Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database

I was in Vegas last week and decided to visited a ‘store...’

I asked, “what are you going to with my License Information if I choose to enter...?”

The answer was terrific!

“We destroy all scanned licenses after 24 hours, so you don’t have to worry about your Gun License!”

Hmmm wonder if that’s what MA is doing?
You gotta ask yourself,is there any other store that demands I.d just to enter?and records it?
And then gives you a b.s. story about not keeping the data?
Wow.
 
You gotta ask yourself,is there any other store that demands I.d just to enter? and records it?
Common practice at nightclubs. Some bars will save the data, sell it, use it for marketing mailings. Imagine if pot shops did this instead of promising to delete it?
And then gives you a b.s. story about not keeping the data? Wow.
I doubt the weed store wanted to have this ID policy. the "scan ID" thing was forced on them by lawmakers:

NAC 453D.555 said:
Before a marijuana establishment agent sells marijuana or marijuana products to a consumer, the marijuana establishment agent shall:
1.  Verify the age of the consumer by checking a government-issued identification card containing a photograph of the consumer using an identification scanner approved by the Department to determine the validity of any government-issued identification card

So blame Nevada tax authorities for the scanning policy.
 
if they are scanning the ID and it is being "verified" then someone, some where, is storing it even if it's not the weed shop.
Only because these places all cheap out and go with a subscription service which calls out to the cloud.

Fully offline-capable ID card validators are available, but they cost more, and storing data from an online system pays for itself by producing all that great marketing data ;)
 
In depth,right to the source, nes excellence.
My short point is avoid these dumps that scan I.d.’s
I agree -- no good reason to visit the recreational shops in Massachusetts, Nevada, and eventually (March 2020?) in Maine.

As for scanning ID at bars, I printed an opaque sticker "For removal only by law enforcement" to apply over the machine-readable code on my ID, I have to remember to peel it off before going through TSA checkpoints.
 
Total bullshit. Why isn’t a visual observation good enough ? Because it gets recorded somewhere. That’s why
Perhaps because nobody trusts the stoners who work in these shops to be able to detect the really good fake IDs that are available these days? But mostly because NV state law says "Verify the age of the consumer by checking a government-issued identification card containing a photograph of the consumer using an identification scanner approved by the Department to determine the validity of any government-issued identification card"

The interesting question is whether the "offline" scanners would qualify as "...an identification scanner approved by the Department..." or if Nevada Department of Taxation is insisting on scanners which upload scans to the cloud?
 
“Deleted”. That’s adorable.
is this”deleted” before or after they back up their computers every few hours?

If they were not storing the data, they would simply look at the ID and verify the age.


My assumption is that they have to keep the data. So when the 14 year old says they bought at store X. The store can cover their butt and show the police exactly what fake ID they used.
 
As for scanning ID at bars, I printed an opaque sticker "For removal only by law enforcement" to apply over the machine-readable code on my ID, I have to remember to peel it off before going through TSA checkpoints.
I admit I'm not a frequent flyer, but my most recent plane trip was last month, and it was the same as all others: no scanning the license at all, just looking at the hologram under their special little flashlight.

And that was to/from DC Reagan, where I figure they're more paranoid than most.
 
if they are scanning the ID and it is being "verified" then someone, some where, is storing it even if it's not the weed shop.

Not sure if serious, there are a lot of devices that scan DLs to just test for holograms, placement, that sort of thing... you don't even need an internet connection to run them. They sell them to
liquor stores and that kind of thing.

Just "cuz it's being scanned" doesn't mean its actually doing a database lookup, etc. (which isn't possible, at this level anyways).

ETA: data could STILL be stored, but I guess my point is, it's not a given for this type of device. A lot of them look like it's "whatever the user wants it to be". Which admittedly, can be a
whole bunch of different things.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
The interesting question is whether the "offline" scanners would qualify as "...an identification scanner approved by the Department..." or if Nevada Department of Taxation is insisting on scanners which upload scans to the cloud?

Yeah, you'd have to get a list of approved devices or whatever.

-Mike
 
I may have mentioned this before... but...

I've looked at a few of the scanners in bars in MA, and they do a scan of the bar code (pun intended) and STORE the DL Name inside the scanner. I did not dig too deep, but the data is held within the scanner as well as the bar code. I suspect that the ABC could get into that data on a liquor license check. I am unaware if they can download anything from the scanner. As I understand it, there are a few scanners, "approved" by the ABC for liquor licensed locations. Probably similar for Pot shops.

