Cannabis News

A lot has happened in the world of cannabis legalization since Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 in 2012.

Over the last decade, many states across the country have moved to legalize recreational and/or medical use. Others have begun decriminalizing cannabis. As the industry continues to mature and develop, there are signs that cannabis is following the familiar path of the pharmaceutical industry. Paying close attention to these cues can help cannabis entrepreneurs anticipate what’s coming as the industry continues to evolve.

 

Extracting specific plant properties rather than using the plant as a whole.

When people think about cannabis, they now focus on single cannabinoids within the plant. THC is the most well known cannabinoid, but it’s more mellow sister CBD has also launched an entire additional sector of business. Right now, people are fixated on delta-8, and were previously focused on CBG and CBN. But the truth is that drilling down to specific properties has all been done before by pharma.

Aspirin was originally derived from a compound in willow bark. Nowadays, it is created synthetically, but it started out as a salicin extraction from willow bark that was then converted to salicylic acid to make aspirin. When you take vitamin C rather than eat an orange, you are opting to have a specific property taken out of a plant and consumed in a high concentration.

The link between food and health was established centuries ago. Hippocrates famously said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” While creating a very high concentration can aid in health depending upon the medical issue, it is also likely that most of that will be flushed out from the body rather than absorbed.

The difference with cannabis is that its true healing power lies with accessing the whole plant rather than picking and choosing compounds.

If that’s the case, then why is the market booming with distillate products? This is where the pharmaceutical approach truly comes into play: It’s cheaper and easier to do.

Creating a formulation using an extract containing a single homogeneous plant property is much easier. When you make a product formulation with a full spectrum extract that includes not just one cannabinoid but all of them, alongside fatty acids and terpenes, devising a consistent, reliable formulation becomes significantly more complex. Complicated formulations need to be adjusted, done in smaller batches, and skill and experience is paramount to get to a final product that the consumer can trust.

Some manufacturers work around this by extracting all of the properties, then putting them back in, creating a broad-spectrum extract. But at the end of the day, pulling the plant apart permanently alters how those properties work together. It becomes synthetic. There’s a reason why THC and CBD work so well together: Cannabis offers a beneficial symbiosis when all of the plant molecules combine as nature intended.

The traditional pharma approach doesn’t have the power of a more holistic approach. This is one of the reasons I left pharma to work in cannabis.

 

A familiar regulatory path.

If there is one thing that the cannabis industry has reliably seen over the last decade, it’s that testing standards will only grow more rigorous.

Creating products within a regulatory framework is a challenging, albeit necessary, hurdle. These standards are necessary to establish medical credibility in the eyes of the consumer and for the industry as a whole.

Pharma is heavily, heavily regulated. And for good reason. We want to know that what we get from our pharmacists is true to the label.

Governing bodies are mirroring pharma regulations that have been established by the FDA and inching closer and closer to them as the cannabis industry matures. If we truly want national legalization, then this is what it will take to get there. It’s a big challenge, no doubt, given that cannabis businesses have strict regulations but are still forced to adhere to costly policies such as IRS Code 280E.

I am on a science and policy workgroup with the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division. Roughly 100 of us meet to discuss the parameters and benefits of different policies being considered as well as the implementation, facilitation and design components that would be required. Sometimes our suggestions are incorporated, other times they are not. This is a good way to support the industry’s growth while also having a say in the future.

 

Manufacturing standards that mimic pharma.

Creating cannabis products is a labor-intensive process that involves testing multiple times throughout the entire manufacturing process to monitor for pesticides, residual solvents, potency, water activity, microbials, and heavy metals.

Manufacturing and packaging requirements for cannabis are extremely particular, but what that looks like is different in every state. As we move toward national regulations the packaging, manufacturing and testing standards in each state will likely merge into one common set of standards based on the best practices of each state.

If cannabis follows the pharma path, I anticipate the need for detailed, written SOPs to mitigate risk. Keeping up with SOPs is a top priority in pharma, and when they aren’t followed perfectly, there are big consequences. While QC and QA in process checks are not specifically required, I believe they will be in the future. I also predict that we will see more elaborate uniformity and conformity testing as well as more incoming raw material testing of all ingredients that go into a product, not just cannabis. Procedures will be set for examining packaging and labeling for suitability and correctness. Manufacturers will need to provide written instructions and procedures regarding the examination and handling of materials. Any materials meeting the requirements will be approved and those that don’t may be rejected.

We already see facets of these in state regulations, but they are far from universal. It’s a lot to manage, no doubt, but a universal approach will beat the ever-changing state-to-state regulatory patchwork that the industry experiences day to day.

The FDA follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations, and I am certain that in time we will too. The CGMP regulations for pharma contain minimum requirements for the methods, facilities, and controls used in the manufacturing and processing of a drug product. The regulations ensure a product is safe for use, and that it contains the ingredients and strength it claims. While we all already adhere to state rules put in place to accomplish this for product manufacturing, a standardized set of rules would help newer recreational or medical states find their footing more quickly.

As we all know, we have had to work harder than any other new industry on record to earn credibility and trust in the eyes of legislators and the public. One thing we can always rely upon are rules and regulations. The pharma playbook isn’t an easy one to follow, but if we want cannabis to evolve into another standard national industry, these steps form the path to get us there.

 

Jason Neely is the founding partner and president of Stratos, a Colorado cannabis and hemp manufacturer of tablets, topicals, tinctures, concentrates and more, all created with health and wellness top of mind. Learn more at www.stratosthc.com or www.stratoscbd.com.

A lot has happened in the world of cannabis legalization since Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 in 2012.

Over the last decade, many states across the country have moved to legalize recreational and/or medical use. Others have begun decriminalizing cannabis. As the industry continues to mature and develop, there are signs that cannabis is following the familiar path of the pharmaceutical industry. Paying close attention to these cues can help cannabis entrepreneurs anticipate what’s coming as the industry continues to evolve.

 

Extracting specific plant properties rather than using the plant as a whole.

When people think about cannabis, they now focus on single cannabinoids within the plant. THC is the most well known cannabinoid, but it’s more mellow sister CBD has also launched an entire additional sector of business. Right now, people are fixated on delta-8, and were previously focused on CBG and CBN. But the truth is that drilling down to specific properties has all been done before by pharma.

Aspirin was originally derived from a compound in willow bark. Nowadays, it is created synthetically, but it started out as a salicin extraction from willow bark that was then converted to salicylic acid to make aspirin. When you take vitamin C rather than eat an orange, you are opting to have a specific property taken out of a plant and consumed in a high concentration.

The link between food and health was established centuries ago. Hippocrates famously said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” While creating a very high concentration can aid in health depending upon the medical issue, it is also likely that most of that will be flushed out from the body rather than absorbed.

The difference with cannabis is that its true healing power lies with accessing the whole plant rather than picking and choosing compounds.

If that’s the case, then why is the market booming with distillate products? This is where the pharmaceutical approach truly comes into play: It’s cheaper and easier to do.

Creating a formulation using an extract containing a single homogeneous plant property is much easier. When you make a product formulation with a full spectrum extract that includes not just one cannabinoid but all of them, alongside fatty acids and terpenes, devising a consistent, reliable formulation becomes significantly more complex. Complicated formulations need to be adjusted, done in smaller batches, and skill and experience is paramount to get to a final product that the consumer can trust.

Some manufacturers work around this by extracting all of the properties, then putting them back in, creating a broad-spectrum extract. But at the end of the day, pulling the plant apart permanently alters how those properties work together. It becomes synthetic. There’s a reason why THC and CBD work so well together: Cannabis offers a beneficial symbiosis when all of the plant molecules combine as nature intended.

The traditional pharma approach doesn’t have the power of a more holistic approach. This is one of the reasons I left pharma to work in cannabis.

 

A familiar regulatory path.

If there is one thing that the cannabis industry has reliably seen over the last decade, it’s that testing standards will only grow more rigorous.

Creating products within a regulatory framework is a challenging, albeit necessary, hurdle. These standards are necessary to establish medical credibility in the eyes of the consumer and for the industry as a whole.

Pharma is heavily, heavily regulated. And for good reason. We want to know that what we get from our pharmacists is true to the label.

Governing bodies are mirroring pharma regulations that have been established by the FDA and inching closer and closer to them as the cannabis industry matures. If we truly want national legalization, then this is what it will take to get there. It’s a big challenge, no doubt, given that cannabis businesses have strict regulations but are still forced to adhere to costly policies such as IRS Code 280E.

I am on a science and policy workgroup with the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division. Roughly 100 of us meet to discuss the parameters and benefits of different policies being considered as well as the implementation, facilitation and design components that would be required. Sometimes our suggestions are incorporated, other times they are not. This is a good way to support the industry’s growth while also having a say in the future.

 

Manufacturing standards that mimic pharma.

Creating cannabis products is a labor-intensive process that involves testing multiple times throughout the entire manufacturing process to monitor for pesticides, residual solvents, potency, water activity, microbials, and heavy metals.

Manufacturing and packaging requirements for cannabis are extremely particular, but what that looks like is different in every state. As we move toward national regulations the packaging, manufacturing and testing standards in each state will likely merge into one common set of standards based on the best practices of each state.

