Violating Patient Rights

[Continued from the derailed "Poll" thread]

Discussion regarding the notion that patient rights are being violated by the DOR cameras and possible database system.
=================================

After driving to Denver to attend the MMBA meeting tonight, there is continued information that the DOR is not interested in violating patient rights. "They don't even want to see patient information" was clearly stated more than once.

The statement made by Dan Hartman[Head of MED] regarding cameras was that the only DOR monitored camera would be the one overseeing the security room. No camera recordings of card and patient transactional data, and no remotely accessed dispensary sales area feeds.

However, there were rules regarding cameras in production areas, grow areas, and all restricted access areas. The cameras are primarily to monitor grows and processing. They want to make sure pounds are not sneaking out the back door.

I guess we'll have to wait until at least mid March when the DOR proposed rules are signed off on by the state to see what the real story is.

Much of the information that is stirring up patients lately comes from CTI. They tend to blow everything out of proportion for whatever reason.

Of all the dispensary speakers tonight, I can't recall a single one endorsing the violation of patient rights, or even desiring camera monitoring.

So, we are at the point now of, show me some factual information on how the patient rights are being violated. I'll be the devil's advocate since all dispensaries are the devil anyways. ;) Include links and quotes please...

Again, I'm not endorsing anybody's rights being violated. MMC's technically have no rights once they submitted their application and $10k fee, so that's not a worry. But if patient rights are being violated, let's get it on the table.

As a side note, the DOR did note the recent lack of commenting by patients at hearings and through email. If you don't tell them, the won't listen. If you do tell them, they might.

The problem is what are the rules? is anyone out there really clear on these? When they had two days of public comment and we didn't have enough folks show to even keep comments going until noon, that really hurt. Of course we dont have the local media whipping up reefer madness stories on a weekly basis anymore. So many patients, caregivers and even center owners seem to think things are just fine. Colorado you were a leader in the movement for sensible drug laws, now you have gone back to your reefer madness thinking, (Banning all edibles, blood testing drivers, etc). In Nederland we were up 52% during the worst recession since the great depression with very little and some say no adverse changes to the character of the town. But the DOR and Legislature are still drunk on the fees they extorted from centers and have not noticed they have killed the sales tax money they had coming in. AS I told the town of Nederland the party is over! you might as well start firing the extra police and town workers you hired because the funds that were badly needed we got from MMJ and the people it brought to town that helped all business up here. The State has put a end to it, how you ask. they expect centers in a town of 1400 people to pay the same overhead as a center in Denver. That is what is messed up about most things in the State the legislature treats the whole State as if it were Denver.:mad:

SOCOMMJ, wtf? Do you think that we patients cannot read? I do not rely on CTI for my information, they do put out some good info at times though. I read the proposed law and I clearly see a violation of my privacy in it. Period. They want cameras to monitor everything and that as I said before is clearly unnaceptable from my stand point. The statement by the head of MED is just that ..a statement. Have them remove the language from the proposal and then it may mean something. As previously stated, I don't feel that you SOCOMMJ are behind this violation of patient privacy, I hope I am right. But it is very obvious that there are big money players behind this regulation and again I say, they don't want players like you and the mom and pops that WERE doing a great job to succeed. They want it all my friend, and I know the $10k fees you paid are steep, but that was your risk when you decided to throw your hat in the ring. I hope you win, but I will say again and I believe it to be the truth man, If the privacy issue is not addressed and patients are not protected from their transactions being recorded like an undercover drug sting, then I feel you and so many others that are trying to do the right thing and move MMJ forward are going to be dissappointed. It's not about the centers man, it is about PATIENT PRIVACY! I hope you keep fighting for ALL OF US!!

Mark,

You know this thread is ostensibly about patients rights? If you want to complain about high state license fees, falling revenue, there are appropriate places to do so. Like a bunch of other commercial growers, you seem to consider anything that hurts your profits a violation of "patients rights."

Here's what I would consider a violation of my rights. You'll note that the profitability of your business has nothing to do with any of them:

-discrimination based on age, race, religion or national origin
-dissemination of private medical or financial data without permission (HPAA)
-endangerment of my life or health by unsafe or contaminated services and products
-dishonest or misleading advertising or labeling
-lack of redress for contaminated or unsatisfactory product

More or less, I think patients should enjoy the same protections at dispensaries as they do at other similar businesses.

