Colorado’s Marijuana Safety System Under Scrutiny Following Severe Liver Damage Linked to Popular Sleep Aid

Colorado’s pioneering recreational marijuana market, often lauded as a model for emerging cannabis industries, is facing intense scrutiny after a popular cannabis-infused sleep aid, 1906 Midnight Drops, was linked to severe liver damage in consumers, including one woman now requiring a transplant. A joint investigation by The Denver Gazette and ProPublica has exposed critical weaknesses and prolonged delays within the state’s regulatory framework, revealing a system that has repeatedly failed to protect consumers from hazardous products, allowing potentially dangerous items to remain on dispensary shelves for months, even years, after initial reports of harm. The case of Midnight Drops highlights a profound gap between the rapid expansion of the cannabis industry and the sluggish, often inadequate, mechanisms in place for consumer safety, prompting calls for urgent reform in a state that derives millions in tax revenue from marijuana sales.

The alarming saga began in March 2022 when public health officials in Colorado started receiving unsettling reports of liver injury among individuals who had consumed 1906 Midnight Drops, a product that had quickly ascended to become a top-selling sleep aid across the state. Despite these initial warnings, it took the state’s Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) a staggering 15 months—until June 2023—to issue a public alert regarding the severity of the danger. By this time, the manufacturer, Sima Sciences, had already halted production, but not before a growing number of consumers had experienced "acute liver injury." This significant delay in regulatory action has cast a harsh spotlight on the systemic vulnerabilities embedded within Colorado’s approach to overseeing its burgeoning cannabis market.

A Personal Tragedy Unfolds: Jenifer Chatting’s Ordeal

For Jenifer Chatting, a 53-year-old surgical assistant seeking a natural remedy for insomnia, the regulatory failures translated into a life-altering medical crisis. Unaware of any potential risks, Chatting began taking Midnight Drops nightly in March 2022, the same month state health authorities first started receiving complaints. The product, marketed by Sima Sciences as "the best sleep aid on the market," combined cannabis with various herbal extracts. Six months into her usage, in September 2022, Chatting started experiencing full-body cramps and developed lactose intolerance, symptoms she initially dismissed as minor and attributed to dehydration.

Unbeknownst to her, the MED had posted a vaguely titled "informational notification" on its website in July 2022, four months after the first state health complaint. Crucially, this was not designated as a "health and safety warning," which would have explicitly advised consumers to cease using the product. The notification stated that while "adverse health events" had been reported, regulators found no violations, and the manufacturer had "reformulated" the product, with "no additional issues" having surfaced. This understated and easily missed communication proved tragically insufficient. Chatting continued using the drops for another nine months until her local dispensary, without explicit warnings, simply stopped stocking them. By then, the damage was irreversible. Despite a medical history free of liver problems, Chatting was diagnosed with severe liver damage and has been informed by her doctor that she will ultimately require a liver transplant. Her husband, Luke, later described his horror upon discovering the belated and understated state warnings, recounting how he "started slamming his fists on the armrests of his desk chair," feeling that his wife had been "killed" by a product the state failed to regulate effectively. The couple has since filed a lawsuit against Sima Sciences, which has denied their claims, attributing any injuries to the plaintiff’s "comparative negligence."

A Pattern of Regulatory Inertia and Limited Authority

The protracted response in the Midnight Drops case is not an isolated incident but rather indicative of deeper, structural issues within Colorado’s regulatory landscape for marijuana. The Denver Gazette and ProPublica’s investigation found that the Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) has historically operated with limited authority to compel companies to recall hazardous products. Instead, the agency has relied primarily on posting advisories on its website and distributing news releases to local media outlets, channels often insufficient to reach a broad consumer base.

Analysis of 83 advisories issued by the MED over the past five years revealed a troubling pattern: for cases where complaint or investigation start dates could be identified, it took regulators an average of over seven months to issue a warning. This timeframe stands in stark contrast to federal agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which, despite its own criticisms for slowness, typically takes an average of two months to issue warnings and initiate recalls for contaminated food products. Kimberly Anzarut, a former Denver marijuana regulator and now an industry consultant, emphasized the critical nature of these delays: "When you take a really long time to get a bulletin out to tell people about these issues, a lot of time, people have already consumed the product." Thuy Vu, Denver’s former head of marijuana inspections and enforcement, echoed this sentiment, calling seven to eight months "ridiculous" given that reported safety problems are often just the tip of the iceberg.

MED spokesperson Heather Draper defended the agency’s process, stating that building a case for a health and safety advisory is complex, requiring "investigative resources to evaluate the scope of concerns, gather evidence… and receive test results." However, lab directors contend that contaminant test results can be returned within three days, or even one day in emergencies, suggesting that the investigative process itself is burdened by inefficiencies.

The Dangerous Ingredients and Corporate Responsibility

At the heart of the Midnight Drops controversy lies its formulation. The product was created by Sima Sciences, a company co-founded by Peter Barsoom, a former Wall Street financier who ventured into the recreational marijuana industry in 2014. Barsoom’s 1906 product line, named in homage to the year of the Pure Food and Drug Act, initially focused on high-end edibles. By 2019, he diversified into "drops" designed for various effects, including the sleep-inducing Midnight Drops. By 2023, Sima Sciences commanded 81% of the cannabis pill market in Colorado.

