Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You can detect pesticides yourself by smoking? You said earlier in the thread you couldn't.

 

I don't think you can, and you are just making stuff up here.

 

Your math is not accurate here, either.

 

No, I found out the first CG I had was spraying the rooms down with pesticides because they told me. If I had known they were doing so I wouldn't have bought from them to begin with. I highly doubt I happen to know the only CG in Michigan spraying toxic pesticides out of my sample of 10. I have no idea what goes on with dispensary weed, but I would like to know and I think for a 2% fee others would too.

 

I think Washington is a corporate driven model. One story I found goes over how a company interpreted the regulations as saying not to use certain pesticides on recreational products, but that it was OK to poison the medicinal products. Many people will cut corners in order to increase profits. Another company was selling a ton of product because it was the only 'organic' pesticide that worked. Turns out they were secretly adding banned pesticides to increase the efficiency. Using dangerous pesticides especially indoors is one of those 'cutting corners' and its not limited to commercial entities in a single state. Then there's the issue of unknowingly poisoning your crops with unregulated chemicals.

 

I'm pretty sure everything is accurate though. At least 1 CG was spraying pesticides and had horrible crops. 4 had crops that were not properly dried/cured and lack tricome density, the other 5 ranged from good to pretty good. But I haven't seen anything that's amazing from people I directly know, that is only at certain dispensaries; i.e. 20%+ THC. The error is not dependent of the total population size in this case, it's like flipping a penny although tails/heads may not be 50%. n = 1/B2 where n is sample size and B is the error bound for a mean estimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Republicans don't believe in small government.  They simply hate medicare, social security and oversight of their corporations.  They LOVE big brother government. Prisons, crimes, punishment, restrict

I'll have to make sure to tell all my friends in the Flint area that in addition to not drinking the water, they should also not do any business with Michigan Organic Solutions. They are obviously in

Just so people know, a statistically valid sample size from a population of 33,000 (with a confidence level of 5% and a confidence interval of 5) would be 380.  You'd need to assess the meds of 380 ca

Posted Images

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination#Estimation

 

It's not wrong. If I know 10 CG that have their own independent ways of growing, it is a random sample. If I went around and taught them all how to grow or if they taught each other, it wouldn't be. I'm not talking about dispensaries here where I have no way to track what gets turned away and the various other factors. That is what Highlander was referring to, factors that could affect judging caregivers through dispensaries. The only thing that could affect this is extremely bad luck. Is 50% plus or minus 32% the best statistic? Absolutely not but it shows a problem likely exists and I have experienced it first hand.

 

But again, look at all the patients going to dispensaries. Why is that? I would imagine that if good CGs were abundant in this state then the best option would be to get one rather than going to overpriced dispensaries, sometimes in dangerous areas or hours away.

 

Shutting down all the dispensaries is not the best option, but neither is destroying the CG system. We would be better off teaming up with some of the lobbyist to go against what the judicial system wants and making something work for all of us. I'm not saying give in to their demands and I don't know if it would even be possible, but I don't see another option unless MILegalize is going to make something happen.

Edited by Alphabob
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are assuming too much that the 10 CGs would represent random selection with no bias. If you are sampling the buds from a CG who sells to any patient, your sample size is biased towards that sort of grower, a grower who is likely to be trying to maximize yield and who doesn't need to worry too much if a few of his buyers go elsewhere. This is the same phenomenon that likely occurs with dispensaries but at a smaller scale. If you are only sampling meds from CGs looking for a new patient, then you will never meet the growers who already have five patients, long term patients, and those who actually have waiting lists. It's a pretty safe bet that there is a larger fraction of good growers among those not looking for patients than those growers trying to fill a slot or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are assuming too much that the 10 CGs would represent random selection with no bias. If you are sampling the buds from a CG who sells to any patient, your sample size is biased towards that sort of grower, a grower who is likely to be trying to maximize yield and who doesn't need to worry too much if a few of his buyers go elsewhere. This is the same phenomenon that likely occurs with dispensaries but at a smaller scale. If you are only sampling meds from CGs looking for a new patient, then you will never meet the growers who already have five patients, long term patients, and those who actually have waiting lists. It's a pretty safe bet that there is a larger fraction of good growers among those not looking for patients than those growers trying to fill a slot or two.

