As part of their marijuana  enforcement efforts, DEA and the U.S. An increasing number of states have adopted laws that legalize the use of  marijuana under state law. 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. Attorneys for Colorado  and Washington reported that U.S. 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. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provides the  overall framework for establishing and maintaining an effective internal  control system. 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. 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. 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. DOJ’s updated marijuana enforcement policy. Recommendations for Executive Action

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. Appendix I: DOJ Field Components Contacted in Selected States

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.
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 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.
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.

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.