So, we are at the point now of, show me some factual information on how the patient rights are being violated. I'll be the devil's advocate since all dispensaries are the devil anyways. Include links and quotes please...

This is directly from the proposed DOR MMED regulations from their website this morning, and these are my concerns contained in the proposed rules that diminish my rights as a patient;

j. A date/time must be embedded on all recordings of customer areas. The date and time must be synchronized and set correctly and must not significantly obscure the picture.
5. PLACEMENT OF CAMERAS/REQUIRED COVERAGE.
b. All limited access areas, point of sale areas, security rooms/areas and all points of ingress/egress to limited access areas and all points of ingress/egress to the exterior of the licensed premises must have fixed camera coverage capable of identifying any activity occurring within a minimum of twenty (20) feet of all entry and exit points. 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 individualâ??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 12â?� x 12â?� 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. As an alternative, a licensed center may, through their point of sale system, simultaneously capture fixed images of the transaction and the individual making the purchase. For all transactions, time, date, amount and weight of purchase, and identifying registry number shall be captured with the transaction and overlaid on the point of sale transaction or text overlay on the video transaction.
d. All entrances and exits to the facility shall be recorded from both indoor and outdoor vantage points, and capable of clearly identifying the individual entering or exiting the facility.
e. The system shall be capable of clearly identifying any activities occurring within the facility or within the grow rooms in low light conditions.
6. OTHER STANDARDS.
a. All camera views of customer areas must be continuously recorded 24 hours a day. The use of motion detection is authorized with a minimum of ten (10) second pre and post- event recording.
b. Complete index and guide to the center cameras, technical documentation, monitors and controls must be available in the surveillance room. This guide must include a map of the camera locations, direction of coverage, camera numbers and operating instructions for the surveillance equipment.
c. A chronological point of sale transaction log must be made available to be used in conjunction with recorded video of those transactions.
d. All surveillance recordings must be kept for a minimum of 20 days on your recording device (DVD, NVR) AND an additional consecutive 20 days must be kept on a cd or external hard-drive.
h. Surveillance recordings and clear still photos must be made available to the MMED and law enforcement personnel upon request.
7. DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDING AND MANAGEMENT.
e. The video recording shall allow for the exporting of still images in an industry standard image format (.jpg, bmp, gif, etc.)
f. Recordings must have the ability to be archived to DVD-R, CD-R, Blue Ray or USB Drive as required by the MMED.
g. Exported video must have the ability to be archived in a proprietary format that ensures authentication of the video and guarantees that no alteration of the recorded image has taken place.
i. Exported video must also have the ability to be saved in an industry standard file format that can be played on a standard PC using either Apple QuickTime or Windows Media Player.


10. REMOTE VIDEO MONITORING AND RETRIEVAL.
a. The DVR or NVR system shall be capable of providing remote viewing via the internet of both live and recorded video.
b. DVR or NVR systems shall be approved by the MMED.
c. DVR or NVR must allow for remote connection and control over all cameras.
MMED Proposed Rules 01/27/11 55
d. Internet Connectivity must allow for at least 384k upstream.
e. 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).
11. POINT OF SALE INTERGRATION/OVERLAY.
a. Systems not utilizing Point of Sale (POS) photo capture shall be capable of overlaying the video with data from on premise point of sale systems.
b. The overlay data shall allow for manual verification of the transaction with the associated video.
.
The MMED must have full control capability over camera operation over all other remote access service equipment located outside of the surveillance room. MMED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCoMMJ

As a side note, the DOR did note the recent lack of commenting by patients at hearings and through email. If you don't tell them, the won't listen. If you do tell them, they might.

---

You don't seem to get it. Patients are fed up with what is happening and are going back to caregivers and the protection of am20. They are running from MMCs in droves.

yup, and now mmc-s have built out all this overhead, and ramped up production, and have a ton of stock. its the black market that is ramping up, not the caregivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Mark,

You know this thread is ostensibly about patients rights? If you want to complain about high state license fees, falling revenue, there are appropriate places to do so. Like a bunch of other commercial growers, you seem to consider anything that hurts your profits a violation of "patients rights."

