from marijuana diverted from states like colorado? >> i think there's two ways we're hoping to approach this. one, is it the stage really do put in the kind of robust systems that we're asking them to, whether it's control from cd sale, that it will help really tamp down that kind of export out of colorado and other states. secondly, at least as importantly one of the main priorities we have is the export of marijuana from states that make it legal to any other state. that will be a federal enforcement priority. >> mr. chairman, just a short follow-up. in the previous question, second question current usage consulted with state hhs and dea. did they agree with the new policy that you announced? >> senator, we had a thorough discussion with them.

i don't think it's always appropriate to go into what the internal deliberations are that take place. we got everybody's use and how to throw discussion and aired it out. this was a well thought through process. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman. mr. cole, let me kind of recap what brought us to this point because i don't think we're in a very good place to begin with. i begin with the album memorandum from 2009 which indicated it would not be a federal enforcement part to prosecute and a quote individuals whose actions are included an anna beatrice compliance with existing state laws. and then he gave as an example individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses. as another example, or those caregivers in clear and anna beatrice compliance with existing state law.

it then distinguished commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit and a close reading of the paragraph indicates the term unlawfully because the following sentence says talk, talks about operations in this is what the terms, conditions or purposes of those laws, meaning state laws. so we come out of the ogden memorandum with protection from federal prosecution for patients, caregivers and lawful commercial enterprises that are quote in clear and unambiguous compliance with state laws. among other things i would presume they include dispensaries. so next thing that comes out is the u.s. attorney's letter which i assume this department of justice product because all of his attorney letters taking a identically phrased. now, those protected from

federal prosecution are limited too seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of the medically recommended treatment regiment in compliance with state law. there's no mention of caregivers. and further in the paragraph it says that the department of justice maintains the authority to enforce the csa vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity, only for purposes of this paragraph, the term unlawful has been reversed to now mean federal law and eliminates any shelter of state law. so there was a dramatic difference between the ogden memo and the u.s. attorney's letter and it has created immense confusion, which you then thought to clarify somewhat and your june 29, 2011 memo, which said that it will protect individual cancer or other serious illnesses, and a caregivers are back.

they were out in the u.s. attorneys letter. caregivers are back in, and then you said, but it wouldn't apply to commercial operations, cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana. just dropped out the word unlawful rather than having to do with whether that word applied to federal or state law. then you added that those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity might be prosecuted. so somebody was paid with money that was earned by one of these folks. the u.s. attorney's letter had also singled out landlords and property owners and financiers for prosecution. so as you can imagine, this was a mess. so i appreciate very much a august 29 letter straightens out that mess, considerably. i don't dispute the sense of the

eight different federal priorities, but i just want to -- actually, there's considerable but imperfect overlap between your priorities and the original auction memo, low those many years in memos ago. that let me just be clear. as long as they are not the proper subject of federal prosecution under the eight-2013 memo federal interests, dispensary can do business as long as it is in clear unambiguous compliance with state law, correct? >> i think the proper way to phrase it, senator whitehouse, as long as they're not violating any of the eight federal priorities in the course of what they're doing. that the federal government is not going to prosecute. and a state law is up to state law. and up to date enforcement. but there also is common in all

fairness, there's a catch all at the end and it's not meant to swallow the entire memo but you can't interest rate everything that's going to come into the future. so there's an ability if it's an important enough matter that we hadn't anticipated to prosecute another kind of pcs and if it doesn't fall within the eight priorities. >> understood. and those who receive proceeds from a lawful and proper state law enterprise will also not be prosecuted unless the violate one of the eight? >> this is something we're trying to work through with the banking regulators. the memo talks about the controlled substances act. the prosecution otherwise on the banking and would be the money laundering statutes, and those i think are a separate matter, but one as i said and answered chairman leahy's questions, ones that we need to do with. there's a lot of public safety and public interest aspects of that. i think we need to do with as we

go down this road, and we're working on it. >> you are not attending to put people at fault in their bills paid by a proper, lawful state law enterprise from being the -- its notch or intention that they be subject t to prosecution. and assembly and it was a criminal cartel and no matter what your business is, the proceeds of that cartel carries the team with dementia can go after individuals just because they receive money. if nothing else you can reclaim the funds as the proceeds of criminal activity. you're not intending to use that unless those eight federal interest are implicated? >> i think that's part of what we're trying to work the right now in trying to do with the money laundering aspect of it. certainly this memo is meant to guide our enforcement efforts concerning marijuana in regard to the controlled substances act, and it will probably spill over in other ways as we're trying to work through them. >> similarly property owners,

