STATE MARIJUANA 

LEGALIZATION

DOJ Should 

Document Its 

Approach to 

Monitoring the Effects 

of Legalization

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 2015

GAO-16-1

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-1, a report to 

congressional requesters

December 2015

STATE MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

DOJ Should Document Its Approach to Monitoring 

the Effects of Legalization

Why GAO Did This Study

An increasing number of states have 

adopted laws that legalize marijuana 

for medical or recreational purposes

under state law, yet federal penalties 

remain. In 2012, Colorado and 

Washington became the first states to 

legalize marijuana for recreational 

purposes. In 2013, DOJ updated its 

marijuana enforcement policy by 

issuing guidance clarifying federal

marijuana enforcement priorities and

stating that DOJ may challenge those 

state marijuana legalization systems 

that threaten these priorities. GAO was 

asked to review issues related to

Colorado’s and Washington’s actions

to regulate recreational marijuana and

DOJ’s mechanisms to monitor the 

effects of state legalization. 

This report examines, among other 

issues, (1) DOJ’s efforts to monitor the 

effects of state marijuana legalization

relative to DOJ’s 2013 guidance and 

(2) factors DOJ field officials reported 

affecting their marijuana enforcement 

in selected states with medical 

marijuana laws. GAO analyzed DOJ 

marijuana enforcement guidance and

drug threat assessments, and 

evaluated DOJ’s monitoring efforts 

against internal control standards.

GAO also interviewed cognizant DOJ 

officials, including U.S. Attorneys and 

DEA officials in six states.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOJ document 

a plan specifying its process for 

monitoring the effects of state 

marijuana legalization, and share the 

plan with DOJ components. DOJ 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Officials from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Deputy Attorney 

General (ODAG) reported monitoring the effects of state marijuana legalization 

relative to DOJ policy, generally in two ways. First, officials reported that U.S. 

Attorneys prosecute cases that threaten federal marijuana enforcement priorities

(see fig. below) and consult with state officials about areas of federal concern, 

such as the potential impact on enforcement priorities of edible marijuana

products. Second, officials reported they collaborate with DOJ components, 

including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other federal 

agencies, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and assess 

various marijuana enforcement-related data these agencies provide. However, 

DOJ has not documented its monitoring process, as called for in Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government. Documenting a plan specifying its 

monitoring process would provide DOJ with greater assurance that its monitoring 

activities relative to DOJ marijuana enforcement guidance are occurring as 

intended. Further, making this plan available to appropriate DOJ components can 

provide ODAG with an opportunity to gain institutional knowledge with respect to 

its monitoring plan, including the utility of the data ODAG is using. This can better 

position ODAG to identify state systems that are not effectively protecting federal 

enforcement priorities and, if necessary, take steps to challenge these systems in 

accordance with DOJ marijuana enforcement guidance.

DOJ Marijuana Enforcement Priorities 

U.S. Attorneys and DEA officials in six states with medical marijuana laws

reported their perspectives on various factors that had affected their marijuana 

enforcement actions. These include

• applying resources to target the most significant public health and safety

threats, such as violence associated with drug-trafficking organizations;

• addressing local concerns regarding the growth of the commercial medical 

marijuana industry; and

• implementing DOJ’s updated marijuana enforcement policy guidance.

View GAO-16-1. For more information, contact 

Jennifer Grover at (202) 512-7141 or 

groverj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Letter 1

Background 5

Features of Colorado’s and Washington’s Regulatory Systems for 

Recreational Marijuana 13

DOJ Reports Actions to Monitor the Effects of State Legalization 

of Marijuana, but Has Not Documented a Plan for Doing So 25

DOJ Field Officials Reported That Various Factors Have Affected 

Their Marijuana Enforcement Actions in Selected States That 

Have Legalized Marijuana for Medical Purposes 32

Conclusions 38

Recommendations for Executive Action 39

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 39

Appendix I DOJ Field Components Contacted in Selected States 41

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Justice 43

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Tables

Table 1: Reported Number of Recreational Marijuana Licenses 

Issued by Colorado and Washington, as of August 2015 15

Table 2: Selected Features of Colorado’s and Washington’s 

Recreational Marijuana Systems, as of July 2015 23

Table 3: Summary of Actions ODAG Officials Reported DOJ was 

Taking to Monitor the Effects of State Marijuana 

Legalization Relative to DOJ’s August 2013 Marijuana 

Enforcement Policy Guidance 29

Figures

Figure 1: Cannabis Plants 6

Figure 2: DOJ’s Marijuana Enforcement Priorities as Outlined in 

the August 2013 Marijuana Enforcement Guidance 11

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Figure 3: Timeline Showing the Years States and the District of 

Columbia Passed Measures Legalizing Medical and 

Recreational Marijuana under State Law and the Years 

DOJ Issued Marijuana Enforcement Policy Guidance 12

Figure 4: Colorado and Washington Recreational Marijuana 

License Types 14

Figure 5: Marijuana Plants with Inventory-Tracking System Tags 

at Colorado and Washington Recreational Marijuana 

Facilities 18

Figure 6: Marijuana-Infused Products Reviewed by the 

Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board 21

Figure 7: DOJ Field Components Contacted in Selected States 42
Page iii GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Abbreviations

CBD cannabidiol

CSA Controlled Substances Act of 1970

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DOJ Department of Justice

EOUSA Executive Office for United States Attorneys

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

HIDTA High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

LIONS Legal Information Online Network System 

Colorado MED Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division 

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task 

 Forces Program 

ODAG Office of the Deputy Attorney General

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy 

RFID radio frequency identification 

THC delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol 

USAO United States Attorney’s Office

Washington State LCB Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 30, 2015

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate 

Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA), generally it is a 

federal crime for any person to knowingly or intentionally manufacture, 

distribute, dispense, or possess marijuana.1 For many years, all 50 states 

had uniform drug control laws or similar provisions that mirrored the CSA 

with respect to their treatment of marijuana, making their violation a state 

criminal offense. However, as of June 2015, 24 states and the District of 

Columbia have passed laws legalizing marijuana for medical purposes 

under certain circumstances—yet federal penalties remain under the CSA 

with regard to marijuana.2 In November 2012, 2 of these states—

Colorado and Washington—became the first states to pass ballot 

initiatives to legalize the possession of marijuana for recreational use 

under state law. The ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington 

generally were to allow for personal possession of up to an ounce of 

marijuana for those at least 21 years of age and required the states to 

establish regulatory and enforcement systems to control the production, 

processing, and sale of marijuana.3 More recently, in November 2014, 

voters in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia approved ballot 

measures legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

1

21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 844. 

2

In addition to the 24 states and the District of Columbia, that have passed laws legalizing 

marijuana for medical purposes, 15 states have laws pertaining to only the use of products 

containing cannabidiol (CBD), one of the active ingredients in marijuana plants. We 

provide more details later in this report.

3

For Colorado’s regulatory framework regarding the production, processing, and sale of 

recreational marijuana, see 1 Colo. Code Regs. 212-2, Retail Marijuana Code. For 

Washington’s regulatory framework regarding the production, processing, and sale of 

recreational marijuana, see Wash. Admin. Code ch. 314-55, Marijuana Licenses, 

Application Process, Requirements, and Reporting. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for enforcing the CSA 

and developing policies and strategies to do so. In 2009 and 2011, DOJ 

issued guidance to prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under 

the CSA. On August 29, 2013, DOJ updated that marijuana enforcement 

guidance following the passage of Colorado’s and Washington’s state 

ballot initiatives legalizing recreational marijuana under state law. The 

guidance described examples of circumstances where the federal 

government may seek to challenge the regulatory system implemented by 

a state to control the production, processing, and sale of marijuana 

because it was likely to threaten federal enforcement priorities. In 

particular, the guidance instructed DOJ’s prosecutorial and law 

enforcement components to focus marijuana enforcement efforts on 

priorities that it stated were particularly important to the federal 

government, such as preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from 

going to criminal enterprises, preventing violence and the use of firearms 

in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana, and preventing the

distribution of marijuana to minors. DOJ indicated that the guidance rests 

on its expectation that states and local governments that have legalized 

marijuana will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement 

systems that will address the threat that those state laws could pose to 

these priorities.

You requested that we review the actions Colorado and Washington had 

taken to implement their recreational marijuana laws, the mechanisms 

DOJ and its components have established to monitor their effects, and 

the lessons learned from DOJ’s enforcement efforts in response to states’

medical marijuana laws. This report examines the following questions:

• What are the features of Colorado’s and Washington’s systems to 

regulate the production, processing, and sale of recreational 

marijuana?

• To what extent is DOJ monitoring the effects of state marijuana 

legalization relative to DOJ’s 2013 marijuana enforcement policy 

guidance?

• What factors have DOJ field officials reported affecting their marijuana 

enforcement actions in selected states that have legalized marijuana 

for medical purposes?

To determine how Colorado and Washington regulate the production, 

processing, and sale of recreational marijuana, we reviewed laws and 

regulations governing recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington 
Page 3 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

as well as reports describing the development and implementation of 

these laws and regulations, such as the state of Colorado task force 

report providing recommendations for implementing Colorado’s 

recreational marijuana legalization law.4 To obtain additional perspectives 

on these regulations, we interviewed officials from the state regulatory 

agencies responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing the 

regulations, including the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Marijuana 

Enforcement Division (MED) and the Washington State Liquor and 

Cannabis Board (Washington State LCB). In addition, we observed 

Washington State LCB officials conduct inspections at three recreational 

marijuana facilities. We also interviewed officials from each of the states’

state patrols and offices of the attorney general, to obtain their 

perspectives on implementation and enforcement of the regulations.

