State Marijuana Legalization: DOJ Should Document Its Approach to Monitoring the Effects of Legalization
Published: 2015-12-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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. More recently, in November 2014,  voters in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia approved ballot  measures legalizing marijuana for recreational use.
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  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. 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. We also  interviewed officials from the Office of National Drug Control Policy  (ONDCP), with which DOJ reported coordinating as part of its efforts to  monitor the effects of state marijuana legalization. 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.
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. 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. Furthermore, we reviewed  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. 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the  cannabis plant (shown in fig. 1), which contains the psychoactive or mind- altering 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  Americans aged 12 and older reported having used marijuana in the past  month.
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, 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. 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. 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 government- approved research project.
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. 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  prosecutions, civil and criminal forfeiture, seizures, and eradications of  cannabis plants.
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. In 1996, California became the first state to do so with  its passage of the Compassionate Use Act, 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  recreational use. In 2014, Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia  passed ballot initiatives legalizing marijuana for recreational use.
subsections: section_title: DOJ’s Marijuana Enforcement Policy
paragraphs: 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  with existing state law. The memorandum identified various conduct that  may indicate illegal drug-trafficking activity of federal interest, while  reiterating that U.S. Attorneys maintained prosecutorial discretion in  addressing criminal matters within their districts.
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  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.
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  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.
section_title: Features of Colorado’s and Washington’s Regulatory Systems for Recreational Marijuana
paragraphs: 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. 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. Figure 4  shows the types of recreational marijuana licenses issued in Colorado  and Washington.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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  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 marijuana- infused 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. 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 mold- contaminated 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  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.
Both states’ regulations require licensees to notify the Colorado MED or  Washington State LCB about the transport of marijuana or marijuana- infused 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.
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. 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.
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. In addition, for edible marijuana-infused products, labels must  also include an ingredients list, serving size statement and the number of  servings of marijuana in the product, among other things. 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 child- resistant 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. 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. 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  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.
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  a nonresident. 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. 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  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.” 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.
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 state- commissioned task force developed recommendations for implementing  Colorado’s recreational marijuana law, while Washington used a crime  and drug policy consultant to inform its regulatory development.  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.
section_title: DOJ Reports Actions to Monitor the Effects of State Legalization of Marijuana, but Has Not Documented a Plan for Doing So
subsections: section_title: DOJ Reports Taking Actions to Monitor Effects of State Marijuana Legalization
paragraphs: 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  addition to conducting individual enforcement actions, including criminal  prosecutions, focused on the priorities.
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,  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. 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  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. 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. 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.
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  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.
section_title: DOJ Has Not Documented Its Plan for Monitoring the Effects of State Marijuana Legalization
paragraphs: 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.
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  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. 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.
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.
section_title: DOJ Field Officials Reported That Various Factors Have Affected Their Marijuana Enforcement Actions in Selected States That Have Legalized Marijuana for Medical Purposes
paragraphs: 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:
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.
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 drug- trafficking organizations traffic more than one type of drug, marijuana  is often a part of but not the focus of the district’s investigations.
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  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. 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.
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  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  guidance because these cases did not threaten DOJ’s marijuana  enforcement priorities.
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  were involved in activities that threatened DOJ’s marijuana  enforcement priorities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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 marijuana- related 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: DOJ Field Components Contacted in Selected States
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.