 

Many caregivers help each other out on the down low or they will smoke with people they know. That is where at least several samples of mine came from, i.e. when my CG ran out and we had to get it from other CGs. I don’t see any reason as to why that would bias anything. They were not trying to rack in extra cash, just trying to help patients who needed it. Furthermore, there's no evidence that such decision making would bias the results in that direction, it could have a completely opposite effect. So I’m not convinced that this is the case.

 

My results estimate that the value could be between 18% - 82% of CGs not being able to produce medicinal quality. It’s not a super accurate sample, but it provides evidence that is supported by the success of dispensaries in Michigan. Is it possible that one of the hypothetical factors mentioned affected this? Yes, but we have no way of knowing that for sure. It could be the opposite, where something is affecting the results in the opposite direction. The only clear bias would be if I nit-picked the data and excluded certain CGs without a valid reason.

 

 

I have explained why good caregivers are not accessible; they are other people's caregivers. That is not the caregiver's fault, and dispensaries are not the answer. Letting caregivers have more than 5 patients, and patients have a backup caregiver, may be.

 

But that cannot be the only reason why. Asides from people’s crops dying or becoming infested, there logically must exist some bad CGs out there. Is it 50%? I can’t say. Is the correct value somewhere between 18% - 82%? Well I think that is possible when you include factors I wasn’t directly testing for such as pesticide use.

 

Though I agree that good CGs not being able to or refusing to take on more patients is one of the contributing factors. Wasn’t the average amount of patients per CG around two? Whether it’s CGs not being able to grow, CGs refusing to take on more patients, CGs who already have five patients, CGs who are greedy or want to rake in extra cashing selling to non-cardholders… it all results in the same thing. Many patients are unable to access suitable meds without dispensaries.

 

Just take the 200+ dispensaries in Detroit. Doing a very conservative estimate, each has 10 patients per day with an average return time of 2 weeks. That’s close to 30,000 patients for Detroit alone and I know for a fact that many of the dispensaries are selling to more than 10 people/day on average.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many caregivers help each other out on the down low or they will smoke with people they know. That is where at least several samples of mine came from, i.e. when my CG ran out and we had to get it from other CGs. I don’t see any reason as to why that would bias anything. They were not trying to rack in extra cash, just trying to help patients who needed it. Furthermore, there's no evidence that such decision making would bias the results in that direction, it could have a completely opposite effect. So I’m not convinced that this is the case.

 

My results estimate that the value could be between 18% - 82% of CGs not being able to produce medicinal quality. It’s not a super accurate sample, but it provides evidence that is supported by the success of dispensaries in Michigan. Is it possible that one of the hypothetical factors mentioned affected this? Yes, but we have no way of knowing that for sure. It could be the opposite, where something is affecting the results in the opposite direction. The only clear bias would be if I nit-picked the data and excluded certain CGs without a valid reason.

 

 

 

But that cannot be the only reason why. Asides from people’s crops dying or becoming infested, there logically must exist some bad CGs out there. Is it 50%? I can’t say. Is the correct value somewhere between 18% - 82%? Well I think that is possible when you include factors I wasn’t directly testing for such as pesticide use.

 

Though I agree that good CGs not being able to or refusing to take on more patients is one of the contributing factors. Wasn’t the average amount of patients per CG around two? Whether it’s CGs not being able to grow, CGs refusing to take on more patients, CGs who already have five patients, CGs who are greedy or want to rake in extra cashing selling to non-cardholders… it all results in the same thing. Many patients are unable to access suitable meds without dispensaries.

 

Just take the 200+ dispensaries in Detroit. Doing a very conservative estimate, each has 10 patients per day with an average return time of 2 weeks. That’s close to 30,000 patients for Detroit alone and I know for a fact that many of the dispensaries are selling to more than 10 people/day on average.

 

Let's assume a valid random sampling of CGs.  So now we know that between 18% and 82% of CGs are "bad."  This is a useless statistic that could be used by anyone trying to support any conclusion.

 

This is the stuff "journalists" love.  "Based on a recent study, as many as 82% of caregivers grow excellent medical cannabis."  OR  "Based on a recent study, as many as 82% of caregivers are incapable of growing quality medical cannabis."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion I would draw is that the amount of ‘bad’ CGs is certainly not zero and this contributes to one of several reasons why dispensaries are doing so well (and why an alternative means is needed).

 

The mistake I made was not including the uncertainty to begin with, as I didn’t think providing an estimate based off my own experience would turn into a scientific peer-review. I have a degree in science; I understand the math. This particular case is no different from flipping coins. Yes in a small sample of coin flips (say 10) you may end up with a probability other than 50% for landing on heads; i.e. 60% or 65%. This is due to small imperfections that are random and average out over larger populations. That is the error I’m referring to and it is completely valid for survey type situations.

