may regulate all aspects of farming that do not relate to water quality, thereby setting a new precedent in stark contrast to the previous, statewide understanding that farming is exempt from municipal zoning regulations.
This decision will change the status quo of how farming is regulated in Vermont, the impacts of which could be far reaching. Vermont is home to over 6,537 farms (USDA 2022 census data), most of these farms are community-scale and now less than 9% are dairy farms. Granting municipalities this new authority allows them to determine where farming may or may not occur, and potentially require new permitting for events, farm structures, and other farming activities, all of which would add regulatory hurdles, operational costs, and additional burdens to farms, many of which already struggle with financial vulnerability and viability. Town-by-town farm regulation variances will create a patchwork of regulatory frameworks across the state which will be difficult to navigate and administer. This ruling also raises questions for farmers whose operations cross town lines; potentially requiring different regulations for different parts of their farm properties, all subject to change over time. “
So VT is full of a bunch of potheads