Here's what I would consider a violation of my rights. You'll note that the profitability of your business has nothing to do with any of them:

-discrimination based on age, race, religion or national origin
-dissemination of private medical or financial data without permission (HPAA)
-endangerment of my life or health by unsafe or contaminated services and products
-dishonest or misleading advertising or labeling
-lack of redress for contaminated or unsatisfactory product

More or less, I think patients should enjoy the same protections at dispensaries as they do at other similar businesses.

---

You address me by name Mark and thats cool because I dont want to hide, although I have no clue who you are but the fact that you seem to throw in a jab at me whenever you can. I have been about patient rights long before I had a dispensary long before I was forced out by the government and still stood up for them as a private citizen and patient at the judiciary committee last Thursday, did you testify pop? I would really like to hear your concerns in person with you taking the time to address the committees in person, instead of from behind I keyboard. Also in my post I did not say a thing about fees that was the other guy, but never miss a chance to go after me, right!
I think it is well documented that I have been for the patients and caregivers from the beginning, name one other dispensary owner that paid out over a million dollars to it's local towns folks for growing bud (if you want testing results we have them, from your buds at full spectrum) come up and look, along with the hundreds of thousands in sales tax revenue we collected for the State and town.
Not to mention I have a stake in this as a Patient who has metal and 8 screws in his neck from a broken neck and 3 herniated disks from degenerative disc disease. So dont judge a persons pain based on appearance. I it all ties in my friend they screw the centers and took their rights, now they are screwing over those who are caregivers, you don't think their coming after the patients rights next?

Boy that certainly a laundry list of concerns you have 4, all based on what you want. In 10,000 years no one has gotten sick from Cannabis except when Nixon was spraying poison on it in the early 70's knowing it was going to be consumed in the US, and that was our President poisoning his own people. I would worry more about the your buddies in the Government then pot growers.:jointsmile:

Those are clearly rights violating rules. I bet you can get oxycontin (sp?) at a drug store with far less scrutiny. Reefer Madness in the extreme.

The only reason go to the clubs any more is for clones. I get em, I split em then grow em. No other use for the clubs. I spend most of my money investing in bags of soil and gas (4 1/2 hours each way) to produce my own stash. I make my own medibles and bubble hash.

SoCo did you stand up in the meeting and say why are the restrictions for pot so much worse than for prescription drugs? Why are medical marijuana patients discriminated against by the state and police agencies? Why aren't police agencies protecting peoples stash and grows like the private possessions of any of the other citizens of the state?

If not maybe next time you could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Mark,

You know this thread is ostensibly about patients rights? If you want to complain about high state license fees, falling revenue, there are appropriate places to do so. Like a bunch of other commercial growers, you seem to consider anything that hurts your profits a violation of "patients rights."

Here's what I would consider a violation of my rights. You'll note that the profitability of your business has nothing to do with any of them:

-discrimination based on age, race, religion or national origin
-dissemination of private medical or financial data without permission (HPAA)
-endangerment of my life or health by unsafe or contaminated services and products
-dishonest or misleading advertising or labeling
-lack of redress for contaminated or unsatisfactory product

More or less, I think patients should enjoy the same protections at dispensaries as they do at other similar businesses.

---

one more thing High on Pop
this has hurt patients I have patients every week that email me asking for specific strains that seemed to be the only ones that worked for their condition, When we had all the top experienced growers in town allowed to help us we were able to offer those strains that some took 3 weeks longer to flower then most strains. And they would drive from all over one man in Durango comes to mine. we are unable to do it for him because of the 70/30 thing and no other dispensary in the State grows that strain for an affordable price. the best thing I could do for him was give him a mom and I did and wished him luck since he didn't have a green thumb but I am hoping a friend of his there can help. So don't tell me I dont care about patients, or this thread is somehow reserved for you. If you had ever came up to the Center (before I was thrown to the wolves) you would know that. have a Grate Day!@?

