U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–426 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–588 

CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL 

MARIJUANA LAWS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–28 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

KRISTINE LUCIUS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 3 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 31 

Cole, Hon. James, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 6 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Urquhart, Hon. John, Sheriff, King County Sheriff’s Office, Seattle, Washington .................................................................................................................... 18 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Finlaw, Jack, Chief Legal Counsel, Office of Governor John W. Hickenlooper, 

Denver, Colorado .................................................................................................. 20 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Sabet, Kevin A., Ph.D., Director, University of Florida Drug Policy Institute, 

Department of Psychiatry, Division of Addiction Medicine; and Director, 

Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), Cambridge, Massachusetts . 21 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein for James M. Cole ............... 66 

Questions submitted by Senator Charles Grassley for James M. Cole ............... 72 

Questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy for James M. Cole .................... 73 

Questions submitted by Senator Al Franken for James M. Cole ........................ 75 

Questions submitted by Senator Charles Grassley for John Urquhart .............. 76 

Questions submitted by Senator Charles Grassley for Jack Finlaw ................... 77 

Questions submitted by Senator Charles Grassley for Kevin Sabet ................... 78 

ANSWERS 

Responses of James M. Cole to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, 

Grassley, and Feinstein ....................................................................................... 79 

Responses of John Urquhart to questions submitted by Senator Franken ........ 106 

Responses of John Urquhart to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ........ 108 

Responses of Jack Finlaw to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ............. 110 

Responses of Kevin Sabet to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ............. 112 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder from Steven F. Lukan, Director, 

Iowa Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy .................................................. 114 
Page

IV 

Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder from National Law Enforcement 

Organizations in Hennepin County, Minnesota; Hughes County, South Dakota; Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies; International 

Association of Chiefs of Police; Police Executive Research Forum; and National Narcotic Associations’ Coalition ............................................................... 116 

Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder from the Former Administrators 

of the Drug Enforcement Administration (1973–2007) ..................................... 119 

Letter to Senator Leahy from Dennis J. Gallagher, City Auditor, Denver, 

Colorado ................................................................................................................ 121 

Americans for Safe Access, ‘‘Three Areas of Inquiry for ‘Conflicts Between 

State and Federal Marijuana Laws’ ’’ ................................................................. 123 

Tamar Todd, Senior Staff Attorney, Drug Policy Alliance, Office of Legal 

Affairs, statement ................................................................................................ 133 

Governor Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Washington State, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 141 

Letter to Senator Leahy from Mark A.R. Kleiman, Professor of Public Policy, 

UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, Los Angeles, California ...................... 145 

Letter to Senator Leahy from Hon. Dana Rohrabacher, 49th District, California ..................................................................................................................... 151

Letter to Senator Leahy from We Can Do Better Coalition: Sue Rusche, 

National Families in Action; A. Thomas McLellan, Treatment Research 

Institute; Kevin Sabet, Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) ......... 152 

Hon. Ed Perlmutter, 7th District, Colorado, statement ....................................... 157 

Letter to Treasury Secretary Lew, Chairman Bernanke, Chairman 

Gruenberg, Comptroller Curry, Director Corday, and Chairman Matz from 

Hon. Ed Perlmutter, 7th District, Colorado, and Hon. Denny Heck, 10th 

District, Washington State .................................................................................. 159 

Letter to Senator Leahy from Lori Augustyniak, Prevention Works! VT ........... 161 
(1) 

CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL 

MARIJUANA LAWS 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in Room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, and Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I have mentioned to the witnesses the reason 

for the delay. It was because I was talking to Senator Grassley, 

who is going to be joining us shortly. He has been in a very important meeting with the President on the situation in Syria. The 

President met with the Senate Democrats earlier and now he is 

meeting with the Senate Republicans. It is a gravely serious matter, as I am sure all of you know, and I mentioned this to Deputy 

Attorney General Cole earlier also. 

Today’s hearing also deals with a serious issue, and I trust that 

members of the public here will act accordingly. I want to note at 

the outset that the rules of the Senate prohibit outbursts, clapping, 

or demonstrations of any kind either for or against any position I 

might take or anybody else might take. That includes blocking the 

view of people around you. 

I am glad to have this hearing room where we can accommodate 

as many as we possibly can, and we have overflow rooms with a 

television. But please be mindful of the rules when we conduct 

these hearings, and, of course, the Capitol Police will be authorized 

to remove anyone who does not follow these rules. 

Now, last November, the people of Colorado and Washington 

voted to legalize the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana and to regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed 

in their States. These new laws are just the latest examples of the 

growing tension between federal and State marijuana laws, and 

they underscore the persistent uncertainty about how such conflicts 

are going to be resolved. 

Should the Federal Government arrest and prosecute marijuana 

users in States where they might be in full compliance with State 

law? Or should the Federal Government take a completely handsoff approach and let drug laws and policy develop on a State-byState basis? Or is there some middle-ground approach that considers both the national interests and the fundamental principles 

of federalism, including the rights of voters to decide what is best 
2 

for their own individual States? So the Committee is going to hold 

the first congressional hearing on these issues since the new laws 

passed in Colorado and Washington, and it presents an important 

opportunity to hear from some of the people who are directly involved in grappling with these complex questions. 

Of course, much of the focus of today’s hearing is going to be on 

what is happening in Colorado and Washington, but the questions 

and issues we have today are going to have implications for the 

rest of the country. Marijuana use in this country is nothing new, 

but the way in which individual States deal with marijuana usage 

continues to evolve. Some States, like my own State of Vermont, 

have decided to allow the use of marijuana by patients with debilitating medical conditions. As a result, Vermonters who suffer from 

diseases like multiple sclerosis, cancer, and AIDS now are able to 

use medical marijuana to at least treat the symptoms of their conditions. In addition, some States, including Vermont, have simply 

decriminalized marijuana, imposing civil fines on marijuana users 

rather than criminal penalties. 

To date, and as shown on this map, we have a total of 21 States 

that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and 16 of those 

States have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of 

marijuana. But every one of these changes in State marijuana laws 

has taken place against the same background: the possession of 

any amount of marijuana is still a criminal penalty under federal 

law. 

Now, the question I have is: What role should the Federal Government play in those States where marijuana use is legal? I think 

it is important for us to identify the areas in which there is broad 

agreement and common ground. For example, the Federal Government and those States that have legalized marijuana in some way 

all agree on the necessity of preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors. Likewise, there is agreement about the need to 

prevent criminal enterprises from profiting from marijuana sales, 

the goal of reducing violent crime, and the dangers associated with 

drugged driving. These are important safety concerns, and I appreciate everybody who is acting to address them, in federal, State, 

and local law enforcement. 

Now, I hope, though that there might be agreement on the fact 

that we cannot be satisfied with the status quo. We know the black 

market for illegal marijuana in this country endangers public safety. The black market continues to contribute to violence along the 

southwest border. It continues to thrive despite the billions of dollars that have already been spent on enforcement efforts at the federal, State, and local levels. It is also clear that the absolute criminalization of personal marijuana use has contributed to our Nation’s soaring prison population and has disproportionately affected 

people of color. And in this context, it is no surprise that States are 

considering new, calibrated solutions that reach beyond the traditional laws. Anybody, including two of us right here, who has been 

a prosecutor knows that you cannot begin to prosecute all the laws 

that are on the books. You do not have the resources. The question 

is: What resources should we use and where? 

I asked the administration last December for its responses to the 

measures, especially in Colorado and Washington. It took some 
3 

time, but I am encouraged by the policy guidance that the Deputy 

Attorney General recently provided to federal prosecutors. Federal 

agents and prosecutors have scarce investigative resources. I really 

do not think they should be devoting them to pursuing low-level 

users of marijuana who are complying with the laws of their 

States. As the President said last year, there are bigger fish to fry. 

And I am glad that the Justice Department plans to commit its 

limited resources to addressing more significant threats. 

I appreciate that Deputy Attorney General Cole, who is no 

stranger to this Committee, is here to answer questions. But I also 

look forward to hearing from the witnesses from Colorado and 

Washington. They see these issues not in the abstract but day by 

day in their State. I want them to explain the decisions in their 

States and the implementation of those decisions. 

I hope today’s hearing will also shine a light on how a series of 

federal laws poses significant obstacles to effective State implementation and regulation of marijuana, including existing federal laws 

and regulations in areas such as banking and taxation. We have 

to have a smarter approach to marijuana policy, and that can only 

be achieved through close cooperation and mutual respect between 

the Federal Government and the States. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator Whitehouse, did you wish to—— 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me thank the Chairman for holding 

this important hearing. We have States, as the Chairman’s map of 

the country’s quilt of different approaches demonstrated, that have 

taken very different ways of dealing with marijuana use, particularly for minor, very small amount individual users, and for those 

for whom it is adjudged to be medically necessary. Rhode Island 

permits medical marijuana and recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Our Governor, Governor 

Chafee, has asked the Drug Enforcement Administration to declassify marijuana as a Schedule II substance, which would allow it to 

be prescribed. 

It strikes me that the areas in which the States are loosening up 

restrictions on the use of marijuana are virtually entirely also 

areas in which the need for federal prosecution, and the rationale 

for the use of scarce law enforcement and prosecutive resources is 

extremely low. So there does not seem to be an underlying need for 

conflict between federal prosecution policies and State marijuana 

policies, and yet I believe that in the past, largely due to uncertain 

and often inconsistent policies from the Department of Justice, 

there has been created an artificial conflict. And I think the new 

memo helps clarify that, and I look forward to this hearing helping 

to clarify it further. And I thank the Deputy Attorney General, 

whom I respect very much, for coming here to discuss this issue 

with us, and I thank the Chairman for holding this important 

hearing. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Grassley. 
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give my opening statement. 

