HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 Edible Marijuana Policy Brief Final AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
REGULAR MEETING DATE: November 9, 2016
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Review of Valley Marijuana Council Policy
Recommendations Brief—Edible marijuana
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Jon Peacock, County Manager and Jeanette Jones, Clerk to
the Board
DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: Time has been set aside to get questions from the Board
regarding the attached report from the Valley Marijuana Council prior to the report being
presented and discussed at the joint meeting with Aspen City Council on November 15th
BACKGROUND: In April of 2016, members of the Valley Marijuana Council presented an
update to the BOCC on recreational marijuana use in Pitkin County. In the discussion that
ensued the Board of Commissioners requested that the Valley Marijuana Council review issues
related to edible marijuana products, and make policy recommendations for consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners, and as appropriate municipalities within Pitkin County. The
Coalition complete its study in September, and the report will be presented and discussed at the
upcoming joint meeting with Aspen City Council on November 15th. Staff has attached the
report for the Board's review. Time has been set aside at today's meeting for Board members to
briefly discuss the report, and provide staff with any questions they would like members of the
Valley Marijuana Council to address in their presentation on November 15th
BUDGETARY IMPACT: None at this time
ATTACHMENTS: "Valley Marijuana Council Policy Recommendations Brief—Edible
Marijuana."
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Livable and Supportive Community
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide staff with questions they would like addressed during
the VMC presentation on the 15th
1
Valley Marijuana Council
Policy Recommendations Brief—Edible Marijuana
To
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners;
Aspen City Council
9/15/2016
For questions or further information, please contact VMC Coordinator
Brad Stevenson
brad@alignedinsight.com or 970 618 2806
Introduction and Context:
In late April of 2016 members of the Valley Marijuana Council (VMC) presented an update on aspects of
recreational marijuana in the community during a county work session. The presentations were timely to
multiple licensing requests for unique edible marijuana products businesses—some of the edible
marijuana products, such as popcorn, bubble gum and beef jerky, gave the Commissioners pause.
Commissioners felt uncertain about aspects of this fast moving new industry and its evolving products for
local communities, particularly the health, safety and responsibility implications of edible marijuana.
While various areas of potential concern were voiced by elected officials during work sessions and license
hearings, primary fears related to accidental ingestion (human and animal),youth consumption, and the
potential for users to overdose. The BOCC asked the VMC to evaluate and make recommendations
related to local edible marijuana policy. In further discussions, the City of Aspen asked to be included in
the considerations and presentation of the recommendations.
The VMC developed a process for problem definition, policy option development, deliberation and
prioritization of recommendations to the BOCC. The process included a working subgroup, a VMC survey,
multiple facilitated VMC deliberation sessions and email response opportunities. This document is the
summarized result and output of that process, also including an appendix with the broader menu of
policies considered and notes associated with the deliberations.
Included in this brief are a few data points associated with edibles and their use. That said, it is important
to note in general that we are still in early times related to legalized recreational marijuana, and while
rates of study are increasing, little reference data exists at this time... and perhaps none that critics would
consistently agree is credible, benchmarked or trend conclusive. The following bullets,
excerpted/adapted from the disclaimer in Colorado's recently released "Early Findings" report effectively
express the context: (http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2016-SB13-283-Rpt.pdf)
• The majority of the information presented here should be considered pre-commercialization,
baseline data because much of the information is available only through 2014, and data sources
vary considerably in terms of what exists historically
• Consequently, it is too early to draw any conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana
legalization or commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may
always be difficult due to the lack of historical data
• Information presented here should be interpreted with caution -The lack of
pre-commercialization data,the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement
combine to make it difficult to translate these early findings into definitive statements of
outcomes
• Decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to report more
use now than previously
• Law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorneys continue to struggle with
enforcement of complex and sometimes conflicting laws
While insufficient data exists for us to clarify the existence or magnitude of a current problem with edible
marijuana, should officials want to take a stand on issues to create a point of local differentiation, it could
support future efforts to define population differences between areas with/without those progressive
policies. For example, very recent data referenced below shows a decline nationally for teen marijuana
use, but an increase in overall marijuana use and a decrease in perception of harm from using marijuana.
It seems common sense that an increase in youth use would occur with increased cultural acceptance,
increased availability and decreased perception of harm unless public education keeps pace. (i.e. we just
legalized the product so it is more accepted and widely available, but we don't have the public
information programs to increase perception of harm for kids...these concepts are indirectly correlated
with alcohol and tobacco, so we infer kids use would begin to increase). A proactive stance that guides
anticipatory policy intervention could serve to inform future policy by creating "experimental" vs. control
groups within the state. That is not posed as a reason to act, or a recommendation by the VMC to act
based on this rationale, but offered as a point of context as you deliberate.
The request, and resulting policy focus for the VMC was "edible marijuana."That term is challenging to
define given it includes (by industry analysts) a variety of other orally ingested products. The VMC
focused on the expressed concerns of the elected officials, and discussions conceptually centered around
more typical products associated with recent licensing or accidental ingestion—products like gummy
bears, brownies, cookies and other foods etc.
In talking to educators, edible products are more difficult to differentiate from non-marijuana
foods/candies, but they are less focused on the risk of edibles and more concerned in general about the
increase in acceptance of marijuana in our adult culture without commensurate increases in education
about the risks and issues for kids—they worry both about a kid going to their car and vaping at lunch as
well as passing an edible MJ snack(for example). In context, edibles are a form of marijuana included in
the "non-smokable"forms reported by the state of Colorado in 2014 to be "slowly but steadily" growing,
but edible products still represent a relatively small fraction of reported youth use (91%smoked vs. 28%
eaten -see Data & Background).
It was challenging to align around a clear definition of the "problem" of edibles as a current dilemma.
Like other cannabis related questions,there is a lack of definitive data and consistent evidence about the
presence of a current population level issue. Increasing calls to poison control and ER visits do appear to
be occurring (from the Colorado Early Findings Report cited below), but the overall magnitude is small
and the implications unclear. Strong retail or product enforcement or regulatory interventions, in the
opinion of VMC members, aren't warranted. That said, strong recommendations are made by the group
for policy action related to education, awareness, monitoring and local adaptation/application of state
rules.
Members also feel that monitoring(beyond edibles) of evolving needs & policy opportunities for
community health, safety and responsibility are warranted, given the fast changing landscape and relative
lack of clear community impact data. For example, implications of increased potency of products in
general, ensuring communities have updated awareness on health/safety risks and benefits in proportion
to changes in culture and product availability, supporting healthy life choices for kids in the context of
legalization, etc. As more conclusive research and data provide insight to these and other dimensions of
the evolving landscape, other needs and opportunities are likely to surface.