landlords and financiers should not fear federal prosecution and less of the implicate those eight federal interests. >> certainly a lot of that is covered by the controlled substances act so that will be directly within the ambit of the memo, that's correct. >> that helps clarify things. senator grassley raise a number of concerns related, and i thought from hearing them, that all of them fell into the category by the involving children or involving effects in other states, or involving a relationship with trafficking organizations. just to be clear it's my understanding in all three of those situations, those are federal interest that would be implicated and the federal government would be willing and able to prosecute in those areas. >> that's correct. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing on a subject vital

important to my home state of connecticut. as you know, our law, a new law currently allows the production and sale and use of marijuana from medicinal purposes in a regulatory regiment that a think is fairly straightforward and complete. and certainly indicates the wheel of our legislature and our state that connecticut wants to move in the direction of providing legal access to this kind of substance. essentially, it decriminalize a statute so that anyone found in possession with less than half an ounce of marijuana will be subject to a citation rather than criminal action. and it, i think, meters other state laws that contain similar kinds of provisions.

i don't want to speak to the department of justice but my guess is there are very few cases authorized by the department of justice that involve simple possession of small amounts of marijuana, currently. that's been the ongoing practice for some time, hasn't not? >> i think that's correct. and from what we heard from the state and local law enforcement organizations this morning, they say there's a very few of those under state laws well. >> right. so that current practice will not be altered by anything in the memorandum, as i read it. >> that's correct. >> and in terms of some of the other priorities, my assumption is that the enforcement efforts there on individual prosecution cases would depend to some extent on the amounts of marijuana involved. would they not? >> that's certainly a factor

that's taken into account. it's not the sole factor. >> would the resulting, and i apologize if this question has been asked, action by the department of justice, if there were not enforcement in some of these areas involve a challenge to the statutory scheme, and how would that be brought? or would it involve individual prosecution cases, and how would you make those decisions? >> we did briefly talked before about, in response to chairman leahy's question, what the legal mechanisms would be and challenges to state laws. first of all, you start off with the controlled substance act has in its body itself a disclaimer of printing state laws in the area. so that's explicit in it so you don't have it if there's a conflict that is

un-reconcilable. when you have a law that decriminalize marijuana, it's a very big challenge. it's a challenge on the preemption ground because it can coexist with the federal law that criminalizes it. we can go ahead and enforce our federal law regardless of what the state law says. we might be in a position and a vivid case of of trying to challenge the regulatory scheme, but that put you in a difficult position. there's no perfect solutions here of having the legalization or the criminally should of marijuana and not even a legal structure for the state to try and regulate it. and that's not a very good solution either. none of them are very good in this field, frankly, but that seems to be one that takes you in the wrong direction. >> so the department of justice as i understand your answer would be very cautious and deliberate about any challenge to a regulatory scheme because the results might do more harm than good? >> we're going to look at all

the facts and circumstances that. would certainly put the governors in colorado and washington state on notice that we expect them to have robust systems. we hope all the other states that have medical marijuana or any other sort of legalized system will view this memo as it should be taken, as telling them they ought to have a robust system to regulate the marijuana usage under their own state laws so that they deal with these eight priorities, which we think are important. then we'll make our decisions as we see what kind of public interest issues are raised in the course of this and what they need is for us to take action. >> i understand that the memo deals only with controlled substances act but there are also provisions of the tax code that forbid deduction of expenses by some of these enterprises, noncriminal enterprises, dispensaries and others engaged in medicinal marijuana businesses.

has the department of justice taken a position on changing the tax code to make those legitimate businesses eligible to deduct common business expenses? >> we have not taken a position on change of legislation but we think that something that united states congress should probably in its wisdom take up and debate and determine what the appropriate course of action should be. >> but it would probably be consistent with your memorandum to have those expenses deducted, as long as that of the other priorities are infringed on? >> our memorandum is focused on what the federal enforcement will be if the controlled substances act. there are other issues that spinoff of that that you need to be dealt with. i think those are the kinds of things that the senate and house candidate and determine if there's an appropriate policy change to be made. >> let me ask you about connecticut. have there been consultations

with connecticut officials about the implementation of that law? >> not that i'm aware of right now, that the u.s. attorney there i'm sure has been in touch with them. i'm not positive. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, may i make a point? >> of course. >> you have three former prosecutors here, and so we clearly appreciate the flexibility that it's important for prosecutors to have, and we clearly appreciate the discretion that prosecutors enjoy that should be protected by the department. at the same time i think the department would be well advised to listen to senator grassley's advice about trying to establish as clear metrics as you comfortably can, because there can be a lot of unintended consequences from the broad zone of uncertainty that you can create.