Chairman LEAHY. Certainly. Go ahead. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. Of course, I thank you very much 

for holding today’s hearing about the conflict between federal and 

State laws. Since Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, 

the cultivation, trafficking, sale, and use of marijuana have been 

illegal under federal law. Marijuana’s continued presence on the 

statute’s list of illegal substances is not based on whim. It is based 

on what science tells us about this dangerous and addictive drug. 

There is a process that exists to move drugs on and off that list, 

but the scientific standard to do that has not yet been met for 

marijuana. 

Marijuana is not only illegal under laws passed by Congress, it 

is illegal under international law as well. The United States and 

180 nations have signed the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. 

This treaty requires the United States to limit the distribution and 

use of certain drugs, including marijuana, for exclusively scientific 

and medical use. It is something this country gave its word to do, 

and it is a commitment that our country and many others have 

benefited from through improved public health. 

Yet in 2012, Colorado and Washington decided to be the first jurisdiction in the world to legalize the cultivation, trafficking, sale, 

and recreational use of marijuana. These laws flatly contradict our 

federal law. Moreover, these laws have nothing to do with the controversy about whether marijuana has an appropriate medical use. 

Some experts fear they will create a big marijuana industry, including a Starbucks of marijuana that will damage public health, 

and it seems unlikely that we will be able to confine that industry’s 

effect to adults and those within the States of Colorado and Washington. And the response of the Department of Justice is not to sue 

to strike down the laws or to prosecute illegal drug traffickers, but 

just to let these States do it. 

These policies do not seem to be compatible with the responsibility our Justice Department has to faithfully discharge their duties, and they may be a violation of our treaty obligations. 

Prosecutorial discretion is one thing, but giving the green light 

to an entire industry predicated on breaking federal law is quite 

another. These policies are another example of this administration 

ignoring laws that it views as inconvenient or that it does not like. 

Whether it is immigration laws or Obama deadlines, the list is 

long, and it hardly needs repeating. 

But what is really striking in this case is that the Department 

of Justice is so quick to challenge State laws when it does not like 

or want to enforce them. States that change their voting laws to 

require an ID, well, we will see you in court. States that try to secure their borders when the Federal Government will not, expect 

a lawsuit. But if some folks want to start an industry dedicated to 

breaking federal law, well, then the Department’s position is to 

wait and see how it works out. 

But we already have a pretty good idea how it works out, and 

the answer is: Badly. 
5 

Take Colorado as an example. Since it has legalized and attempted to regulate medical marijuana, what have we seen? From 

2006 to 2011, a 114-percent increase in driving fatalities involving 

drivers testing positive for marijuana. Comparing 2007 through 

2009 with 2010 through 2012, a 37-percent increase in drug-related 

suspensions and expulsions from Colorado schools, a sharp increase 

in marijuana exposure to young children, many resulting in trips 

to poison control centers or hospitals; and in the words of Colorado’s Attorney General, the State is becoming ‘‘a significant exporter of marijuana to the rest of the country.’’ 

The statistics on this point are shocking, but not surprising, 

given simple economics. From 2005 to 2012, there was a 407-percent increase in Colorado marijuana interdiction and seizures that 

were destined for other States. In 2012 alone, there were interdictions in Colorado bound for 37 different States. One of those States 

was my home State of Iowa. In 2010, Colorado was the source 

State for 10 percent of all marijuana interdictions in Iowa. That 

number grew to 25 percent in 2011 and to 36 percent in 2012. 

Now, this was all before full legalization in Colorado. What do 

you think this number will be next year? Is the Federal Government prepared to pay for law enforcement costs it is imposing on 

States like Iowa because it refuses to enforce federal law? In 2012, 

the proportion of Iowa juveniles entering substance treatment primarily due to marijuana reached its highest point in 20 years. How 

many more of Iowa’s daughters and sons will go into treatment 

next year because the Department will not enforce federal law? 

There is no amount of money that can make Iowa whole for that. 

I have a letter from the Director of the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy to the Attorney General that lays out some of these statistics. The Director requested that the Department consider this 

decision, and I ask that that be included in the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The letter follows appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Of course, the Department would have known 

many of these things had it consulted with the folks on the ground 

before making those decisions. These are people who see the effects 

of marijuana addiction and abuse every day. 

I also have here a letter to the Attorney General from many of 

the major State and local law enforcement organizations in the 

United States and likewise ask to put that in the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The letter follows appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. I understand representatives of many of 

these organizations had asked to be consulted in advance of the Department’s decision, and they were told that they would be. However, they wrote, ‘‘It is unacceptable that the Department of Justice 

did not consult our organizations whose members will be directly 

impacted for meaningful input ahead of this important decision. 

Our organizations were given notice just 30 minutes before the official announcement was made public and were not given the adequate forum ahead of time to express our concerns with the Department’s conclusion on this matter. Simply checking the box by 

alerting law enforcement officials right before a decision is announced is not enough and certainly does not show an under-
6 

standing of the value of the Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement partnerships bring to the Department of Justice and to 

public safety.’’ 

I will put the rest of my statement in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our first witness is James Cole, as I said, the Deputy Attorney 

General of the Department of Justice. In that capacity, he helped 

the Department update marijuana enforcement policies following 

the recent State-level developments that I discussed earlier. He 

first joined the Department of Justice in 1979 and served for 13 

years in the Criminal Division, later becoming the Deputy Chief of 

the Division’s Public Integrity Section before entering private practice. 

Mr. Cole, it is always good to have you here. Please go ahead, 

sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES COLE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, Senator Whitehouse. I am pleased to speak with you about the 

guidance that the Department recently issued to all United States 

Attorneys regarding marijuana enforcement efforts. That guidance 

instructs our prosecutors to continue to enforce federal priorities, 

such as preventing sales of marijuana by criminal enterprises, preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana, preventing distribution to minors, and preventing the cultivation of marijuana on public lands—priorities 

that we historically have focused on for many years—and it also 

notes that we will continue to rely on State and local authorities 

to effectively enforce their own drug laws as we work together to 

protect our communities. 

As you know, the relevant federal statute, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, among other prohibitions, makes it a federal 

crime to possess, grow, or distribute marijuana, and to open, rent, 

or maintain a place of business for any of these purposes. 

For many years, all 50 States have enacted uniform drug control 

laws or similar provisions that mirrored the CSA with respect to 

their treatment of marijuana and made the possession, cultivation, 

and distribution of marijuana a State criminal offense. With such 

overlapping statutory authorities, the Federal Government and the 

States traditionally worked as partners in the field of drug enforcement. Federal law enforcement historically has targeted sophisticated drug traffickers and organizations, while State and local authorities generally have focused their enforcement efforts, under 

their State laws, on more localized and lower-level drug activity. 

Starting with California in 1996, several States authorized the 

cultivation, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana for medical purposes under State law. Today, 21 States and the District of 

Columbia legalize marijuana for medical purposes under State law, 

including six States that enacted medical marijuana legislation this 

year. 
7 

Throughout this time period, the Department of Justice has continued to work with its State and local partners, but focused its 

own efforts and resources on priorities that are particularly important to the Federal Government. The priorities that have guided 

our efforts are as follows: 

Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors; 

Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to 

criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels; 

Preventing the diversion of marijuana from States where it is 

legal under State law in some form to other States; 

Preventing State-authorized marijuana activity from being used 

as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or 

other illegal activity; 

Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation 

and distribution of marijuana; 

Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; 

Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and 

Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property. 

Examples of our efforts have included cases against individuals 

and organizations who were using the State laws as a pretext to 

engage in large-scale trafficking of marijuana to other States; enforcement against those who were operating marijuana businesses 

near schools, parks, and playgrounds; and enforcement against 

those who were wreaking environmental damage by growing marijuana on our public lands. On the other hand, the Department has 

not historically devoted our finite resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to the possession of marijuana for 

personal use on private property. 

In November 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington State 

passed ballot initiatives that legalized, under State law, the possession of small amounts of marijuana and made Colorado and Washington the first States to provide for the regulation of marijuana 

production, processing, and sale for recreational purposes. The Department of Justice has reviewed these ballot initiatives in the context of our enforcement priorities. 

On August 29, 2013, the Department notified the Governors of 

Colorado and Washington that we were not at this time seeking to 

preempt their States’ ballot initiatives. We advised the Governors 

that we expected their States to implement strong and effective 

regulatory and enforcement systems to fully protect against the 

public health and safety harms that are the focus of our marijuana 

enforcement priorities, and that the Department would continue to 

investigate and prosecute cases in Washington and in Colorado in 

which the underlying conduct implicated our federal interests. The 

Department reserved its right to challenge the State laws at a later 

time in the event any of the stated harms do materialize—either 

in spite of a strict regulatory scheme, or because of the lack of one. 

That same day, the Department issued a guidance memorandum 

to all United States Attorneys directing our prosecutors to continue 

to fully investigate and prosecute marijuana cases that implicate 

any one of our eight federal enforcement priorities. This memo-
8 

randum applies to all of our prosecutors in all 50 States and guides 

the exercise of prosecutorial discretion against individuals and organizations who violate any of our stated federal interests, no matter where they live or what the laws in their States may permit. 

Outside of these enforcement priorities, however, the Department 

will continue to rely on State and local authorities to address marijuana activity through the enforcement of their own drug laws. 

This updated guidance is consistent with our efforts to maximize 

our investigative and prosecutorial resources in this time of budget 

challenges, and with the more general message the Attorney General delivered last month to all federal prosecutors, emphasizing 

the importance of quality priorities for all cases we bring, with an 

eye toward promoting public safety, deterrence, and fairness. 

