Written by DROPS.ST.
Before a cannabis business uses imported contacts for a campaign, inspect their source, original purpose and actual communication authority. A copied address, customer account or historical order is not a complete permission record.
DROPS connects Customer Accounts with order items and a common catalogue. Its supported Telegram audience choices and preference checks provide specific implementation boundaries. Those features do not prove that an outside list was lawfully collected, may be transferred or is ready for a new message.
Keep the import and proposed campaign as separate review decisions.
Identify the source and the intended use
Ask where each category came from, which business collected it and what the person was told. Preserve the actual wording or permitted evidence reference rather than summarizing every entry as “opted in.”
Name the proposed sender, channel, content purpose and recipient scope. Check whether a business, provider or purpose changed since the original collection.
An old relationship can be relevant evidence without settling today’s requirements. Do not treat a renamed file or checked spreadsheet column as proof of current authority.
Use an audience-readiness sheet
This original sheet is a review aid, not a native consent importer or automatic campaign approval.
| Readiness entry | Evidence to establish | Hold condition |
|---|---|---|
| Source and collector | Actual origin and collecting business | Provenance is missing |
| Original purpose | Notice, request or applicable evidence scope | Proposed use differs without review |
| Communication basis | Actual relevant consent or other applicable basis | A generic flag is the only explanation |
| Sender and channel | Intended business and permitted route | Earlier scope is assumed to transfer |
| Current restrictions | Withdrawals, relevant preferences and other limits | Exclusions cannot be established |
| Supported transfer | Actual fields, tool behavior and authorized operator | An import feature is merely assumed |
| Approved outcome | Scoped reviewer decision and unresolved entries | Whole list is marked ready despite gaps |
Keep protected references separate from the broadly shared review sheet. Do not export real customer records simply to demonstrate the columns.
Review the evidence before the count
A count of imported rows can show that records arrived. It does not prove their meaning, original permission or current exclusions.
Inspect permitted representative cases, including missing provenance and changed choices, through the approved process. Use fictional cases for a rehearsal and mark unavailable tests untested.
The CRTC describes consent evidence and conditional requirements under CASL. Review the actual sender, purpose and situation rather than assuming every customer record creates the same basis. CRTC CASL guidance.
Hypothetical example: a checkbox survived, its explanation did not
A fictional file includes an affirmative marketing flag, but the accompanying evidence does not identify the original notice, channel or collecting business.
The reviewer keeps the flag as an observed value and holds readiness of the affected scope. They request the missing permitted evidence instead of interpreting it as permission for every campaign.
This example establishes no valid consent, native import or legal transfer. It shows why record arrival and communication readiness are different decisions.
Verify the actual implementation boundaries
DROPS campaign source supports all, customers, non-customers and inactive audiences using actual stored criteria. It checks active status, marketing/notification flags and applicable recorded preferences.
Those checks can help evaluate a supported campaign process, but cannot repair missing source evidence or establish arbitrary new audience filters. Confirm any proposed import path and the actual treatment of excluded records separately.
The information-flow map handles fields, recipients and copies. The export-scope guide handles authorized portable output. Neither promises a complete consent migration.
Review privacy and content independently
OPC guidance connects use and disclosure to identified purposes and applicable requirements. A proposed transfer or second use needs its own actual review. OPC use guidance.
Canadian cannabis promotion and the actual provider/channel also remain separate gates. No imported flag authorizes prohibited content or a purchase incentive.
Do not send a campaign to test whether uncertain recipients object, or switch senders to escape a restriction.
Give approved communication a clear destination
Choose DROPS when identifiable products and customer-linked order context should support the factual message after its actual checks. Keep audience readiness tied to evidence rather than treating a large list as a business result.
Explore DROPS.ST and the shop demos. Bring fictional records with complete and missing provenance, identify the supported process and keep each unresolved permission scope held for review.