Printable View
If I were a dispensary owner I would want cameras in my establishment for the simple reason that it deters theft (by patient and employee) and helps prevent robberies.
If you have a MMC that doesn't have basic security measures, you are certainly more susceptible to robberies. As an owner, you should provide a safe establishment to protect both the patients and your employees.
Agreed...But these new cameras will be accessible by the DOR and whoever else they are giving them to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dietblonde
A closed circuit camera system that records over itself is a whole lot different than one shared via an ip address to whoever has or can get the code.
Nice to see you back posting btw.
Even the feds are not stupid enough to take the press generated by hassling patients. I'm pretty sure they won't be bothering with simple possession cases. Dispensary owners will be the ones going down the river for felony sales and felony possession if the DEA kicks in. The volumes of sales recorded would put them away for a long long time. You think you are afraid as a patient? Try recording numerous federal charges every single day, then keeping a minimum of 40 days worth of tapes on file.Quote:
Originally Posted by canaguy27
I don't think that the dispensaries are in a position to do so. Sure we can [and do] voice our opinions regarding these issues from both a business standpoint and that of privacy. However we are not many voices. Patients have many 1,000 times more voices than the dispensaries do. Use them and speak up. We have nothing to gain from excessive regulation. Why do you continue to believe that we support this retarded crap that the political front belches up ?Quote:
Originally Posted by canaguy27
Are you attending the activist boot camps available throughout the state this weekend? I'm too busy is the wrong answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canaguy27
Oh, thanks! I've been a lurker for the past few months. I love these boards! So many interesting opinions and passionate people.
I get that people may be concerned about information getting leaked to their insurance company or employer, but I can't help but laugh at people who think the "DEA dog" will come after them for their MMJ purchases. I'm sorry if that comes off as insensitive, I just don't understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by canaguy27
The failure of MMCs to protect patients? What about the failure of caregivers to protect patients? Or the failure of patients to protect themselves?
They hear from us all day, every day.
Patients and caregivers?
Not so much.
This is just riddled with inaccuracies. Visit the DoR website, they have a lot of answers for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by canaguy27
Does CMMR of MMIG mean anything to you. I know you are from the South, but those groups constructed 1284, 109, and 1043, etc. So you do have a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCoMMJ
I publish the only patient focused magazine in the state. We offer a FREE OUTLET to PATIENTS AND BUSINESSES to share their story. Oh and I do attend quite a few meetings, and I also visit 50+ dispensaries a month. Plus the magazine is delivered to the state capitol and put in all of the state reps and senator's boxes.
This is just an excerpt from the link you posted. Look around page 50 + and - a few pagesQuote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
Here is a blip of the ip camera stuff:Quote:
c. A single fixed camera shall be placed above each point of sale location, allowing for the clear and certain identification of the transacting individual and related identification. A single fixed camera shall be placed above each point of sale location, allowing for the recording and recognition of any transacting individual??s identification and any medical marijuana removed from the premises. This will be accomplished by temporarily placing the authorized identification, and registry card in a 12? x 12? area on the counter top, where they will be captured from the above mounted camera. In addition, all medical marijuana shall be placed on an Department of Agriculture approved and calibrated weight scale so that the amount removed from the licensed premises may by captured from the above mounted camera.
Furthermore, caregivers were protecting patients just fine before the MMCs started this mess.Quote:
Static IP address and port or a web based application with a user name and password control is required to allow for remote connection to the DVR/NVR(s).
The MMED must have full control capability over camera operation over all other remote access service equipment located outside of the surveillance room.
Now thats exactly what I am talking about!:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by canaguy27
it's interesting that MMCs who stood behind regulation are annoyed at the patients for having problems with privacy concerns.
You HAD to figure this would effect sales! THAT, and you have caregivers and patients STILL growing and MMCs doing 70/30. Welcome to the mutha fucken glut!
just wait till the patient collectives start forming. the MMC model will fail with all the regs and fees, except for good old Josh and his kind.
I doubt patient privacy concerns annoy MMCs. They stand to save money if the rule is discarded. I'm putting words in their mouths, but I imagine they prefer this rule (and most others) to simply disappear.