If cannabis follows the pharma path, I anticipate the need for detailed, written SOPs to mitigate risk. Keeping up with SOPs is a top priority in pharma, and when they aren’t followed perfectly, there are big consequences. While QC and QA in process checks are not specifically required, I believe they will be in the future. I also predict that we will see more elaborate uniformity and conformity testing as well as more incoming raw material testing of all ingredients that go into a product, not just cannabis. Procedures will be set for examining packaging and labeling for suitability and correctness. Manufacturers will need to provide written instructions and procedures regarding the examination and handling of materials. Any materials meeting the requirements will be approved and those that don’t may be rejected.

We already see facets of these in state regulations, but they are far from universal. It’s a lot to manage, no doubt, but a universal approach will beat the ever-changing state-to-state regulatory patchwork that the industry experiences day to day.

The FDA follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations, and I am certain that in time we will too. The CGMP regulations for pharma contain minimum requirements for the methods, facilities, and controls used in the manufacturing and processing of a drug product. The regulations ensure a product is safe for use, and that it contains the ingredients and strength it claims. While we all already adhere to state rules put in place to accomplish this for product manufacturing, a standardized set of rules would help newer recreational or medical states find their footing more quickly.

As we all know, we have had to work harder than any other new industry on record to earn credibility and trust in the eyes of legislators and the public. One thing we can always rely upon are rules and regulations. The pharma playbook isn’t an easy one to follow, but if we want cannabis to evolve into another standard national industry, these steps form the path to get us there.

 

Jason Neely is the founding partner and president of Stratos, a Colorado cannabis and hemp manufacturer of tablets, topicals, tinctures, concentrates and more, all created with health and wellness top of mind. Learn more at www.stratosthc.com or www.stratoscbd.com.

A lot has happened in the world of cannabis legalization since Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 in 2012.

Over the last decade, many states across the country have moved to legalize recreational and/or medical use. Others have begun decriminalizing cannabis. As the industry continues to mature and develop, there are signs that cannabis is following the familiar path of the pharmaceutical industry. Paying close attention to these cues can help cannabis entrepreneurs anticipate what’s coming as the industry continues to evolve.

 

Extracting specific plant properties rather than using the plant as a whole.

When people think about cannabis, they now focus on single cannabinoids within the plant. THC is the most well known cannabinoid, but it’s more mellow sister CBD has also launched an entire additional sector of business. Right now, people are fixated on delta-8, and were previously focused on CBG and CBN. But the truth is that drilling down to specific properties has all been done before by pharma.

Aspirin was originally derived from a compound in willow bark. Nowadays, it is created synthetically, but it started out as a salicin extraction from willow bark that was then converted to salicylic acid to make aspirin. When you take vitamin C rather than eat an orange, you are opting to have a specific property taken out of a plant and consumed in a high concentration.

The link between food and health was established centuries ago. Hippocrates famously said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” While creating a very high concentration can aid in health depending upon the medical issue, it is also likely that most of that will be flushed out from the body rather than absorbed.

The difference with cannabis is that its true healing power lies with accessing the whole plant rather than picking and choosing compounds.

If that’s the case, then why is the market booming with distillate products? This is where the pharmaceutical approach truly comes into play: It’s cheaper and easier to do.

Creating a formulation using an extract containing a single homogeneous plant property is much easier. When you make a product formulation with a full spectrum extract that includes not just one cannabinoid but all of them, alongside fatty acids and terpenes, devising a consistent, reliable formulation becomes significantly more complex. Complicated formulations need to be adjusted, done in smaller batches, and skill and experience is paramount to get to a final product that the consumer can trust.

Some manufacturers work around this by extracting all of the properties, then putting them back in, creating a broad-spectrum extract. But at the end of the day, pulling the plant apart permanently alters how those properties work together. It becomes synthetic. There’s a reason why THC and CBD work so well together: Cannabis offers a beneficial symbiosis when all of the plant molecules combine as nature intended.

The traditional pharma approach doesn’t have the power of a more holistic approach. This is one of the reasons I left pharma to work in cannabis.

 

A familiar regulatory path.

If there is one thing that the cannabis industry has reliably seen over the last decade, it’s that testing standards will only grow more rigorous.

Creating products within a regulatory framework is a challenging, albeit necessary, hurdle. These standards are necessary to establish medical credibility in the eyes of the consumer and for the industry as a whole.

Pharma is heavily, heavily regulated. And for good reason. We want to know that what we get from our pharmacists is true to the label.

Governing bodies are mirroring pharma regulations that have been established by the FDA and inching closer and closer to them as the cannabis industry matures. If we truly want national legalization, then this is what it will take to get there. It’s a big challenge, no doubt, given that cannabis businesses have strict regulations but are still forced to adhere to costly policies such as IRS Code 280E.

I am on a science and policy workgroup with the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division. Roughly 100 of us meet to discuss the parameters and benefits of different policies being considered as well as the implementation, facilitation and design components that would be required. Sometimes our suggestions are incorporated, other times they are not. This is a good way to support the industry’s growth while also having a say in the future.

 

Manufacturing standards that mimic pharma.

Creating cannabis products is a labor-intensive process that involves testing multiple times throughout the entire manufacturing process to monitor for pesticides, residual solvents, potency, water activity, microbials, and heavy metals.

Manufacturing and packaging requirements for cannabis are extremely particular, but what that looks like is different in every state. As we move toward national regulations the packaging, manufacturing and testing standards in each state will likely merge into one common set of standards based on the best practices of each state.

If cannabis follows the pharma path, I anticipate the need for detailed, written SOPs to mitigate risk. Keeping up with SOPs is a top priority in pharma, and when they aren’t followed perfectly, there are big consequences. While QC and QA in process checks are not specifically required, I believe they will be in the future. I also predict that we will see more elaborate uniformity and conformity testing as well as more incoming raw material testing of all ingredients that go into a product, not just cannabis. Procedures will be set for examining packaging and labeling for suitability and correctness. Manufacturers will need to provide written instructions and procedures regarding the examination and handling of materials. Any materials meeting the requirements will be approved and those that don’t may be rejected.

We already see facets of these in state regulations, but they are far from universal. It’s a lot to manage, no doubt, but a universal approach will beat the ever-changing state-to-state regulatory patchwork that the industry experiences day to day.

The FDA follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations, and I am certain that in time we will too. The CGMP regulations for pharma contain minimum requirements for the methods, facilities, and controls used in the manufacturing and processing of a drug product. The regulations ensure a product is safe for use, and that it contains the ingredients and strength it claims. While we all already adhere to state rules put in place to accomplish this for product manufacturing, a standardized set of rules would help newer recreational or medical states find their footing more quickly.

As we all know, we have had to work harder than any other new industry on record to earn credibility and trust in the eyes of legislators and the public. One thing we can always rely upon are rules and regulations. The pharma playbook isn’t an easy one to follow, but if we want cannabis to evolve into another standard national industry, these steps form the path to get us there.

 

Jason Neely is the founding partner and president of Stratos, a Colorado cannabis and hemp manufacturer of tablets, topicals, tinctures, concentrates and more, all created with health and wellness top of mind. Learn more at www.stratosthc.com or www.stratoscbd.com.

Many cannabis companies are working to understand Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) trends so that they may mitigate risks and establish compliant policies at the enterprise level.

The growing impetus behind the current focus on ESG is not only to comply with new regulations and meet consumer and employee demand, but also to increase the capacity to attract capital as many investors are looking to invest in companies with ESG initiatives in place. Given increased demand for ESG action from businesses, many cannabis companies are uniquely positioned to benefit from highlighting their current ESG efforts and incorporating additional ESG practices.

ESG is in the headlines, but it is more than just a fad.

At its core, ESG is a process for evaluating longer-term environmental, social and governance risks that are often considered when implementing traditional risk management strategies. This evaluation includes everything from a company’s treatment of employees and contract labor to its potential unintended impacts on the communities in which it operates. This can encompass product safety and labelling, carbon emissions, water consumption, as well as a company’s adoption of meaningful diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The list is long, but it is also important and cannabis operators are poised to take advantage.

Because the nascent legal cannabis industry often finds itself needing to overcome public and policymaker misperceptions and abide by strict regulations, many cannabis companies have already incorporated ESG-like policies and good governance into their business model.

Growers already analyze their environmental impacts. Brands are required to know the sources of their ingredients and to track their quality. Cannabis product labels are scrutinized for misrepresentations. Because cannabis companies are typically less corporately established entities and because many have evolved from a non-traditional financial background, cannabis companies already also tend to be more diverse and concerned about social justice. By converting de facto ESG policies into express, well-formulated and executed ESG policies, allows companies to add value and position themselves for stronger growth in the marketplace.

Many cannabis companies seem to simply be too busy. The fact that ESG reporting is itself still rapidly evolving makes ESG frameworks hard to adopt, but this challenge is not unique to the cannabis industry.