Data and Background:
In addition to the studies cited below,the group gathered data through conversations with educators and
other community members. That said,the VMC members themselves represent a very broad cross-
section of the community—many whose daily work provides them a close vantage on changes or issues
within the community. The individuals involved in the policy recommendations process include:
• Joe DiSalvo—Pitkin Sheriff • Greg Knott- Basalt Police Chief
• Richard Pryor-Aspen Police Chief
• Brian Olson -Snowmass Village Police • Jordana Sabella—Pitkin County Public
Chief Health Planner
• Jeanette Jones (observed &answered • Shelley Evans—Executive Director,
technical questions) Colorado Health Initiatives; Prevention
• David Clark—Chief Counsel, Aspen Specialist
Skiing Company • Erik Klanderud—Director,Aspen
• Mike Woods-SilverPeak Apothecary Co- Chamber Resort Association
Owner • Dr. William Mitchell—Pediatrician,
• Debbie Quinn—Assistant City Attorney Aspen Valley Hospital
• Lori Mueller—YouthZone • Hilary Duchein—Certified Responsible
• Gretchen Brogdon—Aspen Community Vendor Trainer
Foundation, Positive Youth • Tom Heald—Assistant Superintendent,
Development Task Force Aspen School District
Qualitative Input
While interviews, conversations and focus groups are not statistically valid data points, individual insights
and perspectives may help lend color to the edible marijuana discussion. A few perspectives across those
contacts is summarized below—these are opinions from a range of individuals over the past months,
from recent students to educators and others working closely with youth—the following represent beliefs
and opinions from community members in the region:
• Marijuana, in general, is more ambiguous and difficult for educators to manage
o Tough to know if a kid is stoned, or to identify evidence of use or possession
o The many forms of marijuana make it very difficult to monitor or find
o Even School Resource Officers cannot easily identify and confirm marijuana impairment
in students
o With legalized recreational marijuana many educators feel a bit helpless, unable to
effectively monitor or control
• As with alcohol, some kids will experiment-for most,that experimentation won't meaningfully
impact their trajectories
• Most frequent users (kids) smoke it, not eat it
• While legalization may not change life for most students, it may have a major impact for those
who are on the margins/at risk or predisposed to mental health challenges
• The causes for a kid to abuse marijuana are similar to those that would lead to abuse of any
substance, or other issues, including alcohol
• We could use a better way to assess risks/opportunities for kids, and then more strategically
deploy resources to proactively support their success& positive development
• There is a sense that in many cases, kids who are frequently using marijuana are getting it
(knowingly or otherwise)from their parents
Quantitative References
While kids are not the only area of concern related to edible marijuana, use by youth is the highest and
most aligned objective in the community and across all VMC members. There is also a concerted effort
by the state to increase the scope and rigor of data related to cannabis and youth. In 2015 Colorado
conducted the second Healthy Kids Colorado Survey since legalization. Below are overview highlights for
context. Some individuals knowledgeable about the survey and methodology feel the survey will be
increasingly valid in the future, but the survey methodology has changed during recent years and
trends/benchmarks aren't fully dependable—also note the survey collects anonymous, but self-reported
data:
Marijuana Use Among Youth in Colorado
® HEALTHY WE201 5
COLORADOSY
The Healthy Kids Colorado Survey(HKCS)is a tool we use to better understand the health of Colorado's middle and high school students so we can support them in
making healthy choices.The following images represent Colorado high school student data from 2015.For more information and complete survey data,visit
healthykidscolo.org.
MARIJUANA USE YOUTH MARIJUANA USE REMAINS HOW YOUTH USE
RELATIVELY UNCHANGED MARIJUANA
50 43%
3g% 37% 38% Among high school students who have used
40— marijuana in the last 30 days
4 out of 5(78%)Colorado high 30— 25% zz% 20% 21% o�%
schoolers,have NOT used 20— 9sMOKe1%
marijuana in the last 30 days. 21%
10— 28% VAPE
2009 2011 2013 2015 EAT
• Have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime
• Have used marijuana at least once in the last 30 days
HOW YOUTH GET REGIONAL BREAKDOWN CO YOUTH CURRENT MARIJUANA
MARIJUANA Of youth who currently use marijuana USE COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL
47,% le��lllllll, AVERAGE
32%
9 f'%-Frail with a MALT card
4%- event 21 o
20�
3%�Took it from a family member
2% Got it at school
2% With my own MMJ card -'
0 io zo 30 ao 50 COLORADO
AVERAGE
IS MARIJUANA
USE RISKY? 1.44,_� - —
Fewer students see regular marijuana
use as risky behavior.
..... 1111� 21.7%
YES
ES in =NoDna.,a, 1=.,7.1.7,=19,8-20.616=20.7.14.1x=H.1-30194 NATIONAL
2013 2015
AVERAGE
Go to GoodToKnowColorado.com/talk to learn
more about how to talk with youth.
The journal Lancet Psychiatry, study published online Wednesday,August 31, 2016
Marijuana use and use disorders in adults in the USA, 2002-14: analysis of annual cross-sectional surveys
Authors: Dr Wilson M Compton, MD; Beth Han, MD; Christopher M Jones, PharmD; Carlos Blanco, MD;
Arthur Hughes, MS; DOI:http.//dx.doi.orq/10.1016/52215-0366(16)30208-5
Background
The study of marijuana use disorders is urgently needed because of increasing marijuana legalisation
in multiple jurisdictions, the effect of marijuana use on future risk of psychiatric disorders, and
deleterious effects of marijuana exposure. Thus, understanding trends of marijuana use and use
disorders and examining factors that might drive these trends (eg, perceptions of harms from
marijuana use) is essential.
Methods
We analysed data from US civilians aged 18 years or older who participated in annual, cross-sectional
US National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2002 to 2014.The sample in each US state was
designed to be approximately equally distributed between participants aged 12-17 years, 18-25
years, and 26 years or older. For each survey year, we estimated prevalence of marijuana use and use
disorders, initiation of marijuana use, daily or near daily use, perception of great or no risk of harm
from smoking marijuana, perception of state legalisation of medical marijuana use, and mean number
of days of marijuana use in the previous year. Descriptive analyses, multivariable logistic regressions,
and zero-truncated negative binomial regressions were applied.
Findings
596 500 adults participated in the 2002-14 surveys. Marijuana use increased from 10.4% (95%CI
9.97-10.82) to 13.3% (12.84-13.70) in adults in the USA from 2002 to 2014 (13=0.0252, p<0.0001),
and the prevalence of perceiving great risk of harm from smoking marijuana once or twice a week
decreased from 50.4% (49.60-51.25) to 33.3% (32.64-33.96; (3=-0.0625, p<0.0001). Changes in
marijuana use and risk perception generally began in 2006-07. After adjusting for all covariates,
changes in risk perceptions were associated with changes in prevalence of marijuana use, as seen in
the lower prevalence of marijuana use each year during 2006-14 than in 2002 when perceiving risk
of harm from smoking marijuana was included in models. However, marijuana use disorders in adults
remained stable at about 1.5% between 2002 and 2014 ((3=-0.0042, p=0.22).
Interpretation
Prevalence and frequency of marijuana use increased in adults in the USA starting in approximately
2007 and showing significantly higher results in multivariable models during 2011-14 (compared with
2002).The associations between increases in marijuana use and decreases in perceiving great risk of
harm from smoking marijuana suggest the need for education regarding the risk of smoking
marijuana and prevention messages.
Excerpted from Centers for Disease Control (CDC)and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA) report released September 1, 2016:
o Report: (http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/201609010100-1)
o Study: http://www.samhsa.gov/atod/marijuana
The surveillance report finds that there has been a significant rise in the current use (past month)
of marijuana among people aged 12 and older--from 6.2 percent in 2002 to 8.4 percent in 2014 (an
increase of 35 percent). The highest increase reported was among people aged 26 and older with a 65
percent increase from 2002 to 2014. During this same period, the percentage of people aged 12 or older
perceiving great risk from smoking marijuana once or twice a week dropped from 51.3 percent in 2002 to
34.3 percent in 2014 (a decrease of 33 percent).
The surveillance report also noted that in 2014, 2.5 million Americans aged 12 or older reported
using marijuana for the first time—an average of 7,000 new users each day. This initiation rate represents
approximately 1,000 more new users each day compared to 2002.The percentage of past year initiation
of marijuana use shifted from a 1.5 percent in 2002 to a 1.7 percent in 2014 (an increase of 13 percent).
Despite the overall rise in marijuana use in the older population (people aged 26 and older),
current past month marijuana use rates have been dropping during the last 13 years among people aged
12 to 17—from 8.2 percent in 2002 to 7.4 percent in 2014 (a decrease of 10 percent). Similarly, the
percentage of past year initiation of marijuana use among this age group decreased from 6.5 percent in
2002 to 5.5 percent in 2014. These decreases occurred despite the fact that the perception of great risk
from smoking marijuana once or twice a week has also dropped among adolescents—from 51.5 percent
in 2002 to 37.4 in 2014 (a decrease of 27 percent).
"This national surveillance report provides an exceptional analysis of how marijuana use and
perceptions have changed over the past decade in American society," said SAMHSA's Principal Deputy
Administrator Kana Enomoto. "It is important that we use this type of data to enhance public health
educational efforts and prevention activities at all levels—especially those geared toward reaching youth.
This report also reminds us of the need to inform the public that marijuana use may lead to both
addiction and other health consequences if used at early stages of life when the brain is still developing."
