Marijuana

Colorado's Governor Sets Jeff Sessions Straight on Marijuana Legalization

It has not been the disaster portrayed by the prohibitionists whose numbers the attorney general likes to cite.

|

C-SPAN

Yesterday Colorado's governor responded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' concerns about the consequences of marijuana legalization in that state, showing once again that the devastation perceived by prohibitionists has little basis in reality. If Sessions is serious about collaborating with state officials in addressing federal priorities such as underage consumption, stoned driving, and interstate smuggling, he will have to recognize the difference between what scaremongers claim and what the data actually show.

In his July 24 letter to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, for instance, Sessions worried about a 20 percent increase in adolescent marijuana use "after Colorado enacted 'recreational marijuana' laws." That number comes from a regional anti-drug task force known as the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA), which calculated, based on data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), that the incidence of past-month marijuana use among 12-to-17-year-olds in Colorado rose from 10.5 percent in 2011-12, before legalization, to 12.6 percent in 2013-14, after legalization began to take effect. The difference is indeed 20 percent, but it is not statistically significant—a point that RMHIDTA, which is committed to building a case against legalization rather than objectively assessing its results, neglected to mention.

As Hickenlooper and Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman note in their August 24 reply to Sessions, the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS), which has a much larger sample of Colorado teenagers than NSDUH does, likewise "found no statistically significant change in youth marijuana use rates following legalization." Even after state-licensed marijuana merchants began serving recreational consumers in 2014, according to a recently published analysis of HKCS data, cannabis consumption by teenagers was "unchanged." And as Hickenlooper and Coffman point out, "the most recent NSDUH report indicates that between 2013-14 and 2015-16—the period in which adult-use marijuana businesses opened their doors—youth marijuana use [in Colorado] declined by 12 percent."

Sessions also quoted RMHIDTA's claim that "marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 48 percent in the three-year average (2013-2015) since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana compared to the three-year average (2010-2012) prior to legalization." But as the fine print of the RMHIDTA report acknowledges, "marijuana-related traffic deaths" are not necessarily traffic deaths related to marijuana. Rather, they are "fatalities involving operators testing positive for marijuana," which does not show that they were impaired by marijuana at the time of the crash, let alone that marijuana caused the crash.

"A subject might have a positive test result when either active THC—which produces marijuana's psychoactive effect—or one of its inactive metabolites are present in the subject's blood," Hickenlooper and Coffman note. Even when active THC is detected, the level may not be high enough to affect driving ability. It is therefore impossible to tell from the data cited by Sessions whether stoned drivers are actually causing more crashes than they did before legalization.

Today The Denver Post reported that the number of drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested postive for THC or an inactive metabolite rose again last year in Colorado, from 88 to 115. But it remains unclear how many of these crashes were caused by marijuana intoxication. The Post says 71 drivers tested positive for active THC, including 45 who had THC blood concentrations higher than five nanograms per milliliter, the level at which Colorado law allows juries to infer impairment. But that presumption is rebuttable in court, and in reality many drivers who exceed the five-nanogram cutoff are not impaired.

It would help to know whether THC-positive drivers were deemed to be at fault, but the data cited by the Post do not answer that question. Making it even more difficult to entangle marijuana's contribution to the fatal crashes, last year most of the "marijuana-positive" drivers (about 55 percent) also tested positive for alcohol or other drugs.

According to the Post, "Colorado transportation and public safety officials…say the rising number of pot-related traffic fatalities cannot be definitively linked to legalized marijuana." But since "positive test results…do not indicate whether a driver was high at the time of the crash," we also don't know how many "pot-related traffic fatalities" are in fact related to pot.

There is stronger evidence that two other problems mentioned by Sessions, marijuana-related hospital visits and calls to the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, have become more common since legalization. But as Hickenlooper and Coffman point out, those increases may be partly due to "a greater willingness, post legalization, among health professionals to inquire about marijuana use and among individuals to report it." They add that "marijuana-related emergency department visits fell from 1,309 per 100,000 in 2014 to 704 per 100,000 in 2015," while "marijuana exposure calls declined from a peak of 229 in 2015 to 201 in 2016." Hickenlooper and Coffman credit stricter state regulation of marijuana edibles, including dose limits and labeling requirements. But the reversals also may reflect a learning curve as consumers figure out how to avoid unpleasant experiences and accidental exposures.