Constrained access to capital and the industry’s general immaturity are both causes and effects of this lack of capacity. But if a cannabis company accurately markets its ESG framework, it can attract affordable capital or enter new markets that are looking for socially conscious businesses. Cannabis corporate leaders often prioritize alternative capital sources, such as family offices, hedge funds and individuals to attract investment, but many of these capital sources want to know that they are investing into businesses that are ESG-conscious.

The cost-benefit analysis of embracing ESG in the cannabis industry, however, is rapidly shifting. In addition to consumers actively seeking out brands with meaningful sustainability and social responsibility ethos, as more private equity and hedge fund investors enter the space, and with institutional money starting to come off the sidelines, https://www.investopedia.com/barbarians-at-the-gate-institutions-are-buying-u-s-cannabis-stocks-5075004  (CITE) the companies with the best risk management systems will attract valuation premiums. And as more opportunities become available to compete for local licenses, those companies already boasting systematized and certified ESG disclosures will have a substantial competitive advantage.

So, What’s Next?

Like addressing your company’s cybersecurity and protecting your consumer’s privacy (a critical piece of ESG), the best time to start implementing an ESG program is yesterday, but the second best time is right now.

Companies can start this process by making a board committee or high-level executive responsible for aggregating the information necessary to identify ESG risks and opportunities. This might entail polling key stakeholder groups and investigating opportunities to measure, report and communicate the company’s material ESG factors, risks and opportunities.

Here are examples of existing operational practices or industry conditions that could be readily conformed to meet ESG metrics:

• Because cannabis cultivators are subject to some of the most thorough testing and environmental regulations of any agricultural crop in the world, they already know how to anticipate, measure and minimize their environmental impacts. Companies, toward the goal of reporting and risk mitigation, can document how they are anticipating supply chain risks, including, for example, the risk of wildfire smoke damage to the flower, or ensuring vendor inventory to reduce delays in critical product inputs, and the steps they are taking to mitigate against those risks.

• Successful cannabis companies tend to have well-developed stakeholder identification, community relations and stakeholder management policies given that good relations with neighbors is critical to maintaining their operating licenses., Cannabis companies, toward the goal of reporting, could implement programs to better understand the issues that are most important to their stakeholders and to collect and document their ongoing feedback in order to take steps to meaningfully respond to stakeholder concerns.

• Cannabis companies and municipalities continue to grapple with social justice concerns, including how to advance equity given the disproportionate impact of cannabis-related arrests and convictions on communities of color (ACLU’s recent report found that “Black people are still more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people in every state”). https://www.aclu.org/report/tale-two-countries-racially-targeted-arrests-era-marijuana-reform.  As part of efforts to respond to these inequities, many jurisdictions reward companies with diverse ownership and/or leadership teams and many companies are responsive to their socially aware consumer base. Cannabis companies can not only respond to various jurisdictions’ thresholds for diverse leadership, but document meaningful progress in diversity, equity and inclusion, including employee engagement, retention and equitable compensation throughout the company.

Any cannabis company looking to adopt more formalized ESG measures should include the company’s general or outside counsel in the initial stages of this process. They are often uniquely able to articulate ESG risks and help adopt a framework for proper incorporation into the company’s corporate governance, including protocols and policies. Getting sued for making a misrepresentation or violating a consumer protection statute defeats the purpose of marketing ESG success. ESG-related public claims and statements (this includes marketing and labelling, anything related to environmental impacts or sustainability) should be carefully researched, documented and contain proper disclosures to inoculate companies from potential ESG-related risks.

The focus on ESG is gaining momentum. Early adopters of ESG will need to be cautious as standards continue to develop, but they will likely be the first to reap the benefits of meeting increased consumer demand for ESG programs and attracting the attention of larger investors looking for entry points into the growing cannabis industry.

 

A pair of Ohio lawmakers officially put their plans into action July 30 by formally filing adult-use cannabis legislation in the state’s House—the first of its kind in the state.

Democratic Reps. Casey Weinstein and Terrence Upchurch, both representing Northeast Ohio districts, first introduced their 180-page bill two weeks ago, which includes four major components: decriminalization, a cannabis excise tax, commerce and licensing, and medical cannabis.

More specifically, the Ohio Medical Marijuana Control program would remain intact, and licensed operators could pursue additional licenses to enter the adult-use market.

According to a memo Weinstein and Upchurch sent to fellow House members two weeks ago, the bill would enable municipalities to restrict the type and number of cannabis establishments operating within their jurisdictions and require the Department of Commerce to adopt rules related to the licensure of cannabis businesses. And the bill would impose restrictions on the cultivation, processing, transportation and sale of cannabis.

Also, the legislation would allow adults 21 and older to buy and possess up to 5 ounces of cannabis and grow as many as 12 plants for personal use.

“It’s time to lead Ohio forward,” Weinstein said in a joint press release issued Friday. “This is a big step for criminal justice reform, for our veterans, for economic opportunity, and for our individual liberties.”

On the map, Ohio’s neighbor to the northwest, Michigan began commercial sales of adult-use cannabis in December 2019 and has attracted Ohioans’ business since. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania state lawmakers are knocking on legalization’s door to the east.

As for criminal justice reform, Ohio’s jails and prisons incarcerated 68,528 people in 2019. As of 2014, Blacks (1,625 per 100,000) were 5.6 times more likely to be locked up than white Ohioans (289 per 100,000), according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

In states that have already reformed cannabis prohibition, incarceration rates, especially for non-violent criminals, such as those who possess cannabis, have decreased dramatically. In Colorado, cannabis arrests plummeted 68% from 2012 to 2019.

The Ohio legislation would allow for adult cultivation and possession of cannabis and would allow for the expungement of conviction records for previous cultivation and possession offenses.

“This bill is much needed in Ohio, and it’s time for Ohio to become a national leader in marijuana decriminalization and legalization,” Upchurch said in the release. “This bill is more than just about legalization; it’s about economic and workforce development; it’s about decriminalization; and it’s about health care. The time is now, and I look forward to getting this done in a bipartisan fashion.”

The bill would also levy an 10% cannabis excise tax on retailers and microbusiness, with the revenue aimed to be distributed, in part, to secondary education and road infrastructure, as well as up to $20 million annually for two years to be used for clinical trials researching the efficacy of cannabis in treating medical conditions of veterans and preventing veteran suicide, according to the release. 

With the Ohio Legislature in session through the end of the year, the bill now awaits committee assignment.

As a guinea pig for adult-use cannabis legalization, Colorado is often a target for prohibitionists trying to magnify what they consider shortcomings of the first state-legal market.

Two key arguments repeated by lawmakers voting against reform efforts include their concerns about how legalization might impact youth as well as the possible increase of impaired drivers on their state roadways.

In Minnesota, where House members discussed an adult-use bill for roughly five hours in May, before it passed via a 72-61 vote, Republican Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen took aim at Colorado in his efforts to deter passage of House File 600. While H.F. 600 did clear the House, it did not make its way through the Senate.

“Since recreational marijuana was legalized [in Colorado], traffic deaths in drivers which tested positive for marijuana increased 135 percent while all other traffic deaths increased 24 percent,” he said. “So, one of the members said, ‘This doesn’t cause death.’ Well, it does with increased traffic death.”

Gruenhagen went on and said, “One other finding is that marijuana use ages 12 and older increased 30% and is 76% higher than the national average, currently ranking third in the nation in Colorado.”

Lawmakers who oppose adult-use legalization in other states that have debated or passed bills this year have echoed similar reservations before casting their no votes.

While the representative from Minnesota declared to have non-partisan studies on his side, his claims have since been debunked (youth impacts) or gone unsubstantiated (traffic safety) by Colorado’s most recent biennial “Impacts of Marijuana Legalization” report, which was released this July and commissioned by the state’s Division of Criminal Justice.

After Colorado voters passed a ballot measure to fully legalize cannabis in the 2012 general election, possession and cultivation became legal on Dec. 10, 2012, when Gov. John Hickenlooper issued an executive action adding Amendment 64 to the state constitution. The commercial sale of cannabis to the general public under an established licensing system did not begin until Jan. 1, 2014. 

Before adult-use legalization, Coloradans legalized medical cannabis through a 2000 ballot measure. Data going back to 2005 is included in the commissioned report on the impacts of legalization, which was mandated by the Colorado General Assembly in 2013. 

The executive summary of this year’s report states: “The majority of the data sources vary considerably in terms of what exists historically, and the reliability of some sources has improved over time. Consequently, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization and commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be the case due to the lack of historical data.

“Furthermore, the measurement of available data elements can be affected by [the] very context of marijuana legalization. For example, the decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and also to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not.”

Impact on Youth

According to the most recent report, the proportion of Colorado high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime remained statistically stagnant from 36.9% in 2013 to 35.9% in 2019. In addition, Colorado’s 2019 rate of 35.9% was slightly lower than the national rate of 36.8% of high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime.

For high school students who reported using cannabis in the past 30 days, Colorado’s 20.6% rate was slightly lower than the nation’s 21.7% rate in 2019. Neither the Colorado rate of use nor the national rate experienced significant changes from 2013 to 2019, according to the report.

“There was no statistically significant difference between Colorado student responses compared to national data,” the report stated. “The percentage of high school students reporting past 30-day use also remained stable, with no significant changes between 2005 and 2019.”