back and, frankly, be quite harmful in and of itself. so i think in this area, particularly with respect to the regulatory regimes and what you would respect to improve and disapprove, the more you can move towards the kind of metrics that senator grassley recommended. i think the better off you would be. i speak only for myself on that but i think that's my advice anyway. >> if i may add, mr. chairman, i would second what senator whitehouse has just said, particularly as senator grassley has pointed out some of the banking applications. in connecticut, my understanding is that some bankers are reluctant currently to be involved in marijuana businesses because they are fearful about violating federal law. and the clear and more definitive you can be -- you can make your expressions of prosecutorial policy, i think

the more helpful it will be to them, insofar as they are aiding legitimate businesses, not criminal enterprises, not businesses selling to minors and others who may violate your priority. site which is second what senator whitehouse has just said. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will call sheriff urquhart, the king county sheriff, and kevin sabet. [inaudible conversations]

>> sheriff urquhart is elected sheriff of king county and washington state. ease the sheriff of the state's largest metropolitan county. i think is to be qualified to help us here. shir six has been -- sheriff urquhart is benefield trained officer, master police officer, street-level public information officer, administrator, toshiba shares. we may have another meeting that all statements will be placed in the record in full. you also will be able to, when you see the record if you want to add to think she said, you'll

have a chance to do that. i hate to say, sheriff, because i know you and others traveled some distance to get here. and i appreciate your beer. sheriff, go had. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and that the risk of stating the obvious, i am a police officer. thank you for having me here today. my name is john urquhart. seattle is located in king county and with almost 2 million residents were the 14th largest county by population in the united states. i have over 1000 employees in the sheriff's office and the budget exceeding $160 million. as a sheriff i'm there for the top law-enforcement official the largest jurisdiction of the country that has legalized marijuana. i've been a police officer for 37 years and i was elected as king county sheriff last year. during my career i've investigated everything from shoplifting to homicide.

i also spent almost 12 years as a narcotics detective. my expensive shows me the war on drugs has been a failure. we have not significantly reduced demand overtime, we have incarcerated generations of individuals, the highest incarceration rate in the world. so the citizens of the state of washington decided it was time to try something new into november 2012 they pass initiative 502 which legalize recreational amounts of marijuana and at the same time created very strict rules and laws. i was a strong supporter of initiative five of two last year and i remain a strong supporter today. they're also the reason of the sport, most of all i support 502-d because that's what the people want. they voted for legalize marijuana. we, government, have failed the people another want to try something else. too often the attitude of the police is, we're the cops and

you're not, don't tell us how to do our job. that's the wrong attitude and refuse to fall into that trap. lavas out of this hearing is a conflict between state and federal marijuana laws, idols a huge conflict. the reality is we do have confirmation goals and values. we all agree we don't want our children use marijuana. we all agree we don't want to continue enriching criminals. washington's law honors those values by separating consumers from tanks and to bring the proceeds from sale of marijuana toward furthering the goal of public safety. legalizing and raping the possession of sale of marijuana coming is a better alternative? i think it is but i'm willing to be proven wrong. the only way we will know is if we are allowed to try. doj's recent decision provides clarity on how we in washington continue to collaborate with the federal government to enforce our drug laws while at the same

time respecting the will of the voters. it's a great step but more needs to be done. i hate to beat a dead horse here, but for example, are still limited by not knowing the role of banking institutions as we go forward. under federal law it is illegal for credit card accounts, for marijuana businesses. the result is the marijuana stores will be operating as cash only, creating two big problems for me as a police officer. cash only business is a prime target for armed robberies, and casually businesses are very difficult to audit, leading to possible tax evasion, wage theft and diversion of the resources we need to protect public safety. i am simply asking the federal government to allow banks to work with legitimate marijuana businesses who are licensed under this new state law. in closing let me make one thing abundantly clear. what we have in washington state