To determine how DOJ is monitoring the effects of state marijuana 

legalization laws relative to DOJ’s 2013 marijuana enforcement policy, we 

reviewed DOJ documentation related to its marijuana enforcement and 

monitoring efforts, including marijuana enforcement guidance 

memorandums the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) issued 

to federal prosecutors beginning in 2009, and information DOJ provided 

to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding its marijuana enforcement 

policy. We also reviewed DOJ component agency documentation 

including Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reports describing 

national drug threat and enforcement trends and guidance describing 

DOJ investigative and prosecutorial case management systems used by 

DEA and United States Attorneys’ offices (USAO). We interviewed DOJ 

headquarters officials from ODAG, DEA, the Executive Office for United 

States Attorneys (EOUSA), and other DOJ components including the 

Criminal Division and the Office of Justice Programs.5 We also 

interviewed officials from the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

 4

State of Colorado, Task Force Report on the Implementation of Amendment 64 (Denver, 

CO: March 13, 2013).

5

DOJ’s Criminal Division develops, enforces, and supervises the application of all federal 

criminal laws except those specifically assigned to other divisions. The division and the 93 

U.S. Attorneys have the responsibility for overseeing criminal matters as well as certain 

civil litigation. EOUSA, among other things, facilitates coordination between the Offices of 

the United States Attorneys and other organizational units of DOJ. The Office of Justice 

Programs works in partnership with the justice community to identify the most pressing 

crime-related challenges confronting the justice system and to provide information, 

training, coordination, and innovative strategies and approaches for addressing these 

challenges. We discuss DEA and the USAOs later in this report.
Page 4 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

(ONDCP), with which DOJ reported coordinating as part of its efforts to 

monitor the effects of state marijuana legalization.6 We then evaluated 

DOJ’s reported efforts to monitor the effects of state legalization of 

marijuana against standards in Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government.

7

To determine the factors DOJ field officials reported affecting their 

marijuana enforcement actions in selected states that have legalized 

marijuana for medical purposes, we selected 6 states for our review, to 

include (1) Colorado and Washington because, in addition to their 

recreational marijuana laws, they have long-standing medical marijuana 

legalization laws in place, and (2) 4 additional states—Alaska, California, 

Maine, and Oregon—that were the earliest states to pass laws legalizing 

marijuana for medical purposes. We interviewed officials from the six 

DEA field divisions and 10 USAOs with jurisdiction for these selected 

states.8 The information we obtained from DOJ field officials in these 

selected states is not generalizable to DOJ field officials in all states with 

medical marijuana legalization laws, but these interviews provided 

valuable information and perspectives about the experiences of DOJ field 

offices in the states. We also interviewed and obtained information from 

officials from federal agencies that DOJ reported partnering with in its 

marijuana enforcement actions, including the U.S. Postal Inspection 

Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park 

Service, and ONDCP High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) 

Program offices in selected states.9 Furthermore, we reviewed 

 6

ONDCP is a component of the Executive Office of the President that advises the 

President on drug control issues, coordinates drug-control activities and related funding 

across the federal government, and produces the annual National Drug Control Strategy, 

which outlines administration efforts to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing and 

trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences.

7

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).

8

See app. I for a list of the DEA and USAO field offices whose officials we interviewed. 

9

The HIDTA Program, a federal grant program administered by ONDCP, provides 

resources to assist federal, state, local, and tribal agencies to coordinate activities in areas 

determined to be critical drug-trafficking regions of the United States. There are currently 

28 HIDTAs, which include approximately 17 percent of all counties in the United States 

and approximately 60 percent of the U.S. population. HIDTA-designated counties are 

located in 48 states, as well as in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of 

Columbia.
Page 5 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

information provided by DEA field divisions and USAOs in the selected 

states regarding their marijuana enforcement actions from fiscal years 

2007 through 2014, including correspondence sent to medical marijuana 

dispensaries and case information reported in these field divisions’

publicly available press releases.10 We selected this time period to 

include information on DOJ marijuana enforcement 2 years before DOJ 

issued its first public marijuana enforcement guidance in 2009 and after 

its August 2013 guidance.11

We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to November 2015 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the 

cannabis plant (shown in fig. 1), which contains the psychoactive or mindaltering chemical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as well as other 

related compounds. Marijuana can be smoked or consumed in food or 

drinks, such as marijuana-infused brownies, cookies, peanut butter, 

candy, and soda. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in 

the United States. For example, according to the 2013 National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health, an estimated 44 percent of Americans aged 12 and 

older reported they had tried marijuana, and an estimated 7.6 percent of 

 10Although the specifics vary by state, medical marijuana dispensaries generally provide 

for the transfer or sale of medical marijuana products. 

11It is important to note that during the course of our review, the Department of Justice’s 

appropriations act was passed and section 538 of the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (Dec. 16,

2014) stated that “[n]one of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of 

Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such 

States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, 

possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.” 

Background
Page 6 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Americans aged 12 and older reported having used marijuana in the past 

month.12

Figure 1: Cannabis Plants

 12Funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health provides information on the use of illicit drugs, 

alcohol, and tobacco among noninstitutionalized Americans aged 12 and older. See 

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 

distributed by Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, National 

Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2013, ICPSR35509-v1 (Ann Arbor, MI: Nov. 18, 2014). 
Page 7 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law and is classified in 

the most restrictive of categories of controlled substances by the federal 

government. The CSA places all federally controlled substances in one of 

five “schedules,” depending, among other things, on the drug’s likelihood 

for abuse or dependence, and whether the drug has an accepted medical 

use. Marijuana is classified under Schedule I,13 the classification reserved 

for drugs that have been found by the federal government to have a high 

potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the 

United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical 

supervision.14 In contrast, the other schedules are for drugs of varying 

addictive properties, but found by the federal government to have a 

currently accepted medical use. The CSA does not allow Schedule I 

drugs to be dispensed with a prescription, unlike drugs in the other 

schedules.15 Furthermore, the CSA provides federal sanctions for 

possession, manufacture, distribution, dispensing, or use of Schedule I 

substances, including marijuana, except in the context of a governmentapproved research project.16

Within DOJ, two components have primary responsibility for enforcing the 

CSA. DEA is the primary federal law enforcement agency responsible for 

conducting criminal investigations of potential violations of the CSA. U.S. 

Attorneys are the chief federal law enforcement officers in federal judicial 

districts responsible for, among other things, prosecution of criminal 

cases brought by the federal government and prosecution of civil cases in 

which the United States is a party.17 As part of their marijuana 

enforcement efforts, DEA and the U.S. Attorneys collaborate, often with 

state and local law enforcement, to conduct criminal investigations and 

 1321 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I (c)(10).

1421 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1).

1521 U.S.C. § 829.

1621 U.S.C. §§ 823(f), 841, 844.

17There are 93 U.S. Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the 

Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. U.S. Attorneys are appointed by, 

and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with the advice and 

consent of the United States Senate. One U.S. Attorney is assigned to each of the 94 

judicial districts, with the exception of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, where a 

single U.S. Attorney serves in both districts. Each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law 

enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction.
Page 8 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

prosecutions, civil and criminal forfeiture, seizures, and eradications of 

cannabis plants.18

An increasing number of states have adopted laws that legalize the use of 

marijuana under state law. As of June 2015, 24 states and the District of 

Columbia had passed legislation or voter initiatives legalizing the 

possession and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes under state 

or territorial law.19 In 1996, California became the first state to do so with 

its passage of the Compassionate Use Act,20 and an increasing number 

of states have passed ballot initiatives, propositions, or legislation under 

state law to legalize medical marijuana in recent years. For example, from 

2007 through June 2015, 13 states and the District of Columbia passed 

some type of measure to legalize marijuana for medical purposes under 

state law. The laws these states have passed legalizing medical 

marijuana vary, as does the extent to which the states have established 

regulatory and enforcement systems to implement them.

As of June 2015, 4 states and the District of Columbia had passed ballot 

initiatives legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes under state law. 

In 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to pass ballot 

initiatives legalizing the production, processing, and sale of marijuana for 

 18For example, DEA’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program is a 

nationwide law enforcement program that exclusively targets drug-trafficking organizations 

involved in cannabis cultivation. According to DEA, in 2014, the program was responsible 

for the eradication of 3,904,213 cultivated outdoor cannabis plants and 396,620 indoor 

plants. In addition, the program accounted for 6,310 arrests and the seizure of more than 

$27.3 million of cultivator assets.

19In addition to the 24 states, and the District of Columbia, which have passed laws 

legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, 15 states have laws pertaining to only the use 

of products containing CBD, one of the active ingredients in marijuana plants. These

states have varying statutory provisions that allow the use of low-THC and high-CBD 

variants of marijuana to treat certain medical conditions.

20Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Proposition 215, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5.
Page 9 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

recreational use. In 2014, Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia 

passed ballot initiatives legalizing marijuana for recreational use.21

DOJ has updated its marijuana enforcement policy in recent years in 

response to the rising number of states that have legalized marijuana 

under state law. According to a series of memorandums ODAG issued to 

U.S. Attorneys beginning in 2009, DOJ is committed to enforcing the CSA 

for marijuana regardless of state law. However, DOJ has directed its field 

components to focus on the efficient and rational use of its investigative 

and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats to 

public health and safety. According to one of the memorandums, DOJ 

has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individuals whose 

conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of marijuana for 

personal use on private property. Rather, DOJ has left such lower-level or

localized marijuana activity to state and local law enforcement authorities 

through enforcement of their own drug laws.

While reiterating the department’s approach to enforcing the CSA and 

focusing its resources to address the greatest public health and safety 

threats, each of the ODAG’s memorandums provided additional 

clarification with respect to the conditions that may trigger federal action, 

including criminal investigation and prosecution. For example, in October 

2009, ODAG issued guidance stating that DOJ’s investigative and 

prosecutorial resources should be directed towards the prosecution of 

significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the 

disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks. 