Our updated guidance also makes one overarching point clear: 

the Department of Justice expects that States and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement effective regulatory and enforcement systems 

to protect federal priorities and the health and safety of every citizen. As the guidance explains, a jurisdiction’s regulatory scheme 

must be tough in practice, not just on paper. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cole appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. You know, I worry about the extent to which we have some who do not take the position or are 

unwilling to follow it and may create further problems. For example, the banking industry is not willing to provide services to Stateauthorized marijuana dispensaries. They fear they may be violating federal money laundering laws. So then the State authorized 

marijuana dispensaries and they started operating as a cash-only 

business, with no access to bank accounts or credit card transactions. That is a prescription for problems, tax evasion and so on. 

And we are hearing that the DEA agents, in what seems to me like 

a significant step away from reality, are instructing armored car 

companies to cease providing services to marijuana dispensaries, 

almost as if they are saying, ‘‘Get out of there so we can have some 

robberies.’’ 

Now, I am sure it is not stated that way, but I worry that sometimes a bureaucracy trumps reality, as it has in this case with the 

DEA. 

So what is the Department going to do to address these concerns? What sort of guidance are you giving to States about these 

banking and tax issues? 

Mr. COLE. Chairman Leahy, as far as the banking issue is concerned, we agree it is an issue that we need to deal with. When 

the Attorney General talked to the Governors of Washington and 

Colorado, they raised the same issue, and others have raised the 

same issue. 

Obviously, there is a public safety concern when businesses have 

a lot of cash sitting around. There is a tendency that there are 

guns associated with that, so it is important to deal with that kind 

of issue. And we are at the present time talking with FinCEN, and 

they are talking with and bringing in bank regulators to discuss 

ways that this could be dealt with in accordance with the laws that 

we have on the books today. 
9 

Chairman LEAHY. You may want to talk with DEA, too. 

Mr. COLE. Well, as far as DEA is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I certainly had heard about that. From what I understand, DEA was 

merely asking questions of the armored car companies at the time 

as to what their practices are. I think those questions occurred before the guidance memo was put out, and certainly at the present 

time I do not believe there is any effort to instruct the armored car 

companies not to do anything at this point. 

Chairman LEAHY. The implication is out there, and I would hope 

that it will get cleared up because I do not want to see a shootout somewhere and have innocent people or law enforcement endangered by that. So I think there should be specific guidance to 

the financial services industry and the Treasury Department. 

Now, you have noted that the Department generally does not 

prosecute individuals for using small amounts of marijuana on private property, which I think is sort of the general attitude of most 

State prosecutors. They usually have real problems to deal with. 

You said the Department is targeting sophisticated and large-scale 

drug traffickers. They rely upon State and local law enforcement 

to go after lower-level drug activity, although they are usually overwhelmed with things that really affect people. 

In the wake of the recent guidance, we have heard some concerns 

that the Federal Government is abdicating its responsibility for enforcing drug laws in Colorado or Washington State, and that the 

Department’s decision will lead to free-for-all drug activity in those 

States. 

I assume you do not agree with that characterization that the 

Justice Department is abdicating its responsibility for enforcing 

federal drug laws in those States. 

Mr. COLE. I do not agree with it at all, Mr. Chairman. I think 

it is quite the contrary. What I think is very clear in our memo is 

that we are going to aggressively enforce the Controlled Substance 

Act when it implicates any of the eight priorities that are listed 

there, and I think that is a pretty fulsome list of priorities of important public safety issues that are present and associated with 

marijuana. 

We expect to continue to enforce the CSA in every State, whenever a priority is implicated, whether the State has a State law legalizing marijuana or not. We are not giving immunity. We are not 

giving a free pass. We are not abdicating our responsibilities. We 

are dedicating ourselves to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act 

in regard to marijuana when it implicates those federal priorities. 

Chairman LEAHY. Are you going to monitor the implementation 

of the regulatory system in these States? 

Mr. COLE. We will certainly be looking at how they go about implementing it, and we hope that they will be doing it in a full and 

robust way. But largely how we operate is on a case-by-case basis, 

and when we see somebody who is marketing marijuana in a way 

that is going to be attractive to minors, we are going to go after 

them. If we see somebody who is growing and cultivating marijuana so they can export it out of State, we are going to go after 

them. If they are involved in drug cartels and illegal enterprises, 

we are going to go after them. 
10 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, you stated in your testimony that the 

Department reserves its right to file a lawsuit challenging the 

State laws in Colorado and Washington at a later time. The law 

is clear, of course, that the Federal Government cannot force a 

State to criminalize a particular type of conduct or activity. So such 

a lawsuit would have to challenge the State laws focusing on the 

regulatory framework set up by them but not on the question of 

telling them what they have to criminalize or not criminalize. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. COLE. That is correct, Chairman Leahy. This was a difficult 

issue that we had to contend with in deciding whether or not to 

seek any preemption action here, because it would be a very challenging lawsuit to bring to preempt the State’s decriminalization 

law. We might have an easier time with their regulatory scheme 

in preemption, but then what you would have is legalized marijuana and no enforcement mechanism within the State to try and 

regulate it. And that is probably not a good situation to have. 

Chairman LEAHY. Kind of an incentive for a black market, isn’t 

it? 

Mr. COLE. Very much so, sir, and money going into organized 

criminal enterprises instead of going into State tax coffers and having the State regulate from a seed-to-sale basis. 

Chairman LEAHY. Basically everything the State voted for you 

would be trying to overturn. 

Mr. COLE. We would be trying to overturn that, and yet there 

would still be decriminalization of marijuana, so it would still exist 

in the State. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Cole, I have three questions, but before 

I do that, I want to take 30 seconds out of my own time to bring 

an issue up that I think you can help us with. 

The DEA is refusing to comply with its legal obligations to provide GAO access to DEA records. Senator Whitehouse and I have 

a GAO request for a report on drug shortages that is being delayed 

because of DEA’s refusal. I tried to help resolve the issue, but the 

Justice Department told DEA not to even meet with me and GAO 

to discuss it. So I think that is unacceptable. I understand that you 

admitted to the Comptroller General that DEA has a legal obligation to comply. However, the Justice Department and DEA are still 

withholding records from the GAO. There is no point in wasting 

time and the taxpayers on litigation with GAO, but that is where 

this is headed if DEA does not comply. 

So as Deputy Attorney General, I hope you can help us, to work 

with us in Congress to solve this dispute. DEA needs to provide 

GAO the information it needs to do its work. I do not expect you 

to respond to that now, but I want you to know how I feel about 

it, doing my job of oversight, and there is a distinguished Member 

of the majority that is interested in it as much as I am. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Senator. I have actually been in contact 

with the Deputy Administrator at GAO to discuss this once already. We are planning on having another conversation in the next 

week, I hope, and I am on top of this, Senator. 

Senator GRASSLEY. God bless you. 
11 

The Cole memorandum suggests that the Department will not 

seek to enforce the Controlled Substances Act except for certain 

federal priorities so long as the States that legalize marijuana implement effective regulatory schemes. Those priorities include the 

diversion of marijuana from Colorado to other States, increased use 

among minors, and increased fatalities from drugged driving. Yet 

Colorado has seen a sharp uptick in each of these three priorities 

over the past few years. Moreover, a recent audit concluded that 

the Colorado Department of Public Health ‘‘does not sufficiently 

oversee physicians who make medical marijuana recommendations.’’ 

Another recent audit found that the city of Denver did ‘‘not have 

a basic control framework in place’’ to regulate its medical marijuana program. Denver did not even know how many marijuana 

businesses were operating in the border. 

So my question: Why has the Department decided to trust Colorado to effectively regulate recreational marijuana when it is already struggling to regulate medical marijuana and federal priorities are already being negatively impacted? Before you answer, 

would the Department establish metrics concerning these priorities 

that will trigger when it will take action to either challenge these 

laws or more vigorously enforce federal law? 

I want to give you an example. From 2005 to 2012, there was a 

407-percent increase in Colorado marijuana interdiction seizures 

that were destined for other States. How high would that number 

have to go to trigger a change in policy? I hope this is something 

that you have thought about. 

Mr. COLE. Senator Grassley, we have thought a great deal about 

these issues. I am certainly aware of the audit that was done in 

Colorado about the enforcement of their regulatory scheme under 

medical marijuana, and it was disappointing. 

I think along the lines of what I talked to Chairman Leahy 

about, there are no perfect solutions here. And what we were faced 

with was a situation where we could not, we thought, be very successful in trying to preempt the decriminalization. So if we just 

went after their regulatory scheme, instead of just having a bad 

one, they would have no regulatory scheme. 

Our hope is that with this memo and with the engagement with 

the State, telling them, as we say, trust but verify, that they will 

have an incentive to actually put in a robust scheme that will, in 

fact, address a lot of these issues that you have raised and everyone else has raised and that are valid issues in this area. And we 

are hoping that that kind of effort by the State in enforcing its own 

State laws will have a better effect than having no effort whatsoever. 

So I understand the skepticism that you come to it with. We are 

looking at it in terms of a trust-but-verify method. We will be following what is going on. We have reserved quite explicitly the right 

to go in and preempt at a later date if we feel that that is in the 

public interest. And I think we are at a point now where we are 

trying to find the best of the imperfect solutions that are before us. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Question number two: You heard in my opening statement how the Department did not consult with major 

State and local law enforcement groups or with former DEA Ad-
12 

ministrators when reaching policy decisions. Did the Department 

consult with anybody at DEA, HHS, or the State Department about 

these policies? And if not, why not? And if so, what were their 

views? 

