The Case Against the HIDTA Report: A Critical Response to Oklahoma’s Misguided Cannabis Crackdown

At the request of Oklahoma lawmakers and concerned constituents, the TEXOMA High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) compiled a report intended to assess the current cannabis landscape in the state.

The 2025 Texoma HIDTA Oklahoma Marijuana Report presents itself as a comprehensive analysis of the state's cannabis landscape post-legalization. However, a closer review reveals that the document leans heavily on correlation-based fear tactics, lacks credible causative data and omits critical context necessary for meaningful policy discussions. As a law firm working closely with regulated cannabis operators across the state, we believe it's essential to offer a fact-based response to the more inflammatory claims presented in the report.

Claim #1: Youth Marijuana Use Has Increased Dramatically Since Legalization

The report states that Oklahoma youth now rank third in the nation for past-month marijuana use, up from 43rd in 2017/2018 and attributes this directly to the legalization of medical marijuana.

This assertion misrepresents both the data and its implications. Firstly, the report draws from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), which aggregates data across two-year periods. Increases in reported use may reflect a broader cultural shift toward transparency and reduced stigma rather than actual spikes in consumption. In other words, more youth may simply feel comfortable reporting occasional use.

Moreover, attributing increased youth use directly to legalization ignores the broader body of national research. In Colorado, the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (2021) found that the percentage of high school students who reported using marijuana in the past 30 days declined from 22% in 2011 to 13.3% in 2021, even after both medical and adult-use cannabis were legalized. Similarly, Washington’s Healthy Youth Survey (2021) reported that the percentage of 10th graders who used marijuana in the past 30 days declined from 19% in 2012 to 13% in 2021. Among 12th graders, use decreased from 27% in 2012 to 18% in 2021. These figures indicate a meaningful decline in youth cannabis use over nearly a decade of regulated access.

A peer-reviewed study published in JAMA in 2021 analyzed trends from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and concluded that recreational cannabis laws were not associated with significant increases in adolescent marijuana use. The HIDTA report omits these findings entirely.

Furthermore, the report fails to control for confounding variables such as socioeconomic stress, increased availability of other substances (such as nicotine vaping), and shifting adolescent behaviors during the pandemic. None of these factors are examined before assigning blame to cannabis policy.

Cherry-picking a jump in survey rankings without contextualizing how legalization has played out in other jurisdictions or why youth reporting may have changed over time is rhetorical misdirection.

Claim #2: Cannabis is the Most Frequently Detected Substance in Traffic Fatalities

The report highlights that cannabinoids were the most commonly detected drug in traffic death investigations in 2023.

This framing is misleading. Cannabinoids are a broad class of compounds that include both plant-derived and endogenous substances. Our bodies naturally produce endocannabinoids as part of the endocannabinoid system, which plays a critical role in regulating mood, appetite and immune function.

Additionally, not all cannabinoids are psychoactive. CBD for example, is non-intoxicating and widely used in medical and wellness contexts. Grouping all cannabinoids under the term 'drug' without clarification ignores this biological and pharmacological complexity. It also makes the claims completely moot.

Given that nearly 16% of Americans reported cannabis use in the past year (CDC, 2021), it's hardly surprising that cannabinoids would be frequently detected. Prevalence in toxicology reports is a reflection of how common cannabis use is, not evidence of causation or impairment. The report fails to differentiate between presence and influence, and in doing so, muddies the public understanding of cannabis-related risk.

In the case of cannabis, presence does not equate to impairment. THC, the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis, is fat-soluble and can remain detectable in the bloodstream for days or weeks after use. Unlike alcohol, for which blood concentration levels are directly tied to impairment, there is no scientifically established threshold correlating THC levels with functional impairment.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has repeatedly emphasized that the mere presence of THC in a driver’s system is not an indicator of impairment at the time of an accident. A robust analysis would require impairment-specific testing protocols and toxicology data with timestamps. All of this nuance is absent in the report.

Claim #3: Oklahoma Has an Oversupply of Cannabis, Fueling Illicit Markets

The report cites an "oversupply" figure of more than 32 times the amount needed to serve the state’s registered patient population, implying that the excess is fueling illicit trade.

This oversupply metric is based on a 2023 market assessment that didn’t take into account concentrates or weight used for their various manufacturing methods and made broad assumptions about patient consumption patterns while simultaneously acknowledging that it could not definitively confirm diversion. Furthermore, the legal market serves not only current patients but also potential future registrants and informal caregivers.