 

Even at the lower end with 17% of CG being ‘bad’, that is a ton of patients who would need alternative sources. Using my conservative estimate of 30,000 patients going to Detroit dispensaries alone, that would be 16.5% of the community (based on 182,091 patients). Now... my sample of 10 CG could be biased, but we have no way of knowing that. And if it were biased, that would simply mean that the correct error bounds would change, i.e. instead of 17% it could be a lower limit of 5% or even higher at 25%. So I hope this clarifies what I’m trying to say, as I’m neither attacking caregivers or dispensaries. I’m not saying the CG community as a whole is bad. There are simply ‘bad apples’ in any community especially when dealing with drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion I would draw is that the amount of ‘bad’ CGs is certainly not zero and this contributes to one of several reasons why dispensaries are doing so well (and why an alternative means is needed).

 

The mistake I made was not including the uncertainty to begin with, as I didn’t think providing an estimate based off my own experience would turn into a scientific peer-review. I have a degree in science; I understand the math. This particular case is no different from flipping coins. Yes in a small sample of coin flips (say 10) you may end up with a probability other than 50% for landing on heads; i.e. 60% or 65%. This is due to small imperfections that are random and average out over larger populations. That is the error I’m referring to and it is completely valid for survey type situations.

 

Even at the lower end with 17% of CG being ‘bad’, that is a ton of patients who would need alternative sources. Using my conservative estimate of 30,000 patients going to Detroit dispensaries alone, that would be 16.5% of the community (based on 182,091 patients). Now... my sample of 10 CG could be biased, but we have no way of knowing that. And if it were biased, that would simply mean that the correct error bounds would change, i.e. instead of 17% it could be a lower limit of 5% or even higher at 25%. So I hope this clarifies what I’m trying to say, as I’m neither attacking caregivers or dispensaries. I’m not saying the CG community as a whole is bad. There are simply ‘bad apples’ in any community especially when dealing with drugs.

 

I don't agree with your coin analogy because you are still ignoring the likely avenues for bias in the sampling population.

 

The problem starts when you say that your sampling of CGs "could be biased, but we have no way of knowing that."  That's problem #1.  If you can't show that your sample population isn't biased, then you are already starting off on the wrong foot.  This is an extreme example made just to illustrate my point.  You could select 10 CGs who are currently serving time in the MDOC.  That sample population could be biased, but I have no way of knowing that.  So I'm just gonna go ahead and proceed with my analysis.   Or ten CGs who live in a trailer park (nothing against trailer parks, but odds are the CG doesn't have a basement or other suitable area for a grow to serve several patients). 

 

I know of multiple CGs who moved to Genesee County from Oakland County so they could feel better about growing more than their patients need and selling overages.  So it could be that a sampling of CGs in Genesee County is more likely to include people who are more profit-minded.

 

A random sampling of CGs from an area of widespread poverty will probably yield more people who can't afford to fix a grow disaster the right way than the same sample size of people who live in Grosse Pointe.

 

I could spend all day long coming up with scenarios where biases will occur based on geography, age, income, local politics, local prices for meds, distances from dispensaries or farmers markets, and hundreds of other factors.

 

So back to your coin analogy, and here why it is not at all similar to sampling CGs.  I can flip a coin in a trailer park, the ghetto, in a neighborhood with a neighborhood watch, in a high-rise apartment building, in Ann Arbor, in Oakland County, at a nudist resort, in a college dorm, in the city, in the country - anywhere - and the odds of getting heads are always 50%.   A coin flip is inherently random.  Now go to any of the places and pick one CG at random (or pick 10).  The odds of getting the same number of "good" CGs in each location will vary based on numerous factors (income, population density, local politics, average age, cultural microcosms, etc. etc. etc.)  Good example:  I have a friend who is a CG and lives on a private road on a private lake in a remote area.  About 20 homes total are on the lake.  About 10 of those homes are owned an occupied by his family and friends - all people who chose to live near each other over the years, and all of whom are CGs who were growing before 2008.  Don't you you think that if I went to that neighborhood and randomly selected 10 CGs I'd get a different overall quality result than if I picked 10 CGs from a two-block square area in north Flint?