BDS Analytics—Sales Data by Category; 2015 January—June vs. 2016 January—June
o Edibles are 12-14%of the total recreational marijuana sales in Colorado
o The Edibles category grew 2%from the same period 2015 to 2016
o Candy and Chocolate are the fastest growing subcategories of edibles
o Flower and Concentrates are the fastest growing, and largest category (from this period)
2015
Dollar Sales by Sub Category Dollar Sales by Super Class
Others\ Tinctures Bevera
$10.2M l -Concentrates Si SSM I ge
52.1M
Pre-Rolled 534'27M Sample Edibles
$12.2M ...11 $9.26K
14% Pills
$938K
Edibles Other Edibles
1 531.02M $3.50M
Infused Foods 35% Cand51 IN.
94M
65% 26%
Flower ' Chocolates
$165.BM 98,09M
2016
Dollar Sales by Sub Category Dollar Sales by Super Class
Others l Others ` / Beverages
$12.66M 1 $27,a4K I ! $3.64M
Pre-Rolled Concentrates Tinctures
$21.47M $81.2M $2.83M
Pills
$2.28M
2 Other Edibles
$5.44M
14% $6M
5 6/ — Infused Foods— 42
O Edibles Candy
$51.65M
18/o 0 $21 72M
-ower
;214.1M Chocolates
$9.52M
Recommendations:
The following edible marijuana policy recommendations appear in priority order, based on the degree to
which the option was deemed appropriate, effective and achievable. These recommendations were
prioritized from a list of roughly 30 formal policy options. Those options were assembled as examples of
evidence-based/practiced policies from the closest available analogs to legalized recreational marijuana.
All of the following items were unanimously supported by participating VMC members:
Priority# Priority Policy Recommendation Deliberation Notes
1 Retail establishments maintain an The VMC has established a cross-functional
approved point of sale consumer team (including the retail cannabis industry)
education program (including elements and is developing a program
such as:training salespersons on educating (curriculum/approach)for this item
customers; signage and posters; cards in
carry out packages -topics such as laws
associated with public safety& health (i.e.
resale/transfer to minors);safe handling,
storage, disposal; consumption
recommendations & potency information)
2 Through existing tax revenues,temporary This recommendation is strongly supported,
or permanent additional excise taxes, with a caveat that one member would want
dedicate ongoing funds to education, to evaluate based on a better understanding
prevention and treatment related to of the details of proposed programming to
marijuana edibles (or other marijuana assess the impacts and benefits -for example,
products/issues based on evolving how much revenue is needed, how would it
priorities/needs) be spent, what are the implications for the
industry based on amount of any additional
tax to be levied (if any), etc.
3 Education of parents on their actions that Would require school participation to get
can prevent youth access/use to marijuana parents in the room for education;
(funding campaigns)
Schools identified a parallel process related to
how they currently support parents in
managing for healthy student use of
electronics
4 Fund/Support education of youth on edible School policy already in place; Zero tolerance
marijuana impacts and healthy life choices was a part of the original policy description
(or other evidence based prevention but was removed as VMC members
education) overwhelmingly don't support zero tolerance
policies as a concept and feel such policies
are not appropriate in this community;
Educating children is a high priority, and a
strong recommendation
5 Educate the public, event coordinators, Removed zero tolerance aspect that was in
retailers of civil and criminal consequences original language per group decision (see
and enforcement policy concerning sale or above)
transfer of marijuana products, including
edibles, to youth/minors Noted that partnership between schools and
law enforcement is critical to success
6 Create a mechanism &expectations to use Facilitator Note: This item intends to focus on
a formal non-criminal referral process that youth, was discussed by the group as such,
allows for the avoidance of arrest record but could also be applied to adult issues
assuming compliance with screening/ where mental health/substance abuse is a
targeted intervention (i.e. major issues vs. significant factor
experimenters)to improve parental
engagement, support and positive impact
of intervention when warranted
7 Locally regulate/monitor marijuana edibles Strong support for locally monitoring/assuring
to at least updated state regulations,for compliance with State regulations - important
example ensuring child resistant that people understand the context... an
packaging, inclusion of instruction and ability to enforce locally as we feel is
warning labels, monitoring of sales appropriate for the community- not intended
practices,THC content by sealed portion, as a police action; likely licensing related
advertising not targeting/attractive to kids enforcement; Local regulatory provisions
etc.; Create or enforce appropriate local would also help in situations where the state
sanctions/administrative penalties for lags or fails to enforce existing state level
violations regulations
VMC members overall don't feel that the
current level of evidence showing a problem
with accidental ingestion is sufficient to
warrant new additional restrictions related to
product or packaging beyond the state's
rules. Also feel there isn't a clear additional
packaging regulation that is appropriate/
would be effective at this time
8 Fund community education on driving (i.e. Promising approach example: swab
high, monitor developments in effective testing is growing in larger jurisdictions);
enforcement of marijuana impaired driving
and take early action on promising Monitoring and Early Action likely defined as
approaches a direction to monitor and/or stay abreast of
developments as well as funding/resourcing
of early adoption and evaluation
Appendix Materials, included as separate documents in policy brief packet:
• Original responses from Google Docs survey
• Master Sheet from Deliberation Sessions
• Policy Survey Respondent Q&A
• Denver Post September 8, 2016 story—New Study Reveals What Makes Marijuana Edibles Most
Attractive to Young Kids
• JAMA Pediatrics Study Abstract,July 25, 2016- Unintentional Pediatric Exposures to Marijuana in
Colorado, 2009-2015
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
brad@alignedinsight.com
f Edit this form
9 responses
View all responses Publish analytics
Summary
Retail establishments maintain an approved point of sale consumer education
1 9 program (including elements such as: training salespersons on educating customers;
signage and posters; cards in carry out packages - topics such as laws associated
with public safety & health (ie. resale/transfer to minors); safe handling, storage,
disposal; consumption recommendations & potency information)
4
2
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible: 1 8 88.9%
2 1 11.1%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not lmpactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Point of sale engages the industry
Even 2.5 years into recreational MJ, and despite the CDPHE's campaigns, people still don't
understand edibles and overconsumption is a big concern. I support the POS education, but the
retailer should have some discretion as to how they handle each customer, and have the
opportunity to custom tailor the education experience depending on the customer's existing
knowledge. The program should focus on tourists and inexperienced users and not create a
hassle for regular customers who are already familiar with the content.
This is the point where the consumer is the most interested, most accessible and the impact is
one-on-one which seems like a powerful position to be in. Also, this policy actually reaches the
target audience 100%. The scope and depth of information can send a strong message that the
industry is supporting responsible use. Down-side...who monitors this?
Guaranteed way to contact/educate those legally purchasing/using
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 1/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
Feels good but no teeth. No real info on risk
Limit the number of retail outlets that can sell edible products, and/or tie ability to sell
1 r edibles only with a higher-level license with more advanced requirements (ie.
maintain an approved point-of-sale education program)
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible: 1 0 0%
2 3 33.3%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 4 44.4%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
This would add workload to the municipalities and counties where staffing is limited and already
impacted by the stores we currently have.
Not sure this will make a difference
I don't believe limiting the number of outlets that can sell edibles would be an effective solution,
but I do agree with the advanced requirements
This feels like it will need a lot of system and legislative management. Not sure it makes sense
and the consumer will find the product they want.
don't agree with limiting #of outlets (leave to the market). Do agree with some kind of increased
licensing requirement for edibles
restriction of trade
Educate the public, event coordinators, retailers of punishing consequences and a
2g zero tolerance enforcement policy concerning sale or transfer of marijuana products,
including edibles, to youth/minors ((ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY- DEFINITION: A
"zero tolerance policy" is a school or district policy that mandates predetermined
consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied
regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational
context.[1] American Psychological Association, Zero Tolerance Task Force Report,
"Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools?An Evidentiary Review and
Recommendations (2006), p. 2, 26. Online: FURTHER CONTEXT: http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/zero+tolerance))
https://docs.googl e.com/a/al ignedi nsi ght.com/form s/d/1 Em H 5XZJVI31 J8XU-eXLq_REfnN ym vGVI LNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalyti cs 2/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 5 55.6%
2 4 44.4%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not lmpactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I don't think we should ever have a zero tollerance enforcement policy
The focus shouldn't solely be on edibles here, but MJ in general. Edibles are more expensive
and probably not the primary form of consumption among youth. According to the CDPHE and
Healthy Kids Colorado 2015 survey, 91% of Colorado high school students who used MJ in the
last 30 days smoked, 28% dabbed, 21% vaped, and 28% ate it.