The data was gathered through the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, which the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment began administering to high school students in 2005, and to middle school students in 2013. The sample information included 46,537 high school students and 6,983 middle school students in 2019.

Meanwhile, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health is administered annually to those aged 12 and older by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which the Colorado report uses to derive its comparisons.  

“The proportion of students trying marijuana before the age of 13 went down significantly in Colorado, from 9.2% in 2015 to 6.7% in 2019,” the Colorado report stated. “These findings were not statistically different from the national data.”

The report added that the trend of past 30-day cannabis use among high schoolers and middle schoolers showed “no significant changes occurred within any grade level [from sixth through 12th grade] between 2013 and 2019.”

Following are other highlights regarding youth impacts in the report:

• In 2019, the prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use was significantly higher among Hispanic (23.2%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (26.7%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (29.4%), and multiple races (24.8%) compared to white (19.4%) and Asian (9.7%) high school students.
• In 2019, past 30-day cannabis use rates increased by grade level, with 12th graders (26.9%) twice as likely to report using cannabis than ninth graders (13.3%)
• Among those who use cannabis, the percent of high school students reporting dabbing cannabis in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2017 (20.3%) to 2019 (52.0%). In contrast, the percent reporting smoking cannabis decreased significantly from 2017 (88.4%) to 2019 (77.9%).
• High school students’ perception of cannabis posing a moderate/great risk if used regularly decreased from 2011 (57.6%) to 2019 (50.1%)
• High school students’ perception of easy access to cannabis decreased: 57.2% of students reported that it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2011, while 51.4% of students reported it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2019. 

Traffic Safety

The scope of driving under the influence of cannabis is difficult to gauge for several reasons, according to the report:

1. There is no criminal charge that specifies that the driver is impaired by drugs instead of, or in combination with, alcohol. The current statute applies to driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of the two.
2. There is no central repository of toxicology results that would allow for an analysis of trends.
3. At a traffic stop, law enforcement may choose not to pursue additional toxicology testing if the driver is exhibiting indications of impairment from alcohol. The additional time and cost required for further toxicology testing may not be considered worthwhile if the burden of proof for impairment is already being met by a blood-alcohol content (BAC) level.
4. After an arrest, if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect is impaired by drugs and/or alcohol, the officer may transfer the suspect to a location where blood can be drawn for further toxicology screening. The delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in blood decreases rapidly in the first hour after use, then gradually thereafter, making prompt testing critical.
5. Furthermore, high THC blood concentration does not perfectly correspond to impairment. Chronic cannabis users had measurable concentrations of delta-9 during a seven-day abstinence period. The highest level observed at the conclusion of the seven days was 3.0 nanograms per milliliter (the “permissible inference” driving limit is 5.0 ng/mL), as a result of THC being stored in fat and its ability to slowly release from the tissue. This becomes a problem for frequent and medicinal users who may continuously have THC detectable in their blood without noticeable impairing effects.

Also making it difficult to gauge the impact of cannabis legalization on traffic safety is “the increase in law enforcement officers who are trained in recognizing drug use—from 129 officers in 2012 to 221 in 2020—which can increase drug detection rates apart from any changes in driver behavior,” the report stated.

Going back to Minnesota Rep. Gruenhagen’s claim about Colorado experiencing increased traffic deaths among drivers who tested positive for THC since legalization, here is what the report found: the number of fatalities for drivers who tested positive for cannabinoids, or cannabinoids in combination of alcohol and/or other drugs, increased by 140%, from 55 in 2013 to 132 in 2019.

However, the report noted that the detection of any cannabinoid in one’s blood is not an indicator of impairment, but only indicates presence in one’s system. In Colorado traffic fatalities where at least one driver was drug tested, the percentage of those testing above the 5.0 ng/mL permissible inference level remained statistically unchanged from 2016 (14%) to 2019 (13%).

In a broader study of impaired drivers, the number of cases where drivers were screened for cannabinoids increased from 3,946 in 2016 to 5,032 in 2018; however, the percentage of those drivers testing positive for cannabinoids decreased from 73.1% to 66.3%. Those who tested at or above the 5.0 ng/mL limit rose slightly, from 47.5% to 49.6%, while the median level decreased from 5.9 ng/mL to 5.2 ng/mL from 2016 to 2018.

“The lack of comparable federal data across many metrics makes it difficult to compare changes in Colorado to other jurisdictions which may have not legalized marijuana,” the report stated. “In sum, then, the lack of pre-commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these preliminary findings into definitive statements of outcomes.”

Public Safety

The total number of cannabis arrests have plummeted since legalization, dropping 68% from 2012 (13,225) to 2019 (4,290). Possession arrests, which make up the majority of all cannabis arrests, decreased by 71%, while sales arrests decreased by 56% and production arrests increased by 3%.

The overall steep decline included all races and ethnicities, but not at equal rates: cannabis arrests decreased by 72% among white individuals, 55% for Hispanics and 63% for Black Coloradans.

Moreover, the cannabis arrest rate for Blacks (160 per 100,000) was more than double that of white individuals (76 per 100,000) in 2019. “This disparity has not changed in any meaningful way since legalization,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, court filings related to cannabis declined 55% between 2012 (9,925) and 2019 (4,489). Filings fell by 67% for adults 21 or older.

And the number of cannabis plants seized on public lands—one indicator of an illicit market—has fluctuated significantly, from 46,662 seized plants in 2012, to a high of 80,826 plants in 2017, and down to a low of 1,502 plants in 2018.

General Health

The number of adults reporting cannabis use in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2014 (13.4%) to 2019 (19%), according to the report.

Following are some of the highlighted statistics regarding adult use:

• Males have significantly higher past 30-day use (22.9%) than females (15.1%).
• Adults 26-34 years old reported the highest past 30-day usage rates (29.4%), followed by 18-25-year-olds (28.8%), 35-64-year-olds (17.3%) and those 65 years and older (9.3%).
• The cannabis usage rates of those 65 and older has more than tripled since 2014.
• Those reporting smoking cannabis flower decreased from 87.2% of users in 2016 to 76.1% in 2019. This compares to increases in eating/drinking (35.2% in 2016 to 43% in 2019), vaping (22.9% in 2016 to 32% in 2019), and dabbing (16.8% in 2016 to 19.6% in 2019).

The number of calls to poison control centers mentioning human cannabis exposure increased over the past decade—from 41 calls in 2006 to 276 calls in 2019.

The overall rate of treatment admissions for those reporting cannabis as their primary substance of use decreased from 222 admissions per 100,000 population in 2012 to 182 admissions per 100,000 in 2019.

For youth aged 10 to 17 years old who were admitted for treatment for substance use in 2019, 73.5% reported cannabis as their primary substance of use. That rate has increased fairly steadily from 61.6% in 2008.

As a guinea pig for adult-use cannabis legalization, Colorado is often a target for prohibitionists trying to magnify what they consider shortcomings of the first state-legal market.

Two key arguments repeated by lawmakers voting against reform efforts include their concerns about how legalization might impact youth as well as the possible increase of impaired drivers on their state roadways.

In Minnesota, where House members discussed an adult-use bill for roughly five hours in May, before it passed via a 72-61 vote, Republican Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen took aim at Colorado in his efforts to deter passage of House File 600. While H.F. 600 did clear the House, it did not make its way through the Senate.

“Since recreational marijuana was legalized [in Colorado], traffic deaths in drivers which tested positive for marijuana increased 135 percent while all other traffic deaths increased 24 percent,” he said. “So, one of the members said, ‘This doesn’t cause death.’ Well, it does with increased traffic death.”

Gruenhagen went on and said, “One other finding is that marijuana use ages 12 and older increased 30% and is 76% higher than the national average, currently ranking third in the nation in Colorado.”

Lawmakers who oppose adult-use legalization in other states that have debated or passed bills this year have echoed similar reservations before casting their no votes.

While the representative from Minnesota declared to have non-partisan studies on his side, his claims have since been debunked (youth impacts) or gone unsubstantiated (traffic safety) by Colorado’s most recent biennial “Impacts of Marijuana Legalization” report, which was released this July and commissioned by the state’s Division of Criminal Justice.

After Colorado voters passed a ballot measure to fully legalize cannabis in the 2012 general election, possession and cultivation became legal on Dec. 10, 2012, when Gov. John Hickenlooper issued an executive action adding Amendment 64 to the state constitution. The commercial sale of cannabis to the general public under an established licensing system did not begin until Jan. 1, 2014. 

Before adult-use legalization, Coloradans legalized medical cannabis through a 2000 ballot measure. Data going back to 2005 is included in the commissioned report on the impacts of legalization, which was mandated by the Colorado General Assembly in 2013. 

The executive summary of this year’s report states: “The majority of the data sources vary considerably in terms of what exists historically, and the reliability of some sources has improved over time. Consequently, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization and commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be the case due to the lack of historical data.

“Furthermore, the measurement of available data elements can be affected by [the] very context of marijuana legalization. For example, the decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and also to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not.”

