Need for Cannabis Label Standardization

We could have titled this “LeafData Migration Issue #421” but, it’s bigger than just their failure of a roll-out in Washington.

regarding the label problems that we’ve had it since the migration to leave data now that we’ve switched over someone to the problem with labeling that we had in 2016 which has yet to be solved we now have a more complicated a lot identifier that needs to be encoded in the label and this is causing a significant amount of problems.

firstly we’re now seeing all over the industry via the inability for the retail side to be able to scan line identifiers in their store to check out packages it causes a significant delay in the checkout process

the underlying issue is that leaf data has introduced new identifier formats for our system these new identifier formats are more complicated than the previous 16 digit numerical identifiers that we had before these the new identifiers are alphanumeric and include one special character in the in the value

this data becomes a little more complicated to encode in a c 128 style barcode and given the limited size of space available for this barcode it creates a density problem for the barcode where it is now doesn’t have a clean enough boundary between the light and dark lines of the barcode to give a positive scan from the hardware scanners

one idea that has been floated is to use a shortened identifier and only use the suffix part of the identifier on the labels in this barcode format and that way that barcode would still print okay at low resolution

this issue also highlights the concerns with low resolution printers such as the zebra 2824 these printers only print at 2:03 DPI high and that’s a pretty low resolution the labels need to have 300 and even 600 DPI to be scannable when you look at other industry formats for for barco such as a UPC code those are all printed at 600 DPI or better

these issues that we’re having with these barcodes and leaf data sort of highlight of problem that the industry has now had for 2 years where there’s not any agreement on what needs to be present and how that David needs to be represented on these label formats

If we had settled that years ago we could have selected at that time a proper flexible data digital imaging format such as QR code and we could have settled on minimum requirements for hardware scanners minimum size representations and come together around some kind of standard label so that when there is an industry-wide shift forced on us by the regulatory agency we are all working together already and can use that existing standard to move the whole industry forward in a safe and stable way