When done really well, this could be effective but I've seen too many poorly done/poorly funded
public outreach campaigns around public health issues. It has to be a long term commitment,
wide scope and smart about the youth component without making adults feel guilty about their
use. That is a tricky line and there is often not enough money to hire quality marketing talent.
When the health and human service professionals try to create public outreach campaigns
without paying for marketing talent, it is a waste of money.
0 tolerance ok so long as: the follow through is there; it is a clearly understood expectation; all
partners buy in to support policy (i.e. event managers actively support the policy... provide
staffing to patrol events)
Education of parents on their actions that can prevent youth access to marijuana
3g through social channels
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
https://docs.google.com/a/al ignedinsight.com/forms/d/1Em H SXZJVI31 J8XU-eXLq,REfnN ym vGVI LNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalyti cs 3/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 6 66.7%
2 1 11.1%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Parents should take the lead on raising their children, not schools or government
The parents who need to hear it will not be the parents who hear it
Social channels rely on self-participation and sharing. I'm not confident we will get people to
engage. Will individuals repost or share information with others about how to prevent access to
the products they are purchasing thereby revealing they may be purchasers of marijuana
products?
message to youth should be coming primarily from families, as with any other safety/health
message that parents educate kids on. This may provide the parent with the resources to do so.
important to give parents more info re risk for adolescent use is different from adult use
Educate youth and strictly enforce with zero-tolerance laws prohibiting minor's
1 y possession or use of marijuana edibles, including advocating for school district
adoption of policy prohibiting possession/use on campus (if not already in place)
5
4
3 Ihirm_m_
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible: 1 5 55.6%
2 2 22.2%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I disagree with mandating zero-tolerance laws when dealing with minor's and young adults.
Educate youth, yes. zero tolerance laws have proven to be ineffective. This is a criminal
response to a health issue. Accountability yes, identifying intoxication yes, but zero tolerance
will have long term impact on youth success and can actually increase use. And there will
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 4/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
always be youth use. Problematic youth use is often associated with other mental or physical
issues. Let's make getting to these root causes more important that criminalizing youth use.
unsure on the 0 tolerance stance for youth. However pro advocating for school district/campus
use limitation policy
No brainer. No use on campus
Media/social channel messages to inform public (kids; adults) on edible safety and in
2y particular risks to youth of marijuana consumption
43
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly lmpactful and Feasible : 1 4 44.4%
2 3 33.3%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I don't think kids or parents can ever have too much information on marijuana
The CDPHE's Good to Know Colorado and Protect What's Next campaigns are already doing
this. Would this be duplicating efforts?
If we pay for quality marketing talent to design these messages. AND messages to kids and
adults should be VERY different. Even so, not sure this is the best place to look for short term
impact. Public health campaigns require long term commitment and wide scope before impact.
impactful if the messaging comes from peers.
Has been tried and no effect
Locally regulate packaging of marijuana edibles to at least updated state regulations,
3y for example ensuring child proof, inclusion of instruction and warning labels, THC
content by sealed portion, etc
https://docs.google.com/a/al ignedinsight.com/forms/d/1Em H 5XZJVI31 J8XU-eXLLREfnN ym vGVI LNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalyti cs 5/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
iyiy vI cl9I c, caaivic. -t v v/0
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I feel this is the responsibility of the State and their rule making/enforcement divisions. We do
not have available staff to inspect facilities, their products or their packaging.
I like the idea but is this possible? Who is monitoring? Is this an action that local shop owners
will have to pay for and can they?
not sure this would change access. may reduce some accidental consumption.
good safety policy
orEdibles for sale in Pitkin County have supplementary labels informing purchasers of
potency and effects
5
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 1 11.1%
2 5 55.6%
3 3 33.3%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Im not sure you could quantify effects, its different for all users
The state's labeling rules have so many required statements and the text is so small that most
consumers don't bother to read them, and if they do, the important information gets lost. House
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmHSXZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 6/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
Bill 12-1261 reduced the label content and requires potency be highlighted on the label, but not
sure when the MED will amend their rules to have these go into effect. If Pitkin County goes
forward with this, it should be short and sweet, easy to understand and highlight only the really
important points.
Sure, again, who pays for it and who monitors?
difficult to define effects as they may differ by user. how effective has generic messaging on
health effects of other products been? (tobacco)
need to be easily read
Revoke retail licenses of establishments who violate zero tolerance laws concerning
4y edibles and/or Impose "harsh administrative penalties" for owners of retail
establishments whose employees violate regulations on sales of marijuana edibles
43
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 4 44.4%
2 4 44.4%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Revocation may be a little harsh (depending on violation), but I support administrative penalties
(fines, suspension, etc.).
Definitely...although we need to be realistic about how much this will impact illegal use or
irresponsible use.
don't like the word harsh. does this approach match the scale of the general problem? perhaps
applicable in relation to youth sales?
Word gets out to teens that this place over-looks fake IDs
Through existing tax revenues, temporary or permanent additional excise taxes,
4g allocate ongoing funds to education, prevention and treatment related to marijuana
edibles (or other marijuana products/issues based on defined needs)
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 7/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
2 2 22.2%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not lmpactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
This funds may already be available through conventional taxes, Im not sure we need an
additional tax base.
Definitely, any policy needs dedicated longterm funding to support the ongoing education,
prevention and treatment needs that will always be present.
enough taxes already
Establish and support a committee with annual City-County funding that advises
2 r social and recreational leaders of steps they can take to protect people from the
misuse of substances, particularly marijuana edibles
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 1 11.1%
2 2 22.2%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not lmpactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Who are "social and recreational leaders"? How is this different from any other outreach
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmHSXZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 8/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
campaign? Is this a "preaching" agenda?
wondering if a forum already exists.
Weak policy
Engage public media in announcing prohibitions against use of marijuana at public
2or events and then report on effective enforcement at events when the events have
concluded
43
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 3 33.3%
2 4 44.4%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not lmpactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Could be a good way to monitor how effective strategies can be. Feels like a data collection
effort, not a policy.
could be quite simple??? matter of resources and reliance on private security? pre -"PD/SO
going to be focusing on underage use of MJ at ??? event" post - PD/SO made 50 MJ contacts
and issued 12 tickets for underage consumption at ??? event. All youth involved have been
referred to Youthzone for follow up. message - "MJ & adolescent brain don't mix.""
People enjoy MJ at events and we are back to making in a criminal case
Increase retailers' legal liabili
3r purchased edibles to a minor
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 9/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
4
3 mkt
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
this is already done on the state level.
How do you defined what an uniformed customer is? How is that proven?
Good idea in theory, but not sure how it can be proven and enforced.
No...no way to determine uninformed customer and we don't need to isolate retailers by putting
this type of pressure on them when some are willing to be at the table right now.
interesting idea.
If certain people regularly buy unusual quantities this would be suspicious
Events set a visible standard for the public on marijuana access, particularly minors'
5y
access to marijuana and its products
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly lmpactful and Feasible : 1 4 44.4%
2 3 33.3%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
yes and no and I don't understand the policy question here. However, there is also an
assumption that events come with pot these days from adults and youth just like they come
with consumption and overconsumption of alcohol.
not entirely sure what this means
Edibles would be so hard to "see". No smoke no odor and people eat "candy" and stuff at
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 10/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
events
6y Media advertising for marijuana edibles is prohibited
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 5 55.6%
2 2 22.2%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I don't think we should have restrictions on advertising
YES! We do not need to add the highly developed advertising industry to aid in the desire for
edibles. No tobacco ads have helped.
We know this has worked to reduce underage use of tobacco.
users know it is there and available. Lets not get into who makes the best "brownies.
Prohibit and enforce edible marijuana "sales" and "give-a-ways" ((MED Rule R 402.1
7y states:Free Product Prohibited. A Retail Marijuana Store may not give away Retail
Marijuana or Retail Marijuana Product to a consumer for any reason))
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 6 66.7%
2 0 0%
https://docs.googl e.com/a/al ignedi nsi ght.com/form s/d/1 Em H 5XZJVI31 J8XU-eXL..REfnN ym vGVI LNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalyti cs 11/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
This would be overly prohibitive for businesses. In addition, these products expire (some have
very short shelf lives, others longer)and putting them on sale is an effective way to move
product prior to expiration. Once they expire, they must be destroyed/wasted.