Impact on Youth

According to the most recent report, the proportion of Colorado high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime remained statistically stagnant from 36.9% in 2013 to 35.9% in 2019. In addition, Colorado’s 2019 rate of 35.9% was slightly lower than the national rate of 36.8% of high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime.

For high school students who reported using cannabis in the past 30 days, Colorado’s 20.6% rate was slightly lower than the nation’s 21.7% rate in 2019. Neither the Colorado rate of use nor the national rate experienced significant changes from 2013 to 2019, according to the report.

“There was no statistically significant difference between Colorado student responses compared to national data,” the report stated. “The percentage of high school students reporting past 30-day use also remained stable, with no significant changes between 2005 and 2019.”

The data was gathered through the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, which the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment began administering to high school students in 2005, and to middle school students in 2013. The sample information included 46,537 high school students and 6,983 middle school students in 2019.

Meanwhile, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health is administered annually to those aged 12 and older by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which the Colorado report uses to derive its comparisons.  

“The proportion of students trying marijuana before the age of 13 went down significantly in Colorado, from 9.2% in 2015 to 6.7% in 2019,” the Colorado report stated. “These findings were not statistically different from the national data.”

The report added that the trend of past 30-day cannabis use among high schoolers and middle schoolers showed “no significant changes occurred within any grade level [from sixth through 12th grade] between 2013 and 2019.”

Following are other highlights regarding youth impacts in the report:

• In 2019, the prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use was significantly higher among Hispanic (23.2%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (26.7%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (29.4%), and multiple races (24.8%) compared to white (19.4%) and Asian (9.7%) high school students.
• In 2019, past 30-day cannabis use rates increased by grade level, with 12th graders (26.9%) twice as likely to report using cannabis than ninth graders (13.3%)
• Among those who use cannabis, the percent of high school students reporting dabbing cannabis in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2017 (20.3%) to 2019 (52.0%). In contrast, the percent reporting smoking cannabis decreased significantly from 2017 (88.4%) to 2019 (77.9%).
• High school students’ perception of cannabis posing a moderate/great risk if used regularly decreased from 2011 (57.6%) to 2019 (50.1%)
• High school students’ perception of easy access to cannabis decreased: 57.2% of students reported that it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2011, while 51.4% of students reported it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2019. 

Traffic Safety

The scope of driving under the influence of cannabis is difficult to gauge for several reasons, according to the report:

1. There is no criminal charge that specifies that the driver is impaired by drugs instead of, or in combination with, alcohol. The current statute applies to driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of the two.
2. There is no central repository of toxicology results that would allow for an analysis of trends.
3. At a traffic stop, law enforcement may choose not to pursue additional toxicology testing if the driver is exhibiting indications of impairment from alcohol. The additional time and cost required for further toxicology testing may not be considered worthwhile if the burden of proof for impairment is already being met by a blood-alcohol content (BAC) level.
4. After an arrest, if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect is impaired by drugs and/or alcohol, the officer may transfer the suspect to a location where blood can be drawn for further toxicology screening. The delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in blood decreases rapidly in the first hour after use, then gradually thereafter, making prompt testing critical.
5. Furthermore, high THC blood concentration does not perfectly correspond to impairment. Chronic cannabis users had measurable concentrations of delta-9 during a seven-day abstinence period. The highest level observed at the conclusion of the seven days was 3.0 nanograms per milliliter (the “permissible inference” driving limit is 5.0 ng/mL), as a result of THC being stored in fat and its ability to slowly release from the tissue. This becomes a problem for frequent and medicinal users who may continuously have THC detectable in their blood without noticeable impairing effects.

Also making it difficult to gauge the impact of cannabis legalization on traffic safety is “the increase in law enforcement officers who are trained in recognizing drug use—from 129 officers in 2012 to 221 in 2020—which can increase drug detection rates apart from any changes in driver behavior,” the report stated.

Going back to Minnesota Rep. Gruenhagen’s claim about Colorado experiencing increased traffic deaths among drivers who tested positive for THC since legalization, here is what the report found: the number of fatalities for drivers who tested positive for cannabinoids, or cannabinoids in combination of alcohol and/or other drugs, increased by 140%, from 55 in 2013 to 132 in 2019.

However, the report noted that the detection of any cannabinoid in one’s blood is not an indicator of impairment, but only indicates presence in one’s system. In Colorado traffic fatalities where at least one driver was drug tested, the percentage of those testing above the 5.0 ng/mL permissible inference level remained statistically unchanged from 2016 (14%) to 2019 (13%).

In a broader study of impaired drivers, the number of cases where drivers were screened for cannabinoids increased from 3,946 in 2016 to 5,032 in 2018; however, the percentage of those drivers testing positive for cannabinoids decreased from 73.1% to 66.3%. Those who tested at or above the 5.0 ng/mL limit rose slightly, from 47.5% to 49.6%, while the median level decreased from 5.9 ng/mL to 5.2 ng/mL from 2016 to 2018.

“The lack of comparable federal data across many metrics makes it difficult to compare changes in Colorado to other jurisdictions which may have not legalized marijuana,” the report stated. “In sum, then, the lack of pre-commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these preliminary findings into definitive statements of outcomes.”

Public Safety

The total number of cannabis arrests have plummeted since legalization, dropping 68% from 2012 (13,225) to 2019 (4,290). Possession arrests, which make up the majority of all cannabis arrests, decreased by 71%, while sales arrests decreased by 56% and production arrests increased by 3%.

The overall steep decline included all races and ethnicities, but not at equal rates: cannabis arrests decreased by 72% among white individuals, 55% for Hispanics and 63% for Black Coloradans.

Moreover, the cannabis arrest rate for Blacks (160 per 100,000) was more than double that of white individuals (76 per 100,000) in 2019. “This disparity has not changed in any meaningful way since legalization,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, court filings related to cannabis declined 55% between 2012 (9,925) and 2019 (4,489). Filings fell by 67% for adults 21 or older.

And the number of cannabis plants seized on public lands—one indicator of an illicit market—has fluctuated significantly, from 46,662 seized plants in 2012, to a high of 80,826 plants in 2017, and down to a low of 1,502 plants in 2018.

General Health

The number of adults reporting cannabis use in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2014 (13.4%) to 2019 (19%), according to the report.

Following are some of the highlighted statistics regarding adult use:

• Males have significantly higher past 30-day use (22.9%) than females (15.1%).
• Adults 26-34 years old reported the highest past 30-day usage rates (29.4%), followed by 18-25-year-olds (28.8%), 35-64-year-olds (17.3%) and those 65 years and older (9.3%).
• The cannabis usage rates of those 65 and older has more than tripled since 2014.
• Those reporting smoking cannabis flower decreased from 87.2% of users in 2016 to 76.1% in 2019. This compares to increases in eating/drinking (35.2% in 2016 to 43% in 2019), vaping (22.9% in 2016 to 32% in 2019), and dabbing (16.8% in 2016 to 19.6% in 2019).

The number of calls to poison control centers mentioning human cannabis exposure increased over the past decade—from 41 calls in 2006 to 276 calls in 2019.

The overall rate of treatment admissions for those reporting cannabis as their primary substance of use decreased from 222 admissions per 100,000 population in 2012 to 182 admissions per 100,000 in 2019.

For youth aged 10 to 17 years old who were admitted for treatment for substance use in 2019, 73.5% reported cannabis as their primary substance of use. That rate has increased fairly steadily from 61.6% in 2008.

As a guinea pig for adult-use cannabis legalization, Colorado is often a target for prohibitionists trying to magnify what they consider shortcomings of the first state-legal market.

Two key arguments repeated by lawmakers voting against reform efforts include their concerns about how legalization might impact youth as well as the possible increase of impaired drivers on their state roadways.

In Minnesota, where House members discussed an adult-use bill for roughly five hours in May, before it passed via a 72-61 vote, Republican Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen took aim at Colorado in his efforts to deter passage of House File 600. While H.F. 600 did clear the House, it did not make its way through the Senate.

“Since recreational marijuana was legalized [in Colorado], traffic deaths in drivers which tested positive for marijuana increased 135 percent while all other traffic deaths increased 24 percent,” he said. “So, one of the members said, ‘This doesn’t cause death.’ Well, it does with increased traffic death.”

Gruenhagen went on and said, “One other finding is that marijuana use ages 12 and older increased 30% and is 76% higher than the national average, currently ranking third in the nation in Colorado.”

Lawmakers who oppose adult-use legalization in other states that have debated or passed bills this year have echoed similar reservations before casting their no votes.

While the representative from Minnesota declared to have non-partisan studies on his side, his claims have since been debunked (youth impacts) or gone unsubstantiated (traffic safety) by Colorado’s most recent biennial “Impacts of Marijuana Legalization” report, which was released this July and commissioned by the state’s Division of Criminal Justice.

After Colorado voters passed a ballot measure to fully legalize cannabis in the 2012 general election, possession and cultivation became legal on Dec. 10, 2012, when Gov. John Hickenlooper issued an executive action adding Amendment 64 to the state constitution. The commercial sale of cannabis to the general public under an established licensing system did not begin until Jan. 1, 2014. 