Mr. COLE. Well, we did consult with HHS; we consulted with 

DEA, ONDCP. We even heard from many of those groups who 

wrote that letter. The Attorney General and I this morning met 

with those groups in the Attorney General’s conference room for 

about an hour and a half. We had received a lot of input from them 

concerning this matter prior to the decision that we made. We stated to them quite clearly today that we should have reached out to 

them one more time before we made the decision, and we apologized to them for not making that extra effort. We believed that we 

understood their position, but we have been such good partners 

with them that we owed them one more conversation and one more 

opportunity for them to weigh in, and we asked their forgiveness 

and going forward assured them that we would be giving them that 

kind of opportunity. 

So we did seek out other views in coming to this. We tried to be 

careful. We tried to be responsible, and we tried to look at all of 

the avenues of it. And, in fact, much of the input that we got from 

them and much of what you have been talking about as the concerns that are around this helped us to be able to crystallize and 

articulate in our eight different areas what it is uniformly throughout the country what we think are the problems that trigger federal enforcement in this area. So we thanked them for that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My last question. In 2010, Colorado was a 

source State for 10 percent of all marijuana interdiction in Iowa. 

That number grew to 25 in 2011, 36 percent in 2012. This is all 

before legalization of recreational use in Colorado was passed. In 

the words of Colorado Attorney General, the State is becoming ‘‘a 

significant exporter of marijuana to the rest of the country.’’ The 

Department’s decision not to enforce federal law is obviously imposing costs on States outside of Colorado and Washington. These include public health costs and law enforcement costs. 

I would normally ask this question. I am going to make a statement. If I am wrong—I doubt if the Federal Government has plans 

to reimburse the States for these costs. If I am wrong on that, tell 

me. 

My question: What do you plan to do to protect States like Iowa 

from marijuana diverted from States like Colorado? 

Mr. COLE. I think there are two ways that we are hoping to approach this. One is that if the States really do put in the kind of 

robust system that we are asking them to, where there is control 

from seed to sale, that it will help really tamp down that kind of 

export out of Colorado into other States. And, second, and at least 

as importantly, one of the main priorities we have is the export of 

marijuana from States that make it legal to any other State, and 

that will be a federal enforcement priority. If it is being exported 

from Colorado to Iowa and we find out about it, we will prosecute 

it. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, just a short follow-up. In a 

previous question, the second question I had, you said you con-
13 

sulted with State, HHS, and DEA. Did they agree with the new 

policy that you have announced? 

Mr. COLE. You know, Senator, we had a thorough discussion 

with them. I do not think it is always appropriate to go into what 

the internal deliberations are that take place, but we got 

everybody’s views, and we had a thorough discussion and aired it 

out. And this was a well-thought-through process. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Cole, let me just kind of recap what brought us to this point 

because I do not think we were in a very good place to begin with. 

I begin with the Ogden memorandum from 2009 which indicated 

that it would not be a federal enforcement priority to prosecute, 

and I quote, ‘‘individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing State laws.’’ And then it gave as an 

example individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, as another example, ‘‘or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing State law.’’ It then distinguished commercial 

enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit, 

and a close reading of the paragraph indicates that the term ‘‘unlawfully’’ refers to State law, because the following sentence talks 

about operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, meaning State laws. 

So we come out of the Ogden memorandum with protection from 

federal prosecution for patients, caregivers, and lawful commercial 

enterprises that are ‘‘in clear and unambiguous compliance with 

State laws.’’ Among other things, that would presumably include 

dispensaries. 

So the next thing that comes out is the U.S. Attorney’s letter, 

which I assume is a Department of Justice product because all of 

the U.S. Attorney letters that came out were identically phrased, 

so I do not think this was a unique one to Rhode Island. Now those 

protected from federal prosecution are limited to seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended 

treatment regimen in compliance with State law. There is no 

longer any mention of caregivers. And further in the paragraph it 

says that the Department of Justice maintains the authority to enforce the CSA vigorously against individuals and organizations that 

participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity, 

only for purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘unlawful’’ has been 

reversed to now mean federal law and eliminate any shelter of 

State law. 

So there was a dramatic difference, I believe, between the Ogden 

memo and the U.S. Attorney’s letter, and it created immense confusion, which you then sought to clarify somewhat in your June 29, 

2011, memo, which said that it will protect individuals with cancer 

or other serious illnesses, and now caregivers were back. They were 

out in the U.S. Attorney’s letter. They came back in your letter. 

Caregivers are back in. And then you said, but it would not apply 

to commercial operations, cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana. You just dropped out the word ‘‘unlawful’’ rather than have 

to deal with whether that word applied to federal law or State law. 

And then you added that those who engage in transactions involv-
14 

ing the proceeds of such activity might be prosecuted, so somebody 

that was paid with money that was earned by one of these folks. 

The U.S. Attorney’s letter had also singled out landlords and 

property owners and financiers for prosecution. So as you can 

imagine, this was a mess. 

So I appreciate very much that the August 29th letter straightened out that mess considerably. I do not dispute the sense of the 

eight different federal priorities, but I just want to—actually there 

is considerable but imperfect overlap between your eight priorities 

and the priorities from the original Ogden memo, lo those many 

years and memos ago. 

But let me just be clear. As long as they are not the proper subjects of federal prosecution under the eight 2013 federal interests, 

a dispensary can do business as long as it is in clear and unambiguous compliance with State law. Correct? 

Mr. COLE. I think the proper way to phrase it, Senator 

Whitehouse, is, as long as they are not violating any of the eight 

federal priorities in the course of what they are doing, that the 

Federal Government is not going to prosecute them. And the State 

law is up to State enforcement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Understood. 

Mr. COLE. But there also is, just in all fairness, there is a catchall at the end, and it is not meant to swallow the entire memo, but 

you cannot anticipate everything that is going to come in the future. So there is an ability, if it is an important enough matter that 

we had not anticipated, to prosecute another kind of case even if 

it does not fall within the eight priorities. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Understood. And those who receive proceeds from a lawful and proper State law enterprise will also not 

be prosecuted unless they violate one of the eight federal interests? 

Mr. COLE. This is something that we are trying to work through 

with the banking regulators, because the memo really talks about 

the Controlled Substances Act. Now, the prosecution otherwise on 

the banking end would be with the money-laundering statutes, and 

those I think are separate matters, but as I have said in answer 

to Chairman Leahy’s questions, ones that we need to deal with. 

There is a lot of public safety and public interest aspects of that 

that I think we need to deal with as we go down this road, and 

we are working on that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But you are not intending to put people 

who are simply getting their bills paid by a proper, lawful State 

law enterprise from being the subject—it is not your intention that 

they be the subject of prosecution, in the same way that if you 

knew it was a criminal cartel and, no matter what your business 

is, the proceeds of that cartel carry some taint with them, and you 

can go after individuals—just because they receive money, you can, 

if nothing else, reclaim the funds as the proceeds of criminal activity. You are not intending to use that unless those eight federal interests are implicated. 

Mr. COLE. I think that is part of what we are trying to work 

through right now in trying to deal with the money-laundering aspect of it. But certainly this memo is meant to guide our enforcement efforts concerning marijuana in regard to the Controlled Sub-
15 

stances Act, and it will probably spill over in other ways as we are 

trying to work through these issues. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And, similarly, property owners, landlords, 

and financiers should not fear federal prosecution unless they implicate those eight federal interests. 

Mr. COLE. Certainly a lot of that is covered by the Controlled 

Substances Act, so that will be directly within the ambit of the 

memo. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. Well, I think that helps clarify 

things. 

Senator Grassley raised a number of concerns relating—and I 

thought from hearing them that all of them fell into the category 

of either involving children or involving effects in other States or 

involving a relationship with trafficking organizations. And just to 

be clear, it is my understanding that in all three of those situations, those are federal interests that would be implicated, and the 

Federal Government would be willing and able to prosecute in 

those areas. 

Mr. COLE. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this hearing on a subject vitally important my home State 

of Connecticut. As you know, our law, a new law, currently allows 

the production and sale and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in a regulatory regime that I think is fairly straightforward 

and complete, and certainly indicates the will of our legislature in 

our State that Connecticut wants to move in the direction of providing legal access to this kind of substance. Essentially it decriminalizes statutes so that anyone found in possession with less than 

half an ounce of marijuana will be subject to a citation rather than 

criminal action, and it, I think, mirrors other State laws that contain similar kinds of provisions. 

I do not want to speak for the Department of Justice, but my 

guess is there are very few cases authorized by the Department of 

Justice that involve simple possession of small amounts of marijuana currently. That has been the ongoing practice for some time, 

has it not? 

Mr. COLE. I think that is correct, and from what we heard from 

the State and local law enforcement organizations this morning, 

they say there are very few of those under State law as well. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Right. So that current practice will not be 

altered by anything in the memorandum, as I read it. 

Mr. COLE. That is correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And in terms of some of the other priorities, my assumption is that the enforcement efforts there on individual prosecution cases would depend to some extent on the 

amounts of marijuana involved, would they not? 

Mr. COLE. That is certainly a factor that is taken into account. 

It is not the sole factor. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would the resulting—and I apologize if 

this question has been asked—action by the Department of Justice, 

if there were not enforcement in some of these areas, involve a 

challenge to the statutory scheme? And how would that be 
16 

brought? Or would it involve individual prosecution cases? And 

how would you make those decisions? 

Mr. COLE. Well, we did briefly talk before, in response to Chairman Leahy’s question, about what the legal mechanisms would be 

to challenge the State laws. And, first of all, you start off with the 

Controlled Substances Act has in its body itself a disclaimer of preempting State laws in the area. Because that is explicit in it, you 

would only have a challenge if there is a conflict that is 

unreconcilable. 