The original Midnight Drops were infused with corydalis, an herbal extract touted for its sedative qualities and pain relief, and marketed with claims of millennia-long traditional use. However, corydalis, a relative of the poppy, also contains a compound that researchers have linked to severe and potentially fatal liver injury. Following the initial reports of liver problems, Sima Sciences reformulated Midnight Drops and added a warning label advising consultation with a physician. Yet, regulators later concluded that the new herbal supplement, Stephania, contained a compound with the same chemical makeup as the liver-risk ingredient in corydalis.

Even after reformulation, the complaints persisted. In December 2022, a doctor reported to the MED an "uptick in patients with elevated liver enzymes" believed to be caused by Midnight Drops, noting he had seen four such cases in two months and knew of others. Dr. David Cristin, a gastroenterologist, expressed frustration that patients continued to use the product despite his concerns, recounting that he lodged a complaint through the company’s website but was never contacted. By May 2024, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had received 52 reports of harm involving Midnight Drops, with at least 20 requiring medical care. Alarmingly, 25 of these reports occurred before the MED issued its second, more explicit warning in June 2023.

Despite Sima Sciences announcing it would cease production following the second warning, an investigation by the Colorado Attorney General’s office later revealed that Barsoom and his companies continued to market Midnight Drops for several more months and failed to adequately warn dispensaries to stop sales. In September 2025, Barsoom and Sima Sciences reached a settlement with the Attorney General’s office, agreeing to pay $400,000 in fines and being barred from selling cannabis products in Colorado until at least 2027. Barsoom issued an apology, stating, "We are sorry that we didn’t act faster and communicate better with both our customers and regulators." For victims like Jenifer Chatting, however, this apology rings hollow in the face of irreversible damage.

Systemic Loopholes Undermining Consumer Safety

The Midnight Drops debacle has laid bare several critical loopholes and deficiencies in Colorado’s marijuana safety regulations, many of which are addressed in other legalized cannabis markets:

1. "Honor Code" Testing: Unlike many other states, Colorado allows manufacturers to choose their own samples and the labs that conduct mandatory contaminant tests. This system, criticized for its lack of independence, creates potential conflicts of interest and reduces the reliability of testing. Regulators had considered requiring independent sample collection, aligning Colorado with 26 of 42 state marijuana markets, but backed away after industry opposition citing increased costs.
2. Reduced Testing Frequency: Colorado permits manufacturers to test their products less frequently if they demonstrate "consistent compliance," a benchmark that can be met in just a few weeks. This policy, shared by only one other state, was acknowledged by Colorado regulators in a 2023 industry forum as "potentially pos[ing] risks to public health and safety."
3. Reactive vs. Proactive Monitoring: Historically, Colorado has relied on consumer complaints to identify tainted products already in the marketplace, rather than implementing proactive random sampling. While the Cannabis Regulators Association recommends random sampling (and states like Oklahoma have such programs), Colorado only recently launched a pilot program this year, which has faced delays and lacks long-term funding.
4. Voluntary Recalls and Retesting Loopholes: When contaminants are detected, Colorado primarily expects manufacturers to voluntarily recall products. Regulators can only force recalls in a public health emergency, which can be difficult to quickly establish. Furthermore, manufacturers are allowed to retest marijuana that fails initial contaminant tests, and crucially, the rules do not specify a timeframe for these retests, nor do they explicitly require manufacturers to halt sales during the retesting period. This contrasts sharply with states like Missouri, which immediately places a hold on all failed products. Colorado regulators themselves noted in a January bulletin "increased instances" of manufacturers exploiting this retesting rule to mask the use of banned pesticides.
5. Agency Structure: The Marijuana Enforcement Division is situated within the state’s Department of Revenue, rather than the Department of Public Health. Tess Eidem, a research professor at the University of Colorado studying the MED’s safety bulletin process, expressed concern that this organizational structure might lead the state to prioritize the financial viability of the marijuana market over consumer safety. MED spokesperson Draper, however, asserts that "consumer safety has been and remains a top priority for the Division."

The Path Forward: Calls for Robust Reform

The tragic case of Jenifer Chatting and the systemic failures it exposed underscore an urgent need for comprehensive reform in Colorado’s cannabis regulatory system. As a pioneering state in recreational marijuana, Colorado’s experiences serve as crucial lessons for other jurisdictions navigating the complexities of this emerging industry.

Proposed changes, such as moving towards independent sample collection for testing and establishing a fully funded, permanent random sampling program for products on dispensary shelves, are vital steps. Furthermore, empowering the MED with stronger, unambiguous authority to issue immediate mandatory recalls and halting sales of products undergoing retesting are essential to prevent further consumer harm. The current average of seven months to issue warnings, a timeline far exceeding even federal food safety standards, is simply unacceptable for products consumed daily.

As Jenifer Chatting faces a future defined by liver disease and the prospect of a transplant, her husband Luke’s question resonates: "How are people supposed to know this? The only way I found this stuff was by digging and digging and digging on the internet." The onus is on Colorado’s regulators to ensure that critical health and safety information is not buried on obscure corners of the internet but actively and promptly communicated to the public, safeguarding the health of consumers in a rapidly evolving market. The promise of a regulated cannabis market must be matched by a regulatory system that truly prioritizes public health over industry profits.