Moreover, the guidance stated as a general matter, pursuing those 

priorities should not result in a focus of federal resources on individuals 

whose actions were in clear and unambiguous compliance with state laws 

providing for the medical use of marijuana, including individuals with 

cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a 

recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law or 

caregivers who provide such individuals with marijuana in compliance 

 21In November 2014, voters in the District of Columbia approved a ballot initiative 

legalizing recreational marijuana possession and use, but this law does not allow for the 

sale of recreational marijuana. Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of 

Marijuana for Personal Use Act of 2014, Ballot Initiative 71, D.C. Law 20-153, D.C. Code § 

48-904.01. Similarly, in November 2014, voters in Alaska and Oregon voted for Measure 

2, an act to tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana, and Measure 91, 

the Control, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act, respectively.

DOJ’s Marijuana 

Enforcement Policy
Page 10 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

with existing state law.22 The memorandum identified various conduct that 

may indicate illegal drug-trafficking activity of federal interest,23 while 

reiterating that U.S. Attorneys maintained prosecutorial discretion in 

addressing criminal matters within their districts.24

In June 2011, ODAG issued guidance stating that the 2009 memorandum 

was not intended to shield commercial marijuana operations from federal 

enforcement actions. Among other things, the guidance also stated that

while DOJ’s efficient use of limited federal resources had not changed, 

there had been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, 

distribution, and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes, and 

that this activity remained of federal concern. Furthermore, the guidance 

stated that the term medical marijuana “caregiver” referred to individuals 

providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not 

commercial operations cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana.

In August 2013, ODAG issued its first public guidance on marijuana 

enforcement since Colorado and Washington passed state ballot 

initiatives legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes. The guidance 

provided additional clarification of DOJ’s priorities and certain 

circumstances that may warrant DOJ to challenge a state’s 

implementation of its marijuana legalization program. The guidance 

outlined eight enforcement priorities that were particularly important to the 

federal government. These priorities generally focused on preventing the 

conduct ODAG outlined in its 2009 guidance, but with some additional 

activities specified. For example, the guidance included preventing the 

 22The specific requirements for medical marijuana caregivers vary by state, but in general 

caregivers are persons permitted under state law to provide medical marijuana to certain 

medical marijuana patients.

23This memorandum identified characteristics of conduct that may indicate illegal drug 

trafficking of federal interest. These include unlawful possession or unlawful use of 

firearms; violence; sales to minors; financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the 

terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering 

activity or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported 

compliance with state or local law; amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported 

compliance with state or local law; illegal possession or sale of other controlled 

substances; or ties to other criminal enterprises.

24According to the United States Attorneys’ Manual, prosecutorial discretion provides U.S. 

Attorneys with wide latitude in determining when, whom, how, and whether to prosecute 

for apparent violations of federal criminal law. See United States Attorneys’ Manual, 

Chapter 9-27.000, Principles of Federal Prosecution.
Page 11 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in 

some form to other states, preventing the growing of marijuana on public 

lands, and preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other 

adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use. 

Figure 2 lists the eight marijuana enforcement priorities outlined in the 

August 2013 DOJ guidance.

Figure 2: DOJ’s Marijuana Enforcement Priorities as Outlined in the August 2013 Marijuana Enforcement Guidance

The guidance also stated that outside of these priorities, the enforcement 

of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory bodies 

should remain the primary means of addressing marijuana-related 

activity. The guidance stated that in jurisdictions that have enacted laws 

legalizing marijuana in some form and that have implemented strong and 

effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, 

distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana, conduct in compliance 

with those laws and regulations is less likely to threaten the federal 

marijuana enforcement priorities. The guidance indicated DOJ’s 

expectation that state systems must not only contain robust controls and 

procedures on paper, but must also be effective in practice, with 

jurisdictions providing the necessary resources and demonstrating the 

willingness to enforce their laws and regulations in a manner that does 

not undermine federal enforcement priorities. The guidance further stated 

that if state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect 
Page 12 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

against certain harms outlined in the guidance, the federal government 

may seek to challenge the state regulatory structures themselves, in 

addition to continuing to bring individual enforcement actions, including 

criminal prosecutions, focused on the enforcement priorities.

Figure 3 shows a timeline with the years in which states and the District of 

Columbia legalized medical and recreational marijuana and the years in 

which DOJ issued public guidance clarifying its marijuana enforcement 

policy.25

Figure 3: Timeline Showing the Years States and the District of Columbia Passed Measures Legalizing Medical and 

Recreational Marijuana under State Law and the Years DOJ Issued Marijuana Enforcement Policy Guidance

 25In 2014, DOJ issued two additional guidance memorandums addressing financial crimes 

related to commercial marijuana activities and DOJ’s marijuana enforcement on tribal 

lands. Specifically, in February 2014, ODAG issued a memorandum stating that 

investigations and prosecutions of certain financial crimes based upon marijuana-related 

activity should be subject to the same consideration and priorities listed in the August 

2013 memorandum. The financial crimes listed in this memorandum include violations of 

money-laundering statutes, the unlicensed money remitter statute, and the Bank Secrecy 

Act. In October 2014, EOUSA issued a memorandum stating that the eight priorities listed 

in the August 2013 memorandum will guide USAOs’ marijuana enforcement efforts in 

Indian country.
Page 13 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

In November 2012, Colorado and Washington passed state ballot 

measures that legalized recreational marijuana production, processing, 

sales, and possession and designated regulatory agencies to develop, 

implement, and enforce regulations governing the recreational marijuana 

industry. In 2014, these recreational marijuana regulatory agencies—the 

Colorado MED and the Washington State LCB—began to implement the 

new regulations. In general, the two state regulatory systems share 

similar features, including requirements for licensing, licensee and 

employee background checks, facility security measures, and product 

labeling and packaging.26 The following describes some of the features of 

the 2 states’ regulatory systems.

Licensing. The Colorado MED and the Washington State LCB have 

established four types of recreational marijuana licenses that allow 

licensees (or accredited testing facilities) to conduct specific tasks, 

including producing, processing, or selling marijuana products, or testing 

marijuana products for potency and potential contaminants.27 Figure 4 

shows the types of recreational marijuana licenses issued in Colorado 

and Washington.

 

26For Colorado’s regulatory framework regarding the production, processing, and sale of 

recreational marijuana, see 1 Colo. Code Regs. 212-2, Retail Marijuana Code. See also 

Colo. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, art. 43.4. For Washington’s regulatory framework regarding the 

production, processing, and sale of recreational marijuana, see Wash. Admin. Code ch. 

314-55, Marijuana Licenses, Application Process, Requirements, and Reporting. See also 

Wash. Rev. Code tit. 69, ch. 69.50.

27Colorado and Washington use different terminology for each type of license. For 

example, in Colorado’s regulations a “retail marijuana products manufacturing facility” 

license allows the licensee to manufacture, prepare, package, store, and label retail 

marijuana product, whether in concentrated form or comprised of marijuana and other 

ingredients intended for use or consumption, such as edible products, ointments, or 

tinctures. Under Washington’s regulations, a “marijuana processor” license allows the 

licensee to process, dry, cure, package, and label usable marijuana, marijuana 

concentrates, and marijuana-infused products for sale at wholesale to marijuana retailers. 

We use the Washington terminology in this report.

Features of 

Colorado’s and 

Washington’s 

Regulatory Systems 

for Recreational 

Marijuana
Page 14 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Figure 4: Colorado and Washington Recreational Marijuana License Types

Notes: Both states require licenses to be renewed annually.

Colorado allows an individual to concurrently hold marijuana producer, processor, and retailer 

licenses. In contrast, Washington allows individuals to concurrently hold both a marijuana producer 

and a marijuana processor license, but prohibits producers and processors from having a direct or 

indirect financial interest in a licensed marijuana retailer. Further, in Colorado, a person who is an 

owner of a retail marijuana producer, processor, or retailer may not be an owner of a retail marijuana 

testing facility. In Washington, a person with a financial interest in an accredited testing lab may not 

have a direct or indirect financial interest in a licensed marijuana producer or processor for whom he 

or she is conducting required quality assurance testing.

a

In Colorado, marijuana producer licensees can also sell directly to marijuana retailers.

b

Washington does not issue testing lab licenses, but has implemented a required accreditation 

process in order for labs to conduct quality assurance tests.
Page 15 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Table 1 shows the number of active recreational marijuana licenses by 

type as of August 2015, as reported by each of the 2 states’ recreational 

marijuana regulatory agencies.

Table 1: Reported Number of Recreational Marijuana Licenses Issued by Colorado 

and Washington, as of August 2015

License type

Licenses issued

in Coloradoa Licenses issuedin Washingtonb

Marijuana producer 480 636

Marijuana processor 134 533

Marijuana retailer 380 191

Testing labc 16 14

Total 1,010 1,374

Source: Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division and Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board | GAO-16-1

a

Data as of August 3, 2015.

b

Data as of August 25, 2015. License counts do not include pending issuances or closed facilities.

c

In Washington, the testing lab count is the number of accredited facilities.