When you have a law that decriminalizes marijuana, it is a very 

big challenge to challenge that law on a preemption ground because it can co-exist with a federal law that criminalizes it. We can 

go ahead and enforce our federal law regardless of what the State 

law says. 

We might be in a position and have a better case to try and challenge the regulatory scheme, but that puts you in a difficult position—there are no perfect solutions here—of having the legalization 

or decriminalization of marijuana and not even a legal structure for 

the State to try and regulate it. And that is not a very good solution either. None of them are very good in this field, frankly, but 

that seems to be one that takes you in the wrong direction. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So the Department of Justice, as I understand your answer, would be very cautious and deliberate about 

any challenge to a regulatory scheme because the results might do 

more harm than good. 

Mr. COLE. We are going to have to look at all the facts and circumstances that come up. We have certainly put the Governors of 

Colorado and Washington State on notice that we expect them to 

have robust systems. We hope that all the other States that have 

medical marijuana or any other sort of legalized system will view 

this memo as it should be taken, as telling them they ought to have 

a robust system to regulate the marijuana usage under their own 

State laws so that they deal with these eight priorities which we 

think are important. And then we will make our decisions as we 

see what kind of public interest issues are raised in the course of 

this and what the need is for us to take action. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I understand that the memo deals only 

with Controlled Substances Act, but there are also provisions in the 

Tax Code that forbid deduction of expenses by some of these enterprises, non-criminal enterprises, dispensaries and others engaged 

in medicinal marijuana businesses. 

Has the Department of Justice taken a position on changing the 

Tax Code to make those legitimate businesses eligible to deduct 

common State expenses? 

Mr. COLE. We have not taken a position on changing that legislation. We think that is something that the U.S. Congress should 

probably in its wisdom take up and debate and determine what the 

appropriate course of action should be. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But it would probably be consistent with 

your memorandum to have those expenses deducted, as long as 

none of the other priorities are infringed on. 

Mr. COLE. Well, our memorandum is really focused on what the 

federal enforcement will be of the Controlled Substances Act. There 

are obviously other issues that spin off of that that do need to be 
17 

dealt with, and I think those are the kinds of things that the Senate and the House can debate and determine if there is an appropriate policy change to be made. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And, finally, let me ask you about Connecticut. Have there been consultations with Connecticut officials 

about the implementation of that law? 

Mr. COLE. Not that I am aware of right now, but the U.S. Attorney there I am sure has been in touch with them. But I am not 

positive. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Yes, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. May I make one point before the Deputy 

Attorney General is excused? 

Chairman LEAHY. Of course. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You have three former prosecutors here, 

and so we clearly appreciate the flexibility that it is important for 

prosecutors to have, and we clearly appreciate the discretion that 

prosecutors enjoy and that should be protected by the Department. 

But at the same time, I think the Department would be well advised to listen to Senator Grassley’s advice about trying to establish as clear metrics as you comfortably can, because there can be 

a lot of unintended consequences from the broad zone of uncertainty that you can create, and that can frankly be quite harmful 

in and of itself. 

So I think in this area, and particularly with respect to the regulatory regimes and what you would expect to approve and disapprove, the more you can move toward the kind of metrics that 

Senator Grassley recommended, I think the better off you would 

be. I speak only for myself on that, but I think it is—that is my 

advice, anyway. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If I may add, Mr. Chairman, I would second what Senator Whitehouse has just said, particularly as Senator Grassley has pointed out some of the banking implications. In 

Connecticut, my understanding is that some bankers are reluctant 

currently to be involved with marijuana businesses because they 

are fearful about violating federal law. And the clearer and more 

definitive you can make your expressions of prosecutorial policy, I 

think the more helpful it will be to them insofar as they are aiding 

legitimate businesses, not criminal enterprises, not businesses selling to minors and others who may violate your priorities. So I 

would second what Senator Whitehouse has just said. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Cole, thank 

you very much. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. We will call up Sheriff Urquhart, who is the 

King County sheriff; Jack Finlaw, who is the chief legal counsel in 

the office of Governor Hickenlooper; and Kevin Sabet, who is the 

co-founder and director of Project SAM. 

Sheriff Urquhart is the elected sheriff of King County in Washington State. He is the sheriff of the State’s largest metropolitan 
18 

county, so I think he is particularly qualified to help us here. Sheriff Urquhart has been in law enforcement for more than 35 years. 

He has been a patrol officer, field training officer, master police officer, street-level vice and narcotics detective, public information officer, and administrative aide to several sheriffs. 

Sheriff, would you go ahead and give your statement? Incidentally, I am advised we may have another Syria meeting, but all 

statements will be placed in the record in full. You will also be 

able, when you see the record, to add to things you said. So I would 

ask you to summarize your statement within the five minutes. 

And I hate to say this, Sheriff, because I know you and others 

have traveled some distance to get here, and I appreciate you being 

here. Sheriff, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN URQUHART, SHERIFF, KING 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

Mr. URQUHART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and at the risk of 

stating the obvious, I am a police officer. Thank you for having me 

here today. My name is John Urquhart. I am the sheriff of King 

County, Washington. 

Seattle is located in King County, and with almost two million 

residents, we are the 14th largest county by population in the 

United States. I have over 1,000 employees in the sheriff’s office 

and a budget exceeding $160 million. 

As sheriff, I am, therefore, the top law enforcement official in the 

largest jurisdiction in the country that has legalized marijuana. 

I have been a police officer for 37 years, and I was elected as 

King County’s sheriff last year. During my career, I have investigated everything from shoplifts to homicides. But I have also 

spent almost 12 years as a narcotics detective. My experience 

shows me that the War on Drugs has been a failure. We have not 

significantly reduced demand over time, but we have incarcerated 

generations of individuals, the highest incarceration rate in the 

world. 

So the citizens of the State of Washington decided it was time 

to try something new. And in November 2012, they passed Initiative 502, which legalized recreational amounts of marijuana and at 

the same time created very strict rules and laws. 

I was a strong supporter of Initiative 502 last year, and I remain 

a strong supporter today. There are several reasons for that support. Most of all, I support 502 because that is what the people 

want. They voted for legalized marijuana. We, the government, 

have failed the people, and now they want to try something else. 

Too often the attitude of the police is, ‘‘We are the cops and you 

are not. Don’t tell us how to do our job.’’ That is the wrong attitude, 

and I refuse to fall into that trap. 

While the title of this hearing is conflict between State and federal marijuana laws, I do not see a huge conflict. 

The reality is we do have complementary goals and values. We 

all agree we do not want our children using marijuana. We all 

agree we do not want impaired drivers. We all agree we do not 

want to continue enriching criminals. Washington’s law honors 

these values by separating consumers from gangs and diverting the 
19 

proceeds from the sale of marijuana toward furthering the goals of 

public safety. 

Is legalizing and regulating the possession and sale of marijuana 

a better alternative? I think it is, and I am willing to be proven 

wrong. But the only way we will know, however, is if we are allowed to try. 

DOJ’s recent decision provides clarity on how we in Washington 

can continue to collaborate with the Federal Government to enforce 

our drug laws while at the same time respecting the will of the voters. 

It is a great step, but more needs to be done. 

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but, for example, we are still 

limited by not knowing the role of banking institutions as we go 

forward. 

Under federal law, it is illegal for banks to open checking, savings, or credit card accounts for marijuana businesses. The result 

is that marijuana stores will be operated as cash only, creating two 

big problems for me as a police officer: Cash-only businesses are 

prime targets for armed robberies; and cash-only businesses are 

very difficult to audit, leading to possible tax evasion, wage theft, 

and diversion of the resources we need to protect public safety. 

I am simply asking the Federal Government to allow banks to 

work with legitimate marijuana businesses who are licensed under 

this new State law. 

In closing, let me make one thing abundantly clear. What we 

have in Washington State is not the Wild Wild West. And as sheriff, I am committed to continued collaboration with the DEA, FBI, 

and DOJ for robust enforcement of our respective drug laws. For 

example, I have detectives right now that are assigned to federal 

task forces, including a DEA HIDTA Task Force. It has been a 

great partnership for many years, and that partnership will continue. 

Furthermore, the message to my deputies has been very clear: 

You will enforce our new marijuana laws. You will write somebody 

a ticket for smoking in public. You will enforce age limits. You will 

put unlicensed stores out of business. In other words, the King 

County Sheriff’s Office will abide by the standards and laws voted 

on and adopted by the citizens of the State of Washington and the 

guidance provided by the Department of Justice on August 29th. 

Mr. Chairman, I say to you and the Members of this Committee, 

I do appreciate the deference the Federal Government has shown 

to my constituents, and I look forward to continuing that cooperation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Urquhart appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I am going to have each of the witnesses testify, and then we will 

go to questions. But certainly the testimony based on 35 years’ experience in law enforcement is extremely helpful. 

Mr. Finlaw is the chief legal counsel for the Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper. He served as co-chair of the task force 

that recommended the legislation and rules to implement Colorado’s new constitutional provisions legalizing the possession, use, 

and sale of marijuana in the State. He thus has a unique perspec-
20 

tive of the challenges facing States. They deal with the conflict between State and federal marijuana laws, and I believe prior to your 

current position, you were chief of staff to the mayor of Denver. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. FINLAW. That is correct. 

Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JACK FINLAW, CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, DENVER, 

COLORADO 

Mr. FINLAW. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Grassley, Members of the Committee. I have been working for the 

past 10 months with a really large collection of Coloradans—stakeholders, government officials, members of the marijuana industry— 

to put together what we will affirm to you is a robust and strong 

enforcement regime. 