is not the wild, wild west. as sheriff i'm committed to continued collaboration with the dea, fbi and doj for robust enforcement of our respective drug laws. for example, i of detectives right now that are assigned a federal task forces including a dea task force. it's been a great partnership for many years and a partnership will continue. furthermore the message to my deputies has been very clear. he will enforce our new marijuana laws. you will write somebody a ticket for smoking public. you will enforce age limits. mr. chairman, i say t to you and the members of this committee, i do appreciate that difference the federal government has shown

to my constituents and i look forward to continuing that cooperation. thank you. >> and i'm going to have each of the witnesses testify and then we'll go to questions. certainly testimony based on 35 years of expense is helpful. mr. fennell is the chief counsel for the governor of colorado. has a unique perspective on the challenges facing states and to with a conflict between state and federal marijuana laws. i believe prior to your current position, you chief of staff to the mayor of denver, is that correct? >> correct. >> please go ahead. >> thank you, chairman leahy,

ranking member grassley, members of the committee. i have been working for the past 10 months with a really large collection of colorado stakeholders, government officials, members of the marijuana industry to put together what we will affirm to you is a robust and strong enforcement regime. the voters of colorado approved what we called amendment 64 in 2012 by about 85% of the boat. even though the government, the attorney general, state leaders opposed the ballot initiative. but we determined that with that sort of clear statement from the people of colorado we needed to effectively and efficiently implement the law. we began through a stakeholder process to a task force followed by a very detailed enabling legislation by the colorado general assembly. and now just yesterday, the

colorado department of revenue issued 141 pages of regulations to regulate the industry. within days of passage of amendment 64, the governor, the attorney general got on the phone with general holder and begin this conversation about this conflict between federal and state law. and although we just recently as we talked about today, received official guidance, we do want to recognize that general holder and the justice department, our u.s. attorney were very forthcoming about expressing federal law enforcement's concerns about this new legalization effort, and it really allowed us to focus our efforts to develop a robust and regulatory and enforcement regime for marijuana in colorado. one of the things we did besides passing bills to regulate the industry, we enhanced tools for law enforcement by passing a new law that gives law enforcement

the ability to better address the issues of impaired driving. we now have a law that provides that if a driver's blood contains five nanograms or more of thc, there's a permission level influence that the driver was driving under the influence. we really appreciate the collaboration we've had in with federal officials. we know we have more to do. as has been discussed today, we have audits article of some of the things are done in the past to address. i will say that the main reason that we have had failure of relations of our medical marijuana initiative because we lacked the resources to hire staff and partner with law enforcement, but we are singing to the voters this fall and marijuana tax measure that will provide the revenue we need to hire staff, to also work on public health issues related to marijuana, and education and prevention efforts that we are

determined to focus on. the bottom line is we commend the department of justice for the guidance it issued in the new pool memo. we think pool memo. we think it was for us timely clarification because we were in the final weeks of doing for rules and so we got in time to make sure that our rules complied with the enforcement priorities outlined in the cole memo. we actually affirmed and embrace those eight priorities and we look forward to working with the federal government, our department of public safety, our local enforcement. we will work with federal law enforcement. with a great working relationship with the u.s. attorney. and i think that you'll discover that not only will colorado's regulators and law enforcement want to partner with federal law enforcement, but the industry will as well. one of the things i discovered in working on marijuana issues over the last 10 months is how entrepreneurial, and how much

integrity the folks in our state that have developed these new businesses have to. i mean, i would compare them to folks that you've all met as you've toured wineries in napa or gone to distilleries in your state, mr. chairman. i know they make some great rye whiskey in vermont. these are the same types of folks of established medical marijuana dispensary, grow operations in colorado and they will be partners with us in making sure that miners don't have access to marijuana, that the marijuana doesn't go to iowa or other states. i think that would look forward to a very successful regular regime. and i will echo this year's comments and other comments we've heard today about the banking issue. is both a law-enforcement issue and a regulatory issue, and also the tax issue. we look forward to working with our members of congress to address those issues.