Background checks. Both Colorado and Washington conduct 

background checks to determine if applicants are eligible to obtain a 

license to operate a recreational marijuana facility. As part of the licensing 

process, both states’ regulations require applicants to submit 

documentation that may include biographical information, fingerprints, 

financial information and funding sources, and facility floor plans. The 

regulatory agencies review this documentation to determine whether 

applicants meet eligibility requirements including state residency, age, 

and criminal history requirements. In order to own, manage, or invest in a 

marijuana facility, both states’ regulations require applicants to be 21 or 

older and a state resident for at least 2 years in Colorado and 6 months in 

Washington.28

 28In addition, Colorado regulations state that applicants for employment at recreational 

marijuana facilities must apply for an occupational license that requires them to be 21 or 

older and undergo a criminal history record check. In contrast, Washington regulations do 

not include an occupational license: Nonmanagement employees must be 21 or older, but 

they are not required to undergo criminal history record checks. The Washington State 

LCB adopted emergency rules, effective June 20, 2015, which changed the residency 

requirement from 3 to 6 months.
Page 16 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

According to state officials, the states’ regulatory agencies are to conduct 

fingerprint-based criminal history record checks against the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) criminal history records. State regulatory 

agency officials are to examine the criminal history record check results 

and compare that information against the list of potentially disqualifying 

criminal offenses identified in the regulations to determine if an applicant 

is eligible for a license. According to Colorado and Washington 

regulations, generally, applicants who have received a felony conviction 

for controlled substances within the past 10 years of their application are 

disqualified; however, the 2 states’ methods for making this determination

differ. For example, in Colorado an applicant with a felony conviction 

during the past 5 years or a felony conviction for controlled substances 

during the past 10 years is disqualified.29 In contrast, Washington uses a 

point system for different types of convictions to consider an applicant’s 

eligibility, whereby an applicant with 8 or more points is normally 

disqualified. Under this system, a felony conviction during the past 10 

years is worth 12 points, a gross misdemeanor or a misdemeanor 

conviction during the past 3 years is worth 5 or 4 points, respectively, and 

each failure to report a conviction is worth 4 points. Both states require 

licensees to inform the regulatory agency of new criminal convictions.30

Facility security measures. Colorado and Washington regulations 

require that recreational marijuana facilities have physical security 

measures installed to combat theft and diversion of marijuana. These 

generally include perimeter fencing at outdoor marijuana producer 

facilities; a security alarm system on all perimeter entry points and 

perimeter windows; as well as a video surveillance system with camera 

coverage of all points of entry and exit to the exterior of the licensed 

premises, point-of-sale areas, and other areas such as areas where 

marijuana is grown or manufactured. The regulations specify that 

licensees must store recordings with the time and date available for a 

 29The Colorado MED may grant a license to a person if the person has a state felony 

conviction based on possession or use of marijuana or marijuana concentrate that would 

not be a felony if the person were convicted of the offense on the date of the application 

for a license.

30According to state regulations, both the Colorado MED and the Washington State LCB 

have the option during the license renewal process to fingerprint current licensees and 

conduct a follow-up criminal history record check. According to state regulations, this is 

done at the Director’s discretion in Colorado and randomly in Washington. Washington 

State LCB officials reported that they had conducted follow-up criminal history checks for 

all first-time licensee renewals, and they will do so randomly in the future.
Page 17 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

minimum of 40 days in Colorado and 45 days in Washington. According 

to officials, the stored video records are used to verify information agency 

officials obtain from inspections as well as actions reported by licensees 

such as the destruction of a plant or shipping marijuana products to 

another marijuana licensee. For example, we observed an unannounced 

premises check of a Washington marijuana producer where there was a 

delay of approximately 10 minutes before the Washington State LCB 

officers were able to access the facility. The officers stated that in that 

type of situation they might examine the last 10 minutes of a facility’s 

recorded video to check for suspicious activity.

Inventory-tracking systems. Both states’ regulations require licensees 

to use inventory-tracking systems that the regulatory agencies operate 

and monitor. According to state officials, the regulatory agencies have 

implemented electronic systems for inventory tracking and require that 

unique identifier tags be attached to marijuana plants and marijuanainfused products. For example, according to state officials, the Colorado 

MED uses radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, while the 

Washington State LCB uses tags with a 16-digit number and an optional 

bar code. Licensees must enter each identifier tag number and 

information about the marijuana plant or product into the electronic 

inventory-tracking systems.31 Licensees must document all inventory 

changes in the system, such as harvesting existing plants, transporting 

plants or products once they are sold to another licensee, destroying 

plant waste or unused plants and products, thefts, and sales to retail 

customers.

Colorado MED and Washington State LCB officials stated that they are 

able to use the inventory-tracking systems to trace specific marijuana 

plants and products through each stage of the supply chain, including 

production, processing, delivery to a retail store, and sale to a consumer. 

For example, Colorado MED officials reported an instance where the 

agency used the state inventory-tracking system to identify the lot 

numbers of marijuana-infused products made with potentially moldcontaminated marijuana and the retail stores that received those products 

in order to prevent them from being sold to consumers. Colorado MED 

and Washington State LCB officials reported that inventory-tracking 

 31The states’ inventory-tracking systems are the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement 

Tracking Reporting and Compliance system and the Washington Marijuana Traceability 

System.
Page 18 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

system data are actively monitored to identify possible irregularities and 

verify information from inspections. For example, Washington State LCB 

officials reported that their agency audited a retail licensee that reported 

significant sales in 1 month and zero sales in the subsequent month. 

Figure 5 shows a photo of marijuana plants with RFID and bar code tags 

at Colorado and Washington recreational marijuana facilities, 

respectively.

Figure 5: Marijuana Plants with Inventory-Tracking System Tags at Colorado and Washington Recreational Marijuana 

Facilities

Both states’ regulations require licensees to notify the Colorado MED or 

Washington State LCB about the transport of marijuana or marijuanainfused products to other licensed facilities. Licensees must generate a 

transport manifest from information entered into the inventory-tracking 

system, such as the type of product, amount or weight, destination, the 

driver, and the transport vehicle, as well as the departure time and 

expected delivery time. Colorado MED and Washington State LCB 

officials reported that transport manifests can be verified by state and 

local police if a marijuana delivery driver is stopped for traffic violations to 

confirm that drivers are legally transporting marijuana or marijuana 

products.
Page 19 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Product quality assurance testing. The Colorado MED and Washington 

State LCB have established regulatory provisions for licensees to submit 

marijuana and marijuana-infused product samples to state-approved 

testing labs for quality assurance testing. According to the regulations, 

testing labs are to perform a number of tests on samples, including 

potency testing to determine the percentage of THC in the sample; 

screening for harmful microorganisms such as bacteria or fungus; and 

may include tests for certain contaminants.32 Colorado and Washington 

regulations state that if a sample fails quality assurance tests, the batch of 

marijuana or marijuana-infused products it was taken from cannot be sold 

and must either be destroyed or retested.33

Labeling and packaging. Both states’ regulations include labeling and 

packaging standards for recreational marijuana products. Marijuana 

product labels are required to state that the product contains marijuana 

and include warnings about the potential health impacts of consuming the 

product.34 In addition, for edible marijuana-infused products, labels must 

also include an ingredients list, serving size statement and the number of 

 32For example, Colorado MED officials reported that contaminant testing was not yet 

mandatory as of March 2015 and that the processes were being tested before full 

implementation. According to regulations, contaminant tests may include but are not 

limited to screening for pesticide, harmful chemicals, adulterants or other types of 

microbials, molds, metals, filth, or residual solvents. Washington State LCB officials 

reported that Washington does not currently require testing for pesticides, but they are 

working on the issue. According to regulations, additional testing includes screening for 

residual solvent levels in certain products and may include screening for unsafe levels of 

metals.

33Washington regulations permit a sample that fails a quality assurance test and the 

associated trim, leaf, and other usable material to be used to create extracts using 

hydrocarbon or carbon dioxide closed loop system upon approval of the board. After 

processing, the extract must still pass all required quality assurance tests. 

34For example, Washington’s regulations require all usable marijuana sold at retail stores 

to include the following warnings: “Warning: This product has intoxicating effects and may 

be habit forming. Smoking is hazardous to your health”; “There may be health risks 

associated with consumption of this product; Should not be used by women that are 

pregnant or breast feeding”; “For use only by adults twenty-one and older. Keep out of 

reach of children”; “Marijuana can impair concentration, coordination, and judgment. Do 

not operate a vehicle or machinery under the influence of this drug”; and a statement that 

discloses all pesticides applied to the marijuana plants and growing medium during 

production and processing. There are similar but separate warning requirements for retail 

marijuana-infused products.
Page 20 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

servings of marijuana in the product, among other things.35 The states’

regulations also prohibit the packaging and labeling of a marijuana 

product from being designed in ways that are appealing to children or 

other persons under 21 years of age. For example, Colorado requires that 

multiple-serving edible marijuana product packaging maintain its childresistant effectiveness for repeated openings or that single-serving edible 

marijuana products bundled into a larger package contain individually 

wrapped servings in child-resistant packaging.

Generally, Colorado regulations also require that multiple-serving edible 

retail marijuana products have single-serving amounts that are physically 

demarked and easily separated, while liquid edible multiple-serving retail 

marijuana products can either be marked on the container to show 

individual servings or include a measuring device. For example, a 

marijuana-infused chocolate bar may have scored pieces that each 

contain 10 milligrams of THC.36 Washington regulations require that 

marijuana-infused edible products in solid form that contain more than 

one serving in the package must be packaged individually in single 

servings in childproof packaging and marijuana-infused edible products in 

liquid form that contain more than one serving in the package must 

include a measuring device with the product.

According to officials, the Washington State LCB has implemented a 

process for reviewing marijuana-infused products to determine if they 

may be sold by licensed retail facilities.37 For example, Washington 

marijuana processor licensees must obtain approval from the Washington 

LCB for all marijuana-infused edible products, labeling, and packaging 

prior to offering these items for sale to a marijuana retailer. The processor 

licensee must submit a photo of the product, label, and package to the 

Washington State LCB for approval. According to Washington State LCB 

officials, a four-person working group meets on a weekly basis to review 

 35Both states’ regulations define a single serving as an amount of marijuana-infused 

product that contains 10 milligrams of THC and each sale unit of a marijuana-infused 

product such as a cookie or soda is limited to a maximum of 100 milligrams of THC.

36By regulation, the size of a standard serving of marijuana shall be no more than 10 

milligrams of active THC and no individual edible retail marijuana product unit for sale 

shall contain more than 100 milligrams of active THC.

37Colorado does not currently have a comparable approval process for marijuana-infused 

products.
Page 21 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

submitted products and determine if they are appealing to children. For 

example, the officials reported that the working group had previously 

approved marijuana-infused peanut brittle for sale, but did not approve 

hot chocolate mix, animal cookies, or gummy bears because these 

products were deemed to be appealing to children.

