Sapphire works with clients all over the country to ensure that their security standards are applicable, that they adhere to best practices, and meet industry compliance requirements. However, several business owners in the cannabis industry have confided that there are burdensome requirements from regulators. This grievance is not merely an irritation; rather, it has real effects on security budgeting and which security solutions can be implemented.
Certainly, one can empathize with the regulators’ interest in keeping businesses from doing too little; however, overemphasized appropriation of funds towards one area will certainly detract from where either regulations do not require something or regulations are less specific and, therefore, leave opportunities to cut costs.
This article examines common security regulations that may be construed as “burdensome”, with an explanation of the ramifications of each. Finally, we offer solutions that may be aligned with best practices as well as with regulators’ interests.
Excessive Video Retention
Video surveillance cameras are taking over the world – ask any integrator. The ability to have remote, real-time video at your fingertips has never been easier. That said, this is not a cheap technology to deploy and maintain at the commercial level. The more cameras one buys, the more storage one will require; thus, in the camera-heavy cannabis industry, we see hundreds of terabytes of storage required to meet regulations.
Most retail and warehouse businesses store video for between 7-30 days, while 90 days is common for cannabis businesses in California, Massachusetts, and Maryland. Canada still requires one year of retention, while West Virginia and Pennsylvania, previously did but now require 180 days. More retention can double the materials costs for video systems, to say nothing of increased maintenance costs, heat dissipation, maxing out systems and other technical issues. States like Illinois or Mississippi require off-site cloud storage. While this feature removes reliance on an on-site NVR and makes remote access easier; again, the price tag jumps dramatically and onsite bandwidth requirements become a non-negligible calculation.
Our suggestion is to cap video retention at 45 days, which is sufficient for most investigations. As cloud storage technology develops, it may become more affordable, but for now, it annihilates security budgets in the short term without clear ROI. Perhaps an emphasis on motion-activated recording instead of continuous recording would increase ROI for cloud storage.
Secondary Alarm Systems
Sapphire mirrors not only the cannabis industry but also other high-risk industries like pawn, jewelry and high-end electronics. Sophisticated criminals know how to beat basic alarm systems nowadays. But can they beat two basic alarm systems?
Probably, but let’s say they cannot. Requiring two alarm systems with two separate monitoring companies creates an installation expense and a recurring (monthly) expense. This expenditure for a second alarm system could be reallocated towards other solutions like video analytics which can mimic the alarm system; PTZ cameras which identify intruders before an alarm system normally would; better door hardware or access control, which can also send alerts to key personnel about possible intrusions.
States like Maryland and Massachusetts have this requirement, and although workarounds may be approved, we still believe these regulations establish redundancy without adding enough ROI. Plus, your chance of incurring false alarms increases, which leads to either tickets or delayed emergency response.
Redundancy can be achieved within one alarm system, or better yet, a proactive video monitoring solution or better door hardware. UL 681-standard alarm systems are much tougher to beat than those with minimum capabilities. Generators and battery backups can solve the power-outage problem. Overnight private security patrol/response teams are ideal too, when available.
Fencing Materials
Fences are common at cultivation sites and provide a great perimeter barrier to separate the business from its neighbors. Outdoor grows especially need a perimeter barrier with monitoring to protect their plants. So, while a buffed-up fence would seem like a good idea, the drawbacks are worth consideration.
Six-foot high fencing is common for businesses. However, Washington and Nevada mandate eight feet or taller fencing. Barrier security is enhanced, but this unique feature of cultivators can attract attention and identify targets for criminals, who deduce that the only places with eight-foot-high screened fences are likely cannabis growers. Deterrence should always be the primary goal of a security plan.
A solution of 6-foot fencing with screening and possibly barbed/razor wire will enhance barrier security. Emphasis on CPTED generally produces strong ROI. Either of these will hopefully assuage those who want above-standard fencing.
Conclusion
This article may become outdated and may not include all states with relevant regulations. We welcome feedback and updates to keep this article current. Regulators do have a formidable challenge to issue effective security demands and prevent diversion or theft. We hope this article gives some insight from the perspective of a third-party security consultant.