Hickenlooper and Coffman promise to continue enforcement efforts aimed at preventing interstate smuggling, which they say is due primarily to "abusive residential marijuana cultivation activities that take place under the guise of lawful medical marijuana production," as opposed to diversion from state-licensed growers and retailers serving the recreational market. "Earlier this year," they note, "federal, state, and local authorities executed the largest marijuana-related enforcement action since legalization, indicting 74 people for violating state drug laws."

Unlike pot-smoking teenagers, stoned drivers, and people who freak out after eating too much THC-infused chocolate, entrepreneurs who bring Colorado marijuana to places where its is still illegal are at least engaged in an activity that crosses state lines, making the federal concern more constitutionally plausible. But it is not as if no one was smoking pot in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska before Colorado legalized the stuff, and that decision does not seem to have had a noticeable impact on cannabis consumption in other states, which was already rising.

In any case, if Sessions wants Colorado's help in busting marijuana exporters, he will have to accept the state's decision not to bust growers and sellers serving adults in Colorado (as long as they comply with state regulations). The same goes for cooperation on the other issues that worry Sessions and for all eight states that have legalized marijuana. So far Sessions has asked four of those states how they plan to address the federal government's enforcement priorities, and now all four have replied that they plan to help him by enforcing their own laws. Sessions says "the federal and state governments should work together to address our country's concerns with marijuana." That will not happen if he tries to reimpose prohibition on states that have rejected it.

[This post has been updated with numbers for fatal crashes in 2016.]

NEXT: What will it take to "break the wheel" of Westeros? How "Game of Thrones" highlights the importance of institutions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sessions says “the federal and state governments should work together to address our country’s concerns with marijuana.”

    “‘Our country’s concerns’, of course, meaning ‘my concerns’.”

  2. Also, _______ set Jeff Sessions straight on ________, after Jeff Sessions said that______.

    1. No takers? How about Keebler elves, cultural appropriation, he likes to bake cookies.

    2. Harry Anslinger’s ghost, reefer madness, God talks to him every day.

    3. Cheech and Chong, dosage, he was tired of all that law and order bullshit and wanted to get high.

    4. Also, ___the Buddha____ set Jeff Sessions straight on ____masturbating___, after Jeff Sessions said that___he likes to whack his pee-pee constantly, and secretly wished to someday be caught doing it in public___.

    5. Pitchfork and the Onion AV Club, The War On Drugs, the spike in popularity of the term was due to American’s love of the failed policy rather than the band’s latest masterpiece A Deeper Understanding, of which the track “In Chains” makes this commenter want to be a better man.

    6. Also, nobody was able to_______ set Jeff Sessions straight on the term “killer Mexican”________, after Jeff Sessions said that he looked forward to killing Mexicans______.

  3. The problem, as i see it, is not with Sessions but with Congress. Sessions’ job and duty is to enforce the existing laws. It is Congress’ job to make or repeal laws. I believe it is none of the government’s business what i put into my body or what i do on/in my property. The government is my servant, not my daddy. However, don’t blame the AG, whoever he may at any time be, for performing his job – blame the legislators for creating over-reaching legislation.

    1. Can’t we blame both?

      Congress for inaction and general cowardice about outdated cannabis laws, and Sessions for being a hard core drug war asshole?

      1. Cowards and assholes otherwise known as politicians.

    2. Every congresscreature and administration weenie should state, under oath and publicly, every perception-altering substance xi has ever ingested. Then get down to it.

    3. exactly!

    4. I’m going to blame Jeff Sessions for prioritizing his use of resources to enforce marijuana laws, especially in states that have legalized its use. Holding law enforcement accountable for its use of discretion is absolutely fair game.

      1. I seriously doubt that even with the bloated budget of the DOJ they have enough funding to enforce the butt load of laws Congress has been passing down for 240 years with equal amounts of zeal. Enforcing pot laws most people no longer support doesn’t seem like priority number one. One has to wonder what legitimate DOJ business is falling by the wayside.

    5. There is also this concept called prosecutorial discretion and Sessions needs to use it.

  4. Do you ever get the feeling that in a previous life Jeff Sessions was Torquemada? Torquemada saw the devil in heretics. Sessions sees the devil in marijuana.

