The idea was promoted as very Big Brother, but in a good way.

When Colorado rulemakers drew up regulations for the state’s medical-marijuana industry in 2010, they put in a requirement that video-surveillance systems in stores and growing facilities be able to connect to the Internet. The intention was that state auditors — day or night, in their office or on the go — could sit before a computer and remotely monitor every minute detail of a medical-marijuana business to ensure full compliance.

Someone would always be watching.

Three years later, the state has quietly acknowledged it hasn’t been looking.

In a draft of new rules for medical-marijuana businesses, rulemakers have pulled the Internet-connectivity requirement for surveillance systems.

“It is not technically or financially feasible,” state Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division spokeswoman Julie Postlethwait wrote in an e-mail.

In fact, the entire rule book is being rewritten to make it sleeker, more easily enforced and less ambitious. Postlethwait said experience — plus an executive order instructing all state agencies to improve their rules — prompted the rewrite.

“It’s about figuring out more efficient ways to make it work,” said Mike Elliott, the head of the Medical Marijuana Industry Group, a trade association.

“We can see it now,” he said. “We have a much better idea of what works and what doesn’t work.”

That is a message for another set of rule writers to consider as they create regulations for the state’s forthcoming recreational-marijuana industry.

A task force is developing suggested rules for lawmakers to adopt after the passage of Amendment 64, which legalized limited possession and retail sales of marijuana. That task force has divided into five subgroups to study issues related to criminal law, social concerns, employment relationships and others. Some of those subgroups have now divided into sub-subgroups to further study the matter.

The entire apparatus has only about a month left to write its report. Last week, it adopted its first recommendations — to urge the governor and Colorado’s congressional delegation to work toward resolving the federal-law conflicts that prevent banks from working with marijuana businesses.

In brainstorming sessions, task-force members have identified close to 100 marijuana-related issues that the group should ponder. But task-force leaders have begun to temper expectations about how polished or comprehensive that group’s proposed rules will be.

“We don’t have to cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s,” said task-force co-chairwoman Barbara Brohl, the head of the state Revenue Department. “As long as we come up with fairly robust recommendations, we believe the legislature and others will be able to take that and dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s.”

Elliott said that is a wise approach because, as the medical-marijuana rules show, the regulations will likely need to be reconsidered soon after being implemented.

The state’s Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division has released a revised draft of one chunk of rules and plans to release more drafts by Friday. There is a stakeholder forum on the revised rules scheduled for Feb. 15 at the Jefferson County courthouse.

Postlethwait said division officials decided most of the medical-marijuana business rules needed “amendment or clarification” after nearly three years of enforcing them.

“The intent of this rule making process is to … improve efficiency while still providing a solid regulatory scheme,” Postlethwait wrote in an e-mail.

The section governing video- surveillance systems in the old rules spanned nine pages and included detailed technical requirements for security cameras — which medical-marijuana business owners said were soon obsolete. The new proposed rules for security cameras cover four pages. On the technical specifications for cameras, the rules refer business owners to a guide on the division website.

“Overall, I think it’s a good thing for the industry,” Elliott said. “It was in a sense over-regulation. … They’re still getting the security they need.”

John Ingold: 303-954-1068, jingold@denverpost.com or twitter.com/john_ingold