You know, the voters of Colorado approved what we called 

Amendment 64 in 2012 by about 55 percent of the vote, even 

though the Governor, the Attorney General, and State leaders opposed the ballot initiative. But we determined with that sort of 

clear statement from the people of Colorado, we needed to effectively and efficiently implement the law. We began through a 

stakeholder process, through a task force, followed by very detailed 

enabling legislation by the Colorado General Assembly, and now 

just yesterday, the Colorado Department of Revenue issued 141 

pages of regulations to regulate the industry. 

Within days of passage of Amendment 64, the Governor, our Attorney General, got on the phone with General Holder and began 

this conversation about this conflict of federal and State law. And 

although we just recently, as we have talked about today, received 

official guidance, we do want to recognize that General Holder, the 

Justice Department, our U.S. Attorney, was very forthcoming about 

expressing federal law enforcement’s concerns about this new legalization effort, and it really allowed us to focus our efforts to develop 

a robust regulatory and enforcement regime for marijuana in Colorado. 

One of the things we did besides passing bills to regulate the industry, we enhanced tools for law enforcement by passing a new 

law that gives law enforcement the ability to better address the 

issues of impaired driving. We now have a law that provides that 

if a driver’s blood contains five nanograms or more of THC, there 

is a permissible inference that the driver was driving under the influence. 

We really appreciate the collaboration we have had with federal 

officials. We know we have more to do. As has been discussed 

today, we have audits critical of some of the things we have done 

in the past to address. I will say that the main reason that we have 

had failures of regulation of our medical marijuana industry is because we have lacked the resources to hire staff and partner with 

law enforcement. But we are sending to the voters this fall a marijuana tax measure that will provide the kind of revenue we need 

to hire staff to also work on public health issues related to marijuana and education and prevention efforts that we are determined 

to focus on. 
21 

The bottom line is we commend the Department of Justice for 

this guidance that they have issued in the new Cole memo. We 

think it was, for us, timely clarification because we were in the 

final weeks of doing our rules, and so we got it in time to make 

sure that our rules complied with the enforcement priorities outlined in the Cole memo. We actually affirm and embrace those 

eight priorities, and we look forward to working with the Federal 

Government. Our Department of Public Safety, our local law enforcement will work with federal law enforcement. We have a great 

working relationship with our U.S. Attorney, and I think that you 

will discover that not only will Colorado’s regulators and law enforcement want to partner with federal law enforcement, but the 

industry will as well. 

One of the things I have discovered in working on marijuana 

issues over the last 10 months is how entrepreneurial, how much 

integrity the folks in our State that have developed these new businesses have. I would compare them to folks that you have all met 

as you have toured wineries in Napa or gone to distilleries in your 

State, Mr. Chairman. I know they make some great rye whiskey 

in Vermont. These are the same types of folks who have established medical marijuana dispensaries, grow operations in Colorado, and they will be partners with us in making sure that minors 

do not have access to marijuana, that the marijuana does not flow 

to Iowa or other States. 

I think that we look forward to a very successful regulatory regime, and I will echo the sheriff’s comments and other comments 

we have heard today about the banking issue. It is both a law enforcement issue and a regulatory issue, and also the tax issue. 

So we look forward to working with our Members of Congress to 

address those issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finlaw appears as a submission 

for the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Finlaw. 

And, without objection, I will also put in the written testimony 

of Washington Governor Jay Inslee and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in the record. Their views are also important 

and relevant. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Our next witness is Kevin Sabet, who is the 

co-founder and director of Project SAM, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and the director of the Drug Policy Institute of the University of Florida. He previously served in the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy in various capacities. He has written extensively 

about this topic. 

Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN A. SABET, PH.D., DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DRUG POLICY INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT 

OF PSYCHIATRY, DIVISION OF ADDICTION MEDICINE; AND 

DIRECTOR, PROJECT SAM (SMART APPROACHES TO MARIJUANA), CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. SABET. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Grassley, and distinguished Members of the Committee, for pro-
22 

viding me with the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss marijuana policy. 

As mentioned, I have studied, researched, and written about 

drug policy for almost 18 years. I am currently the director and cofounder, with former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, of Project 

SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana). 

Because we share the Obama administration’s drug control goals 

of reducing drug abuse and its consequences, I and dozens of prevention, treatment, medical, and scientific groups around the country found the recent guidance by the Department of Justice disturbing on both legal and policy grounds. The guidance, which expressly defers the Department’s right to challenge and preempt 

laws legalizing marijuana, contradicts the Controlled Substances 

Act, both on the policy and legal level, especially policy principles 

designed to protect public health and safety. 

Colorado and Washington have now been given the green light 

to become the first jurisdictions in the world to allow for the creation of large, for-profit marijuana entities, far surpassing any reforms in Europe. 

Now, I think I should mention that the Controlled Substances 

Act is an important tool for public health. In fact, by keeping marijuana illegal, its use is a sixth and a third lower than alcohol and 

tobacco, respectively, in the United States. 

I applaud the way the Controlled Substances Act has been used 

so far by the Federal Government—not to go after low-level users 

with an addiction problem, but instead to target drug traffickers 

and producers. This is not about putting marijuana smokers in jail. 

In fact, analyses have long debunked the myths that our prison 

cells are full of people whose only crime was smoking marijuana. 

Indeed, as a side note, if we were today to let out every single 

person in the United States for any drug offense, our incarceration 

rate in the U.S. would be four times its historical high, not five 

times. Still a massive incarceration problem, regardless of drug offenses. 

Now, we do not have to wait for legalization to happen. For several years, many States like Colorado have been operating with a 

de facto legalization policy under the guise of medicine. In fact, we 

can get—and anybody who has been to Colorado since 2009 can 

get—a sense of full legalization. Mass advertising and promotion, 

using items that are attractive to kids, whether they are ‘‘medical 

marijuana lollipops,’’ ‘‘Ring Pots,’’ ‘‘Pot-Tarts’’ to mimic Pop Tarts. 

These are all characteristics of current policies. 

The result, as mentioned, has been an increase in drug-related 

referrals for high school students and more unintentional marijuana poisonings now reaching children as young as five. And the 

fact that three-quarters of kids in treatment in Colorado today report that their marijuana came from a medical marijuana dispensary. 

Now, this is all consistent with the recent National Bureau of 

Economic Research paper conducted by RAND researchers that 

found that two distinct features in marijuana policy increases use. 

Those two features are home cultivation and legal dispensaries. 

Now, these are found, obviously, in some States that have legalized 

this under medicine. 
23 

Now, this should matter because, despite popular myth, scientists from the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the 

American Society of Addiction Medicine—and we could go on and 

on—are universal in stating that marijuana is harmful for young 

people. Marijuana use, especially among young people, is significantly associated with a reduction in IQ, mental illness, poor learning outcomes, lung damage, and addiction. According to NIH, one 

out of every six kids who tries marijuana will become addicted, and 

last year, 400,000 emergency room admissions were applicable for 

marijuana. 

Now, in Colorado, though traffic fatalities have fallen over the 

last six years, marijuana-related fatalities on the roads have increased. 

Now, we already have evidence showing that in some cases, 

quote-unquote, medical marijuana is going to criminal enterprises 

and foreign drug-trafficking groups. We know, as Senator Grassley 

mentioned, about the diversion to other States and interdiction, 

and we also know, as mentioned, that two very damning State audits released in the last month shows that there has been no, 

quote-unquote, seed-to-sale nonvertical integration of marijuana 

policy in States that have allowed this for medical purposes. How 

on Earth can we think that a task so much more infinitely difficult 

of full legalization is going to be handled any better? 

Now, right now, we are at a precipice. By threatening legal action, the administration can prevent the large-scale commercialization of marijuana. In fact, you all know, after spending decades of 

fighting Big Tobacco, we are now on the brink of creating Big Marijuana. An executive from Microsoft is teaming up with a former 

president of Mexico in their assertion that they will mint more millionaires than Microsoft in their creation of the Starbucks of Marijuana. This is what people in public health care about. The issue 

of a small amount used by an adult in the privacy of their own 

home is not what the initiatives in Colorado and Washington are 

about. 

So I would just conclude by saying when we can prevent the negative consequences of commercial sale and production of marijuana 

now, why would we open the floodgates, hope for the best, and try 

with our limited resources later to patch everything up when 

things go wrong? 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sabet appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Let me go back to Sheriff Urquhart, because you have heard 

what Dr. Sabet has said, and others. And I am interested in your 

insight with 35 years in law enforcement, a significant part of that 

as a narcotics detective. Your sheriff’s department is larger than all 

our law enforcement in Vermont put together. Those who criticize 

your State’s initiative have asked whether legalizing small 

amounts of marijuana could result in increased drugged driving or 

illegal use by minors, cross-border trafficking. You have heard all 

those concerns. How do you address them from a public safety 

point of view? 
24 

Mr. URQUHART. I think what we need to do is continue doing 

what we have been doing all along, which is really robust enforcement. This is not going to change a whole lot. The rules that are 

in place or about to be in place in the State of Washington put a 

limit on the amount of marijuana that can be produced, and with 

the idea that they are only going to match demand. They are not 

going to produce enough so it can be exported to other States. 

Now, that is not to say illegal marijuana grows, like I am sure 

is going on in Colorado, are not going to be exported. But we can 

go after those, and we will go after those. We do not expect what 

is grown legally under the new system to be exported. 

As far as driving, under this new law we now have a way to go 

after people that are driving under the influence of marijuana. In 

the past, it was very, very difficult to get a conviction. Now we 

have a per se standard of five nanograms per milliliter of blood. 

