Cannabis isn't illegal everywhere. Washington and Colorado legalized it recently, and other states will likely follow in the future.
Not to mention that Cannabis is legal as a medical treatment in many states.
Not to mention that Cannabis is legal as a medical treatment in many states.
In the US it is, outside of the US, it may not be.
> Washington and Colorado legalized it recently, and other states will likely follow in the future.
A number of other states already have legalized it for certain uses, but no state level action will change that it is illegal under federal law, and the feds have, including under the current administration, carried out enforcement actions against operations that were legal under state laws. There've been a few statements to the effect that this is not a priority, but its still part of the legal landscape.
National legalization, even if for medical purposes only, would open up a clear space for startups, but short of that any startup is creating a massive paper trail of evidence for conspiracy to violate federal narcotics laws (which are expressly included within the scope of the RICO statute as predicate offenses), and both the companies and individuals involved are risking criminal and civil prosecution under both narcotics and RICO laws as well as potential civil forfeiture actions against the assets that are instrumentalities of the legal violations.
All that on top of the usual business risks that come with operating a startup.
Well that's the first problem I thought of. The federal government maintains that it's banned at that level, and that's still an ambiguous conflict that no one's really confronted directly yet. Some local / municipal governments have also banned it inside these states, often only a short time after the state legalization.
The reason I wouldn't do a cannibis-focussed startup is because it seems impossible to predict how you might negotiate this legal terrain. Can you count on your town not to make it illegal again? Can you count on how the state vs. federal disagreement will be resolved? Can you deal with such inconsistency between towns if you have a broad client-base?
No such commitment has been made (not that such a commitment would be enforceable in the first place, or a useful guide to future administration's attitudes, so long as the federal statutes are on the books), what has been circulated is a non-binding memo providing guidance to US Attorney's on DoJ priorities regarding marijuana cases in those states. Note that this administration's Department of Justice previously circulated a similar memo with regard to states that had legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and US Attorneys in those states subsequently undertook enforcement actions (both criminal charges and forfeiture actions) against state-legal dispensaries, and their landlords, in those states -- note that this includes the current US Attorney in Colorado, who prosecuted state-legal dispensaries when that state had legalized marijuana only for medical purposes.
And note that the guidance expressly includes it remaining a priority to prosecute marijuana offenses to the extent that prosecution is useful to prevent drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use, or where officials feel that they are being marketed (not merely sold) to minors, among other cases. This, even within the wording of the guidance, provides a pretty broad opening for prosecuting state-legal activities.