PLEASE!!! I don't know if this policy is possible but making "give-a-ways" seems like we are
minimizing the potential harm. Are liquor stores able to do "give-a-ways"?
a matter of prioritization relative to other policing issues
We know this is an effective strategy for tobacco.
Not a good a good idea
3or Monitor media advertising for misleading messages
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 4 44.4%
2 0 0%
3 3 33.3%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Not sure. Who monitors?what do we do about it?
gate horses bolted stable, resources
4r
https://docs.google.com/a/al ignedinsight.com/forms/d/1Em H 5XZJVI31 J8XU-eXLLREfnN ym vGVI LNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalyti cs 12/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
43
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I rate this as strongly agree but also need additional information regarding State plans and
proposed laws.
I believe the 10 mg THC serving size/100 mg max per Container is sufficient.
Is this possible? of course, this feels like a no-brainer based on the information I have now
about the un-regulation and the potential for overdose
huge regulatory/testing component, resources
I need more information
4or Double the rate of compliance checks at retail establishments
4 mil_
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 1 11.1%
2 4 44.4%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
don't know what it is now and if this is feasible
helpful, but lack of resources, priorities
Compliance of what?
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 13/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
5gInvestigate the source when youth possession of marijuana and edibles ar4
discovered
6.0
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 7 77.8%
2 2 22.2%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Any data points that can be collected should be like this!
should be doing this already.
Who is providing it is important. Vagrants, older friends, parents?
Twice annually, announce that "party patrols" and "shoulder tap" actions will be
5r taken, to affirm existing laws and to strengthen the public perception that City and
County elected representatives and administrators support resident safety with edible
marijuana ((PARTY PATROLS DEFINITION -
https://ndspfsig.wikispaces.com/file/view/8A+Party+Patrols.pdf Party Patrols, often
referred to as Controlled Party Dispersal Plans, are systematic, comprehensive plans
that are designed to dedicate appropriate resources (manpower) to: Contain
underage drinking participants in party situations (homes, fields, campgrounds etc);
Administer preliminary breathalyzer tests and photograph all underage participants;
Process citations (if issued); Identify adult providers of alcohol; Arrange for safe
transportation of youth. Party Patrols utilize Zero-Tolerance laws and education to
safely and efficiently secure underage drinking parties. (see link above for context)))
((SHOULDER TAP - DEFINITION— https://localwiki.org/davis/Shoulder_Tapping
Shoulder tapping refers to the illegal process where a person who is not of age asks
someone who is of age to buy them cigarettes or, more commonly, Alcohol.
SHOULDER TAP CONTEXT/EXAMPLE -
http://www.abc.ca.gov/programs/shoulder tap.html))
https://docs.google.com/a/al ignedi nsi ght.com/form s/d/1 Em H 5XZJVI31 J8XU-eXLg_R EfnN ym vGVI LN w E3xe4Wxk/viewanal yti cs 14/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
43
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I do not understand what Party Patrols and Shoulder Taps are?
Are we announcing when the enforcement actions will occur? If so, then not in support.
Not sure I fully understand this statement
I don't know what this is but seems like a good idea if its about targeted contact
some components could be used, however this approach does not fit philosophically with hoe
we operate (essentially a raid) nor do staff exist to execute.
This says we take youth use as a serious issue
5or Develop a "marijuana unit" in local law enforcement that monitors sources informed
about use of marijuana edibles by youth
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 2 22.2%
2 2 22.2%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
We cannot look to law enforcement for the solution
How does this get funded? We currently do not have extra staff to devote personnel.
Not in Pitkin County or Aspen; down valley yes
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 15/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
Not sure we need this. Public health does this to a degree that we probably need.
could develop existing resources/SROs/detectives/ etc. priorities again.
probably a good idea
Monitor developments in effective enforcement of marijuana impaired driving and
69 take early action on promising approaches
6.0
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 7 77.8%
2 1 11.1%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not lmpactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Absolutely, seems like an easy thing to do and stay out front of learning
I have seen evidence that makes me think impaired driving is problem. I don't know the level
6or Conduct a 24-month enforcement pilot study to determine if a zero-tolerance policy of
Minor in Possession of edibles protects minors from use of edibles
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly lmpactful and Feasible : 1 3 33.3%
2 1 11.1%
3 3 33.3%
https://docs.google.com/a/al ignedinsight.com/forms/d/1Em H 5XZJVI31 J8XU-eXLq_REfnN ym vGVI LNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalyti cs 16/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I cannot give a higher rating until "zero-tolerance" is defined. If it is defined to mean that minors
will be charged, every time, with a criminal offense for possession I do not support.
Don't waste our money or the impact on youth to further criminalize youth when we have
decades of research showing zero-tolerance of substance use doesn't work.
interesting idea. Would need a lot of PR& multiple agency buy in. Not sure of community
response due to current perceptions of lack of harm as demonstrated by parents making MJ
available.
give it a try
Create a formal referral process that avoids arrest record assuming compliance with
7g referral to screening and then targeted intervention (ie. major issues vs.
experimenters) to improve parental engagement, support and positive impact of
intervention when warranted
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 6 66.7%
2 1 11.1%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
In order to get a minor into a program, as suggested, they must be criminally charged. I do not
support charging of all minors. I would like to see a program that minors can be referred to
without criminal charging. This program could also work with minors who are criminally charged.
YEs please...Restorative Justice, maintain accountability but provide screening to determine
intervention need.
restorative justice approach
I like not making it a crime but a health/mental health issue
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 17/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
Define acceptable public venues and/or designated sections at events, for legal
Tor supervised consumption, similar to the treatment of alcohol consumptions or
tobacco smoking (bars; smoking sections; over 21 areas)
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 5 55.6%
2 1 11.1%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 3 33.3%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Until state law allows this I do not support open public use or legalizing smoke shops.
Finding a legal place to consume is a real challenge for tourists. This one is a little tricky,
because state law makes it illegal to provide public premises, or any portion thereof, for the
purpose on consumption of MJ or MJ products in any form. It would basically have to be a
private club.
sure. maybe norming adult use within similar boundaries as alcohol and cigarettes will help get it
all out in the open instead of maintaining the secret use.
interesting idea, but illegal at the moment.
8y Regulate the form(s) or ingredients of edible marijuana products to reduce potential
confusion with non-marijuana products and potential attractiveness to kids
4
3
2 ILL_
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 3 33.3%
https://docs.googl e.com/a/al ignedi nsi ght.com/form s/d/1 Em H 5XZJVI31 J8XU-eXLq_REfnN ym vGVI LNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalyti cs 18/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
2 4 44.4%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not lmpactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
difficult to implement/regulate
Don't make it in the image of children's favorite treats.
6r
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree; Highly lmpactful and Feasible : 1 0 0%
2 4 44.4%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Our municipality does not allow commercial production or cultivation of marijuana products
within Town boundaries.
not sure. Feels like a big effort for little population impact
I don;t know enough about current zoning limitations to comment
need more information
7r
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVI31J8XU-eXLq REfnNymvGVILNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 19/20
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey-VMC-Google Forms
43
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Feels like a public nightmare. Banning anything will lose any support from users we might
currently have.
worth investigating as an option. However, marketplace has clearly dictated the very wide
variety of products that consumers want to see, so expect big push back
Sounds great. Users are not taking edibles for the nutritional value
Other policy recommendations that should be considered, and why?
none
None
NA
None that I can currently think of
no thanks
To me the idea of a pill instead of a "food" is the best idea.