Now we have a standard that we can use, just like we use 0.08 for 

driving under the influence of alcohol. We never had that before. 

So one of the things that I am doing is retraining many of my 

deputies so they can be drug recognition experts, so when they go 

to the scene of a suspected drugged driver who is under the influence of narcotics, where there is any narcotic or marijuana, they 

can test that driver to see if they need to arrest that person and 

take them in for a blood test. It is something brand new. 

Chairman LEAHY. I am not even sure we have that standard in 

my State of Vermont. I recall the frustration as a prosecutor when 

I was there because we did not have a standard we could use. Alcohol was easy. We had a very strict standard. 

So your commitment is to enforce the law as it is in your State. 

Are there areas where the Federal Government can help you? 

Mr. URQUHART. Absolutely. And I think the clarifying letter that 

came out on August 29th helped immensely. It removed the uncertainty that we had. It knows that they are going to allow the citizens of the State of Washington what they want, and what they 

want is legalized marijuana. And that is a very big deal, I think. 

It is going to take the criminal element as best we can out of the 

sale of marijuana, and that really was brought home to me just two 

nights ago when I was here in Washington, D.C. My chief of staff 

here in the front row, Chris Beringer, and I went out to dinner. We 

went to Old Ebbitt’s Grill just two or three blocks from the White 

House. We are walking back to our hotel. It is about nine o’clock 

at night, but it is dark. We saw two gentlemen, young gentlemen, 

college age, walked up to a man standing on the corner, and says, 

‘‘Hey, can I get some weed around here? ’’ 

Now, they certainly did not come up to us, but they did go up—— 

Chairman LEAHY. I take it you were not in your uniform. 

Mr. URQUHART. I was not wearing this outfit, no. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. URQUHART. But they did go up to the most sketchy guy on 

the block—the most sketchy guy on the block—to try and buy 

weed. That is going to go away in Washington, because they can 

go into a store—not a Starbucks store. They can go into a freestanding store and buy their marijuana legally. So they know what 

they are going to get. They know what the price is going to be. 

They do not have to go to that criminal element on the street cor-
25 

ner at nine o’clock at night and solicit somebody to sell them marijuana. Our 502 is going to eliminate all of that, and that is a huge 

step forward. 

Chairman LEAHY. My time is almost up, but I want to ask Mr. 

Finlaw a similar question, because I understand that Governor 

Hickenlooper did not support the constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana in Colorado, but it is very clear from your testimony that you intend to follow the law and make sure it works. 

I understand that the lack of access to financial services, and the 

inability to deduct business expenses, for example, from federal 

taxes, are cited as hurdles to successful regulation of the marijuana 

business. Am I correct in that? 

Mr. FINLAW. Yes, Chairman Leahy, you are correct. Thank you 

for raising that issue. You can understand that these businesses 

that are cash-only, that have dozens of employees, payroll to make; 

they are dealing with cash, not with credit cards, they are having 

to find loans from disreputable financial institutions, it is a great 

challenge. It is a criminal challenge as well as a regulatory challenge. It is criminal, of course, because any business that has that 

much cash on hand and is having to transport it is ripe for robbery. 

It is also a regulatory challenge, because it will be so much easier to audit the books to make sure that the taxes are being paid, 

make sure that the rules that we put in place are being followed 

if the folks are doing business with a bank or credit union or other 

financial institution. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. My time is up. I have further 

questions that I can submit for the record. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I have a couple questions for Mr. Finlaw and 

one for Mr. Sabet. I will start with you, Mr. Finlaw. There has 

been a sharp uptick in drug-related suspensions and expulsions in 

Colorado schools in recent years, and in the State’s second largest 

city, Colorado Springs, drug-related referrals for high school students testing positive for marijuana has increased every year between 2007 and 2012. 

With legalization for recreational use, the challenges to protect 

youth will increase, and yet I understand that under certain circumstances the rules in Colorado will allow for marijuana advertising on television and radio. The rules will permit marijuana 

businesses to maintain Web sites that could be accessible by children, and the rules will permit marijuana-themed magazines to be 

sold in stores within the reach of children. 

My question is: If I am right on those things I just cited, won’t 

all these rules all effectively allow marijuana advertising to children? And then why do you believe that Colorado can successfully 

protect children from marijuana? 

Mr. FINLAW. Senator Grassley, you raise some really important 

issues that we have been grappling with. Even the constitutional 

amendment authorizing marijuana has typically said that advertising directly to children can be prohibited. The enabling legislation and the new rules also do the same. So we have tried to develop rules that are narrowly focused on making sure that, whether 

it is print, television, radio, Web advertising, that it will not be targeted at young people. Cartoon characters and other advertising 
26 

that would be particularly appealing to young people are prohibited. 

The final rule, which was based upon testimony at our rulemaking hearings, provides that if there is to be advertising for 

marijuana, there has to be documentary evidence that the audience—that no more than 30 percent of the audience is young people. So that advertising will be restricted. 

The problem we have had, one of the rules that was adopted in 

May has already been voided under First Amendment grounds. So 

we have First Amendment issues to grapple with as we try to restrict advertising. 

But the good news is that the voters of Colorado are going to 

have an opportunity to approve a new tax in November that will 

give us the resources to develop sort of best practices for education 

and prevention efforts. 

So what we intend to do is counter any ads with very, very 

strong and effective programming that will be public service programming that will be geared toward young people to let them 

know that—because we agree with you. We believe that for adolescents, marijuana is a danger, and we intend to educate them. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Also, Mr. Finlaw, you had an interview 

with NPR in February: ‘‘We have very strict controls over who can 

have access to medical marijuana.’’ 

There was an audit by your State in June concluded by the Colorado Department of Public Health ‘‘does not’’—let me start over 

again. But an audit by your State in June concluded that the Colorado Department of Public Health ‘‘does not sufficiently oversee 

physicians who make medical marijuana recommendations.’’ The 

audit noted that one physician had recommended marijuana for 

over 8,400 patients. 

Would you still stand by your statement that Colorado has strict 

control over who can have access to marijuana? And if so, why 

would you stand by it? And why with these damaging audit findings should the Department of Justice have confidence that Colorado can implement robust regulation of recreational marijuana? 

Mr. FINLAW. Thank you. You are right. As a matter of fact, in 

our conversation with General Holder just a few weeks ago, he 

raised the same question to us. He asked us about those audits, 

and he told us we needed to address the issues that are raised in 

those audits, and we are committed to doing that. 

The particular audit you talked about is the regulation over doctors who issue prescriptions. What I meant when I was quoted in 

February was that we have got really good medical marijuana rules 

and regulations. What we have not done a good job of is enforcing 

those because we have lacked the resources. 

With the new tax coming, with the advent of legalized marijuana, we will have the resources to hire staff to enhance our oversight of doctors, of those other businesses that are involved in the 

marijuana world. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My time is up. I will submit one question to 

you and one to Mr. Sabet for answer in writing. Thank you. 

[The questions of Senator Grassley appear as submissions for the 

record.] 
27 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. Sheriff Urquhart, let me ask 

you, are you familiar with the eight federal interest areas in 

the—— 

Mr. URQUHART. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Are you satisfied with those? 

Mr. URQUHART. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. From a law enforcement perspective, you 

think that they are adequate and appropriate? 

Mr. URQUHART. Absolutely, and we will have no problem meeting 

those at all. Now, some of them do not apply necessarily straight 

to the sheriff’s office, but many of them do. But from what I have 

seen from the regulatory standpoint that the State is enacting, I 

think it is going to work out very well. I have no problem with 

those whatsoever, and I thank the Justice Department for coming 

forward with those when they did. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And, presumably, given all your years in 

law enforcement and your years as a narcotics investigator, you 

have worked with the Federal Government on federal investigations in the past in various capacities, correct? 

Mr. URQUHART. That is correct. And my detectives are doing that 

currently, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And are there current activities basically 

in the same areas that these eight federal interest areas provide 

for? Or do you see any areas of activity that you are undertaking 

now that would stop? 

Mr. URQUHART. No, not at all. In fact, a week ago, we assisted 

with serving several federal search warrants and confiscated 

$193,000, several guns, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, and 

we do that all the time. And that is not going to change. Our cooperation with the Federal Government is not going to change one 

iota because of Initiative 502. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And so by limiting itself to those eight 

areas of federal interest, you do not see that reducing the federal 

law enforcement footprint in the State of Washington in any significant respect? 

Mr. URQUHART. Absolutely not. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very good. 

From a public health and safety point of view, Mr. Finlaw, how 

do you feel about the eight areas of federal interest? Are they adequate from your perspective? 

Mr. FINLAW. We also embrace those. The task force that we have 

put together to implement our new law developed guiding principles, and they were amazingly parallel with the Justice Department’s guidance to us. And while this was a formalization of guidance, we really appreciate the fact that throughout this process the 

Justice Department, particularly through our U.S. Attorney’s Office, has been very forthcoming about their general concerns about 

this new law, and it really allowed us to focus as we developed our 

legislative and regulatory response. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you are the Governor’s legal counsel. 

Mr. FINLAW. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. A great job. I used to have that job. You 

have the responsibility of representing the Governor in the legal 

negotiations about the enforcement program, the regulatory pro-
28 

gram. Say a word, if you will, about the comments that Senator 

Blumenthal and I concluded Deputy Attorney General Cole’s testimony with about the importance of the Department providing 

metrics that are as clear as possible so that people know what the 

rules are that they will be engaging in. 