I'll continue over from the other thread, mainly @Zed and Cana.

canaguy and colodonmed have both done their homework and read through the DoR draft rules, but both seemed to have missed what is on their front page:

Quote:

---

Colorado legislation passed in 2010 assigned regulatory authority of Medical Marijuana Centers, Infused Product Manufacturers and Optional Premises Cultivations (Grows) to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The legislation created the need for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment â?? which maintains the Medical Marijuana Registry â?? to share limited, non-personally identifying information with the Department of Revenue so that DOR can verify the numbers of patients for which a marijuana center is serving as the marijuana provider. Names of patients on the registry would not be shared.

A confidential, secure data base system could provide the most economical and efficient method for the two agencies to share needed information. No such system of sharing of Medical Marijuana Registry information between the agencies has yet been created. And, more importantly, any system to be created shall maintain all current patient confidentiality safeguards, which meet the requirements of the constitutional amendment.

It also is intended that any new data base system would provide law enforcement with access 24 hours a day/7 days a week, as required by the legislation, to verify whether or not an individual has an active marijuana registry card. This capability also would meet the legal requirements of the constitution and of the new laws. Law enforcement only would be able to access the system with information provided to them directly by the patient in order to defend their possession of Medical Marijuana, and access to the database will be conducted in accordance with state statute

---

All of that is consistent with what I'm hearing from the DoR. SoCo's account of the MMBA meeting last night seems to support this, as well.

Quote:

---

You know why that is? Because caregivers don't want their door busted in at 5 oclock in the morning and their house destroyed by some drug swat team because they happened to be the voice of caregivers in general. Caregivers are an easy target by cops and criminals as we have witnessed many times.

---

How many caregivers have spoken at a city council meetings or testified in front of the legislature and had this happen? I know tons of caregivers who are still growing happily after writing a letter to their councilperson. At least you still have your power of attorney. MMC's have sacrificed everything.

I still think there are more caregivers hiding because they have something to hide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy2010

Those are clearly rights violating rules. I bet you can get oxycontin (sp?) at a drug store with far less scrutiny. Reefer Madness in the extreme.

The only reason go to the clubs any more is for clones. I get em, I split em then grow em. No other use for the clubs. I spend most of my money investing in bags of soil and gas (4 1/2 hours each way) to produce my own stash. I make my own medibles and bubble hash.

SoCo did you stand up in the meeting and say why are the restrictions for pot so much worse than for prescription drugs? Why are medical marijuana patients discriminated against by the state and police agencies? Why aren't police agencies protecting peoples stash and grows like the private possessions of any of the other citizens of the state?

If not maybe next time you could.

---

What would that solve? The DoR isn't responsible for any of those things.

Quote:

---

â?? to share limited, non-personally identifying information with the Department of Revenue so that DOR can verify the numbers of patients for which a marijuana center is serving as the marijuana provider. Names of patients on the registry would not be shared.

---

This is OK with me. I don't mind being taped, but I don't want my name and my purchase history associated with that taped image. I haven't bothered to read the rules, (which seem to be changing fast) but is audio required or only video? Even if no names were associated with the recorded conversations, it's undignified to record patient complaints about their bowels or how chemo has them throwing up all day long. The simple knowledge that they are being recorded will make some patients more reticent in describing their ailments. Simply make the DoR oversight patient-anonymous and I'd be fine with just about any level of regulatory supervision, from a yearly visit by an inspector, to 24/7 electronic surveillance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

This is OK with me. I don't mind being taped, but I don't want my name and my purchase history associated with that taped image. I haven't bothered to read the rules, (which seem to be changing fast) but is audio required or only video? Even if no names were associated with the recorded conversations, it's undignified to record patient complaints about their bowels or how chemo has them throwing up all day long. The simple knowledge that they are being recorded will make some patients more reticent in describing their ailments. Simply make the DoR oversight patient-anonymous and I'd be fine with just about any level of regulatory supervision, from a yearly visit by an inspector, to 24/7 electronic surveillance.

---

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 individualâ??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 12â?� x 12â?� area on the counter top, where they will be captured from the above mounted camera.

Unless you got a super stealth card with no name, or any other info on it, you will be recorded and identified. And it will be kept for a minimum of I believe 20 days. No offense man, but maybe you should read a little more on the proposal because this is not good for you or I or any of the 100,000 plus registered patients

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canaguy27

You don't seem to get it. Patients are fed up with what is happening and are going back to caregivers and the protection of am20. They are running from MMCs in droves.

