All Joshua Chase wanted to do was have a smooth grand opening of his new cannabis dispensary — Oakanna — in Oakland, California. Instead, he got shot.

"They shot and hit me with a ricochet," Chase said.

"It went through the bottom of my foot," Chase added.

This happened more than six weeks ago and to some degree, he wasn't surprised by it.

"This is just what you sign up for being in the cannabis industry," Chase said.

"This is just what comes with the business when you don't have banking," he said.

What's this lack of banking that Chase is talking about? When a typical business receives cash, the owners can easily take the money to a nearby bank and deposit it.

That's not the case with marijuana dispensaries. Because marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, most federally-insured banks don't accept deposits from marijuana businesses.

That means many dispensaries have a lot of cash on hand until they can take it to a specialized institution. For the same legal reasons, most cannot accept credit cards either.

In Washington state, in January and February of this year, there were 50 armed robberies of dispensaries.

"If we would have a banking system that was open it would only make a safer for us, it would be more efficient for us," Chase said.

NOT A NEW DEBATE

This debate is not a new one. In fact, dispensary owners for years have been saying how a lack of banking access can create dangerous conditions for employees. After years of debate on this issue, it's possible Congress addresses it this summer, however.

The change could come from the "Safe Banking Act" which would allow dispensaries access to federally-insured banks in states where cannabis is legal.

Lawmakers are attempting to include it in the Bipartisan Innovation Act, which is meant to fund science, computer chips and more.

Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO) spoke about including "safe banking" during the first conference committee of the Bipartisan Innovation Act last month.

"Change our banking laws so the cannabis industry isn't operating in the all-cash darkness," Hickenlooper told lawmakers.

The legislation just might be one of the last major bills Congress passes before the election.

More details on whether safe baking is included in the Bipartisan Innovation Act is expected to be revealed later this summer.

Republican lawmakers in Kentucky advanced a bill Friday to put limits on drag shows, capping a free-wielding Senate debate as supporters touted it as a child-protection measure and opponents called it an unconstitutional attack aimed at LGBTQ groups.

The measure won Senate passage on a 26-6 vote after a lengthy debate that led to some eyebrow-raising exchanges in the buttoned-down chamber.

The bill's lead sponsor was asked if she had ever attended a drag show and then if she found it “sexually arousing.” Republican Sen. Lindsey Tichenor replied she had attended a drag show in Kentucky. The latter question — from a Democratic opponent of the bill — was ruled out of order after a GOP Senate leader called it “outside the bounds of decorum.”

The measure heads to the House with only a few days remaining in this year's 30-day legislative session. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers.

The culture wars proposal would prohibit drag shows on public property or in places where they could be viewed by children.

“The intent of this legislation is to restrict these types of adult performances to adults,” Tichenor said.

Democratic Sen. Karen Berg borrowed a libertarian theme to oppose the bill: “Don’t tread on me."

For LGBTQ groups, “drag is a form of self-expression that you don’t have to understand, you don’t have to appreciate, you don’t have to like and you don’t have to attend,” she said.

Across the country, conservative activists and politicians complain that drag shows are contributing to the “sexualization” or “grooming” of children. The Tennessee Legislature recently passed a bill banning public drag performances by classifying them as adult cabaret, among topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers and strippers. Tennessee’s Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed the bill into law.

The Kentucky bill takes aim at drag shows by stating adult performances include a live performance involving male or female impersonators that “appeals to a prurient interest in sexual conduct” and lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” Drag, however, does not typically involve nudity or stripping, which are more common in the separate art of burlesque.

Violations under the Kentucky proposal — Senate Bill 115 — would be punishable as misdemeanors for the first two offenses but would rise to a felony for subsequent offenses. Businesses hosting such performances could have their alcohol and business licenses suspended or revoked.

Tichenor acknowledged there’s a long history of male and female impersonators, and specifically pointed to the “masterful performance” by Robin Williams in drag in “Mrs. Doubtfire.”

“This bill is not in any way addressing those types of performances," the senator said.