One would suspect that if data is stored in a scanner, there would be a way to download that data.
 
I admit I'm not a frequent flyer, but my most recent plane trip was last month, and it was the same as all others: no scanning the license at all, just looking at the hologram under their special little flashlight. And that was to/from DC Reagan, where I figure they're more paranoid than most.
Like everything TSA, it's inconsistent, even within the same airport.
 
Crazy. Didn't know this. My roomate recently drove down to MA to patronize a shop down there. Saw this a few days later and asked him if they took his ID and scanned it. He said they did. Now he's really not happy. He thinks he'll be safe because we live in NH but idk, it's not looking good for him. Can't eat your cake and have it too apparently.
 
Crazy. Didn't know this. My roomate recently drove down to MA to patronize a shop down there. Saw this a few days later and asked him if they took his ID and scanned it. He said they did. Now he's really not happy. He thinks he'll be safe because we live in NH but idk, it's not looking good for him. Can't eat your cake and have it too apparently.
Read the whole thread -- the title "Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database" is FUD.

And tell your roommate, next time, give them a passport to scan -- quality data for this non-existent "Federal Database" but of limited utility for marketing.
 
I agree -- no good reason to visit the recreational shops in Massachusetts, Nevada, and eventually (March 2020?) in Maine.

As for scanning ID at bars, I printed an opaque sticker "For removal only by law enforcement" to apply over the machine-readable code on my ID, I have to remember to peel it off before going through TSA checkpoints.

Just out of curiosity... what is your response if (when) a bouncer peels the sticker off because they don't care? Chances are, you aren't getting in without a scan if that's their policy. And if you could, I'm guessing it's a place you don't care to patronize for invasive practices. And do you consider TSA law enforcement? Because legally, they aren't. Hell, they're no more law enforcement than a bouncer. What's the point?
 
Just out of curiosity... what is your response if (when) a bouncer peels the sticker off because they don't care? Chances are, you aren't getting in without a scan if that's their policy. And if you could, I'm guessing it's a place you don't care to patronize for invasive practices.
These days, most of the time the scanner is provided to the bar by PatronScan, the guy at the door doesn't really care if it says "Read failed" assuming you don't appear under-aged or otherwise look like trouble.

And do you consider TSA law enforcement? Because legally, they aren't. Hell, they're no more law enforcement than a bouncer. What's the point?
I don't consider TSA LE, that's why I take the sticker off before I get to the "paperien, bitte" part of the checkpoint.
 
There are some interesting (and disturbing) advances in facial recognition systems. Possibly/probably in our lifetimes, shopping will mean walking into a store, picking up the things you want and walking out with them, without any interaction with the staff or even a self-checkout.

ALL of the technology to do this exists today. You're being scanned and classified right NOW, in some places/establishments you might not expect.

For the free association impaired, you won't need to show your license to walk into a strip club OR a pot store much longer.

And nobody is yet talking about how that data will be handled. Nothing prevents a store (other than fear of public backlash) from automatically posting your walk-in to their Facebook page.
 
I think its cute that some people think we all aren't in some federal database already

No kidding. That ship has sailed a long time ago.

Someone being protective of a photo ID is quaint. It might not be possible to be more out of touch.
 
Possibly/probably in our lifetimes, shopping will mean walking into a store, picking up the things you want and walking out with them, without any interaction with the staff or even a self-checkout.

100% will happen in our lifetimes, Amazon has been piloting this for over a year:

 
I think its cute that some people think we all aren't in some federal database already
The (IMHO, misguided, FUD) point of Post #1 wasn't that gun owners aren't in a federal basis, or pot-shop visitors aren't in a federal database, but that there's some agency effort out there to cross-reference the two and automatically flag as a "prohibited person" any identity found in both tables.

That's the claim, and after 575 replies, it's still unsubstantiated.
 
The (IMHO, misguided, FUD) point of Post #1 wasn't that gun owners aren't in a federal basis, or pot-shop visitors aren't in a federal database, but that there's some agency effort out there to cross-reference the two and automatically flag as a "prohibited person" any identity found in both tables.

That's the claim, and after 575 replies, it's still unsubstantiated.

When data exists, it has a way of being used. It isn't necessarily used "openly", though.
 
Back
Top Bottom