    1. More like Girolamo Savonarola.

      1. More like Adolph… oh, wait… forget it…

  5. No mention from Hick that the states ACTUAL position (amicus) in the court of law (Coats v Dish Network, Colorado Supreme Court) is that ALL (A20 and A64) cannabis is STILL UNLAWFUL and that IF the voters want pot to be LAWFUL, they need a NEW constitutional amendment!!–because A20 and A64, according to the state of Colorado, DO NOT LEGALIZE POT. What a joke.

    And I guess he’s going to ignore the HIGH COURT rulings in Coats v Dish and in Colorado v Crouse, which clarify cannabis is STILL UNLAWFUL in the court of law (the only place that it matters) in Colorado…

    ….ironic when the Gov. wants to take the voters into consideration and when not…..forget about the oil and gas lines/waste or the fracking fluid or the plutonium at Rocky Flats…..he’ll TAX and OVER-regulate non-toxic plants that voters THOUGHT they ‘legalized’ and send a letter to the feds while the states ACTUAL stand on ‘legal’ pot in Colorado is that there is NONE under A20 or A64!

    1. “And I guess he’s going to ignore the HIGH COURT rulings in Coats v Dish and in Colorado v Crouse, which clarify cannabis is STILL UNLAWFUL in the court of law (the only place that it matters) in Colorado…”

      Nope. The holding is that, in the Colorado statute covering wrongful termination, the term “lawful” only extends to activities that are lawful under both state AND federal law. The Supreme Court was not substantively interpreting a statute related to Colorado marijuana law.

      1. DONT get in the way of my CLUELESS PSEUDO-LEGAL RAMBLINGS with your FACTS and your COURT CASES!

  6. 1988: New Governor pandering busybody calls the war on imagined communists absurd, but drawing the publics attention to the mariguana epidemic sweeping the nation, calling for stiffer fines against drug traffickers, to include 19 year old selling $10 worth of pot to their roomsmates. State coffers fill with cash from feneral funding and the prisons fill to capacity with minor drug offenders.

    2017: Governer Hichenlooper calls an end to the silly failed war on marijuana, gaining “Street-Cred” with the cool kids voting crowd. His mail box quickly fills up with che-guevara shirts of thanks as hipsters light up a joint and amazingly the sky does not fall as predicted.

    Present: As increased government funding flows into state coffers, Governor Hichenloop supports a new Bill to fight “paid rape and sex trafficking” (e.g. paid sex between consenting adults) through greater incarceration, pointing out how this is a great opportunity to fill all those empty prison cells vacated by minor drug users. All the hipsters cheer.

    http://kdvr.com/2017/04/19/bil…..nors-desk/
    http://www.gjsentinel.com/news…..rafficking

    Oh, but it’s different this time!

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss….

    “The Who”

  7. Hickenlooper the dictator was against marijuana use and legalization here in Colorado or so I have read. He cannot be too vocal as he made his millions selling alcohol.

  8. We went through this before alcohol prohibition made marijuana popular enough to ban. Irving Fisher, the carpet-biting fanatical teetotalitarian, insisted that the prosperity increase when Harding and Coolidge ignored the 18th Amendment. Samuel Crowther, ghostwriter for Henry Ford’s Mein Kampf, like his boss, went to the grave absolutely certain that tax looters chasing assets out of banks and brokerages could NEVER have anything to do with the liquidity crisis of 1929 and Great Depression. It took God’s Own Prohibitionists until 1952 to straightjacket and gag their screeching prohibitionists long enough to elect Ike, and even then a Dry Dowager published The Dry Blockade. Thoughtcrime today is the growing realization that the Great Depression and crashes of 1929, 1987 and 2008 were caused by prohibitionist asset forfeiture. The Flash Crashes of 2010 and 2015 sent regulators scrambling to suppress market trading during prohibition-related selloffs. Only when even the blindest of mystics understands that the prohibitionist looting destabilizes the economy will repeal bring domestic tranquility.

  9. Who owns your life? Who is responsible for your actions and choices? Chickenlooper? Sessions? Your local sheriff?

    I own this life and my body. I am responsible for what I do and don’t do to it.

    Why, oh why do we allow these cretins to control us?

  10. As if youth consumption in a pure black market would be lower than in a highly regulated market, even with some black market activity. I’m sure all the black market dealers were checking ID’s…oh, wait! Pot was illegal for everyone regardless of age. And even if use among youths does go up slightly, A) It’s a legal prodcut now and B) seems like a very small price to pay for personal liberty and a small deescalation of the disastrous drug war.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.