Medical-Pot Advocates Criticize Proposed New Rules
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Medical-Pot Advocates Criticize Proposed New Rules');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

Medical-Pot Advocates Criticize Proposed New Rules
Posted by CN Staff on January 28, 2011 at 07:16:26 PT
By John Ingold, The Denver Post
Source: Denver Post 
Colorado -- A lineup of medical-marijuana activists and business owners said Thursday the state's proposed new rules for the cannabis industry threaten patient privacy.Requirements that transactions at dispensaries be videotaped, purchases be documented and personal information be recorded could cause many of the state's more than 115,000 medical-marijuana patients to opt out of the system and return to buying pot on the street, advocates said.
State officials say details of the purchases would be kept in a secure online database, but medical-marijuana advocates pointed to recent WikiLeaks disclosures as evidence that even guarded information can become public."I am very concerned that many individuals . . . will, due to the risk of having their information leaked, return to the black market," said Bruce Granger, a dispensary owner who served on an advisory committee that helped craft some of the rules.The advocates expressed their concerns at the beginning of a two-day public hearing on the rules, proposed by the state Revenue Department to regulate the thousands of medical-marijuana businesses that have sprung up in the past two years.Granger was not the only rule-writer who said he was concerned about aspects of the final draft. One advisory-committee member said she was concerned that technology gaps in rural areas would make it difficult to implement the system of remotely monitored security cameras that dispensaries and other medical-marijuana facilities would be required to install. Another advisory-committee member said he worried that the so-called "70-30 rule," which requires dispensaries to grow 70 percent of the marijuana sold in their stores, had not been defined well enough. Snipped   Complete Article: Denver Post (CO)Author: John Ingold, The Denver Post Published: January 28, 2011Copyright: 2011 The Denver Post CorpWebsite: openforum denverpost.comCannabisNews  Medical Marijuana Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #1 posted by The GCW on January 28, 2011 at 07:42:35 PT
We're sorry.
"threaten patient privacy" is an honest and real issue. Just one example: Boulder's info got leaked and now they are apologizing.US CO: Boulder apologizes for ID'ing secret marijuana grow sites're sorry. That's the message Boulder recently sent to the owners of two Boulder medical marijuana dispensaries after the city accidentally made public the addresses of their secret marijuana growing warehouses. But the owners of dozens of other dispensaries, who also had the locations of their grow sites accidentally disclosed, won't be asked for the same forgiveness. Boulder officials included the addresses of two growing operations in a public document that was provided to the City Council in advance of its Jan. 4 meeting. The document contained a map that shows the location and addresses of cultivation warehouses for Boulder Kind Care and The Farm dispensaries. State law requires local governments to keep the location of marijuana cultivation centers a secret, out of fear that disclosure could lead to robberies or other problems. Records that show the location of such facilities are specifically exempt from the Colorado Open Records law. 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment