Metrc
- Overview
- Metrc Key Components
- State-Specific Metrc Implementations
- Metrc API
- Metrc RFID Tags
- State Compliance and Reporting
Metrc (Marijuana Enforcement Tracking Reporting Compliance) is a state-mandated cannabis compliance system, required in various U.S. states to track cannabis cultivation, production, testing, and sales. Developed by Franwell, Metrc operates as a cloud-based platform intended to monitor cannabis products throughout the supply chain. However, despite its intent to enforce regulatory compliance, Metrc has faced widespread criticism from cannabis operators for being outdated, cumbersome, and overly complex.
Metrc’s compliance ecosystem comprises several key components, each of which has its own usability challenges:
- User Interface: The Metrc web-based interface is widely criticized for its dated design, complex navigation, and lack of intuitive features. Users often report difficulty in finding and inputting information, which leads to wasted time and increased risk of error.
- Metrc API: The application programming interface (API) allows integrators and operators to automate tracking and compliance. However, the API is notorious for being under-documented and challenging to work with, especially for smaller businesses without dedicated tech resources.
- RFID Tags: These are required for tracking each plant and product in the system, yet they are expensive, prone to issues, with tags often getting damaged or becoming unreadable, leading to additional costs and compliance complications.
Each state implements Metrc differently, based on specific regulations and requirements mandated by its regulatory bodies. This means Metrc operates as a slightly different system in each state, adding another layer of complexity for operators who must adapt to the unique requirements where they operate. For multi-state operators, these differences create significant operational challenges, as compliance processes may vary dramatically across state lines.
-
California: California does not use the "vegetative" plant stage in its implementation of Metrc. Instead, the state uses plant tags to track plant batches rather than individual plants. California’s system tracks the collective progress of a batch rather than monitoring individual plants until they are moved into a flowering stage. This structure, while simpler in some ways, limits the precision of tracking and can cause discrepancies when cross-referencing with other states that monitor at an individual plant level.
-
Colorado: Colorado's Metrc system requires tracking at both the individual plant and batch level, with distinct tagging for vegetative and flowering stages. Colorado’s approach emphasizes individual plant tracking early in the growth process, which allows for a more granular approach to inventory management. However, it also increases operational overhead for businesses that need to individually tag, scan, and report each plant.
-
Oregon: Oregon’s implementation of Metrc requires detailed tracking of not only plants but also intermediate and final products through each stage of production, including extraction and processing. Oregon’s requirements are particularly strict about reporting product weights and any adjustments, and frequent audits are conducted. This makes compliance particularly cumbersome for operators who are required to record even minor changes.
-
Michigan: Michigan’s Metrc setup includes additional testing requirements not seen in other states, particularly for processed products. Licensees in Michigan must submit detailed testing results, with each test corresponding to a specific batch, to ensure compliance. This creates additional reporting burdens for operators who must align both production and testing timelines.
These state-by-state differences often mean that cannabis businesses must hire dedicated compliance personnel or use third-party software to manage the different requirements of each Metrc instance. For operators expanding to multiple states, these variations add significant costs and administrative burden, as they must adapt to each state’s unique regulatory environment and deal with the lack of standardization in Metrc’s system.
The Metrc API is designed to allow licensed operators and integrators to programmatically interact with the compliance system. While this could theoretically streamline reporting and compliance, in practice, the API’s limitations and lack of robust error handling make it a frequent source of frustration. Common complaints include a lack of consistent documentation, unclear error codes, and frequent rate limits that disrupt business operations.
Metrc "tags" are a cornerstone of Metrc’s compliance system, enabling a standardized way to track cannabis plants and products from growth to sale. Each legal cannabis plant or product is assigned a unique tag, issued by Metrc, to ensure that items can be identified and monitored across the supply chain.
Each tag is a 4"x1.5" rectangular piece of printed plastic uniquely tied to a UID in Metrc's database. The UID is a 24 character identifier that uniquely a plant batch, plant, or cannabis package. 1A440000C030000000001234 is an example of a UID.
A Metrc tag identifies the corresponding UID in one of three ways:
- The UID is printed on the tag
- A Code128 barcode that can be scanned with an optical barcode scanner
- An embedded UHF RFID chip that returns the UID when scanned with a RFID reader
Each UID can only be owned by one cannabis license at any given time. These UIDs are passed between Metrc licenses via transfers.
RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) is a technology that uses radio waves to transfer data between an RFID tag and a reader, allowing for automated tracking and identification of items without requiring line-of-sight scanning. In theory, RFID streamlines the tracking of cannabis plants and products in the Metrc system, enabling regulatory oversight and compliance through automated data collection. However, RFID implementation in Metrc often suffers from reliability and accuracy issues, adding complexity and frustration to daily operations.
Each RFID tag in the Metrc system is embedded with a unique identifier that corresponds to detailed records in the system, such as plant strain, growth stage, weight, and batch information. The RFID readers, or "scan guns," communicate with these tags by emitting radio waves, which activate the tags and trigger them to send back their data. This information is captured by the reader and recorded in the system, theoretically allowing operators to track and manage their inventory with minimal manual intervention.
RFID operates at different frequencies, which affect its range, speed, and ability to pass through materials:
-
Low-Frequency (LF) (125-134 kHz): Offers a short read range (typically inches to a foot) and can penetrate materials like liquids and metals more effectively, but it transmits data slowly. This frequency is rarely used in inventory systems like Metrc, as its range limitations make it impractical for large-scale applications.