>> thank you, mr. finlaw. and without objection i'll also put in the written testimony of washington governor jay inslee in washington attorney general bob ferguson. in the record. their views are also important and relevant. our next witness is kevin sabet, cofounder of assam and the drugs of the drug policy institute, university of florida, previously served in the office of national drug control policy in various capacities, written extensively about this topic. please go ahead. >> thank you, chairman leahy, ranking member grassley, and distinguished members of the committee. for providing me with the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss marijuana policy. as mentioned i studied research and written about drug policy for almost 18 years and currently am the director and

cofounder with former congressman patrick kennedy of project sam, smart approaches to marijuana. because we share the obama administration's drug control goals of reducing drug abuse and its consequences, i in dozens of prevention and treatment medical and scientific groups around the country found the recent guidance by the department of justice disturbing on both legal and policy ground. the guidance which expressly defers the departments rights to challenge and print laws legalizing marijuana contradicts the controlled substances act both on the policy and legal level, especially policy principles designed to protect public health and safety. colorado and and have now become and have now been given the green light to become the first jurisdictions in the world to allow for the creation of large for-profit marijuana entities. far surpassing any reforms in europe. i think i should mention the controlled substances act is an important tool for public health. in fact, by keeping marijuana illegal its use is 16 and a

third lower of a call and tobacco respectively in the trendy. i applaud the way the controlled substance act has been you so far by the federal government, not to go after low-level users with an addiction problem but instead to target drug traffickers and produces. this is not about putting marijuana smokers in jail. in fact, analyses have long debunked the myth that are prison cells are full of people whose only crime was smoking marijuana. indeed, as a sidenote if we were today to let that every single person in the united states for any drug offense, our impartial -- are encroaching ration it would be four times as i, not five times. still a problem regardless of drug offenses. we do not have to wait for legalization to happen. for several years many states like colorado have an operating within the de facto legalizatin policy under the guise of medicine. we can get it anyways been to colorado since 2009 can get a sense of full legalization.

mass advertising and promoting using i'm attracted to get whether they are ring pops, pop tarts, are all characteristic of current policy. the result has been an increasing dog -- drug-related referrals to high school students, more than one poising reaching children as young as five, and the fact that three quarters of kids in treatment in colorado today report that their marijuana in from a medical marijuana dispensary. this is often -- a recent paper conducted by rand researchers that found that two distinct features and marijuana policy increases use. those two features our own cultivation and legal dispensers. these are found in states that have legalized, some states that have legalized this type of medicine. it should matter because despite popular myth, scientist on the american medical association, the american academy of pediatrics, the american psychological association, and

we can go on and on, are universally stating that marijuana is harmful to young people to marijuana use especially the young monk people is an associated with reduction in iq, mental illness, or learning outcome's, lung damage and addiction. addiction. according to nih one out of every six kids have tried marijuana would become addicted and last year 400,000 emergency room admissions were applicable for marijuana. in colorado those traffic fatalities have fallen over the last six years. marijuana related fatalities on the roads have increased. we already have evidence showing that in some cases quote unquote medical marijuana is going to criminal enterprises to foreign drug trafficking groups but we know about the diversion whether states and addictions and also not as mentioned that two very damning state audits last month shows there has been no -- vertical integration of marijuana policy in states that

have allowed this for medical purposes. how on earth can we think that if a task so much more difficult of full legalization is going to be handled any better? right now we're at across as. the administration can prevent the large-scale commercialization of marijuana. you all know after spending decades of fighting big tobacco, we are now on the brink of creating big marijuana. the executive from microsoft is teaming up with the former president of mexico in their assertion they will meant more millionaires than microsoft. this is what people in public health care about. i would just conclude by saying, when we can prevent the negative consequences of commercial sale and production of marijuana now, why would they open the floodgates, hope for the best and try with our limited

resources later to patch everything up when things go wrong? thank you. >> let's go back to sheriff urquhart, because you heard what the doctor said, and others, and i'm interested in your 35 years in law enforcement, significant part of that as a narcotics detective. you obviously have commented, your shows department is larger than all of our law enforcement in vermont put together. so those who criticize your statements initiatives, is asked whether legalizing small amount of marijuana or illegal use by minors, cross-border trafficking, you've heard all of those concerns. how do you address that from a public safety point of view?

>> i think what we need to do is continue doing what we've been doing all a long which is really robust enforcement. this is not going to change a whole lot. the rules that are in place or about to be in place in the state of washington put a limit on the amount of marijuana that can be produced. with the idea that they will only match demand. they will not produce enough so it can be exported to other states. that's not to say illegal marijuana growers, like i'm sure is going on in colorado are not going to be exported. we can go after those, and we will go after those. we don't expect what's grown legally under the new system to be exported. as far as the driving, under this new law we now have a way to go after people that are driving under the influence of marijuana. in the past it was a very difficult t but very difficult o get a conviction. now we have a first rate standard of .5 nanograms per

milliliter of blood. we have a standard we can use, just like we use point i'll wait for driving under the influence of alcohol. we never had that before. sso one of things i'm doing is e training many of my deputies so when they go to the scene of a suspected drunk drivers under the influence of narcotics, whether there's any narcotic or marijuana, a contest that driver to see if they need to arrest that person and taken in for a blood test. its something brand-new. >> i'm not even sure we have that standard in my state of vermont. i recall the frustration of prosecutor when i was there because we did not have a standard. alcohol was easy. we had a very strict standard. and your commitment is to enforce the law in your state or other areas the federal government cannot be? >> absolutely. i think the clarifying letter

that came out on october, on august 29 help immensely. it removed the uncertainty that we had. it knows that they're going to allow the citizens of the state of washington what they want. what they want is legalize marijuana. that's a very big deal i think that it's going to take the criminal element as best we can out of the sale of marijuana. that really was brought home to me just two nights ago when us here in washington, d.c. my chief of staff in the front row and i went out to dinner. we also went to the old crew just two or three blocks from the white house. we were walking back to our hotel, about 9:00 at night, but it's dark. we saw two young gentlemen walk up to a man standing on the corner and says hey, can i get some we do around your they selected and come up to us, but speed i take it you are not in your uniform? >> i was not wearing this outfit, no. but they did go to the most sketchy guy on the block, most sketchy guy on the block to try to buy weed.

that is going to go wait in washington because they can go in a store, not a starbucks store, they can go into a freestanding store and buy their marijuana legally. so they know what you going to get. they know what the price is going to be. they don't have to go to the criminal element on the street corner at 9:00 at night and solicit somebody to sell their marijuana. our five '02 is going to eliminate all of that and that's a huge step forward. >> my time is almost up i want to ask mr. finlaw a so much a question because i understand governor hickenlooper did not support the constitutional an emmy at the legalize marijuana to colorado, but it's very clear from your testimony that you intend to follow the law and make sure it works. i understand the lack of financial services, inability to conduct business expenses from

federal taxes are cited as a hurdle for a successful, the successful regulation of marijuana business but am i correct in that? >> yes, chairman leahy, you are correct. thank you for raising that issue. you can understand that these businesses that are cash only that have dozens of employees, payroll to make, yet they are dealing with cash, not with credit cards, they are having to find loans from this reputable financial institutions. it's a great challenge. it's a criminal challenge as well as -- any business that has that much cash on hand, having to transport it, it's right for robbery. that's also a regulatory challenge because it will be so much easier to audit the books, make sure the taxes are being paid, make sure that the rules

that we put in place are being followed if the folks are doing business with the bank or a credit union or other financial institution. >> thank you. my time is up. further question i can submit for the record. senator grassley spent i have a flexible -- a couple questions for mr. finlaw and one for trent lott to start with you, mr. finlaw. there's been a sharp uptick in drug-related suspensions and expulsions in colorado schools in recent years, and then the state's second largest city, colorado springs, drug related referrals are high school students testing positive for marijuana has increased every year between 2007-2012. with legalization for recreation use, it challenges to protect youth will increase, and get understand that under certain circumstances the rules in colorado will allow for marijuana advertising on television or radio. the rules will permit marijuana

businesses to maintain websites that could be accessible by children, and rules will permit marijuana themed magazines to be sold in stores within the reach of children. my question is, if i'm right on those things i just cited, won't all these rules all effectively allow marijuana advertising to children? and then, why do you believe that colorado can successfully protect children from marijuana? >> senator grassley committee raise some really important issues that we have been grappling. even the constitutional amendment authorizing marijuana specifically says that advertising directed at children can be prohibited. the new rules also do the same. we tried to develop rules that are narrowly focused on making sure that whether its print or television, radio, web advertising, that he will not be targeted at young people.