 

I get where you are coming from, but I think it's a waste of energy trying to get there with math.  People who don't understand statistics will probably believe whatever conclusion a person tries to support with a statistical analysis. (Such as up to 82% of CGs are doing a great job.) And those who do understand statistics will do as they did in this thread.

 

A better approach is to point out the obvious problem....that MMJ is alone in the world of medicine where a patient has only one reasonable choice and would have to wait 21 days or more to use another reasonable choice.  By reasonable choice, I mean a supplier who doesn't risk a felony by working with the patient.

 

Don't like your doctor?  It's easy to find another.  Is Rite-Aid out of your Rx?  Go to Walgreens.  Patients have choices with service providers, equipment, and medicine in every other aspect of medical care except MMJ.  You don't need numbers to prove that.

Edited by Highlander
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many caregivers help each other out on the down low or they will smoke with people they know. That is where at least several samples of mine came from, i.e. when my CG ran out and we had to get it from other CGs. I don’t see any reason as to why that would bias anything.

 

There are numerous reasons this could be biased.  I'll give you one good one.  Some caregivers "help each other out."  People helping people.  That means you're dealing with people who are willing to help another.  The bias is towards a compassionate human.  A less caring CG would probably rather not make a small sale to another person when he is already taking the risk selling to a dispensary - just sell that extra 7 grams to the dispensary instead of you.  It's easier, faster, and safer for him.  The fact that a CG would "help you out" automatically puts him in a category that will bias your analysis. 

 

These people are also more likely to be your friend or a friend of a friend.  Such a personal connection would discourage some people from providing you meds that were sprayed with Eagle 20 last week even if that same CG feels bad about but still sells his Eagle 20 meds to a dispensary.  Maybe he provided you with some of his clean personal stash.  You see this sort of thing all the time - people loosen their morals a bit when not dealing with strangers.  It's kinda human nature, and it creates bias.  Bias is all around us.  Statisticians fight it all the time.  Why do you think that  the first thing you do with a sample population in statistics is test it for normal distribution? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion I would draw is that the amount of ‘bad’ CGs is certainly not zero and this contributes to one of several reasons why dispensaries are doing so well (and why an alternative means is needed).

 

The mistake I made was not including the uncertainty to begin with, as I didn’t think providing an estimate based off my own experience would turn into a scientific peer-review. I have a degree in science; I understand the math. This particular case is no different from flipping coins. Yes in a small sample of coin flips (say 10) you may end up with a probability other than 50% for landing on heads; i.e. 60% or 65%. This is due to small imperfections that are random and average out over larger populations. That is the error I’m referring to and it is completely valid for survey type situations.

 

Even at the lower end with 17% of CG being ‘bad’, that is a ton of patients who would need alternative sources. Using my conservative estimate of 30,000 patients going to Detroit dispensaries alone, that would be 16.5% of the community (based on 182,091 patients). Now... my sample of 10 CG could be biased, but we have no way of knowing that. And if it were biased, that would simply mean that the correct error bounds would change, i.e. instead of 17% it could be a lower limit of 5% or even higher at 25%. So I hope this clarifies what I’m trying to say, as I’m neither attacking caregivers or dispensaries. I’m not saying the CG community as a whole is bad. There are simply ‘bad apples’ in any community especially when dealing with drugs.

 

 

You are just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bizarrely wrong it is insane.

 

First of all, there are only 26,000 patients in total in Wayne County.  At the  most about 25%% use dispensaries at least once or twice. About 40% have caregivers. About 35%%  supply themselves, possibly more.

 

I think you should just stop while you are way behind Alphabob.  No need to keep talking out your butt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You can make up hypothetical what-ifs for any study, that was my point. They don't mean anything unless evidence of such bias actually exists. No one ever publishes work that considers every single what-if, it's based upon evidence and the intuition of the person conducting the survey. As I previous stated, there are no obvious biases with my sample of CGs. My CG met other CGs overtime and that made up a portion of my sample (good and bad). The rest were through other people I knew, with no specific history or behavior beyond helping others. Where is the evidence that helping others makes you a good or bad grower?

 

2. My central point is that a large population of patients will need an alternative if dispensaries are removed. This isn't based upon a 50% estimate or some biased conclusion of 'up to 83%', instead I'm discussing the lower limit to give a conservative estimate of the problem. The reason why this is possible is because it is highly improbable that I know 5 out of 10 CG that can't grow properly if the real value is outside the error bounds (18%-82%), even if my sample is biased through selection. I know some people on here don't like statistics, but that's just how it works. Post your own stats and prove mine wrong, but no need to get defensive over a dislike of dispensaries.