Mr. FINLAW. Well, let me affirm what both you and Senator 

Blumenthal said. We and I believe that the industry itself in Colorado would really appreciate that sort of guidance. Our Department 

of Public Safety, our State Patrol, our Bureau of Investigation in 

Colorado, along with local law enforcement all will appreciate definitive guidance, and I think it will—when the day comes, if there 

is evidence of an operation that is appealing to young people or exporting marijuana grown in Colorado to other States, an enforcement action that shuts that down would be welcome by us. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has nearly expired but, Dr. 

Sabet, I assume that your policy disagreement with the choice to 

decriminalize or make medical marijuana available would drive 

your answer to all those questions. You are opposed to the metrics. 

You are opposed to the eight areas of interest. You think that we 

should just continue along the previous path? 

Mr. SABET. Well, not necessarily. I mean, I think the eight provisions are as agreeable as baseball and apple pie. I do not know 

anybody who would say that those provisions are not helpful. The 

issue is—which I think you bring up, which is very helpful—how 

are we going to be monitoring and what are the specific metrics 

that the Federal Government is going to use to trigger enforcement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So prospective metrics are very important? 

Mr. SABET. They are extremely important. You know, yesterday 

there were 4,000 joints publicly passed out in Colorado by the campaign, who used to be in favor of legalization, now is against the 

tax, and they just launched their campaign by handing out 4,000 

joints publicly. At a marijuana festival in Seattle a month or two 

ago, 50,000 people smoked marijuana publicly. I mean, so if we are 

talking about actually doing the enforcement at the local level, I 

just have not seen the evidence so far that we are going to try and 

rein in these big industries that are going to advertise on the Internet legally. I do not know any kid who watches TV anymore. It is 

all on social media. Advertisements in these two States will be 

legal on the Internet for kids. 

These are the kinds of things that worry the Academy of Pediatrics and others and myself, and so we will be monitoring this with 

a very watchful eye. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Got it. Well, we look forward to working 

with you on that, and I want to extend through you my personal 

best wishes to Congressman Kennedy, who was a colleague in my 

delegation for many years and who I respect very greatly. 

Mr. SABET. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would say the same, if you could pass 

along my best wishes. And as I understand your position, it is not 

so much against legalization but the evils and abuses that may be 

the result. And I wonder if you could say—I know you alluded to 

it in your testimony—whether, in fact, those evils or abuses have, 
29 

in fact, occurred in Colorado and Washington. And what would be 

your advice to Connecticut? 

Mr. SABET. Sure. Well, I have definitely seen them already occurring in these States, and I do not—you know, I understand State 

officials are in very difficult positions here trying to implement 

these laws that have been passed by a majority of their voters. But 

the effects of what we have seen, for example, in a State like Colorado, where less than two percent of people with cards that authorize them to use marijuana medically have cancer, HIV, or any 

other serious chronic illness, that we have seen them being handed 

out like candy, that we have seen the mass advertising already, 

that worries me. What we see with the public use of marijuana in 

places like Washington, especially in places like Seattle, that worries me. 

So, again, I just do not see the evidence of—although it is a difficult task of trying to implement something robust and trying to 

enforce that, especially in the face of an industry that will be pushing back against every single kind of provision like putting magazines that advertise marijuana just behind the counter so they 

are—and I know the Governor tried to do that and then dropped 

that lawsuit when it was challenged. Or, you know, things like in 

Washington State how you—although packaging will be sterile, you 

can still have, you know, gummy, candy-shaped, attractive to kids 

marijuana products. You can still have marijuana products that are 

edibles, that are actually sometimes a thing that is sending more 

people to ERs than even joints in terms of an inexperienced marijuana user eating a marijuana brownie that has very concentrated 

forms of THC in that brownie all at once, that can be a very traumatic experience for some people. So I do not see any of that being 

regulated, and that is what I worry about. 

In terms of the position that SAM and others and myself have 

put forward, you know, again, I think we are positing that in a 

country with the First Amendment, in a country that has seen the 

alcohol and tobacco industries relentlessly target kids—and, by the 

way, target addicts because these industries do not make money off 

of casual users. The marijuana industry does not make money off 

of the person who decides once every 10 years to light up a joint. 

The industries—alcohol and tobacco are included—make money off 

of addiction. They make money off of the small amount of users 

that consume the vast amount of the volume. 

What I worry is that inevitably in this country American-style legalization is commercialization, is promotion, no matter the best interests that State officials and regulators and liquor control boards 

and others try and implement. So that is the worry. It is not about 

imprisoning people for small amounts. It is not about saddling people with criminal records who get caught with a small amount. It 

is about this mass commercialization. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I wonder if the two other witnesses reacting to the points that have just been made about the problems that 

have arisen under the Colorado and Washington laws would respond. 

Mr. FINLAW. You know, I think that we do agree with the concerns that Dr. Sabet has raised with respect to the dangers of products that are designed for young people, and so we have put into 
30 

place some significant restrictions on packaging and labeling. The 

gummy bear story, you are right, it is a problem. And our Department of Public Health, our regulators who are looking over the licensed premises, will be making sure that those types of packages, 

that type of promotion for young people does not happen in Colorado. It has happened, admittedly, in the past, but we are going 

to redouble our efforts to make sure that young people do not have 

encouragement and do not take the fact that it is now legal for 

adults as a sign that it is good for kids. 

Mr. URQUHART. I think there are some urban myths that are 

floating around out there that Seattle is going to turn into the 

Starbucks of Marijuana, for example, that 50,000 people were all 

smoking at Hemp Fest in downtown Seattle a couple of weeks ago, 

that there is going to be gummy bears infused with marijuana. 

That is just not going to happen in the State of Washington. Big 

business is not going to take over the marijuana business, the legal 

marijuana business in the State of Washington. There is no vertical 

integration allowed. The processors and the growers of marijuana 

cannot own retail stores. Only three retail stores can be owned by 

one owner, for example. No advertising. Security, surveillance systems. Lots and lots of protections in place to make sure marijuana 

is not sold, marketed to people under the age of 21 or used by people under the age of 21 in any way, shape, or form. 

We realize what is going on. We are going to avoid that when 

it comes to legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. Thank you to 

all of you for being here today. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. Well, that brings this hearing 

to its conclusion. Let me thank Deputy Attorney General Cole and 

our three witnesses on the second panel for their contributions to 

our understanding and work on this issue. 

For those who wish to add anything to the record of this hearing, 

the record will be maintained open for one additional week. But 

other than that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
32 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CHARLES GRASSLEY
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PATRICK LEAHY
38 
39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES COLE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN URQUHART, SHERIFF, KING COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
45 
46 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK FINLAW, CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF

GOVERNOR JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, DENVER, COLORADO
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN A. SABET, PH.D., DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DRUG POLICY INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, DIVISION OF ADDICTION MEDICINE; AND DIRECTOR, PROJECT SAM (SMART APPROACHES TO MARIJUANA), CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN FOR JAMES M. COLE
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY FOR JAMES M. COLE
73 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY FOR JAMES M. COLE
74 
75 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR AL FRANKEN FOR JAMES M. COLE
76 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY FOR JOHN URQUHART
77 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY FOR JACK FINLAW
78 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY FOR KEVIN SABET
79 

ANSWERS

RESPONSES OF JAMES M. COLE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS LEAHY, 

GRASSLEY, AND FEINSTEIN
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

RESPONSES OF JOHN URQUHART TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FRANKEN
107 
108 

RESPONSES OF JOHN URQUHART TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
109 
110 

RESPONSES OF JACK FINLAW TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
111 
112 

RESPONSES OF KEVIN SABET TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
113 
114 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER FROM STEVEN F. LUKAN, DIRECTOR, 

IOWA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF DRUG CONTROL POLICY
115 
116 

LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER FROM NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

ORGANIZATIONS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA; ASSOCIATION OF STATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES; INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE; POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM; AND

NATIONAL NARCOTIC ASSOCIATIONS’ COALITION
117 
118 
119 

LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER FROM THE FORMER ADMINISTRATORS

OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (1973–2007) 
120 
121 

LETTER TO SENATOR LEAHY FROM DENNIS J. GALLAGHER, CITY AUDITOR, DENVER, 

COLORADO
122 
123 

AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS, ‘‘THREE AREAS OF INQUIRY FOR ‘CONFLICTS BETWEEN

STATE AND FEDERAL MARIJUANA LAWS’ ’’ 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 

TAMAR TODD, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE, OFFICE OF LEGAL

AFFAIRS, STATEMENT
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 

GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON, WASHINGTON

STATE, STATEMENT
142 
143 
144 
145 

LETTER TO SENATOR LEAHY FROM MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC

POLICY, UCLA LUSKIN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 

LETTER TO SENATOR LEAHY FROM HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, 49TH DISTRICT, 

CALIFORNIA
152 

LETTER TO SENATOR LEAHY FROM WE CAN DO BETTER COALITION: SUE RUSCHE, NATIONAL FAMILIES IN ACTION; A. THOMAS MCLELLAN, TREATMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE; KEVIN SABET, PROJECT SAM (SMART APPROACHES TO MARIJUANA) 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 

HON. ED PERLMUTTER, 7TH DISTRICT, COLORADO, STATEMENT
158 
159 

LETTER TO TREASURY SECRETARY LEW, CHAIRMAN BERNANKE, CHAIRMAN

GRUENBERG, COMPTROLLER CURRY, DIRECTOR CORDAY, AND CHAIRMAN MATZ FROM

HON. ED PERLMUTTER, 7TH DISTRICT, COLORADO, AND HON. DENNY HECK, 10TH

DISTRICT, WASHINGTON STATE
160 
161 

LETTER TO SENATOR LEAHY FROM LORI AUGUSTYNIAK, PREVENTION WORKS! VT 
162 
163 

Æ