Before adult-use legalization, Coloradans legalized medical cannabis through a 2000 ballot measure. Data going back to 2005 is included in the commissioned report on the impacts of legalization, which was mandated by the Colorado General Assembly in 2013. 

The executive summary of this year’s report states: “The majority of the data sources vary considerably in terms of what exists historically, and the reliability of some sources has improved over time. Consequently, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization and commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be the case due to the lack of historical data.

“Furthermore, the measurement of available data elements can be affected by [the] very context of marijuana legalization. For example, the decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and also to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not.”

Impact on Youth

According to the most recent report, the proportion of Colorado high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime remained statistically stagnant from 36.9% in 2013 to 35.9% in 2019. In addition, Colorado’s 2019 rate of 35.9% was slightly lower than the national rate of 36.8% of high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime.

For high school students who reported using cannabis in the past 30 days, Colorado’s 20.6% rate was slightly lower than the nation’s 21.7% rate in 2019. Neither the Colorado rate of use nor the national rate experienced significant changes from 2013 to 2019, according to the report.

“There was no statistically significant difference between Colorado student responses compared to national data,” the report stated. “The percentage of high school students reporting past 30-day use also remained stable, with no significant changes between 2005 and 2019.”

The data was gathered through the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, which the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment began administering to high school students in 2005, and to middle school students in 2013. The sample information included 46,537 high school students and 6,983 middle school students in 2019.

Meanwhile, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health is administered annually to those aged 12 and older by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which the Colorado report uses to derive its comparisons.  

“The proportion of students trying marijuana before the age of 13 went down significantly in Colorado, from 9.2% in 2015 to 6.7% in 2019,” the Colorado report stated. “These findings were not statistically different from the national data.”

The report added that the trend of past 30-day cannabis use among high schoolers and middle schoolers showed “no significant changes occurred within any grade level [from sixth through 12th grade] between 2013 and 2019.”

Following are other highlights regarding youth impacts in the report:

• In 2019, the prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use was significantly higher among Hispanic (23.2%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (26.7%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (29.4%), and multiple races (24.8%) compared to white (19.4%) and Asian (9.7%) high school students.
• In 2019, past 30-day cannabis use rates increased by grade level, with 12th graders (26.9%) twice as likely to report using cannabis than ninth graders (13.3%)
• Among those who use cannabis, the percent of high school students reporting dabbing cannabis in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2017 (20.3%) to 2019 (52.0%). In contrast, the percent reporting smoking cannabis decreased significantly from 2017 (88.4%) to 2019 (77.9%).
• High school students’ perception of cannabis posing a moderate/great risk if used regularly decreased from 2011 (57.6%) to 2019 (50.1%)
• High school students’ perception of easy access to cannabis decreased: 57.2% of students reported that it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2011, while 51.4% of students reported it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2019. 

Traffic Safety

The scope of driving under the influence of cannabis is difficult to gauge for several reasons, according to the report:

1. There is no criminal charge that specifies that the driver is impaired by drugs instead of, or in combination with, alcohol. The current statute applies to driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of the two.
2. There is no central repository of toxicology results that would allow for an analysis of trends.
3. At a traffic stop, law enforcement may choose not to pursue additional toxicology testing if the driver is exhibiting indications of impairment from alcohol. The additional time and cost required for further toxicology testing may not be considered worthwhile if the burden of proof for impairment is already being met by a blood-alcohol content (BAC) level.
4. After an arrest, if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect is impaired by drugs and/or alcohol, the officer may transfer the suspect to a location where blood can be drawn for further toxicology screening. The delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in blood decreases rapidly in the first hour after use, then gradually thereafter, making prompt testing critical.
5. Furthermore, high THC blood concentration does not perfectly correspond to impairment. Chronic cannabis users had measurable concentrations of delta-9 during a seven-day abstinence period. The highest level observed at the conclusion of the seven days was 3.0 nanograms per milliliter (the “permissible inference” driving limit is 5.0 ng/mL), as a result of THC being stored in fat and its ability to slowly release from the tissue. This becomes a problem for frequent and medicinal users who may continuously have THC detectable in their blood without noticeable impairing effects.

Also making it difficult to gauge the impact of cannabis legalization on traffic safety is “the increase in law enforcement officers who are trained in recognizing drug use—from 129 officers in 2012 to 221 in 2020—which can increase drug detection rates apart from any changes in driver behavior,” the report stated.

Going back to Minnesota Rep. Gruenhagen’s claim about Colorado experiencing increased traffic deaths among drivers who tested positive for THC since legalization, here is what the report found: the number of fatalities for drivers who tested positive for cannabinoids, or cannabinoids in combination of alcohol and/or other drugs, increased by 140%, from 55 in 2013 to 132 in 2019.

However, the report noted that the detection of any cannabinoid in one’s blood is not an indicator of impairment, but only indicates presence in one’s system. In Colorado traffic fatalities where at least one driver was drug tested, the percentage of those testing above the 5.0 ng/mL permissible inference level remained statistically unchanged from 2016 (14%) to 2019 (13%).

In a broader study of impaired drivers, the number of cases where drivers were screened for cannabinoids increased from 3,946 in 2016 to 5,032 in 2018; however, the percentage of those drivers testing positive for cannabinoids decreased from 73.1% to 66.3%. Those who tested at or above the 5.0 ng/mL limit rose slightly, from 47.5% to 49.6%, while the median level decreased from 5.9 ng/mL to 5.2 ng/mL from 2016 to 2018.

“The lack of comparable federal data across many metrics makes it difficult to compare changes in Colorado to other jurisdictions which may have not legalized marijuana,” the report stated. “In sum, then, the lack of pre-commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these preliminary findings into definitive statements of outcomes.”

Public Safety

The total number of cannabis arrests have plummeted since legalization, dropping 68% from 2012 (13,225) to 2019 (4,290). Possession arrests, which make up the majority of all cannabis arrests, decreased by 71%, while sales arrests decreased by 56% and production arrests increased by 3%.

The overall steep decline included all races and ethnicities, but not at equal rates: cannabis arrests decreased by 72% among white individuals, 55% for Hispanics and 63% for Black Coloradans.

Moreover, the cannabis arrest rate for Blacks (160 per 100,000) was more than double that of white individuals (76 per 100,000) in 2019. “This disparity has not changed in any meaningful way since legalization,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, court filings related to cannabis declined 55% between 2012 (9,925) and 2019 (4,489). Filings fell by 67% for adults 21 or older.

And the number of cannabis plants seized on public lands—one indicator of an illicit market—has fluctuated significantly, from 46,662 seized plants in 2012, to a high of 80,826 plants in 2017, and down to a low of 1,502 plants in 2018.

General Health

The number of adults reporting cannabis use in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2014 (13.4%) to 2019 (19%), according to the report.

Following are some of the highlighted statistics regarding adult use:

• Males have significantly higher past 30-day use (22.9%) than females (15.1%).
• Adults 26-34 years old reported the highest past 30-day usage rates (29.4%), followed by 18-25-year-olds (28.8%), 35-64-year-olds (17.3%) and those 65 years and older (9.3%).
• The cannabis usage rates of those 65 and older has more than tripled since 2014.
• Those reporting smoking cannabis flower decreased from 87.2% of users in 2016 to 76.1% in 2019. This compares to increases in eating/drinking (35.2% in 2016 to 43% in 2019), vaping (22.9% in 2016 to 32% in 2019), and dabbing (16.8% in 2016 to 19.6% in 2019).

The number of calls to poison control centers mentioning human cannabis exposure increased over the past decade—from 41 calls in 2006 to 276 calls in 2019.

The overall rate of treatment admissions for those reporting cannabis as their primary substance of use decreased from 222 admissions per 100,000 population in 2012 to 182 admissions per 100,000 in 2019.

For youth aged 10 to 17 years old who were admitted for treatment for substance use in 2019, 73.5% reported cannabis as their primary substance of use. That rate has increased fairly steadily from 61.6% in 2008.

As a guinea pig for adult-use cannabis legalization, Colorado is often a target for prohibitionists trying to magnify what they consider shortcomings of the first state-legal market.

Two key arguments repeated by lawmakers voting against reform efforts include their concerns about how legalization might impact youth as well as the possible increase of impaired drivers on their state roadways.

In Minnesota, where House members discussed an adult-use bill for roughly five hours in May, before it passed via a 72-61 vote, Republican Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen took aim at Colorado in his efforts to deter passage of House File 600. While H.F. 600 did clear the House, it did not make its way through the Senate.

“Since recreational marijuana was legalized [in Colorado], traffic deaths in drivers which tested positive for marijuana increased 135 percent while all other traffic deaths increased 24 percent,” he said. “So, one of the members said, ‘This doesn’t cause death.’ Well, it does with increased traffic death.”

Gruenhagen went on and said, “One other finding is that marijuana use ages 12 and older increased 30% and is 76% higher than the national average, currently ranking third in the nation in Colorado.”

Lawmakers who oppose adult-use legalization in other states that have debated or passed bills this year have echoed similar reservations before casting their no votes.