Figure 6 shows examples of marijuana-infused products that the 

Washington State LCB reviewed—one that was approved for sale and 

another that was not.

Figure 6: Marijuana-Infused Products Reviewed by the Washington State Liquor 

and Cannabis Board

Consumer restrictions. Both Colorado’s and Washington’s recreational 

marijuana regulations include restrictions on consumer use of marijuana, 

including limits on who may possess marijuana, how much may be 

possessed, and where it may be used. For example, both states prohibit 

marijuana retailers from selling to anyone under age 21. In addition, the 2

states restrict the amount of marijuana that a marijuana retailer is 

permitted to sell to an individual. For example, Colorado prohibits retail 

marijuana stores from selling more than 1 ounce of retail marijuana or its 

equivalent in retail marijuana product during a single transaction to a 

Colorado resident and more than a quarter ounce of retail marijuana or its 

equivalent in retail marijuana product during a single sales transaction to 
Page 22 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

a nonresident.38 In Washington, a single transaction is limited to 1 ounce 

of usable marijuana, 16 ounces of solid marijuana-infused products 

meant to be eaten or swallowed, 7 grams of marijuana-infused extract or 

concentrates for inhalation, or 72 ounces of marijuana-infused products in 

liquid form meant to be eaten or swallowed. Neither state allows 

marijuana consumption in public or at marijuana retailer facilities.

To address the risk of drugged driving, both states have established THC 

blood level limits that are similar to the blood alcohol limits used for 

determining alcohol impairment.39 Law enforcement can use roadside 

breath tests to test for alcohol impairment, but Colorado and Washington 

currently test for THC only using blood draws. According to state laws, 

generally, drivers suspected of being impaired by law enforcement 

officers can be required to undergo blood testing to determine if they are 

under the influence of drugs and if their blood contains 5 nanograms or 

more of THC per milliliter.

Facility inspections. Both Colorado’s and Washington’s regulations 

generally require marijuana licensees to grant regulatory agencies access 

to their facilities to carry out inspections. Colorado MED and Washington 

State LCB officials stated that they conduct scheduled and unscheduled 

inspections to verify regulatory compliance by licensees, including final 

inspections of new facilities and inspections of existing facilities. Colorado 

MED and Washington State LCB officials stated that they planned to 

conduct ongoing facility compliance checks modeled on their agencies’

liquor enforcement procedures. For example, Colorado MED and 

Washington State LCB officials reported performing underage compliance 

checks at retail stores.

Violations and penalties. In both states, regulatory violations are 

addressed through penalties that can include monetary fines, suspension 

or cancellation of a license, and criminal charges. The Colorado MED and 

Washington State LCB report using a system of progressive discipline 

 38Colorado allows any person 21 or older to grow up to six marijuana plants, three of 

which can be mature plants. Up to 1 ounce of marijuana can be given to a person 21 or 

older so long as there is no payment involved. Washington does not allow individuals to 

grow recreational marijuana.

39For more information on drug-impaired driving, see GAO, Drug-Impaired Driving:

Additional Support Needed for Public Awareness Initiatives, GAO-15-293 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 24, 2015).
Page 23 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

with escalating penalties for repeated infractions. For example, in 

Colorado, the penalty for selling marijuana to a minor could include 

“license suspension, a fine per individual violation, a fine in lieu of 

suspension up to $100,000, and/or license revocation depending on the 

mitigating and aggravating circumstances.”40 Washington regulations 

state that the sale of marijuana to a minor by a licensed marijuana 

business will result in a 10-day suspension or $2,500 fine for the first 

offense, a 30-day license suspension on the second offense, and 

cancellation of the license on the third offense. Table 2 shows selected 

features of Colorado’s and Washington’s recreational marijuana 

regulations, as of July 2015.

Table 2: Selected Features of Colorado’s and Washington’s Recreational Marijuana Systems, as of July 2015

Selected features Colorado Washington

Licensee eligibility requirements

State residency At least 2 yearsa At least 6 months

Age At least 21 years old At least 21 years old

Criminal history Fingerprint-based check against Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records to 

determine eligibility based on disqualifying 

offenses

Fingerprint-based check against FBI records to 

determine eligibility based on disqualifying 

offenses

Facility location restrictions

Local approval Local jurisdictions may prohibit recreational 

marijuana facilities

Local jurisdictions may raise objections, and 

prospective facilities must comply with local 

ordinances

Near areas where

minors gather

Not specifically prohibited in state regulations. 

Local jurisdictions may impose time, place, 

manner, and location requirements

Not within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, 

recreation center, childcare center, public park, 

public transit center, library, or game arcade. 

Local jurisdictions may further reduce this 

distance to a minimum of 100 feet for every 

location except schools and playgrounds.

Facility security measures 

Monitored alarm system Yes Yes

Video surveillance system Yes Yes

Video recording storage At least 40 days At least 45 days

 40Applicants and licensees can request an administrative hearing to appeal decisions by 

the Colorado MED and Washington State LCB, including an initial denial of a license and 

suspension or revocation of an existing license.
Page 24 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Selected features Colorado Washington

Perimeter fencing No specific height, must prevent public from 

entering secure areas at outdoor marijuana 

producers

At least 8 feet high at outdoor marijuana 

producers

Inventory tracking

Electronic inventory

tracking system

Yes Yes

Shipments and

transport manifests

Shipments are entered into inventory tracking 

system. Transport manifests include product 

information, driver, vehicle, destination, 

departure time, and expected delivery time

Shipments are entered into inventory tracking 

system and quarantined for 24 hours. Transport 

manifests include product information, driver, 

vehicle, destination, departure time, and 

expected delivery time 

Labeling and packaging

Single serving definition 10 milligrams of THC delta-9-

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

10 milligrams of THC

Maximum servings

per sale unit

100 milligrams of THC 100 milligrams of THC

Child-resistant or childproof 

packaging required 

Yes. Packaging and label design cannot be 

appealing to children.

Yes. Packaging and label design cannot be 

appealing to children.

Label statements Serving size, ingredients, usage instructions, 

expiration date, health warnings, marijuana 

symbol, chemicals used in production

Serving size, ingredients, usage instructions, 

expiration date, health warnings, chemicals 

used in production

Consumer restrictions

Marijuana possession limit Up to 1 ounce of marijuana or equivalent 

amount of marijuana-infused product

Up to 1 ounce of marijuana, 16 ounces of solid 

marijuana-infused products, 7 grams of 

marijuana-infused extract for inhalation, or 72 

ounces of liquid marijuana-infused products

Public consumption No No

Blood level

for drugged driving

5 nanograms of THC

per milliliter of blood

5 nanograms of THC

per milliliter of blood

Source: GAO analysis of Colorado and Washington recreational marijuana laws and regulations | GAO 16-1

a

Non-owner employees of recreational marijuana facilities are required to obtain an occupational license and be current residents.

Regulatory development and revision. Officials from both states 

reported using information from commissioned studies and working 

groups, as well as DOJ’s marijuana enforcement guidance, to inform their 

recreational marijuana regulations and have continued to do so as they 

have adopted regulatory changes. For example, in Colorado, a statecommissioned task force developed recommendations for implementing 
Page 25 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Colorado’s recreational marijuana law,41 while Washington used a crime 

and drug policy consultant to inform its regulatory development.42

Moreover, since recreational marijuana sales began in Colorado in 

January 2014 and in Washington in July 2014, both states have made 

revisions to their regulations. For example, in June 2015, the Washington 

State LCB adopted rules relating to marijuana-infused edible products, 

while in May 2015, the Colorado MED adopted changes regarding the 

packaging of marijuana products.

As noted earlier, in August 2013, DOJ’s ODAG issued guidance stating 

DOJ’s expectation that state and local governments that have enacted 

laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and 

effective regulatory and enforcement systems to ensure that the laws do 

not undermine federal enforcement priorities. However, the guidance 

noted that if state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect 

against threats to federal enforcement priorities, the federal government 

may seek to challenge the state regulatory structures themselves, in 

 41State of Colorado, Task Force Report on the Implementation of Amendment 64 (Denver, 

CO: March 13, 2013).

42For example, see Mark A. R. Kleiman, BOTEC Analysis Corporation, UCLA, Alternative 

Bases for Limiting Cannabis Production, (Los Angeles, CA: June 28, 2013).

DOJ Reports Actions 

to Monitor the Effects 

of State Legalization 

of Marijuana, but Has 

Not Documented a 

Plan for Doing So

DOJ Reports Taking 

Actions to Monitor Effects 

of State Marijuana 

Legalization
Page 26 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

addition to conducting individual enforcement actions, including criminal 

prosecutions, focused on the priorities.43

According to ODAG officials and information DOJ has provided to 

Congress since issuing the August 2013 guidance, DOJ is taking actions 

to monitor the effects of state legalization of marijuana relative to DOJ’s 

marijuana enforcement policy generally in two ways. First, DOJ continues 

to enforce the CSA by conducting individual law enforcement actions 

targeting those marijuana cases that threaten any of the eight 

enforcement priorities outlined in the August 2013 ODAG guidance. 

ODAG officials reported that U.S. Attorneys, as the senior federal law 

enforcement officials in the states, were effectively monitoring whether 

cases were implicating DOJ’s marijuana enforcement priorities and 

prosecuting those cases that did. In addition to conducting federal 

prosecutions, officials from ODAG and the U.S. Attorneys for Colorado 

and Washington reported that U.S. Attorneys were actively engaged in 

consultation and discussion with state and local regulatory and law 

enforcement officials. Through these interactions, officials reported that 

U.S. Attorneys have been able to communicate federal enforcement 

priorities, assess the implications of legalization relative to the priorities, 

and identify specific areas of federal concern as state laws have been 

implemented. For example, officials reported that as state recreational 

marijuana legalization was being implemented in Colorado, the U.S. 