Number of daily responses
4
3
2
1
0
https://docs.googl e.com/a/al ignedi nsi ght.com/form s/d/1 Em H 5XZJVI31 J8XU-eXLq_REfnN ym vGVI LNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalyti cs 20/20
Original
n Policy Recommendation Original Poll Individual Responses(Appropriate;Effective; Poll In-Meeting Deliberation and Deliberation Notes
Achievable:1 strongest;4 weakest) Average Re-Poll
Score
Retail establishments maintain an approved point of sale consumer education
program(including elements such as:training salespersons on educating
customers;signage and posters;cards in carry out packages-topics such as laws (all)
The VMCis in process of putting[ogethera Cross-functional team(including the retail cannabis induttry)and
1g associated with public safety&health(ie.resale/transfer to minors);safe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.1 13 developinga Curriculum/approach to this item
handling,storage,disposal;consumption recommendations&potency
information)
Educate the public,event coordinators,retailers of civil and criminal Removed zero tolerance aspect per group decision;
2g consequences and enforcement policy concerning sale or transfer of marijuana 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.4 13(all)
products,including edibles,to youth/minors Noted that partnership between schools and law enforcement critical to success
Would require school participation to get parents in the roam for education;
Education of parents on their actions that can prevent youth access/use to
3g marijuana(funding campaigns) 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1.6 13(all) Schools identified a parallel process related to how they currently support parents in managing for healthy
student use of electronics
Through existing tax revenues,temporary or permanent additional excise taxes, (new arrival,now 14 participants total(not including facilitator,not polled)
4g dedicate ongoing funds to education,prevention and treatment related to 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.4 13 1 yellow(1)response context-wants to better understand how much is needed,how it would be spent,
marijuana edibles(or other marijuana products/issues based on defined needs) implications for industry based on amount of additional tax to be levied(if any)
Group voted to remove this item because it is already being done-not appropriate as a policy recommendation;
While not suitable as a policy recommendation,this item could be addressed by the planned VMC initiative to
5 Investigate the source when youth possession of marijuana and edibles are involve kids(ongoing)in VMC type discussions;
g discovered
Group also supported the idea of kids panel discussion at schools for kids/parents etc
Consider additional dis-incentives for individuals that distribute illegally(beyond the point of legal retail sale)
Fund community education on driving high,monitor developments in effective (ie.Promising approach example:swab testing is growing in larger jurisdictions);
6g enforcement of marijuana impaired driving and take early action on promising 1 1 3 1 I
1 1 1 1.3 14 Monitoring and Early Action defined asadirection to monitor and/or stay abreast of developments as well as
approaches funding/resourcing of early adoption and evaluation
Create a mechanism&expectations to use a formal non-criminal referral process
that allows for the avoidance of arrest record assuming compliance with
Facilitator Note:This item intends to focus on youth,was discussed by the group as such,but could also be
7g screening/targeted intervention(ie.major issues vs.experimenters)to improve 1 4 3 2 1 1 1 1.7 14 applied to adult issues where mental health/subrtance abuse is a significant factor
parental engagement,support and positive impact of intervention when
warranted
school policy already in place;zero tolerance deliberated previously and not appropriate/desirable In this
Fund/Suppport education of youth on edible marijuana impacts and healthy life 1 community;
1y choices(or other evidence based prevention education) 2 4 1 1 z 1 1,g 10(all voting participants)
Educating children isa high priority,and a strong recommendation
Zy Media/social channel messages to inform public(kids;adults)on edible safety and 1 This is covered on prior options,jurt deals with the HOW that would be a part of the implementation process
in particular rislioisthofrniiiiii Remove this option/item,R is redundant
strong support for locally monitoring/assuring compliance with State regulations is supported-important that
Locally regulate/monitor marijuana edibles to at least updated state regulations, people understand the context...an ability to enforce locally as we feel is appropriate for community-not
for example ensuring child resistant packaging,inclusion of instruction and intended as a police action;Likely licensing related;Also helps when state lags too long to enforce existing regs
3y warning labels,monitoring of sales practices,THC content by sealed portion, 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1.8 10 current level of problem with accidental ingestion does not seem warrant/there isn't a clear additional packaging
advertising not targeting/attractive to kids etc;Create or enforce appropriate local reg that is appropriate/apparent would be effective
sanctions/administrative penalties for violations
This should be addressed in 1g,2g,3g
This is best addressed by increased monitoring of existing state regulations and their corresponding penalties
(prior item 3y),as well as licensing at a local level
4 Impose escalating penalties for establishments who violate regulations 2 2
y concerning edibles marijuana sales,up to and including revocation of licenses Cannot backa local licensing authority
into a corner with zero tolerance revocation of licenses
Albremove this item-replaced by 3y
This is about implementing specific expectations for event licensing that support prevention at events lie.media
Events set a visible standard for the public on marijuana access,particularly messaging;event design;signage/notification)with the degree of effort predicated on projected event size and
6y minors access to marijuana and its products 1 1 1 3 z 2 3 1 z 1.8 1 5 4 discretionary likelihood of substance use at the event
Focus on larger events more likely to be an issue
Edibles,specifically,aren't the primary issue associated with community marijuana concerns
Edibles already(by state law)cant target kids...but not really monitored
More concerned about ads that might appeal to kids;health and benefit claims
by Media advertising for marijuana edibles is prohibited 4 1 2 4 2 1 1 1 I
Current licensing implies the ability to advertise,and this is important to business
Support for improved monitoring of advertising that doesn't attract kids(see 3y),but not to prohibit advertising
for edibles
Prohibit and enforce edible marijuana sales and give-a-ways((MED Rule R 402.1
7Y states:Free Product Prohibited.A Retail Marijuana Store may not give away Retail 1 9 s.ace law covers give-aways;there isn't an appetite to impose a stronger local restriction
Marijuana or Retail Marijuana Product to a consumer for any reason))
Regulate the form(s)or ingredients of edible marijuana products to reduce
gY potential confusion with non-marijuana products and potential attractiveness to 2 3 5
kids
for Edibles for sale in Pitkin County have supplementary labels informing purchasers 2 21 3 2 2 3 3 2
of potency and effects 2.2
Engage public media in announcing prohibitions against use of marijuana at public
2or events and then report on effective enforcement at events when the events have 2 t 1 2 3 2 1 2 4 2.0
concluded
3or Monitor media advertising for misleading messages 4 t 1 4 1 3 3 3 1 2.3
4or Double the rate of compliance checks at retail establishments a 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2.3
Sor Develop a marijuana unit in local law enforcement that monitors sources 4 3 3 31 1 3 2 2
informed about use of marijuana edibles by youth 2.4IIIII
6or Conduct a 24-month enforcement pilot study to determine if a zero-tolerance 3 a 3 3 1 4 1 2 1
policy of Minor in Possession of edibles protects minors from use of edibles 2.4
11111
Define acceptable public venues and/or designated sections at events,for legal
7or supervised consumption,similar to the treatment of alcohol consumptions or 1 44 1 t z t 4 t 2.1
tobacco smoking(bars;smoking sections;over 21 areas)
Limit the number of retail outlets that can sell edible products,and/or tie ability to Items that scored 1.9 or higher on the survey(lacked even 50%of respondent support)were not deliberated as
Dr sell edibles only with a higher-level license with more advanced requirements(ie. 3 4 z 4 3 4 z z Individual policy options
maintain an approved point-of-sale education program)
Establish and support a committee with annual City-County funding that advises
2r social and recreational leaders of steps they can take to protect people from the t 2
misuse of substances,particularly marijuana edibles
3r Increaseretailers legal liability if an uninformed customer resells or transfers 24
purchased edibles to a minor
4r Lower the THC content in for sale edibles 3 1 z a
I
Twice annually,announce that party patrols®nd shoulder tap actions will be
Sr taken,to affirm existing laws and to strengthen the public perception that City 04
and County elected representatives and administrators support resident safety
with edible marijuana
III
6r Consideration of zoning and/or density limits associated with the production of 22 4 2 3 3 3 2 3
compliant edible products I
7r Ban Sale of edibles,allow Consumable manf uana only In pill forma[ 4 4 i 4 3 4 3 2.9
Zero Tolerance Policy Definition - http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/positions/zero-tolerance
A "zero tolerance policy" is a school or district policy that mandates predetermined
consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of
the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context.
[11 American Psychological Association, Zero Tolerance Task Force Report, "Are Zero Tolerance
Policies Effective in the Schools?An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations (2006), p. 2, 26.
Online:
Legal definition & broader context: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/zero+tolerance
The policy of applying laws or penalties to even minor infringements of a code in order to
reinforce its overall importance and enhance deterrence.
