The unique nature of recreational marijuana policy makes for a compelling study in the policy adoption and implementation process. As a local control state, Colorado cities, municipalities, and counties may choose whether or not to adopt marijuana legalization policies in their jurisdictions and how to do so. This research is based on survey and panel data from Colorado local officials regarding issues of adoption and implementation in their jurisdictions. Overall, the initial findings show that the decision regarding adoption was a result of a combination of policy determinants (both cultural and economic) and policy diffusion (from prior policies on medical marijuana). Factors related to public opinion, economics, and prior policy on medical marijuana affected both the decision to permit and the decision to prohibit. Policy diffusion also appears important in early implementation, as cities use the existing medical marijuana policies to shape recreational marijuana policies.
BerryFrancisBerryW.. 1990. State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review84:395–425.
2.
BlakeDavidFinlawJack. 2014. Marijuana legalization in Colorado: Learned lessons. Harvard Law & Policy Review8:359–80.
3.
CamobrecoJ.BarnelloM. A.. 2008. Democratic responsiveness and policy shock: The case of state abortion policy. State Politics & Policy Quarterly8:48–65.
4.
CO Const. Amend. LXIV Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 812 (2013).
FischerClaude S.1995. The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentieth-year assessment. American Journal of Sociology101:543–77.
7.
GormleyWilliam T.Jr.1986. Regulatory issue networks in a federal system. Polity18:595–620.
8.
GrossbackLawrence J.Nicholson-CrottySeanPetersonDavid. 2004. Ideology and learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research32:521–45.
9.
LightA.1978. Intergovernmental sources of innovation in state administration. American Politics Quarterly6:147–66.
10.
MeierKenneth J.1994. The politics of sin: Drugs, alcohol, and public policy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
11.
MeierKenneth J.1999. Symposium: The politics of morality policy—drugs, sex, rock, and roll: A theory of morality politics. Policy Studies Journal27:681–95.
12.
MooneyC. Z.2001. The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy. In The public clash of private values, ed. MooneyChristopher Z., 3–20. New York: Chatham House.
13.
MooneyChristopher Z.LeeMei-Hsien. 1995. Legislative morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science39:599–627. doi:10.2307/2111646.
14.
MooneyChristopher Z.LeeMei-Hsien. 2000. The influence of values on consensus and contentious morality policy: US death penalty reform, 1956–82. Journal of Politics62:223–39.
15.
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. 1972. Marihuana: A signal of misunderstanding. New York: The New American Library.
RosdilDonald. 2011. Civic culture, sub-cultures, non-traditionalism and progressive policy: Using value change to explain new US development strategies in the 21st century. Urban Studies48:3467–86. doi:10.1177/0042098010396236.
21.
SharpElaine B.2002. Culture, institutions, and urban officials’ responses to morality issues. Political Research Quarterly55:861–83.
22.
SharpElaine B.2005. Morality politics in American cities. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
23.
ShipanCharles RVoldenCraig. 2008. The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science52(4):840–57.
24.
ShipanCharles R.VoldenCraig. 2012. Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review72:788–96. doi:10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.0210.x.
VoldenC.2006. States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children’s health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science50:294–312.