cartoon characters and other advertising that would be particularly appealing to young people are prohibited. the final rule which was based upon testimony at our rulemaking hearing, that there has to be documentary evidence that the audience, that no more than 30% of the audience is young people. so that advertising will be restricted. the problem we've had, one of the rules that was adopted in may has already been avoided under first amendment grounds. so we have first amendment issues to grapple with as we try to restrict advertising. but the good news is that the voters of colorado will have an opportunity to approve any tax in november that will give us the resources to develop sort of best practices for education and prevention efforts. so what we intended it is

counter any ads with very, very strong and effective programming that will be public service programming that will be geared toward young people to let them know that, because we agree with you. we believe that for adolescents, marijuana is a danger and we intend to educate them. >> also, mr. finlaw, you heading into view with npr in february. quote, we have a very strict controls over who can have access to medical marijuana, end of quote. there was an audit by your state in june, concluded the colorado department of public health quote -- let me start over again. but an audit by your state in june concluded that the colorado department of public health quote does not sufficiently oversee physician to make

medical marijuana recommendations, end of quote. the audit noted that one physician had recommended marijuana for over 8400 patients. would you still stand by your statement that colorado has strict control over what can have, who can have access to marijuana? and did so, why would you stand by it? and why were these damaging audit parties, should the department of justice have confidence that colorado can influence robust regulation for recreational marijuana? >> thank you. as a matter of fact, in a conversation with the general holder a few weeks ago he raised the same question to us but to assess about those audits and he told us we needed to address the issues that were raised and we're committed to doing that. the particular audit you talked about is the regulation over doctors the issue prescriptions. what i meant when i was quoted in february, we've got really good medical marijuana rules and

regulations. what we haven't done a good job of is enforcing us because we've lacked the resources. with the new tax coming, with the advent of legalize marijuana, we will have the resources to hire staff, to enhance our oversight of doctors, of those other businesses that are involved in the marijuana world. >> my time is up. i'll submit one question to you and one to mr. sabet for answering in writing. thank you. >> sheriff urquhart, let me ask you, are you for me with the eight federal interest areas? >> yes. >> are you satisfied with the? >> yes. >> you think that they're theree and appropriate speak was absolutely. we will have no problem meeting those little bit some go many straight to the sheriff's

office. what i've seen, the state is in acting i think is going to work out whether i have no problem with those whatsoever and i think that -- i think the justice department for comfort with those when they did. >> given all your years in law enforcement and her years as a narcotics investigator, you've worked the government on federal investigations in the past increased capacities, greg? >> that's correct. and my detectives are doing that currently, yes. >> are their current activities? >> yes. >> in the same area that these eight federal interest as provided for, or do you see any areas of activities that your undertaking have that would stop? >> not at all. a week ago we assisted with serving several federal search warrant and a compass to $193,000, several guns, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana. and we do that all the time. that's not going to change. our cooperation with the federal

government is not going to change one iota because of the initiative 502. >> so, by limiting itself to those eight areas of federal interest, you don't see that reducing the federal law enforcement footprint in the state of washington in any significant respect? >> absolutely not. >> very good. from a public health safety point of view, mr. finlaw, how do you feel about the eight areas of federal interest? are they adequate from your perspective the? >> we also embrace those. task force would put together to implement our new law developed guiding principles and they were amazingly parallel with the justice department's guidance to less. and while this was a formalization of guidance, we really appreciate the fact that throughout this process the justice department, particularly to our u.s. attorney's office, has been very forthcoming about their general concerns about

this new law. it really allowed us to focus as we develop our legislative and regulatory response. >> you are the governor's legal counsel. >> yes. >> great job. i used to have that job. you have the responsibility of representing the governor in legal negotiations about the enforcement program, the regulatory program. say a word if you will about the comments that senator blumenthal and i concluded deputy attorney general coles testimony about the importance of the department providing metrics that are as clear as possible so that people know what the rules are that they will be engaging in.

>> let me affirm what both you and senator blumenthal said. we, and i believe that the industry itself in colorado, would really appreciate that sort of guidance. our department of public safety, our state control, our bureau of investigation colorado along with local enforcement will all appreciate the finish of guidance, and i think it will, when the day comes -- definitive guidance. if there is an operation that is appealing to young people for exporting marijuana grown in colorado, the other states, and enforcement action that shuts that down would be welcomed by yes. >> my time is nearly expired, but i assume that your policy disagreement with the choice to decriminalize or make medical marijuana available, sort of would drive your answer to all those question that you are opposed to the metrics, you're