Since the 1980s the phrase zero tolerance has signified a philosophy toward illegal conduct that
favors strict imposition ofpenalties regardless of the individual circumstances of each case. Zero
tolerance policies deal primarily with drugs andweapons and have been implemented by most
school districts in the United States. Two federal laws have driven zerotolerance but state
legislatures have also been willing to mandate similar policies. Supporters of zero tolerance
policies contend that they promote the safety and wellbeing of school children and send a
powerful message of deterrence. In addition, supporters believe strict adherence to these
policies ensure that school officials do not treat individual children differently. Critics of zero
tolerance believe that inflexible discipline policies produce harmful results. Moreover, school
administrators have failed to use common sense in applying zero tolerance, leading to the
expulsion of children for bringingto school such items as an aspirin or a plastic knife.
The term zero tolerance was first employed by President RONALD REAGAN'S administration when it
launched its War on Drugsinitiative in the early 1980s. Some school districts embraced the
initiative in an attempt to eradicate drug possession anddrug use on school property. The policy
became law, however, when Congress passed the Drug-Free Schools andCampuses Act of 1989
(Pub.L. 101-226, December 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1928). The act banned the unlawful use,
possession, or distribution of drugs and alcohol by students and employees on school grounds
and college campuses. It required educational agencies and institutions of higher learning to
establish disciplinary sanctions for violations or risklosing federal aid. As a result, the majority of
schools and colleges immediately began to adopt zero tolerance polices tosafeguard their
federal funding.
Congress legislated zero tolerance polices toward weapons on school grounds when it passed
the Gun-Free Schools Act of1994 (Pub. L. 103-
382, Title I, § 101, October 20, 1994, 198 Stat. 3907). According to the act, every state had to
pass a law
requiring educational agencies to expel from school, for not less than one year, any student
found in possession of a gun.Students with disabilities under either the Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA) (Pub.L. 91-230, Title VI, April 13, 1970, 84Stat. 175 to 188) or Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act (Pub.L. 93-112, September 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 355) could beexpelled for
only 45 days. Despite these strict provisions, the act permitted school superintendents to modify
the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.
This federal law was the catalyst for school zero tolerance policies that soon went beyond drugs
and weapons to includehate speech, harassment, fighting, and dress codes. School principals,
who must administer zero tolerance policies, beganto suspend and expel students for seemingly
trivial offenses. Students have been suspended or expelled for a host ofrelatively minor
incidents, including possession of nail files, paper clips, organic cough drops, a model rocket, a
five-inch plastic ax as part of a Halloween costume, an inhaler for asthma, and a kitchen
knife in a lunch box to cut chicken.Outraged parents of children disciplined by zero tolerance
policies protested to school boards, publicized their cases withthe news media, and sometimes
filed lawsuits in court seeking the overturning of the discipline. Courts generally have
rejected such lawsuits, concluding that school administrators must have the ability to exercise
their judgment in maintaining school safety.
One study, however, issued by the Advancement Project in 2000, suggested that zero tolerance,
while supposedly a neutralpolicy, was applied disproportionately to students of color. Such
concerns led the American Bar Association (ABA) in 2001to pass a resolution opposing, in
principle, zero tolerance policies that (1) have a discriminatory effect, or (2) set forth
mandatory punishment without regard to the circumstances or nature of the offense, or the
student's history. The ABAconcluded that such "one-size-fits-all" policies violate students'
DUE PROCESS rights. Although the organization urged schoolsto maintain strong prevention
policies, it also wanted to ensure that students' rights were protected when they were
disciplined.
Despite the backlash, zero tolerance has remained a central part of school administration. In
particular, zero tolerance forweapons has been a top priority due, in part, to a string of school
shootings, which culminated in the 1999 tragedy at
Columbine High School in Colorado. Some school administrators have turned to zero tolerance
policies because they needto respond swiftly and decisively in order to maintain control and
discipline. They contend that such polices can becommunicated clearly and forcefully to students
so they understand that discipline will be immediate and predictable.Finally, another reason for
school administrators to embrace zero tolerance policies is legal liability. A school that does note
nforce a zero tolerance policy risks a civil lawsuit by victims of school violence.
Shoulder Tap Definition—https://localwiki.org/davis/Shoulder Tapping
Shoulder tapping refers to the illegal process where a person who is not of age asks someone
who is of age to buy them cigarettes or, more commonly,Alcohol. [For example,] those who are
shoulder tapped [to buy alcohol for minors] should be careful as the DPD occasionally runs sting
operations targeting those willing to buy Alcohol for those who are not of age.
Shoulder Tap Program Example/Context- http://www.abc.ca.gov/programs/shoulder tap.html
When the California Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that minor decoys could be used by law
enforcement to check whether stores were selling alcohol to minors (persons under age 21), the
violation rate was nearly 50 percent. In some cities, almost one out of every two stores failed to
check a minor's age and sold them alcohol. In 1997 the violation rate had dropped to less than
10 percent in those cities that used the Minor Decoy Program on a regular basis. Minors then
turned to the "shoulder tap" method of getting alcohol by standing outside of a liquor store or
market and asking adults to buy them alcohol. A recent survey conducted by the Los Angeles
Police Department indicated that as much as 46 percent of all minors who attempt to acquire
alcohol use this method.
The Decoy Shoulder Tap Program is a newly-created enforcement program that ABC and local
law enforcement agencies use to detect and deter shoulder tap activity. During the program, a
minor decoy, under the direct supervision of law enforcement officers, solicits adults outside
ABC licensed stores to buy the minor decoy alcohol. Any person seen furnishing alcohol to the
minor decoy is arrested (either cited or booked) for furnishing alcohol to a minor (a violation of
Section 25658(a) Business and Professions Code).
Goals and Objectives
The goals of the program are to: (1) Reduce underage consumption of, and access to, alcohol by
deterring adults from furnishing to them outside of licensed premises; (2) Expand the
involvement of local law enforcement in enforcing underage drinking laws; and (3) Raise public
awareness about the problem.
Program objectives are to: (a) Provide mini grants to local law enforcement agencies to run the
program; (b) Develop a public awareness campaign; and (c)Target communities for grants that
have a high incidence of alcohol-related traffic crashes and injuries involving those under age 21.
To achieve its objectives, the Decoy Shoulder Tap Program relies on the sworn staff members of
ABC and the local law enforcement agency.
Program components include the following:
o IDENTIFY LOCATIONS OF ACTIVITY.
Officers collect and review complaints and information provided by citizens, parents, school
officials, patrol/campus police officers, community groups, and special event organizers who
cater to high school age students. Officers review all data and evidence to help plan the
program.
o GAIN PROGRAM SUPPORT.
In addition to needing support from the community as described above, the program needs
strong support by the local prosecutor. Therefore, law enforcement agencies are encouraged to
discuss the benefits of the program with their city attorney or county district attorney.
o COORDINATE THE INVESTIGATION.
The Decoy Shoulder Tap Program initially can be conducted as a joint operation between ABC
and the local law enforcement agency. After the initial training by ABC, the program is normally
used by the local law enforcement agency.
o MEDIA INVOLVEMENT.
One of the most effective uses of the media is to publicize enforcement. Therefore, a press
release announcing the program and its goals and objectives is issued to the local news media.
Since many adults are not aware of the seriousness of the offense, the publicity of those
arrested sends a strong message to those who may be inclined to assist a minor in getting
alcohol.
o DECOY SELECTION.
Selection of the minor decoy is critical. Desirable qualifications include being: under 20 years of
age (and appearing that age); truthful; willing to work undercover, wear a radio transmitter and
have their conversations recorded; comfortable making a face-to-face identification of the
suspect after the violation and to have their photograph taken with the suspect; able to prepare
a written report; willing to testify in court; and willing to undergo media attention.