---

So long as they aren't requiring that patients lay out their card when the transaction is made, not much is going to change for patients that come to us.

Many patients have come to love and appreciate the retail atmosphere to purchase their medicine, and I don't see droves of them leaving. They already know we have cameras.

We have cameras in our retail location and have had them since we moved in. It's a reasonable protection for employee theft, liability, and they keep us safe by allowing us to aware of what is going on.

That the DOR which regulates us may have interest in the recordings to do their job does not trouble me.

Legalization is about getting everything above the table so that the public at large may see that nothing nefarious or shady is going on when a patient purchases marijuana and that it can be as common an act as going to the pharmacy, where people are also taped on security cameras.

And everyone please remember that this has not been decided yet and let your patients know as well.

I am from CA so not that familiar with CO buzz words. I just wanted to point out the rights that I think are being stepped on.

Clearly that document describes an over bearing emphasis on intimidating people who are legally acquiring their medicine. It seems that the DOR MMED regulations from their website propose some pretty draconian rules.

I hope the CO MMBA can find a way to protest or have modifications made in the final DOR document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colodonmed

No offense man, but maybe you should read a little more on the proposal because this is not good for you or I or any of the 100,000 plus registered patients

---

I may well be wrong, but I thought that rule has been precluded by the announcement Releaf just posted. The fact the DoR is holding meetings with patients indicates that perhaps the draft rules are under ongoing review, which is what one does with drafts, after all. I have no idea what we're even arguing about since we both agree that recording patient transactions and conversations is a bad idea. Peace out.

:hippy:

P.S. I haven't read the draft rules and never will. I like reading legislation because I have a personal and professional interest in civics, but the day I find myself reading draft regulations it might be time to consider suicide. I will rely entirely on you knuckleheads!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter

I'll continue over from the other thread, mainly @Zed and Cana.

canaguy and colodonmed have both done their homework and read through the DoR draft rules, but both seemed to have missed what is on their front page:


All of that is consistent with what I'm hearing from the DoR. SoCo's account of the MMBA meeting last night seems to support this, as well.



How many caregivers have spoken at a city council meetings or testified in front of the legislature and had this happen? I know tons of caregivers who are still growing happily after writing a letter to their councilperson. At least you still have your power of attorney. MMC's have sacrificed everything.

I still think there are more caregivers hiding because they have something to hide.

---

Releaf center, I also say about your center..I have not heard anything negative about your place, I truly wish you success as I do believe there is a real need for patients to safely access their medicine, and if the releaf center provides that than I say hooray!! To address your post; I do not have a problem at all with the DOR being able to verify patient / plant / product counts. I applaud the fact that law enforcement will be able to verify 24 hours a day if a patient is active in the registry...using the information provided by the patient. That is a good thing for everyone. I again need to express my opinion on the cameras being used to record the identity and purchase history of patients. WHY? Hell if they are monitoring you guys from the time you plant a seed till the time the medicine leaves your place of business in the hands of a private patient, they are monitoring your books and will be able to see everything you do in real time with the flip of a switch, why oh why do they need a video record IDENTIFYING the patient and the quantity of medicine they purchase? I do not go through this for any other purchases I make, anywhere, anytime. Yes there are cameras everywhere, but as previously stated they are for the protection of the business, not to monitor how many pills the pharmacist is putting into my bottle, ( that evidence is already logged, but not with a video recorder )they want evidence of the sob that is trying to steal from them. There is a big difference. I am so sick of being treated like a criminal for using a medicine that for me has very good pain relieving effects as well as many other health benefits that have been documented in my medical records by my DRs. Enough is enough man, I understand you need your business to flourish, you have bills to pay just like the rest of us, at the beginning of the post, I asked the question as to my curiosity of how many folks are willing to date big brother, and outside of a few responses this is turning to a thread to support the DOR's propsed regulations. If they are passed, like I said in the beginning I will not shop at another MMC, dispensary or whatever name they want to change it to next. I wish you good luck and hope your shop prospers after the big brother effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I may well be wrong, but I thought that rule has been precluded by the announcement Releaf just posted. The fact the DoR is holding meetings with patients indicates that perhaps the draft rules are under ongoing review, which is what one does with drafts, after all. I have no idea what we're even arguing about since we both agree that recording patient transactions and conversations is a bad idea. Peace out.