The bill is in response to performances once limited to adult audiences but “now are being introduced to the general public as appropriate-for-all-ages under the guise of inclusivity,” she said. She said she’s heard from people who said their families encountered such performances in public places.

“These performances have never been a problem until they made their way into the public sector,” Tichenor said.

Opponents said the bill would encroach on constitutional protections and was aimed at the LGBTQ community. Democratic Sen. Cassie Chambers Armstrong said First Amendment protections extend to the “expressive choices we make,” including the clothing worn and “the way we choose to present ourselves to the world.” That includes “the choice to dress in drag,” she said.

There are numerous existing laws, including indecent exposure, to deal with sexually explicit activity in public places, she said. The bill instead sends a message of “hate and fear and discrimination to a group of Kentuckians that deserve equal protection and equal dignity under our laws,” she said.

The bill's supporters said the focus is on protecting children from exposure to adult performances.

“What is hateful about keeping children away from sexualized adult performances?” Tichenor said.

The bill has drawn support from social conservatives. David Walls, executive director of The Family Foundation, on Friday called it “a family-friendly bill.”

It's brought condemnation from gay-rights activists and drag supporters. Opponents chanted “shame” when the bill was approved recently by a Senate committee.

“This bill not only compromises or asks me to explain my humanity, but it also brings into question my livelihood,” drag performer Poly Tics told the GOP-led Senate committee.

---

Trending stories at Scrippsnews.com

CNN —

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is advocating for an increase in the deposit insurance limit for business payment accounts following the three recent bank failures.

Currently, the FDIC insures up to $250,000 per depositor for each account ownership category. But the agency backed deposits exceeding that limit when Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failed, in order to reduce the risk of further bank runs. It also provided temporary unlimited deposit insurance to non-interest bearing accounts in the wake of the Great Recession.

Individuals can easily get more coverage by opening additional accounts at different banks. But that's much more complicated for businesses, which generally keep the funds they use to pay employees in one bank account, according to the FDIC.

Video below: Get the Facts: Is it safe to keep your money in banks right now?

For instance, after the collapse of SVB, Etsy had to delay payments by a day to small portion of sellers, but the company said it wasn't due to an issue over available funds. Meanwhile, Roku kept about $500 million in deposits at SVB, almost the entirety of which would have been unrecoverable had the FDIC not stepped in to insure deposits above the $250,000 cap. Roku did not respond to CNN's request for a comment.

The agency's proposal, outlined in a report it released Monday, did not specify what it thinks would be an appropriate increased level of deposit insurance for business payment accounts.

The FDIC considered two other deposit insurance reforms: raising the insurance cap across all bank accounts, and extending unlimited deposit insurance to all accounts. It found that targeting business accounts for increased insurance was the best option since it has the largest "financial stability benefits relative to its costs."

Increasing deposit insurance poses a moral hazard since it could lead to banks taking on more risk with their depositors' money without having to worry as much about a bank run.

There's also a cost associated with raising the insurance cap.

The fund used to back depositors' money is financed by premiums that banks and savings institutions pay. That fund had a balance of $128.2 billion at the end of 2022. But after the FDIC seized First Republic Bank on Monday, and following Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank's failures, it is estimated to have a balance of $92.7 billion, the lowest since 2018.

Increasing the insurance cap on business payment accounts would likely result in increasing the premiums that banks pay to the FDIC. And doing so would most likely require Congressional action, FDIC officials said.

Bank of America announced it will reduce the price of overdraft fees.

Starting in May, the company said the price of an overdraft fee will go from $35 to $10.

The bank also plans to eliminate non-sufficient fund fees in February and remove the ability for clients to overdraw their accounts at an ATM.

“Over the last decade, we have made significant changes to our overdraft services and solutions, reducing clients’ reliance on overdraft, and providing resources to help clients manage their deposit accounts and overall finances responsibly,” said Holly O’Neill, president of Retail Banking at Bank of America.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has been a vocal critic of big banks and overdraft fees, called Tuesday's announcement a step in the right direction but said the fees should be completely eliminated.

In December, Capital One announced it was eliminating overdraft fees.

Forbes reports that banks made more than $12 billion in 2020 from overdraft fees.