The solution to oversupply lies in improved market regulation or increasing access, not the criminalization of legal operators. Diversion is a concern in any regulated market, from alcohol to pharmaceuticals, and should be addressed through targeted enforcement, not blanket assumptions.

The sheer number of licenses in Oklahoma must also be viewed in proper structural context. Unlike states such as Colorado, which require vertical integration, meaning licensees must manage cultivation, processing and retail under the same umbrella, Oklahoma’s system allows for independent license types. This naturally leads to a higher raw license count without necessarily indicating excess capacity or market chaos.

It could even be argued that Oklahoma’s open-access model was intentional. Voters and policymakers alike favored a low-barrier industry designed to prevent monopolization and allow broad participation. If legislators now take issue with the free market outcomes they helped design, it raises the question: Do they truly support economic liberty and open markets, or only when they find the product and people behind it palatable?

Claim #4: Violent and Property Crimes Have Increased Since Legalization

The report states that violent crimes increased 103% and property crimes 47% between 2019 and 2023, suggesting a link to cannabis legalization.

This is a textbook example of conflating correlation with causation. Crime trends over the past five years have been shaped by numerous factors including the COVID-19 pandemic, economic instability, law enforcement staffing shortages and broader national shifts in crime reporting practices.

No peer-reviewed study has definitively tied increases in violent crime to cannabis legalization. In fact, several analyses, including one published in Justice Quarterly, found no significant relationship between marijuana legalization and violent crime rates. The HIDTA report fails to control for any confounding variables, weakening the reliability of its conclusion.

Additionally, an the Marijuana Policy Project has compiled an aggregate of government-published data, academic research and the experiences of many law enforcement officials indicate that marijuana policy reform does not increase crime rates. This comprehensive research shows no correlation between legalization and increased crime rates, and in some cases, that crime rates have declined in states with regulated cannabis markets.

With proper context, this section of the report inadvertently highlights the broader institutional failures of the state — from depressive economic policy with little supports to insufficient crime prevention infrastructure. Rather than acknowledging the impact of under-resourced enforcement, broken regulatory oversight and policy neglect, the report deflects blame toward the cannabis plant and licensed operators.

Claim #5: Pediatric Cannabis Exposures Have Skyrocketed

The report presents hospitalization data showing nonfatal cannabis poisonings among children ages 1–4 and 5–14 have increased sharply between 2020 and 2023, reaching 106 and 40 cases respectively in 2023. These figures are backed by hospital discharge records maintained by the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Additionally, the Oklahoma Poison Center reported 269 pediatric marijuana exposures in 2022 and 260 in 2023, with approximately 70% of the 2023 cases resulting in treatment at a healthcare facility.

Unlike earlier claims in the report, this section offers more substantive baseline data for evaluation. It is accurate to state that cannabis-related pediatric hospitalizations and poison center calls have increased and this is a legitimate public health concern. However, critical context remains missing from the report.

First, while the increases appear significant in percentage terms, they remain relatively modest in absolute numbers compared to other pediatric exposures. For instance, accidental poisonings involving common household items—cleaning products, medications, alcohol and batteries—far exceed cannabis-related exposures in both frequency and severity. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in 2022, there were an estimated 68,600 emergency department treated injuries related to unintentional pediatric poisonings in children under 5 years old with common household items. In contrast, a study published in Pediatrics reported a total of 7,043 cases of pediatric exposure to edible cannabis products in children under 6 years old over a five-year span from 2017 to 2021.

Second, the overwhelming majority of cannabis exposures occurred in residential settings (98.9%), which underscores the importance of safe storage rather than demonizing cannabis itself. The report fails to ask or answer a critical question: what proactive steps has the state taken to educate caregivers and prevent these incidents?

Despite the rapid expansion of Oklahoma's cannabis market, there is no mention of state-funded public awareness campaigns, targeted safe-storage outreach for patients with young children or widespread distribution of childproof storage materials. Likely because these efforts were never made by the state. Many other states with mature cannabis programs—such as Colorado, Oregon and California—have implemented effective public health initiatives that emphasize labeling, packaging, storage and education. These evidence-based strategies reduce pediatric exposure without resorting to punitive policies.

The HIDTA report misses an opportunity to call for such measures, opting instead to use these figures to reinforce fear-driven narratives. To move forward constructively, policymakers should prioritize education, invest in harm reduction and enforce clear packaging and storage standards—not use isolated incidents to indict the entire medical marijuana program.

Claim #6: Chinese Criminal Organizations Are Exploiting the Cannabis Industry

There is no denying that law enforcement agencies nationwide have investigated serious crimes including labor trafficking, fraud and in isolated cases violence involving individuals connected to cannabis operations—some of whom have been of Chinese descent. These cases are legitimate public safety concerns that merit coordinated, evidence-driven enforcement.