:hippy:

P.S. I haven't read the draft rules and never will. I like reading legislation because I have a personal and professional interest in civics, but the day I find myself reading draft regulations it might be time to consider suicide. I will rely entirely on you knuckleheads!

---

Not meaning to come across as argumentive towards you at all, yes we do agree on the backbone of the issue. I read the draft rules because that is where I seem to be able to get an idea of where issues are being born and who may be pushing those issues. I do make it a point to listen to the hearings that are streamed online whenever I can, I do watch the videos of the hearings when they are available, unfortunately I am restricted by physical health and economics dictate when I can travel to the big city, thus I do not attend the hearings in person. But I do try to stay informed as much as I can.

Your friendly knucklehead!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy2010

SoCo did you stand up in the meeting and say why are the restrictions for pot so much worse than for prescription drugs? Why are medical marijuana patients discriminated against by the state and police agencies? Why aren't police agencies protecting peoples stash and grows like the private possessions of any of the other citizens of the state?

If not maybe next time you could.

---

You have a voice, and a computer. Speak up, and not just in the internet forums. Take the advocacy boot camps being offered this weekend. I can, and do speak out, but am only 1 voice. There is power in numbers.

The period for public comment closed on 2/11 so this was not the arena for those comments regarding rules. The DOR has no oversight on police agencies so that's the wrong agency to complain to about LEO. Try your police chief or city council if you are being harassed or your rights are being violated. The restrictions are worse than prescription drugs because Maijuana is still listed as a Schedule 1 by DEA.

I did however send emails indicating disapproval regarding the camera systems as being intrusive and excessive. Those comments were printed by DOR and submitted to the licensing division to be considered with the approval of rules. I also submitted comments against 90 pages of law followed up by another 89 pages of rules being excessive, but that only applies to dispensaries.

Patients need to speak up regarding patient issues. The DOR said that they were disappointed that patients failed to show up and comment regarding rulemaking public comment time. Email was another option available. I asked our patients to send in their comments, and I'm sure some of them did.

While as a dispensary of course we support patient rights, patients need to speak and not just hope and assume that somebody else is speaking for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy2010

Clearly that document describes an over bearing emphasis on intimidating people who are legally acquiring their medicine.

---

Actually their madness stems more from regulating the industry, that's their assigned duty.

Not to endorse the rule mongers, but I believe they actually only have a couple interests at hand:

1] Keeping all sales in the system, not pounds rolling out the back door.
2] Making sure taxes are paid on all sales.
3] Preventing fraud. IE a dispensary owner short on product, or over the 30% outside purchase allocation volume, from running around to dispensaries buying up 2oz at a time to fill their inventory.
4] Preventing distribution of product into the black market. If a card holder is running through multiple dispensaries they can sell a fairly large volume into the black market.
5] Managing patient assignments to centers so they can confirm MMC plant counts.
5] Something else that i can't remember right now...

Remember, just by parking in front of the dispensary you are telling more people than the DOR ever could :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colodonmed

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 individualâ??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 12â?� x 12â?� area on the counter top, where they will be captured from the above mounted camera.

Unless you got a super stealth card with no name, or any other info on it, you will be recorded and identified. And it will be kept for a minimum of I believe 20 days. No offense man, but maybe you should read a little more on the proposal because this is not good for you or I or any of the 100,000 plus registered patients

---

I think it's 30 days but who can keep up and I agree 100% this is bad for patients!:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DenverRelief

So long as they aren't requiring that patients lay out their card when the transaction is made, not much is going to change for patients that come to us.

Many patients have come to love and appreciate the retail atmosphere to purchase their medicine, and I don't see droves of them leaving. They already know we have cameras.

We have cameras in our retail location and have had them since we moved in. It's a reasonable protection for employee theft, liability, and they keep us safe by allowing us to aware of what is going on.

That the DOR which regulates us may have interest in the recordings to do their job does not trouble me.

Legalization is about getting everything above the table so that the public at large may see that nothing nefarious or shady is going on when a patient purchases marijuana and that it can be as common an act as going to the pharmacy, where people are also taped on security cameras.