Attorney had consulted with state and local officials to identify concerns 

about edible marijuana products and the potential that their sale and use 

could threaten federal enforcement priorities.

Second, ODAG officials reported that DOJ was using various sources of 

information to monitor the effects of marijuana legalization under state 

laws. ODAG officials stressed that DOJ’s focus was on monitoring the 

effects that legalization has had relative to DOJ’s enforcement priorities, 

 43It is important to note that during the course of our review, the Department of Justice’s 

appropriations act was passed and section 538 of the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (Dec. 16, 

2014) stated that “[n]one of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of 

Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such 

States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, 

possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.” 
Page 27 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

rather than evaluating specific requirements within states’ legalization 

laws or regulatory systems. ODAG officials reported that DOJ as a whole 

shared responsibility for collecting information to inform DOJ’s monitoring 

of the effects of state marijuana legalization, while ODAG was 

responsible for assessing this information to guide DOJ’s response to 

state marijuana legalization—including whether DOJ might challenge the 

state laws or regulatory systems.

ODAG officials reported that their most detailed description of the data 

sources DOJ used in its monitoring efforts could be found in information 

DOJ sent to Congress in early 2015 as part of testimony for confirmation 

hearings for the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. 

According to this information, DOJ possessed quantitative and qualitative 

data and used these data to inform its marijuana enforcement efforts. 

ODAG reported that, as it carried out its monitoring efforts, DOJ would 

continue to consider all types of data on the degree to which state 

systems regulating marijuana-related activity protect federal enforcement 

priorities and public safety and health, including existing federal surveys 

on drug use; state and local research; and feedback from federal, state,

and local law enforcement. To this end, the ODAG officials said that they 

were reviewing information developed by DOJ components such as DEA 

and USAOs, and other relevant information developed or published by 

other federal agencies. From within DOJ, ODAG officials cited DEA, 

EOUSA, and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces 

Program (OCDETF) as their primary data sources for monitoring the 

effects of state marijuana legalization.44 In particular, ODAG officials 

reported that DEA’s National Drug Threat Assessments were a source for 

identifying the effects of marijuana legalization. The National Drug Threat 

Assessment, prepared annually by DEA, assesses the threat posed to the 

United States by the trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs based upon law 

enforcement, intelligence, and public health data available for the review 

period. For example, DEA’s 2014 National Drug Threat Assessment

summarizes emerging developments related to drug trafficking and the 

use of illicit substances of abuse, including marijuana, and highlights 

 44According to DOJ, the OCDETF Program, directed by ODAG, is the centerpiece of the 

Attorney General’s drug strategy to reduce the availability of drugs by disrupting and 

dismantling major drug trafficking organizations and money laundering organizations and 

related criminal enterprises. The program operates nationwide and combines the 

resources and unique expertise of numerous federal, state, and local agencies in a 

coordinated effort against major drug trafficking and money-laundering organizations.
Page 28 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

concerns associated with the legalization of marijuana. Among other 

things, the report includes information regarding ingestion of marijuana 

edibles by children in states with medical marijuana availability, 

marijuana-related emergency department visits, and the increasing use of 

marijuana concentrates and the public safety threat posed by the process 

used to make these concentrates—noting that butane extraction has 

resulted in numerous explosions and injuries.45 ODAG officials also cited 

information that they were considering from DOJ components’ case 

management systems, including EOUSA’s Legal Information Online 

Network System (LIONS) and OCDETF’s Management Information 

System. According to DOJ, these systems include, among other things, 

information on cases opened or declined by the USAO, cases 

prosecuted, and their disposition.

ODAG officials also reported relying on information from other federal 

agencies that conduct public health and safety studies, such as ONDCP’s 

HIDTA program and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.46 For example, 

ODAG officials stated that they had reviewed reports that the Rocky 

Mountain HIDTA had issued describing the impacts of marijuana 

legalization in Colorado. These reports included information from various 

sources regarding impaired driving, youth marijuana use, emergency 

room and hospital marijuana-related admissions, and the diversion of 

marijuana from Colorado to other states.47

Furthermore, ODAG officials reported that ODAG and other DOJ 

components were sharing information regarding federal marijuana 

enforcement efforts in states that have legalized marijuana. In particular, 

ODAG officials cited the USAOs’ establishment of a Marijuana 

 45According to the DEA’s 2014 National Drug Threat Assessment, marijuana concentrates 

are extracted from the leafy material of the marijuana plant in many ways, but the most 

common and potentially most dangerous method is butane extraction, which uses highly 

flammable butane gas to extract THC from the marijuana plant material. 

46An institute of the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse 

reports that its mission is to lead the nation in bringing the power of science to bear on 

drug abuse and addiction. In this role, it reports that it provides strategic support and 

research across a broad range of disciplines while ensuring the rapid and effective 

dissemination and use of the results of that research to significantly improve prevention 

and treatment and to inform policy as it relates to drug abuse and addiction.

47Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Investigative Support Center, The 

Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact. Volume 3 Preview 2015. (Denver, CO: 

2015)
Page 29 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Enforcement Working Group, composed of U.S. Attorneys with 

jurisdiction for states that have legalized some form of marijuana who 

meet on a monthly basis to share information and perspectives regarding 

marijuana enforcement. ODAG officials reported participating in these 

meetings to discuss issues associated with DOJ’s enforcement efforts. 

Officials also reported that DOJ is working with ONDCP to identify other 

mechanisms by which to collect and assess data on the effects of state 

marijuana legalization. For example, ODAG officials reported participating 

in ONDCP-led interagency working groups that have met periodically 

since August 2014 to discuss data collection and evaluation regarding the 

effects of state marijuana legalization. ODAG officials reported that, as 

part of their own monitoring efforts, they would consider any information 

regarding the effects of marijuana legalization on public health and safety 

that ONDCP developed and shared with them.

Table 3 identifies and summarizes the various actions ODAG officials 

reported that DOJ was taking to monitor the effects of state legalization of 

marijuana on its federal enforcement priorities.

Table 3: Summary of Actions ODAG Officials Reported DOJ was Taking to Monitor the Effects of State Marijuana Legalization 

Relative to DOJ’s August 2013 Marijuana Enforcement Policy Guidance 

Reported action How reportedly used to monitor effects of state marijuana legalization 

U.S. Attorneys conduct individual enforcement 

actions in states that have legalized marijuana and 

consult with state and local agencies in these states 

to address concerns regarding effects of marijuana 

legalization efforts.

• Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) officials reported that U.S. 

Attorneys, as the senior federal law enforcement officials in the states, 

were monitoring whether cases involve Department of Justice (DOJ) 

marijuana enforcement priorities and prosecuting those cases that do.

• U.S. Attorneys in Colorado and Washington reported working with state 

and local agencies to address federal concerns regarding the effects of 

state marijuana legalization systems relative to DOJ’s marijuana

enforcement priorities.

ODAG officials collaborate with and assess 

information from DOJ components and other federal 

agencies. 

• ODAG officials reported that they were assessing various data sources 

with information about the effects of state marijuana legalization, including 

the Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Threat Assessments, 

data from the U.S. Attorneys’ case management system, and various data 

collected by federal agencies regarding public health and public safety.

• ODAG officials reported participating in the monthly meetings of U.S. 

Attorneys from states that have legalized some form of marijuana. These 

meetings were designed to share information on marijuana enforcement 

cases.

• ODAG officials reported that they participate in periodic Office of National 

Drug Control Policy-led interagency meetings to discuss the effects of state 

marijuana legalization. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ provided information. |GAO 16-1
Page 30 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Notwithstanding these efforts, DOJ has provided limited specificity with 

respect to aspects of its plan for monitoring the effect of state marijuana 

legalization relative to ODAG’s August 2013 marijuana enforcement 

policy guidance. As we noted earlier, ODAG officials reported that they 

were considering various qualitative and quantitative data sources and 

identified some of the sources they were using, such as DEA’s National 

Drug Threat Assessments. However, ODAG officials did not state how 

they would make use of the various information from the sources they 

cited to monitor the effects of state marijuana legalization. For example, 

ODAG officials reported that the most detailed description of DOJ’s 

monitoring efforts is contained in responses to questions for the record 

that DOJ sent to Congress in early 2015. According to this information, 

DOJ identified LIONS and OCDETF data as information sources for its 

monitoring efforts, noting that these case management systems provided 

statistical information reflecting the efforts of DOJ in prosecuting 

violations of federal law. DOJ reported that these data collections 

systems collectively assist in informing the department’s counterdrug 

policy, establishing law enforcement priorities, and making resource 

allocations. However, ODAG officials did not make clear how ODAG 

would be using these data in its efforts to monitor the effects of state 

marijuana legalization. For example, officials from EOUSA—which 

maintains LIONS—reported that USAOs do not consistently enter 

information in LIONS specifying the primary drug type involved in a case. 

Thus, officials said that LIONS would not provide reliable information 

regarding the extent of marijuana-related cases in a USAO district.48

Similarly, while officials identified DEA and HIDTA reports and various 

public health studies as sources of data for their monitoring efforts, they 

did not identify how they would use the data from these various reports 

and studies to monitor the effects of marijuana legalization relative to 

each of the eight marijuana enforcement priorities. ODAG officials also 

did not state how DOJ would use the information to determine whether 

 

48The DOJ Office of the Inspector General has previously examined limitations with 

LIONS, noting that it was not designed as a statistical system, and therefore can be an 

imperfect tool for responding to specific, detailed inquiries seeking comprehensive, 

uniform nationwide data sought for purposes other than case management. For example, 

see U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Department 

of Justice’s Efforts to Address Mortgage Fraud, Audit Report 14-12, (Washington, D.C.: 

March 2014). Also see U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 

Resource Management of United States Attorneys’ Offices, Audit Report 09-03, 

(Washington, D.C.: November 2008).