However, the majority of what the report refers to as 'fraud' often involves so-called 'straw ownership,' a phenomenon where the listed majority owner is not the actual primary operator or financier of the cannabis business. While this is a regulatory concern that must be addressed through more rigorous vetting and enforcement, it is by no means unique to any one demographic. In fact, the very existence of this workaround stems from the state’s residency requirement—a restriction that is not imposed in most other industries. In practical terms, a non-resident interested in entering the Oklahoma cannabis market is required to limit their ownership to 25%, often leading them to partner with an in-state resident who holds the remaining 75% on paper. This structure, while technically compliant, opens the door to what is labeled 'straw ownership.'

In many cases, the in-state partner does play an active and legitimate role in the business, given they assume liability. However, the report selectively paints this as criminal activity rather than a symptom of a restrictive regulatory framework that forces participants into convoluted arrangements. This nuance is entirely absent from the HIDTA analysis. In fact, based on our extensive licensing experience, it is likely that American-born-non-resident applicants from various states have engaged in such practices much more frequently than the Chinese crime syndicates the report chooses to spotlight.

Perhaps the framing wouldn’t feel as intentional if the report didn’t fail to mention this or the involvement of individuals from other international regions with similar footprints in Oklahoma’s cannabis licensing structure. In our experience submitting a broad range of license applications, it’s evident that individuals from a wide array of international backgrounds have sought lawful entry into Oklahoma’s cannabis industry. Yet notably, only one demographic group is repeatedly highlighted in this report. That selective framing invites questions about narrative intent and enforcement priorities and risks reinforcing harmful biases that have no place in a regulatory framework built on fairness and rule of law.

The tone and selective sourcing in this section of the HIDTA report risks overgeneralization and racial scapegoating. Organized crime is not confined to any one nationality. Criminal organizations from a wide range of backgrounds have historically targeted vulnerable or under-regulated industries, especially when enforcement is delayed or inconsistent.

This kind of language has very real consequences. Our law firm has received outreach from Asian Oklahomans, U.S. citizens, who are being repeatedly pulled over, searched and harassed by law enforcement based solely on their ethnicity and presumed cannabis involvement. They now ask us for documentation to carry in their vehicles to preempt racial profiling and unwarranted vehicle searches. One client had a cash bank deposit seized with the projection of the money being illegal drug proceeds, even though the client had no affiliation whatsoever with the cannabis industry. There were no drugs in their car and they were not charged with a crime.

We represent multiple Asian American families in the cannabis industry, many of whom were previously soybean farmers in Minnesota, a livelihood devastated by the U.S.-China trade war. When Oklahoma opened its medical marijuana market with no residency requirements, many turned to cannabis as a legal, regulated alternative to sustain their farming identity and their families. To now vilify these families with sweeping, racially coded allegations of foreign infiltration is not only inaccurate—it is discriminatory.

This rhetoric also echoes broader post-COVID racial scapegoating that has increased violence and bias against Asian communities nationwide. Conflating “foreign actors” with criminality not only undermines the legitimacy of licensed operators but risks creating a climate in which human rights violations go unchecked.

The proper response is not racialized suspicion — it is due process, targeted investigations based on evidence and coordinated inter-agency enforcement. We must protect public safety without abandoning civil rights or fueling bigotry.

Claim #7: Adult Cannabis Use Has Spiked Dramatically Since Legalization

The report states that cannabis use among college-age adults (18–25) and older adults (26+) has increased between 53% and 188% since Oklahoma legalized medical marijuana, referencing data from 2015–2018 vs. 2019–2022.

These statistics are also misleading without proper context. First, the increase in reported cannabis use among adults is not inherently problematic. Adults have the legal right to make decisions about their personal health and wellness and cannabis is a legal substance under Oklahoma law.

Second, increases in reported use likely stem from reduced stigma and legal risk, not necessarily from actual increases in consumption. When people are no longer criminalized for admitting cannabis use, self-reported data becomes more honest. This phenomenon is common across all health and behavior-related surveys: legal protection encourages disclosure.

The HIDTA report also fails to distinguish between recreational use, medical use and problematic use. Lumping all adult use into a single category obscures the nuances of why and how Oklahomans are choosing cannabis over potentially more harmful substances, such as opioids or alcohol.