And everyone please remember that this has not been decided yet and let your patients know as well.

---

GM as well has had cameras from day one for security reasons they record the parking lot the entrance and the register pretty much like any pharmacy or store dealing in cash would. But recorded a face and name as they are proposing with your card is very invasive and seems a bit much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GratefulMeds

I think it's 30 days but who can keep up and I agree 100% this is bad for patients!:(

---

Proposed storage is 20 days on the local DVR system, then backed up to CD or DVD for another 20 days. So 40 days local storage total.

Thanks for the detailed response. It is clear why they want the cameras for the reasons you describe.

Do they have the same rules at liquor stores. How easy is it to by a keg and 12 cases of beer that you are obviously going to share with others. Possibly even alcoholics and minors.

My point is that they are not treating pot the same. Are we guilty just by association with pot of tax evasion and black market activity and trying to beat the system every chance we get. I say we are less harmful than any other liquor store or pharmacy who in my opinion are doing far more harm to society. There is certainly plenty of information to back up this opinion. What are the number of people who smoke pot vs the number who drink and get in deadly wrecks or beat their wives.

Sorry to ramble but these rules have no legitimate basis in society. I am sorry that you seem to be trying to justify them. This is just blatant discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy2010

Do they have the same rules at liquor stores?

---

Somewhat for alcohol, but yes for allergy medicine. If you are not a bazillion years old you have to show your id to buy tequila, and I guarantee that you are on video at a liquor store. You have to enter your Id into a database and be videoed at the pharmacy every time you buy Claritin-D. It ~is~ somewhat the same. Also alcohol is not a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Not saying that it should be, just that it is. Get that piece changed, and everything changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy2010

Are we guilty just by association with pot of tax evasion and black market activity and trying to beat the system every chance we get.

---

Of course you are, or so government [and LEOs] think. Remember that Marijuana is America's #1 cash crop. All of it, until just recently, was black market and untaxed. That's huge image to turn around. If there is marijuana around they assume something illegal is going on. It's wrong, but that's the way they think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy2010

I say we are less harmful than any other liquor store or pharmacy who in my opinion are doing far more harm to society. There is certainly plenty of information to back up this opinion.

---

I say that too, but what we say does not matter. What matters in the legal and regulatory realm is the Schedule 1 drug classification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy2010

Sorry to ramble but these rules have no legitimate basis in society. I am sorry that you seem to be trying to justify them.

---

Believe me, I dislike this crap much more than the average guy, just trying to be the Devil's advocate to point out the things we need to work on to get where we want to be.

Honestly, I believe that the DOR could care less about who the individual patients are. The want to leave that to the Health Department. The DOR's job is to oversee dispensary operations and keep things in line there. That is turning out to be an enormous task when you consider everything involved

This journalist sums it all up pretty good I think

John Colson: Hit and Run | AspenTimes.com...


sorry, forgot the link, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colodonmed

This journalist sums it all up pretty good I think

---

I agree, well written article. The only point I disagree with is the feds going after patients. In all of the CA raids, the never go after the patients.

The dispensary owners and growers are are always the ones that take the fall. Even in Colorado, take a look at the Bartkowitz case. As a caregiver, all of his patients were exposed to federal prosecutors, and 0 of those patients have been charged. The feds are not stupid enough to take the heat of dragging sick and dying patients through the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCoMMJ

I agree, well written article. The only point I disagree with is the feds going after patients. In all of the CA raids, the never go after the patients.

The dispensary owners and growers are are always the ones that take the fall. Even in Colorado, take a look at the Bartkowitz case. As a caregiver, all of his patients were exposed to federal prosecutors, and 0 of those patients have been charged. The feds are not stupid enough to take the heat of dragging sick and dying patients through the courts.

---

agreed and I really don't expect that aspect to change. Even with a new administration that would love to do it, I think the cat is out of the bag on the health benefits of cannabis. They will never be able to stuff it back in pandoras little box, as far as the individual legal patient is concerned.

That is why in my opinion it is so very important that you guys, the movers and shakers of the MMC world really need to lobby against the privacy violations of the patient. Yes, you guys are taking a major risk running the grow ops and centers, and yes you guys will reap the benefits of the industry if you protect your customer base, and that base is the individual patient.