DOJ Has Not Documented 

Its Plan for Monitoring the 

Effects of State Marijuana 

Legalization
Page 31 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

the effects of state marijuana legalization necessitated federal action to 

challenge a state’s regulatory system.

Further, ODAG officials reported that they had not documented their 

monitoring process. These officials reported that they did not see a 

benefit in DOJ documenting how it would monitor the effects of state 

marijuana legalization relative to the August 2013 ODAG guidance. 

Rather, ODAG officials reported that they would continue to consider all 

sources of available data as part of their ongoing responsibilities and 

would be using these data to inform DOJ’s efforts to protect its marijuana 

enforcement priorities. ODAG officials said they would consider 

documenting their monitoring plan in the future if they determined the 

need; however, they did not identify the conditions that might lead them to 

do so.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provides the 

overall framework for establishing and maintaining an effective internal 

control system.

49 The standards specify the need for internal controls to 

be clearly documented, and the documentation to be readily available for 

review. Moreover, information should be recorded and communicated to 

management and others within the entity who need it and in a form and 

within a timeframe that enables them to carry out their internal control and 

other responsibilities. Documentation also provides a means to retain 

organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge 

limited to a few personnel, as well as a means to communicate that 

knowledge as needed to external parties.50

 49GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Internal control is an integral component of an organization’s 

management that provides reasonable assurance that the following objectives are being 

achieved: effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability of financial reporting, and 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations. These standards, issued pursuant to the 

requirements of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982, provide the overall 

framework for establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal government. Also 

pursuant to the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982, the Office of 

Management and Budget issued Circular A-123, revised December 21, 2004, to provide 

the specific requirements for assessing the reporting on internal controls. Internal control 

standards and the definition of internal control in Circular A-123 are based on GAO’s 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

50See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014). GAO recently revised and reissued its Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government. These new standards became effective 

October 1, 2015.
Page 32 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Documenting a plan specifying its monitoring process would provide DOJ 

with greater assurance that control activities—such as the ways DOJ is 

monitoring the effect of state marijuana legalization relative to federal 

enforcement priorities—are occurring as intended. Moreover, leveraging 

existing mechanisms to make this plan available to appropriate officials 

from DOJ components that are providing the various data can provide 

ODAG with an opportunity to gain institutional knowledge with respect to 

its monitoring plan, including the utility of the data ODAG is using. For 

example, ODAG cited LIONS as a key source of information for 

monitoring, yet EOUSA reported limitations with LIONS in tracking 

marijuana enforcement cases, and there may be limitations with other 

sources of information that ODAG officials are using, or planning to use,

to monitor the effects of marijuana legalization. Incorporating the 

feedback into its monitoring plan can help ODAG ensure it is using the 

most appropriate data and thus better position it to identify those state 

systems that are not effectively protecting federal enforcement priorities—

so that DOJ can work with states to address concerns and, if necessary, 

take steps to challenge those systems, in accordance with its 2013 

marijuana enforcement guidance.

We interviewed officials from six DEA field divisions and 10 USAOs with 

jurisdictions for 6 states that have legalized marijuana for medical 

purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Oregon, and Washington. 

Overall, officials from these DEA field divisions and USAOs reported that 

their marijuana enforcement efforts were focused on addressing DOJ’s 

marijuana enforcement priorities while ensuring they were effectively 

applying their limited resources. Officials reported their perspectives on 

factors that had affected their marijuana enforcement actions, including 

key public health and safety threats, local concerns regarding the 

commercial medical marijuana industry, and DOJ’s updated marijuana 

enforcement policy.

Applying resources to target most significant public health and 

safety threats. Officials from all of the DEA divisions and USAOs we 

spoke with reported that they continued to apply their limited resources to 

address the most significant threats in their jurisdictions. In this way, 

officials generally reported that marijuana enforcement, while important, 

was nonetheless one of many competing priorities, along with 

investigating and prosecuting other types of drug crimes and, for USAOs, 

all federal crimes in their districts. For example:

DOJ Field Officials 

Reported That 

Various Factors Have 

Affected Their 

Marijuana 

Enforcement Actions 

in Selected States 

That Have Legalized 

Marijuana for Medical 

Purposes
Page 33 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

• Officials from the USAO for the Northern District of California reported 

dealing with a wide variety of federal crimes, including non-drug 

crimes, such as health care fraud, investment fraud, and computer 

hacking. Officials reported that they needed to be selective in how 

they directed their resources—and that those resources they directed 

toward marijuana enforcement generally involved gangs and violent 

crime, which pose significant threats to public safety.

• Officials from the USAO for the Eastern District of California reported 

that their district is one of the largest sources of marijuana production 

in the country, and many of the district’s cases involve marijuana 

grown on public lands or interstate trafficking involving drug-trafficking 

organizations; however, the largest portion of the district’s drug cases 

involve methamphetamine cases. Officials attributed this to the district 

historically being one of the main domestic sources of 

methamphetamine production and transport, which officials said 

poses a more significant threat to public health and safety in the 

district than marijuana, including a high number of hospitalizations 

and involvement of violent Mexican drug-trafficking organizations. As 

a result, the USAO has used its prosecutorial discretion to direct 

greater resources to methamphetamine prosecutions rather than 

those for marijuana. Similarly, a senior official from the DEA Seattle 

Division reported that the division’s priorities are the investigation of 

crimes involving heroin, methamphetamine, and Mexican drug cartels.

• Officials from the DEA San Diego Division and the USAO for the 

Southern District of California reported that within their jurisdictions, 

large quantities of drugs are trafficked from Mexico through U.S. 

maritime and land borders. Accordingly, their top priority is addressing 

the major poly-drug-trafficking organizations involved in these drug 

operations and the violent crime that is typically associated with 

them.51

• A senior official from the DEA Anchorage, Alaska, District office 

reported that the district has generally focused its investigative 

resources on drugs other than marijuana, including cocaine, heroin, 

and methamphetamine. This official reported that because most drugtrafficking organizations traffic more than one type of drug, marijuana 

is often a part of but not the focus of the district’s investigations.

 51Poly-drug organizations manufacture or distribute more than one type of drug, such as 

cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine.
Page 34 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

• Officials from DEA field divisions and USAOs in 4 of 6 states—

California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington—reported taking 

actions to target individuals associated with the rising number of 

butane hash oil explosions in their jurisdictions. For example, 

according to the DEA San Diego Division, the presence of butane 

hash oil laboratories at indoor marijuana growing operations was a 

growing concern and resulted in approximately 20 explosions and 

fires in the San Diego County area during fiscal year 2014.

Addressing concerns regarding the commercial medical marijuana 

industry. Officials from DEA field divisions and USAOs reported targeting 

commercial marijuana operations having the most significant impacts on 

local communities in their jurisdictions. For example, officials from DEA 

field divisions and USAOs in 4 of 6 selected states—California, Colorado, 

Oregon, and Washington—reported sending warning letters to about 

1,900 owners and lien holders of medical marijuana dispensaries during 

fiscal years 2007 through 2013. Officials reported taking this action partly 

in response to requests from civic leaders, municipalities, and law 

enforcement officials concerned about the growth in the commercial 

medical marijuana industry.

In general, the letters emphasized that DOJ has the authority to enforce 

the CSA even when certain activities may be permitted under state law. 

The letters also notified the recipients that they could be subject to federal 

civil and criminal penalties and advised them to discontinue the 

distribution of marijuana. Some letters, from officials in California, Oregon, 

and Washington, stated that while the dispensaries they targeted were 

illegal under the CSA, they were generally also illegal under the states’

own medical marijuana programs. Furthermore, some officials in 

California reported that the dispensaries they targeted were also illegal 

under local ordinances. DEA and USAO officials reported that sending 

warning letters was an efficient and effective way to close dispensaries 

and support local community concerns. For example, officials from the 

USAO for the Central District of California reported that most of the nearly 

700 dispensaries to which they sent letters closed. In addition, the U.S. 

Attorney for the District of Colorado reported sending letters in fiscal year 

2012 to dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries operating within 1,000 

feet of schools to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Colorado 

youth—and that all of the dispensaries that received letters closed or 

moved.

Officials in 3 states—California, Oregon, and Washington—also reported 

conducting criminal investigations and prosecutions or civil forfeiture suits 
Page 35 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

in conjunction with their letter campaigns. For example, the four U.S. 

Attorneys in California reported that in October 2011, they began 

coordinated enforcement actions targeting the for-profit medical 

marijuana industry in California. According to officials from the USAOs, 

these actions included sending warning letters to owners and lien holders 

of medical marijuana dispensaries, conducting criminal investigations and 

prosecutions, and initiating civil forfeiture lawsuits.52 Officials from the 

USAOs in California reported that they initiated these efforts in part to 

address concerns raised by civic leaders, municipalities, and law 

enforcement officials regarding the growing numbers of marijuana 

dispensaries in their districts. Officials reported that the number of 

dispensaries in their districts rose considerably beginning in 2009, and 

through discussions with state and local law enforcement, they began 

efforts to reduce the numbers of these dispensaries.53

DOJ’s updated marijuana enforcement policy. Officials from DEA field 

locations and USAOs we spoke with reported that their implementation of 

the marijuana enforcement guidance ODAG has issued since 2009 had 

affected their marijuana enforcement actions to varying degrees.

• Officials from all DEA and USAO locations we spoke with reported 

that the series of marijuana enforcement guidance ODAG issued had 

not changed their enforcement focus, which continues to emphasize 

the most significant threats in their jurisdiction, and that they 

maintained active partnerships with state and local law enforcement 

officials. For example, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado 

reported working closely with the state’s Attorney General and the 

state’s marijuana regulatory agency on various issues related to 

 52For example, officials from the USAO for the Central District of California reported that 

these actions included a number of federal and state criminal prosecutions, more than 26 

federal forfeiture actions, and the execution of more than 55 search warrants at over 100 

locations.