Party Patrols Definition - https://ndspfsig.wikispaces.com/file/view/BA+Party+Patrols.pdf
Party Patrols, often referred to as Controlled Party Dispersal Plans, are systematic, comprehensive plans that
are designed to dedicate appropriate resources (manpower)to:
• Contain underage drinking participants in party situations (homes, fields, campgrounds etc)
• Administer preliminary breathalyzer tests and photograph all underage participants
• Process citations (if issued)
• Identify adult providers of alcohol
• Arrange for safe transportation of youth
Party Patrols utilize Zero-Tolerance laws and education to safely and efficiently secure underage drinking
parties. (see link above for broader context and explanation)
9/8/2016 New study reveals what makes marijuana edibles most attractive to young kids—The Denver Post
NEWS MARIJUANA
New study reveals what makes
marijuana edibles most
attractive to young kids
Colorado's new rules for edibles prohibit animal or fruit
shapes
By JOHN INGOLD Ijingold@denverpost.com
PUBLISHED:September 8,2016 at 1:35 pm I UPDATED:September 8,2016 at
4:58 pm
4'Edi - E r -
,N- •• l :- �� Tfo of , •Edific,
1.11 . Jew.,Alm IOOry rIIC rOM.wFuwrelow v.rw y. �.
o.r., r�Z a1Mmolon:Ts
,_, era ... -r��
IbfWM M,trr. -az<Gw�ra�nOY_
unw uf.a -Iwvranadn I1 M_f1.N—�_f ---
�^)jeoat4
t *,, -.. - ---,14 ,ki,;e4/ , ilrgir4s•
:WOWS •-- EdiPur . Ed, Jr ;ram
'"'•«•• \ 12lmpTHC eu.owrM www 1S.11..... Chewy Co r. .Bot es /
rllc.to w....rW iw..lrmvvo
-rn C.'✓OfM�Ib Rfsrfl
r.
1 f i A` ,
f.
Anya Semenoff,The Denver Post)
Colorado's new rules prohibit edible pot products from being made in animal or
fruit shapes.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/marijuana-edibles-attractive-kids/ 1/3
9/8/2016 New study reveals what makes marijuana edibles most attractive to young kids—The Denver Post
Colorado's new rules for marijuana-infused edibles take important steps to
keep the products from being attractive to young children but also may not
go far enough, a recently released study suggests.
The rules—which are being finalized and take effect in 2017—prohibit
edible pot products from being made in animal or fruit shapes.That is
important because playful shapes are one of the key things that makes
food alluring to kids, said Sam Mendez, the executive director of the
University of Washington's Cannabis Law and Policy Project and the author
of the new report.
But Mendez's research identified other elements—such as color, smell and
taste—that also make food attractive.And those are things that Colorado's
new rules do not regulate.
Mendez's study was commissioned by Washington state's Liquor and
Cannabis Board,the organization that oversees marijuana businesses in
that state.The goal was to learn more about a problem that has dogged pot
businesses in both Washington and Colorado: How do you keep kids from
accidentally eating marijuana edibles that look similar to noninfused
treats?
After legalization in Colorado, emergency room visits for kids who
accidentally consumed marijuana roughly doubled,though the numbers
are still small compared with ingestions of pharmaceuticals or household
products. Marijuana-infused edibles accounted for about half all
cannabis ingestion cases.
Because Mendez couldn't entice kids with actual marijuana-infused
products,he instead studied what makes food appealing to young children
in general. He found that color, shape, smell and taste all play a part—in
ways that are entirely expected.
Children are attracted to foods in interesting shapes, such as stars or
animals, more so than foods in blocky geometric shapes.They prefer foods
that are red, orange,yellow or green.They like foods that smell and taste
sweet.They are also most attracted to packaging with bright colors and
cartoon figures.
Most important, Mendez found that eliminating just one attractive element
was unlikely to eliminate the food's appeal to kids.
"No single factor was exactly proof positive,"he said.
For that reason, he said the best approach for states looking to keep kids
from accidentally eating pot is to have regulators look at a variety of
elements to decide whether a product is too appealing to children.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/marijuana-edibles-attractive-kids/ 2/3
9/8/2016 New study reveals what makes marijuana edibles most attractive to young kids—The Denver Post
Colorado's rules for marijuana edibles already do that—to an extent. In
addition to the new rules on edible shapes, the rules also prohibit
packaging and food additives designed to appeal to kids.The rules, for
instance, specifically single out the word"candy"as something that should
not go on an edible's label. But the rules do not regulate color or smell.
Rep.Jonathan Singer, a Longmont Democrat who has taken on edibles
regulation in past legislative sessions, said the research shows Colorado is
on the right track. But, he said,the state needs to know more—such as
whether even stricter regulations can be shown to reduce hospital visits
because of accidental ingestions—before deciding whether to further
tweak the rules.
"We still have many questions to answer,"he wrote in an e-mail.
Mendez,too, said it is uncertain how much extra regulation of edibles can
eliminate the problem.
"The primary responsibility,"he said, "falls on parents to keep these things
away from kids."
TAGS: MARIJUANA EDIBLES, MARIJUANA SALES
John John Ingold
Theo Id of John Ingold has been a Denver Post reporter since 2000
Denver and has covered crime, courts, local government,the
Post state legislature, mamariiipm@olagfgapdagrilofiWiWgold
health and medicine.
DIGITAL & DRIVEWAY
DELIVERY - 50% OFF
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/marijuana-edibles-attractive-kids/ 3/3
Unintentional Pediatric Exposures to
Marijuana in Colorado, 2009-2015
George Sam Wang,MD"2;Marie-Claire Le Lait,MS2;Sara J.Deakyne,MPH3;Alvin C.Bronstein,MD;Lalit Bajaj,MD,MPH';
Genie Roosevelt,MD,MPH4
JAMA Pediatr.2016;170(9):el60971.doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0971.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION I METHODS 1 RESULTS I DISCUSSION 1 CONCLUSIONS 1ARTICLE
INFORMATION 1 REFERENCES
Importance As of 2015,almost half of US states allow medical marijuana,and 4 states allow recreational
marijuana. To our knowledge,the effect of recreational marijuana on the pediatric population has not been
evaluated.
Objective To compare the incidence of pediatric marijuana exposures evaluated at a children's hospital and
regional poison center(RPC)in Colorado before and after recreational marijuana legalization and to compare
population rate trends of RPC cases for marijuana exposures with the rest of the United States.
Design,Setting,and Participants Retrospective cohort study of hospital admissions and RPC cases between
January 1,2009,and December 31,2015,at Children's Hospital Colorado,Aurora,a tertiary care children's
hospital.Participants included patients 0 to 9 years of age evaluated at the hospital's emergency department,urgent
care centers,or inpatient unit and RPC cases from Colorado for single-substance marijuana exposures.
Exposure Marijuana.
Main Outcomes and Measures Marijuana exposure visits and RPC cases,marijuana source and type,clinical
effects,scenarios,disposition,and length of stay.
Results Eighty-one patients were evaluated at the children's hospital,and Colorado's RPC received 163 marijuana
exposure cases between January 1,2009,and December 31,2015,for children younger than 10 years of age.The
median age of children's hospital visits was 2.4 years(IQR, 1.4-3.4);25 were girls(40%) . The median age of RPC
marijuana exposures was 2 years(IQR, 1.3-4.0),and 85 patients were girls(52%). The mean rate of marijuana-
related visits to the children's hospital increased from 1.2 per 100 000 population 2 years prior to legalization to 2.3
per 100,000 population 2 years after legalization(P=.02).Known marijuana products involved in the exposure
included 30 infused edibles(48%).Median length of stay was 11 hours(interquartile range[IQR], 6-19)and 26
hours(IQR, 19-38)for admitted patients.Annual RPC pediatric marijuana cases increased more than 5-fold from
2009(9)to 2015 (47). Colorado had an average increase in RPC cases of 34%(P<.001)per year while the
remainder of the United States had an increase of 19%(P<.001).For 10 exposure scenarios(9%),the product was
not in a child-resistant container;for an additional 40 scenarios(34%),poor child supervision or product storage was
reported.Edible products were responsible for 51 exposures(52%).
Conclusions and Relevance Colorado RPC cases for pediatric marijuana increased significantly and at a higher
rate than the rest of the United States.The number of children's hospital visits and RPC case rates for marijuana
exposures increased between the 2 years prior to and the 2 years after legalization. Almost half of the patients seen
in the children's hospital in the 2 years after legalization had exposures from recreational marijuana, suggesting that
legalization did affect the incidence of exposures.