-
High-Frequency (HF) (13.56 MHz): This frequency offers a slightly longer range (up to 3 feet) and faster data transfer than LF. HF RFID tags are typically used for tasks requiring close-range scans, but the technology still lacks the range and speed necessary for large-scale automated tracking in the Metrc system.
-
Ultra-High-Frequency (UHF) (860-960 MHz): UHF RFID is the standard used in most industrial and inventory applications, including Metrc. UHF tags offer a long read range (up to 20-30 feet in optimal conditions), making them suitable for scanning large quantities of items at once. However, UHF tags are highly susceptible to interference from metal, liquids, and other environmental factors, which can cause read failures and reduce accuracy.
The Metrc system relies on UHF RFID for its longer read range and ability to scan multiple tags simultaneously. However, the environmental sensitivities of UHF technology often result in inconsistent readings, requiring operators to manually correct errors or re-scan items.
RFID readers, commonly called "scan guns," are handheld devices or fixed scanners that emit radio waves to locate and read RFID tags within their range. These readers are equipped with antennas that can detect tags in the surrounding area, gathering data from multiple tags in a single scan. In theory, scan guns should simplify the process of counting, organizing, and tracking inventory. However, the Metrc system’s reliance on scan guns has introduced several significant issues:
-
Interference and Environmental Factors: UHF RFID readers are sensitive to interference from metal surfaces, water, and even other electronic devices, which are common in grow facilities. For example, the humidity in cultivation areas and the use of metal shelving can interfere with signal transmission, making it difficult to read tags reliably.
-
Read Range Variability: While UHF RFID tags are theoretically scannable from distances of up to 20-30 feet, real-world conditions often reduce this range. Operators often have to move closer to tags or perform multiple scans to capture all required data, defeating the purpose of using RFID for rapid, hands-free tracking.
-
Read Directionality: UHF readers typically have a directional antenna, meaning they are more effective when pointed directly at a tag. In busy environments where tags may be stacked or positioned at awkward angles, directional limitations result in missed scans and force operators to re-scan items manually.
-
Batch Scanning Issues: Metrc promotes RFID as a tool for batch scanning, which should theoretically allow operators to capture data from multiple tags in one go. However, the system’s inconsistent performance often results in partial reads, where only some of the tags are successfully captured. This leads to gaps in data, requiring operators to manually verify inventory counts, a time-consuming and error-prone process.
The challenges of using RFID in Metrc stem not only from the technology itself but also from its implementation within a demanding compliance framework. Operators frequently report these issues:
-
Missed Scans: Due to environmental interference and tag placement, scans often miss certain tags, especially those blocked by metal objects or other tags. This necessitates repeated scans, costing operators valuable time.
-
Unreliable Data Capture: Inconsistent RFID performance in Metrc often results in unreliable data, forcing operators to perform manual checks. This undermines the benefit of using RFID as an automated tracking tool.
-
Manual Data Entry for Failed Reads: When RFID tags fail to scan, operators are often required to enter the data manually. Not only does this increase workload, but it also introduces the risk of human error, which could lead to compliance violations.
-
High Cost of Equipment and Tags: RFID readers and tags are costly, and the additional expense can be significant for operators already working within tight margins. The need to replace lost or damaged tags adds to these ongoing costs, further impacting the feasibility of RFID as a compliance tool.
In practice, Metrc’s RFID system has proven to be a double-edged sword for cannabis operators. While RFID was intended to streamline inventory management and compliance tracking, the technology’s inconsistent performance and limitations often complicate rather than simplify these processes. Many operators report that they rely on manual data entry to supplement RFID tracking due to frequent read failures and interference. This hybrid approach not only negates the potential benefits of RFID but also places additional burdens on staff, who must constantly double-check automated readings against manual counts.
For a technology intended to ensure accurate, automated compliance, RFID in Metrc has become an ongoing pain point for cannabis operators, creating more challenges than solutions. Operators are left with the task of working around a system that, rather than simplifying compliance, requires constant vigilance and manual intervention to maintain accurate records.
- Plant Tags: These tags are applied to individual plants, but many operators report that the tagging system is both expensive and susceptible to human error. Missing or unreadable tags frequently lead to compliance issues, even if operators have followed all other guidelines.
- Package Tags: Package tags are applied post-harvest, though operators report frequent problems with these tags becoming detached or damaged. These issues often force businesses to repackage or retag products, adding unnecessary costs and complications.
RFID tags are intended to provide a non-intrusive tracking solution, but in practice, they often complicate operations rather than streamline them. Each RFID tag corresponds to a unique identifier, but users frequently report issues with readers not registering tags correctly or having to manually enter data when tags fail, increasing the risk of errors and compliance violations.
Compliance with Metrc’s tracking requirements is mandatory in many states where Metrc is the official system. However, the system’s limitations make it difficult for operators to maintain compliance, leading to operational inefficiencies and potential fines for minor issues that are often outside the operators’ control.
- Daily Reporting: Many states require daily reporting of all activities, which is challenging for operators due to Metrc’s outdated design and lack of automation options. This leads to additional labor costs as employees spend more time than necessary on reporting.
- Inventory Audits: Regular audits are required to ensure compliance, yet Metrc’s rigid and convoluted reporting process often complicates audits rather than aiding them.
- Sales Tracking: Tracking sales within Metrc is a frequent pain point, as operators report that the system’s design does not align well with the realities of retail operations. This misalignment leads to constant errors and discrepancies.
The lack of flexibility and intuitive design in Metrc’s system means that compliance violations are often the result of system errors or limitations rather than genuine operator mistakes. Common issues include missing or unreadable tags, system outages, and data entry problems, which are difficult for operators to manage and can result in fines or license suspensions.