53Officials from the USAOs responsible for the Districts of Alaska and Maine reported that 

they were not aware of any criminal prosecutions in their respective districts associated 

with the medical marijuana industry in recent years, nor had they sent letters to owners 

and lien holders of medical marijuana dispensaries. The U.S. Attorney for the District of 

Alaska attributed this, in part, to the fact that there were no operational dispensaries in 

Alaska, while officials from the USAO in Maine reported that Maine’s eight state-registered 

dispensaries have generally caused limited problems that have been addressed through 

state enforcement efforts, but nothing that had risen to the level of federal interest. 
Page 36 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

marijuana enforcement, including the sale of marijuana edibles and 

butane hash oil explosions.

• Some DEA and USAO field officials reported examining their existing 

caseloads following DOJ’s August 2013 marijuana enforcement 

guidance to determine whether the cases were implicating DOJ’s 

marijuana enforcement priorities, and some field officials reported 

closing a limited number of cases that did not threaten the priorities. 

For example:

• Officials from the USAO for the District of Oregon reported that 

shortly after the August 2013 guidance was issued, they reviewed 

their open marijuana cases from 2011 to 2013 and determined 

that all of the cases were in compliance with the updated 

guidance. Similarly, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of 

Washington reported that he was not aware of any cases that the 

USAO prosecuted prior to the August 2013 guidance that the 

USAO would no longer consider for prosecution.

• Elsewhere, officials from the DEA Seattle Division and the USAO 

for the Central District of California reported reviewing their 

caseloads and closing a limited number of cases that did not 

threaten one of the eight marijuana enforcement priorities. For 

example, a senior official from the DEA Seattle Division reported 

closing seven investigations that did not threaten the priorities in 

the first several months after the guidance was issued, whereas 

officials from the USAO for the Central District of California 

reported closing some forfeiture cases.

• Officials from some DEA and USAO locations reported that the 

August 2013 DOJ guidance had led them to change their marijuana 

enforcement tactics, including scaling back their roles in targeting the 

commercial medical marijuana industry. For example:

• Officials from USAOs in Alaska, California, and Oregon, and from 

one DEA field division in California, reported that, in accordance 

with the 2013 guidance, they would decline to consider for 

investigation and prosecution some marijuana-growing cases that 

they may have investigated and prosecuted prior to the 2013 
Page 37 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

guidance because these cases did not threaten DOJ’s marijuana 

enforcement priorities.54

• Officials from two DEA field divisions—Los Angeles and Seattle—

reported that because they were now required to demonstrate that 

at least one marijuana enforcement priority was threatened in an 

investigation before the USAO would grant them a search warrant, 

it had become more difficult to gather the additional evidence that 

may have helped them do so. These officials expressed concern 

that the August 2013 marijuana enforcement policy guidance had 

made it more challenging for them to identify crimes that 

potentially affected DOJ’s enforcement priorities.

• Officials from DEA and USAOs in the 4 states that had reported 

sending warning letters to owners and lien holders of medical 

marijuana dispensaries—California, Colorado, Oregon, and 

Washington—reported that they had not sent warning letters since 

the August 2013 guidance was issued. Officials attributed this 

change in part to the fact that the guidance requires that they no 

longer consider the size or commercial nature of a dispensary 

alone in taking marijuana enforcement actions, but rather whether 

a dispensary is implicating one or more of the enforcement 

priorities listed in the August 2013 guidance. For example, officials 

from one DEA field division reported that they were not directing 

resources to investigate dispensaries unless there was clear 

evidence that these priorities were being threatened.

• Officials from the USAO for the District of Alaska reported that 

while they continued their strong partnerships with state and local 

law enforcement, they had reduced some marijuana enforcement 

support to the state. Specifically, officials reported that prior to the 

issuance of the August 2013 guidance, they had a general 

understanding with Alaska state and local law enforcement that 

the USAO would accept for federal prosecution marijuana cases 

involving recidivists that the state had prosecuted at least twice 

before. Officials said the USAO had since moved away from 

supporting the state in this way unless the suspects in the case 

 54According to the August 2013 guidance, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, 

prosecutors should no longer consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana 

operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking threatens DOJ’s 

enforcement priorities.
Page 38 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

were involved in activities that threatened DOJ’s marijuana 

enforcement priorities.

It has been over 2 years since DOJ’s ODAG issued guidance in August 

2013 stating that in jurisdictions that have enacted laws legalizing 

marijuana in some form, if state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently 

robust to protect against threats to federal enforcement priorities, the 

federal government may seek to challenge the state regulatory structures 

themselves, in addition to continuing to bring individual enforcement 

actions, including criminal prosecutions. ODAG officials reported relying 

on U.S. Attorneys to monitor the effects of marijuana enforcement 

priorities through their individual enforcement actions and communication 

with state agencies about how state legalization may threaten these 

priorities. ODAG officials also reported using various information sources 

provided by DOJ components and other federal agencies to monitor the 

effects of marijuana legalization and the degree to which existing state 

systems regulating marijuana-related activity protect federal enforcement 

priorities and public health and safety. However, ODAG officials have not 

documented their monitoring process or provided specificity about key 

aspects of it, including potential limitations of the data they report using 

and how they will use the data to identify states that are not effectively 

protecting federal enforcement priorities. Given the growing number of 

states legalizing marijuana, it is important for DOJ to have a clear plan for 

how it will be monitoring the effects of state marijuana legalization relative 

to DOJ marijuana enforcement guidance. Documenting a plan that 

specifies its monitoring process, such as the various data ODAG is using 

for monitoring along with their potential limitations, the roles of U.S. 

Attorneys in the monitoring process, and how ODAG is using all these 

inputs to monitor the effects of state legalization can provide DOJ with 

greater assurance that its monitoring activities are occurring as intended. 

Sharing the plan with DOJ components responsible for providing 

information to ODAG can help ensure that ODAG has an opportunity to 

gain institutional knowledge with respect to whether its monitoring plan 

includes the most appropriate information. This will help place DOJ in the 

best position to identify state systems that are not effectively protecting 

federal enforcement priorities, and take steps to challenge those systems 

if necessary in accordance with its 2013 marijuana enforcement 

guidance.

Conclusions
Page 39 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

We recommend that the Attorney General take the following actions:

• direct ODAG to document a plan specifying DOJ’s process for 

monitoring the effects of marijuana legalization under state law, in 

accordance with DOJ’s 2013 marijuana enforcement policy guidance, 

to include the identification of the various data ODAG will use and 

their potential limitations for monitoring the effects of state marijuana 

legalization, and how ODAG will use the information sources in its 

monitoring efforts to help inform decisions on whether state systems 

are effectively protecting federal marijuana enforcement priorities, and

• direct ODAG to use existing mechanisms to share DOJ’s monitoring 

plan with appropriate officials from DOJ components responsible for 

providing information DOJ reports using regarding the effects of state 

legalization to ODAG, obtain feedback, and incorporate the feedback 

into its plan.

On September 28, 2015, we provided a draft of this report to DOJ and 

ONDCP for their review and comment. We also provided excerpts of the 

draft report for review and comment to the Colorado MED, Colorado 

Attorney General’s office, Washington State LCB, and Washington State 

Attorney General’s office. ONDCP, the Colorado MED, Colorado Attorney 

General’s office, Washington State LCB, and Washington State Attorney 

General’s office provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

In its written comments, reproduced in appendix II, DOJ concurred with 

both of our recommendations. DOJ stated that ODAG will document a 

plan to identify the various data sources that will assist DOJ and USAO’s 

in making enforcement decisions, including decisions in individual 

criminal prosecutions or civil enforcement actions, regarding marijuanarelated crimes. DOJ stated that it will also monitor these data, as well as 

other sources of information, to determine whether states that have 

legalized recreational marijuana are effectively protecting DOJ’s federal 

enforcement priorities as articulated in DOJ’s guidance memorandum 

dated August 28, 2013. Lastly, DOJ stated that to the greatest extent 

possible DOJ will seek to publicly share the data it receives pursuant to 

this plan. DOJ also provided technical comments, which we have 

incorporated as appropriate.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 40 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Attorney General, the 

Director of National Drug Control Policy, the Director of the Colorado 

MED, the Director of the Washington State LCB, the attorney generals of 

Colorado and Washington, appropriate congressional committees and 

members, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-

7141 or groverj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix 

III.

Sincerely yours,

Jennifer Grover

Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: DOJ Field Components Contacted 

in Selected States

Page 41 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

To determine the factors Department of Justice (DOJ) field officials 

reported affecting their marijuana enforcement actions in selected states 

that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, we selected 6 states 

for our review, to include (1) Colorado and Washington because, in 

addition to their recreational marijuana laws, they have long-standing 

medical marijuana legalization laws in place, and (2) 4 additional states—

Alaska, California, Maine, and Oregon—that were the earliest states to 

pass laws legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. We interviewed 

officials from the six Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) field 

divisions and 10 U.S. Attorneys’ offices (USAO) with jurisdiction for these 

selected states. These DEA field divisions and USAOs include the 

following.

Appendix I: DOJ Field Components 

Contacted in Selected States
Appendix I: DOJ Field Components Contacted 

in Selected States

Page 42 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Figure 7: DOJ Field Components Contacted in Selected States

Note: The DEA New England Division has jurisdiction for Maine. The DEA Seattle Division includes 

the Anchorage District Office and Portland District Office.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 43 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 44 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

Jennifer Grover, (202) 512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Tom Jessor (Assistant Director) 

and Jason Berman (Analyst-in-Charge) managed this assignment. David 

Alexander, David Bieler, Billy Commons, Dominick Dale, Alexandra 

Gonzalez, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Stephen Komadina, Jan 

Montgomery, and Alexandra Rouse made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441235)
Page 45 GAO-16-1 State Marijuana Legalization

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.