Claim #8: Explosive Seizure Statistics Indicate a Worsening Threat

The report cites a 4,166% increase in pounds of marijuana seized through investigations, a 69,573% increase in seized plants, and a 717% increase in highway interdiction seizures since 2018. It further notes that in 2023, 65% of marijuana highway seizures with a known origin were traced back to Oklahoma, up from 15% in 2014.

Ironically, these numbers again may serve more as an indictment of the state’s own failure to implement timely and effective regulation, rather than evidence of widespread criminality among licensed operators. For three years following legalization, Oklahoma maintained an exceptionally low barrier to entry for licensure, with little to no tracking, inspection or oversight mechanisms in place.

The state invited an unregulated Boomer Sooner style rush into the market and is now reacting to the consequences of its own policy decisions. Rather than using seizure statistics as an alarm bell, they should be recognized as the predictable outcome of a legal market left structurally vulnerable by policy enforcement inaction.

Furthermore, without detailed case-level data distinguishing licensed operators from unlicensed entities, these seizures cannot reasonably be attributed to the regulated market. And once again, presence of product does not prove misconduct by the license holder unless due process verifies otherwise.

Claim #9: Marijuana-Related Crime Includes Human Trafficking and Underground Casinos

The report presents a series of anecdotes under the heading “Marijuana Related Crime,” including incidents involving human trafficking, ketamine seizures, sex work and illegal casinos. Several examples mention individuals who were coerced into labor or sex work and note that marijuana was present or tangentially involved in the environment.

While these cases are deeply troubling and merit serious law enforcement attention, the report conflates correlation with causation and incorrectly attributes these crimes as byproducts of cannabis legalization. In truth, the examples cited are not marijuana-related crimes in the regulatory or policy sense; they are human trafficking cases, which are felonies regardless of the presence of marijuana.

By framing these heinous acts as consequences of cannabis policy, the report misleads the reader and shifts focus away from the real issue: labor trafficking and sexual exploitation demand a coordinated, specialized criminal justice response. These cases expose vulnerabilities in immigration enforcement, housing insecurity and labor protections — not the inherent dangers of legal cannabis.

Additionally, if these crimes occurred within the scope of licensed facilities, that would indicate significant regulatory failure and poor interagency oversight — not proof that legalization itself increases harm. Rather than indicting cannabis legalization, these cases highlight the urgent need for more robust enforcement infrastructure, labor protections and coordination between state agencies.

Public safety resources should be used to prevent exploitation, support victims and prosecute traffickers—not to generalize about cannabis workers or licensees based on the presence of a plant in a criminal investigation.

Claim #10: Fires and Facility Safety Incidents Reflect Regulatory Failures

The report outlines a series of safety concerns and fire-related incidents at marijuana cultivation and manufacturing sites, including a 10,000-acre blaze, employee injuries and repeated fires at facilities under investigation. It also describes oxygen-deficient grow rooms and unsafe construction practices during enforcement operations.

These incidents are not to be taken lightly. Any workplace accident, particularly one resulting in injury or loss of life, demands scrutiny. However, rather than serving as evidence of inherent danger within the cannabis industry, these cases primarily highlight the consequences of Oklahoma’s initial failure to implement consistent, enforceable building and fire code standards.

In many counties, marijuana businesses were explicitly exempted from requiring local occupancy permits or safety inspections. The lack of statewide enforcement authority over certificates of occupancy or fire marshal clearance created a regulatory vacuum in which facilities could be built or repurposed without any meaningful oversight. OBNDD itself, whom collaborated on the report, had to have issued permits to the licensees they use as examples.

Blaming licensees for fires caused by homemade electrical retrofits or oxygen-deficient grow rooms is disingenuous when the state allowed them to operate—often by default—without documented safety compliance. This is not an indictment of legalization. It is an indictment of how Oklahoma’s licensing framework was initially implemented.

What is needed is not a rollback of cannabis access but an institutional commitment to fire code enforcement, coordinated permitting systems that assist licensees in retrofitting facilities and required pre-operational inspections. These are solvable infrastructure issues, not proof of legalization's failure.

The Texoma HIDTA report offers a veneer of objectivity while failing to deliver the methodological rigor, transparency and nuance required to inform public policy. Rather than advancing productive dialogue, it reinforces stigma in an attempt to cultivate public fear. If an agency actively uses its platform and resources to frame a legal, voter-approved medical cannabis program as a criminal threat—conflating licensed operators with traffickers and organized crime—how can it be trusted to regulate and license that same industry in good faith?

Oklahoma deserves better: Better data, better regulation and better policy. And above all, we must ensure that decisions are guided by facts and the rule of law, not by ideological bias or media headlines.