While the representative from Minnesota declared to have non-partisan studies on his side, his claims have since been debunked (youth impacts) or gone unsubstantiated (traffic safety) by Colorado’s most recent biennial “Impacts of Marijuana Legalization” report, which was released this July and commissioned by the state’s Division of Criminal Justice.

After Colorado voters passed a ballot measure to fully legalize cannabis in the 2012 general election, possession and cultivation became legal on Dec. 10, 2012, when Gov. John Hickenlooper issued an executive action adding Amendment 64 to the state constitution. The commercial sale of cannabis to the general public under an established licensing system did not begin until Jan. 1, 2014. 

Before adult-use legalization, Coloradans legalized medical cannabis through a 2000 ballot measure. Data going back to 2005 is included in the commissioned report on the impacts of legalization, which was mandated by the Colorado General Assembly in 2013. 

The executive summary of this year’s report states: “The majority of the data sources vary considerably in terms of what exists historically, and the reliability of some sources has improved over time. Consequently, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization and commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be the case due to the lack of historical data.

“Furthermore, the measurement of available data elements can be affected by [the] very context of marijuana legalization. For example, the decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and also to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not.”

Impact on Youth

According to the most recent report, the proportion of Colorado high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime remained statistically stagnant from 36.9% in 2013 to 35.9% in 2019. In addition, Colorado’s 2019 rate of 35.9% was slightly lower than the national rate of 36.8% of high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime.

For high school students who reported using cannabis in the past 30 days, Colorado’s 20.6% rate was slightly lower than the nation’s 21.7% rate in 2019. Neither the Colorado rate of use nor the national rate experienced significant changes from 2013 to 2019, according to the report.

“There was no statistically significant difference between Colorado student responses compared to national data,” the report stated. “The percentage of high school students reporting past 30-day use also remained stable, with no significant changes between 2005 and 2019.”

The data was gathered through the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, which the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment began administering to high school students in 2005, and to middle school students in 2013. The sample information included 46,537 high school students and 6,983 middle school students in 2019.

Meanwhile, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health is administered annually to those aged 12 and older by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which the Colorado report uses to derive its comparisons.  

“The proportion of students trying marijuana before the age of 13 went down significantly in Colorado, from 9.2% in 2015 to 6.7% in 2019,” the Colorado report stated. “These findings were not statistically different from the national data.”

The report added that the trend of past 30-day cannabis use among high schoolers and middle schoolers showed “no significant changes occurred within any grade level [from sixth through 12th grade] between 2013 and 2019.”

Following are other highlights regarding youth impacts in the report:

• In 2019, the prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use was significantly higher among Hispanic (23.2%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (26.7%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (29.4%), and multiple races (24.8%) compared to white (19.4%) and Asian (9.7%) high school students.
• In 2019, past 30-day cannabis use rates increased by grade level, with 12th graders (26.9%) twice as likely to report using cannabis than ninth graders (13.3%)
• Among those who use cannabis, the percent of high school students reporting dabbing cannabis in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2017 (20.3%) to 2019 (52.0%). In contrast, the percent reporting smoking cannabis decreased significantly from 2017 (88.4%) to 2019 (77.9%).
• High school students’ perception of cannabis posing a moderate/great risk if used regularly decreased from 2011 (57.6%) to 2019 (50.1%)
• High school students’ perception of easy access to cannabis decreased: 57.2% of students reported that it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2011, while 51.4% of students reported it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2019. 

Traffic Safety

The scope of driving under the influence of cannabis is difficult to gauge for several reasons, according to the report:

1. There is no criminal charge that specifies that the driver is impaired by drugs instead of, or in combination with, alcohol. The current statute applies to driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of the two.
2. There is no central repository of toxicology results that would allow for an analysis of trends.
3. At a traffic stop, law enforcement may choose not to pursue additional toxicology testing if the driver is exhibiting indications of impairment from alcohol. The additional time and cost required for further toxicology testing may not be considered worthwhile if the burden of proof for impairment is already being met by a blood-alcohol content (BAC) level.
4. After an arrest, if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect is impaired by drugs and/or alcohol, the officer may transfer the suspect to a location where blood can be drawn for further toxicology screening. The delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in blood decreases rapidly in the first hour after use, then gradually thereafter, making prompt testing critical.
5. Furthermore, high THC blood concentration does not perfectly correspond to impairment. Chronic cannabis users had measurable concentrations of delta-9 during a seven-day abstinence period. The highest level observed at the conclusion of the seven days was 3.0 nanograms per milliliter (the “permissible inference” driving limit is 5.0 ng/mL), as a result of THC being stored in fat and its ability to slowly release from the tissue. This becomes a problem for frequent and medicinal users who may continuously have THC detectable in their blood without noticeable impairing effects.

Also making it difficult to gauge the impact of cannabis legalization on traffic safety is “the increase in law enforcement officers who are trained in recognizing drug use—from 129 officers in 2012 to 221 in 2020—which can increase drug detection rates apart from any changes in driver behavior,” the report stated.

Going back to Minnesota Rep. Gruenhagen’s claim about Colorado experiencing increased traffic deaths among drivers who tested positive for THC since legalization, here is what the report found: the number of fatalities for drivers who tested positive for cannabinoids, or cannabinoids in combination of alcohol and/or other drugs, increased by 140%, from 55 in 2013 to 132 in 2019.

However, the report noted that the detection of any cannabinoid in one’s blood is not an indicator of impairment, but only indicates presence in one’s system. In Colorado traffic fatalities where at least one driver was drug tested, the percentage of those testing above the 5.0 ng/mL permissible inference level remained statistically unchanged from 2016 (14%) to 2019 (13%).

In a broader study of impaired drivers, the number of cases where drivers were screened for cannabinoids increased from 3,946 in 2016 to 5,032 in 2018; however, the percentage of those drivers testing positive for cannabinoids decreased from 73.1% to 66.3%. Those who tested at or above the 5.0 ng/mL limit rose slightly, from 47.5% to 49.6%, while the median level decreased from 5.9 ng/mL to 5.2 ng/mL from 2016 to 2018.

“The lack of comparable federal data across many metrics makes it difficult to compare changes in Colorado to other jurisdictions which may have not legalized marijuana,” the report stated. “In sum, then, the lack of pre-commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these preliminary findings into definitive statements of outcomes.”

Public Safety

The total number of cannabis arrests have plummeted since legalization, dropping 68% from 2012 (13,225) to 2019 (4,290). Possession arrests, which make up the majority of all cannabis arrests, decreased by 71%, while sales arrests decreased by 56% and production arrests increased by 3%.

The overall steep decline included all races and ethnicities, but not at equal rates: cannabis arrests decreased by 72% among white individuals, 55% for Hispanics and 63% for Black Coloradans.

Moreover, the cannabis arrest rate for Blacks (160 per 100,000) was more than double that of white individuals (76 per 100,000) in 2019. “This disparity has not changed in any meaningful way since legalization,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, court filings related to cannabis declined 55% between 2012 (9,925) and 2019 (4,489). Filings fell by 67% for adults 21 or older.

And the number of cannabis plants seized on public lands—one indicator of an illicit market—has fluctuated significantly, from 46,662 seized plants in 2012, to a high of 80,826 plants in 2017, and down to a low of 1,502 plants in 2018.

General Health

The number of adults reporting cannabis use in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2014 (13.4%) to 2019 (19%), according to the report.

Following are some of the highlighted statistics regarding adult use:

• Males have significantly higher past 30-day use (22.9%) than females (15.1%).
• Adults 26-34 years old reported the highest past 30-day usage rates (29.4%), followed by 18-25-year-olds (28.8%), 35-64-year-olds (17.3%) and those 65 years and older (9.3%).
• The cannabis usage rates of those 65 and older has more than tripled since 2014.
• Those reporting smoking cannabis flower decreased from 87.2% of users in 2016 to 76.1% in 2019. This compares to increases in eating/drinking (35.2% in 2016 to 43% in 2019), vaping (22.9% in 2016 to 32% in 2019), and dabbing (16.8% in 2016 to 19.6% in 2019).

The number of calls to poison control centers mentioning human cannabis exposure increased over the past decade—from 41 calls in 2006 to 276 calls in 2019.

The overall rate of treatment admissions for those reporting cannabis as their primary substance of use decreased from 222 admissions per 100,000 population in 2012 to 182 admissions per 100,000 in 2019.

For youth aged 10 to 17 years old who were admitted for treatment for substance use in 2019, 73.5% reported cannabis as their primary substance of use. That rate has increased fairly steadily from 61.6% in 2008.

As a guinea pig for adult-use cannabis legalization, Colorado is often a target for prohibitionists trying to magnify what they consider shortcomings of the first state-legal market.

Two key arguments repeated by lawmakers voting against reform efforts include their concerns about how legalization might impact youth as well as the possible increase of impaired drivers on their state roadways.

In Minnesota, where House members discussed an adult-use bill for roughly five hours in May, before it passed via a 72-61 vote, Republican Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen took aim at Colorado in his efforts to deter passage of House File 600. While H.F. 600 did clear the House, it did not make its way through the Senate.