 

3. People drive up to several hours for Detroit or Ann Arbor dispensaries. I live in northern Oakland county and have been going to 8-mile for nearly a year; sometimes AA also. Detroit could very easily be selling to 30,000 patients with the surrounding populations. Every dispensary I go to, regardless of the time or day, I see 3-6 other patients within 30 minutes or so. All those dispensaries that were there before Detroit started regulating are still there plus more. So even if some patients go to multiple dispensaries or the average return time is less than two weeks, there is still room for error with the amount of traffic they receive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, the heart of the error in your approach is what you say in paragraph 1. A reasonable analysis doesn't hinge on whether or not you can prove that a bias exists. A sample population is assumed to be biased until proven otherwise. The only way to prove otherwise is to make the potential bias statistically insignificant by a sufficiently large sampling of a population selected at random. A conclusion made otherwise is purely anecdotal.

 

If a cop said that five years ago he responded to 10 traffic accidents with fatalities and four of the drivers tested positive for marijuana and last year he responded to 10 traffic fatalities and eight of the drivers tested positive, therefore legalization may have caused up to a 100% increase in traffic deaths, and even though this isn't a valid statistical evaluation, it is obvious that MJ legalization caused some increase in traffic deaths, would you buy into that? I wouldn't.

 

As I said before, statistics don't really matter in this argument anyway. The very nature of the MMJ program, that patients have only one reasonable choice, is a sound enough argument that patients should have other viable alternatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you that this is how it works. You guys started with one or two valid points that I overlooked and I appreciate that (the bias in judging CG through dispensaries and including the statistical error), but the recent ones are not valid. Here is an example of a random versus not random selection.

 

Not random: I pick caregivers that learned from the same grower.
Random: I met 10 independent CGs and judged their bud.
Not random: I picked CGs that only grow in a certain medium.
Random: I picked 10 CGs regardless of what they grow in.
Not random: I picked CGs that are new to growing.
Random: I picked 10 CGs regardless of how long they have been growing.

 

It is a random sample because I did not make any specific selections… I did not seek to add certain groups or exclude others. Thus it is identical to flipping a penny. Maybe the way you’re holding the penny or an air current moving through the area will alter the expected 50% head/tails probability after 10 flips; how would that be any different from this case involving random unknowns? It’s no different from me randomly meeting and testing 10 CGs bud. You are mixing unknown unknowns with how a responsible survey taker would try to avoid bias. By your standards, no one would ever publish an article involving statistical analysis. It's reasonable to consider grow medium or experience affecting quality, but helping out other patients who need medicine? That is stretching it by quite a bit.

 

Furthermore, determining the error bounds for a mean estimation is completely different from comparing a mean year after year. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.

 

But I do believe we could get a rough estimate of suitable CG even if ‘medicinal quality’ is subjective. Are you telling me that you haven’t seen other CGs bud even if you haven’t smoked any? Surely most of us could say how many good versus bad CGs they have encountered and we could sum this into a more accurate statistic. Either way, I summed the population in counties surrounding Detroit and there are ~70,000 patients. So it is possible that the dispensaries are seeing 30,000 patients in Detroit alone, though again only a rough estimate.

Edited by Alphabob
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original topic...I am reminded of an NPR show on whether or not protesting was effective in the modern era.  One of the folks being interviewed was senator Barney Frank (sorry I can't find the transcript).

 

In a nutshell, Frank said when he sees occupy protests or BLM or some other group make national headlines with their protests, he may or may not support their cause but has absolutely no idea what district they come from and who represents them.  On the other hand, when a gun control bill is being considered, even at its earliest phases, reps and senators phones light up from their actual constituents.  The reason, he said, is the NRA is the most effective lobbying organization that ever existed.  Members are alerted to the fact that someone is considering a bill that would be a big negative on their perceived rights and are told who to call or write to.

 

Is there such a patient organization?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there such a patient organization?

no, marijuana is illegal and marijuana patients and caregivers are probably too scared to sign up and give their names to the congress people on the phone.

 

also NRA has 2nd amendment to stand behind. marijuana patients maybe "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" ?

 

 

not too late to start an organization like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you that this is how it works. You guys started with one or two valid points that I overlooked and I appreciate that (the bias in judging CG through dispensaries and including the statistical error), but the recent ones are not valid. Here is an example of a random versus not random selection.