opposed to the eight areas of interest. you think we should just continue along the previous baath? >> not necessary but i think the eight provisions are as agreeable as baseball and apple pie. the issue is how, which i think you bring up which is awful, how are we going to be monitoring and what are the metrics that the federal government is going to use to trigger enforcement? >> [inaudible] spend extra and important yesterday there were 400,000 jobs publicly passed out in colorado by the campaign that used be in favor of legalization, now it's against the tax. they just launched their campaign by handing out 4000 joins publicly. and marijuana festival in seattle, in -- doing the enforcement of the local level. i just haven't seen the evidence so far that were going to try and reign in these big industries that are going to

advertise on the internet, legally. idling a kid who watches tv anymore. it's all social me. these are the kinds of things that worry others and myself. so we will be monitoring this with a very watchful eye. >> we look forward to working with you on that and i want to extend to you my personal best wishes to congressman kennedy who is a colleague in my delegation for many years, and i respect very greatly. senator blumenthal. >> i would say the same, if you could pass along my best wishes. as i understand your intention, it is not so much against legalization but the evils and abuses that may be the result. and i wonder if you could say, i know you alluded to it in your testimony, whether, in fact, those evils or abuses have, in

fact, occurred in colorado and washington? and what would be your advice to connecticut's? >> i've seen them already occurring in the state and i don't, i understand state officials are in very difficult decisions are trying to these laws bypass of the majority of voters. what we've seen for example, in a state like colorado where less than 2% of people with cars -- cards that authorized them, have cancer, hiv or any other serious chronic illness, that we see them being handed out like candy, that we have seen the mass advertising already. that works. what we see with, public use of marijuana in places like washington comment in seattle, that worries me. so again i just don't see evidence of, although it's a difficult task of trying to estimate something robust and trying to enforce that, especially in the face of an industry that will be pushing back against every single kind

of provision like putting magazines that advertise marijuana just behind the counter. i know the governor tried to do that and dropped the lawsuit when it was challenge. things like in washington state, although packaging will be sterile, you can still have gummy, candy shaped attracted tickets, you know, marijuana products. you can still of marijuana products that are edible that are actually sometimes the thing that is sending more people to ers then joins -- joints. that can be a very dramatic expense for some people. i don't see any of that being regulated, and that's what i worry about the entrance of the position that we have put forth, again, i think we are positing that in the country with a first amendment, any country that has seen the alcohol and tobacco industry relentlessly targets

kids, and by the target addicks. these industries do not make money off of casual users. the marijuana industry does not make money off of the person he decides want to be tenured to light up a joint. the industry, tobacco and alcohol include to make money off of addiction. they make small amount of money off those -- american-style legalization is commercialization. is promotion. no matter the best interest that state officials and regulators and liquor control board's and others trying government. so that is the worry. it's not about increasing people for small amounts but it's not about saddling people with criminal records who get caught with a small amount. it's about -- >> i wonder if the two other witnesses reacting to the point that is just been made about the problems that have arisen under the colorado and washington law would respond?

>> i think that we do agree with the concerns that the doctor raised with respect to the dangers of products that are designed for young people. and so we have put into place some significant restrictions on packaging and labeling the gummy bear story. you're right. it's a problem. and our department of public health, our regulars who are looking out over the premises will be making sure that those type of packages, that type of promotion for young people doesn't happen in colorado. it's happened admitted in the past, what we're going to redouble our efforts to make sure that young people don't have encouragement and don't take the fact that it's now legal for adults as a sign that it's good for kids.

>> i think there's some urban myths that have been floating around out there. that seattle is going to turn into the starbucks of marijuana, for example. 50,000 people are all smoking it at a festival downtown. there will be coming bears in his of marijuana. that's just not going to happen instead washington. big business is not going to take over the legal marijuana business in the state of washington. there's no vertical integration a loud. the processes and the growers of marijuana cannot own retail stores. only three retail stores can be owned by one owner, for example. no advertising. security, surveillance systems, lots and lots of protections in place to make your marijuana is not sold, marketed to people under the age of 21, or use by people under 21, in any way, shape, or form. we realize what's going on. we are going to avoid that when

it comes to realize -- legalize marijuana for recreational purposes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. thank you to all of you for being here today. >> well, that brings this hearing to its conclusion. let me think deputy attorney general cole and our three witnesses on the second panel for their contradictions to our understanding and work on this issue. for those who wish to add anything to the record at this hearing, the record will be maintained open for one additional week, but other than that, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

.. >> i wanted to give the reader chance to understand the process by which i've made decisions. the environment in which i made decisions, the people listened to as i made decisions and this is not an attempt to be right history, it is not an attempt to