“Since recreational marijuana was legalized [in Colorado], traffic deaths in drivers which tested positive for marijuana increased 135 percent while all other traffic deaths increased 24 percent,” he said. “So, one of the members said, ‘This doesn’t cause death.’ Well, it does with increased traffic death.”

Gruenhagen went on and said, “One other finding is that marijuana use ages 12 and older increased 30% and is 76% higher than the national average, currently ranking third in the nation in Colorado.”

Lawmakers who oppose adult-use legalization in other states that have debated or passed bills this year have echoed similar reservations before casting their no votes.

While the representative from Minnesota declared to have non-partisan studies on his side, his claims have since been debunked (youth impacts) or gone unsubstantiated (traffic safety) by Colorado’s most recent biennial “Impacts of Marijuana Legalization” report, which was released this July and commissioned by the state’s Division of Criminal Justice.

After Colorado voters passed a ballot measure to fully legalize cannabis in the 2012 general election, possession and cultivation became legal on Dec. 10, 2012, when Gov. John Hickenlooper issued an executive action adding Amendment 64 to the state constitution. The commercial sale of cannabis to the general public under an established licensing system did not begin until Jan. 1, 2014. 

Before adult-use legalization, Coloradans legalized medical cannabis through a 2000 ballot measure. Data going back to 2005 is included in the commissioned report on the impacts of legalization, which was mandated by the Colorado General Assembly in 2013. 

The executive summary of this year’s report states: “The majority of the data sources vary considerably in terms of what exists historically, and the reliability of some sources has improved over time. Consequently, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization and commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be the case due to the lack of historical data.

“Furthermore, the measurement of available data elements can be affected by [the] very context of marijuana legalization. For example, the decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and also to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not.”

Impact on Youth

According to the most recent report, the proportion of Colorado high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime remained statistically stagnant from 36.9% in 2013 to 35.9% in 2019. In addition, Colorado’s 2019 rate of 35.9% was slightly lower than the national rate of 36.8% of high school students reporting using cannabis ever in their lifetime.

For high school students who reported using cannabis in the past 30 days, Colorado’s 20.6% rate was slightly lower than the nation’s 21.7% rate in 2019. Neither the Colorado rate of use nor the national rate experienced significant changes from 2013 to 2019, according to the report.

“There was no statistically significant difference between Colorado student responses compared to national data,” the report stated. “The percentage of high school students reporting past 30-day use also remained stable, with no significant changes between 2005 and 2019.”

The data was gathered through the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, which the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment began administering to high school students in 2005, and to middle school students in 2013. The sample information included 46,537 high school students and 6,983 middle school students in 2019.

Meanwhile, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health is administered annually to those aged 12 and older by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which the Colorado report uses to derive its comparisons.  

“The proportion of students trying marijuana before the age of 13 went down significantly in Colorado, from 9.2% in 2015 to 6.7% in 2019,” the Colorado report stated. “These findings were not statistically different from the national data.”

The report added that the trend of past 30-day cannabis use among high schoolers and middle schoolers showed “no significant changes occurred within any grade level [from sixth through 12th grade] between 2013 and 2019.”

Following are other highlights regarding youth impacts in the report:

• In 2019, the prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use was significantly higher among Hispanic (23.2%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (26.7%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (29.4%), and multiple races (24.8%) compared to white (19.4%) and Asian (9.7%) high school students.
• In 2019, past 30-day cannabis use rates increased by grade level, with 12th graders (26.9%) twice as likely to report using cannabis than ninth graders (13.3%)
• Among those who use cannabis, the percent of high school students reporting dabbing cannabis in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2017 (20.3%) to 2019 (52.0%). In contrast, the percent reporting smoking cannabis decreased significantly from 2017 (88.4%) to 2019 (77.9%).
• High school students’ perception of cannabis posing a moderate/great risk if used regularly decreased from 2011 (57.6%) to 2019 (50.1%)
• High school students’ perception of easy access to cannabis decreased: 57.2% of students reported that it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2011, while 51.4% of students reported it would be sort of/very easy to get cannabis in 2019. 

Traffic Safety

The scope of driving under the influence of cannabis is difficult to gauge for several reasons, according to the report:

1. There is no criminal charge that specifies that the driver is impaired by drugs instead of, or in combination with, alcohol. The current statute applies to driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of the two.
2. There is no central repository of toxicology results that would allow for an analysis of trends.
3. At a traffic stop, law enforcement may choose not to pursue additional toxicology testing if the driver is exhibiting indications of impairment from alcohol. The additional time and cost required for further toxicology testing may not be considered worthwhile if the burden of proof for impairment is already being met by a blood-alcohol content (BAC) level.
4. After an arrest, if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect is impaired by drugs and/or alcohol, the officer may transfer the suspect to a location where blood can be drawn for further toxicology screening. The delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in blood decreases rapidly in the first hour after use, then gradually thereafter, making prompt testing critical.
5. Furthermore, high THC blood concentration does not perfectly correspond to impairment. Chronic cannabis users had measurable concentrations of delta-9 during a seven-day abstinence period. The highest level observed at the conclusion of the seven days was 3.0 nanograms per milliliter (the “permissible inference” driving limit is 5.0 ng/mL), as a result of THC being stored in fat and its ability to slowly release from the tissue. This becomes a problem for frequent and medicinal users who may continuously have THC detectable in their blood without noticeable impairing effects.

Also making it difficult to gauge the impact of cannabis legalization on traffic safety is “the increase in law enforcement officers who are trained in recognizing drug use—from 129 officers in 2012 to 221 in 2020—which can increase drug detection rates apart from any changes in driver behavior,” the report stated.

Going back to Minnesota Rep. Gruenhagen’s claim about Colorado experiencing increased traffic deaths among drivers who tested positive for THC since legalization, here is what the report found: the number of fatalities for drivers who tested positive for cannabinoids, or cannabinoids in combination of alcohol and/or other drugs, increased by 140%, from 55 in 2013 to 132 in 2019.

However, the report noted that the detection of any cannabinoid in one’s blood is not an indicator of impairment, but only indicates presence in one’s system. In Colorado traffic fatalities where at least one driver was drug tested, the percentage of those testing above the 5.0 ng/mL permissible inference level remained statistically unchanged from 2016 (14%) to 2019 (13%).

In a broader study of impaired drivers, the number of cases where drivers were screened for cannabinoids increased from 3,946 in 2016 to 5,032 in 2018; however, the percentage of those drivers testing positive for cannabinoids decreased from 73.1% to 66.3%. Those who tested at or above the 5.0 ng/mL limit rose slightly, from 47.5% to 49.6%, while the median level decreased from 5.9 ng/mL to 5.2 ng/mL from 2016 to 2018.

“The lack of comparable federal data across many metrics makes it difficult to compare changes in Colorado to other jurisdictions which may have not legalized marijuana,” the report stated. “In sum, then, the lack of pre-commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these preliminary findings into definitive statements of outcomes.”

Public Safety

The total number of cannabis arrests have plummeted since legalization, dropping 68% from 2012 (13,225) to 2019 (4,290). Possession arrests, which make up the majority of all cannabis arrests, decreased by 71%, while sales arrests decreased by 56% and production arrests increased by 3%.

The overall steep decline included all races and ethnicities, but not at equal rates: cannabis arrests decreased by 72% among white individuals, 55% for Hispanics and 63% for Black Coloradans.

Moreover, the cannabis arrest rate for Blacks (160 per 100,000) was more than double that of white individuals (76 per 100,000) in 2019. “This disparity has not changed in any meaningful way since legalization,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, court filings related to cannabis declined 55% between 2012 (9,925) and 2019 (4,489). Filings fell by 67% for adults 21 or older.

And the number of cannabis plants seized on public lands—one indicator of an illicit market—has fluctuated significantly, from 46,662 seized plants in 2012, to a high of 80,826 plants in 2017, and down to a low of 1,502 plants in 2018.

General Health

The number of adults reporting cannabis use in the past 30 days increased significantly from 2014 (13.4%) to 2019 (19%), according to the report.

Following are some of the highlighted statistics regarding adult use:

• Males have significantly higher past 30-day use (22.9%) than females (15.1%).
• Adults 26-34 years old reported the highest past 30-day usage rates (29.4%), followed by 18-25-year-olds (28.8%), 35-64-year-olds (17.3%) and those 65 years and older (9.3%).
• The cannabis usage rates of those 65 and older has more than tripled since 2014.
• Those reporting smoking cannabis flower decreased from 87.2% of users in 2016 to 76.1% in 2019. This compares to increases in eating/drinking (35.2% in 2016 to 43% in 2019), vaping (22.9% in 2016 to 32% in 2019), and dabbing (16.8% in 2016 to 19.6% in 2019).

The number of calls to poison control centers mentioning human cannabis exposure increased over the past decade—from 41 calls in 2006 to 276 calls in 2019.

The overall rate of treatment admissions for those reporting cannabis as their primary substance of use decreased from 222 admissions per 100,000 population in 2012 to 182 admissions per 100,000 in 2019.

For youth aged 10 to 17 years old who were admitted for treatment for substance use in 2019, 73.5% reported cannabis as their primary substance of use. That rate has increased fairly steadily from 61.6% in 2008.