 

Not random: I pick caregivers that learned from the same grower.Random: I met 10 independent CGs and judged their bud.Not random: I picked CGs that only grow in a certain medium.Random: I picked 10 CGs regardless of what they grow in.Not random: I picked CGs that are new to growing.Random: I picked 10 CGs regardless of how long they have been growing.

 

It is a random sample because I did not make any specific selections… I did not seek to add certain groups or exclude others. Thus it is identical to flipping a penny. Maybe the way you’re holding the penny or an air current moving through the area will alter the expected 50% head/tails probability after 10 flips; how would that be any different from this case involving random unknowns? It’s no different from me randomly meeting and testing 10 CGs bud. You are mixing unknown unknowns with how a responsible survey taker would try to avoid bias. By your standards, no one would ever publish an article involving statistical analysis. It's reasonable to consider grow medium or experience affecting quality, but helping out other patients who need medicine? That is stretching it by quite a bit.

 

Furthermore, determining the error bounds for a mean estimation is completely different from comparing a mean year after year. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.

 

But I do believe we could get a rough estimate of suitable CG even if ‘medicinal quality’ is subjective. Are you telling me that you haven’t seen other CGs bud even if you haven’t smoked any? Surely most of us could say how many good versus bad CGs they have encountered and we could sum this into a more accurate statistic. Either way, I summed the population in counties surrounding Detroit and there are ~70,000 patients. So it is possible that the dispensaries are seeing 30,000 patients in Detroit alone, though again only a rough estimate.

Your examples of random and not random are incorrect. You can't just pick a few samples you find and call it random just because you aren't aware of a bias. This is why statisticians use random number generators and random number tables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So this is a bad bill - I don't support it. If people feel inclined to write a letter to any member of our thoroughly corrupt legislature, I'd recommend a position against it's passage.

 

And please, vote out all Republicans in the state legislature in November.

There are NO bad Democrats in our thoroughly corrupt legislature?

 

I dont vote straight party!

 

I beleive this is a bad bill also and let my reps know it!

 

Check out vote spotter on your smart phone, It is a pretty neat tool.

 

Peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Found some interesting data over at ballotpedia -

 

"Forty incumbent representatives did not run for re-election and two seats are currently vacant. Sixty-eight incumbents are running for re-election. A list of those retiring incumbents, 27 Republicans and 13 Democrats, can be found above."

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_State_Senate

 

Not sure how competitive the races are yet as far as districts changing from red to blue, but I would think a 2 to 1 margin in favor of Democrats on term limit retirements helps with MM causes.

Edited by westmich
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with this self righteous Rep. He fancies himself a Libertarian leaning guy, but is actually a straight up extreme Rethuglican... Ya know the type, claims to want less regulations, but only supports that for very large and influential parties. Instead He has introduced both via sponsoring and co-sponsoring reams of bills to mess with medical marijuana, and any other persons who maybe crossed him in high school... It was hoped he would be a honest Rep at first, as he has done some defense work in the past, but unfortunately he has not proven to be much of friend to citizenry in general. And that would go for Medical Marjuana Patients and Caregivers specifically

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should definitely be drawing attention to those races, specifically. It will then follow that the Democrat is the best candidate in the rest of the races.

Doug Gabert, Democratic Candidate for the District 102 House of Reps is PRO CANNABIS. Medical and Recreational

 

Doug is not actively campaigning for the canna vote and IMO that is a mistake.

 

I believe Dr Bob will get a substantial boost standing on a canna plank in the 97th district.

 

I encourage Doug Gabert to do the same. The republican grip in Wexford Co can only be loose by a Democrat that supports Cannabis.

 

Please email Doug at...... gabertforstatehse@gmail

 

Tell him , " Get on board, it's cannabis for the win "

 

Dr Bob, Help us get Doug on board in Evart on the 29th

 

We can do this.

Edited by beourbud
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with this self righteous Rep. He fancies himself a Libertarian leaning guy, but is actually a straight up extreme Rethuglican... Ya know the type, claims to want less regulations, but only supports that for very large and influential parties. Instead He has introduced both via sponsoring and co-sponsoring reams of bills to mess with medical marijuana, and any other persons who maybe crossed him in high school... It was hoped he would be a honest Rep at first, as he has done some defense work in the past, but unfortunately he has not proven to be much of friend to citizenry in general. And that would go for Medical Marjuana Patients and Caregivers specifically

Peter, Peter, Peter, Brother George would be so disappointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...