Alphabob

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A sample of 10 provides an error bound of 32%, so what was observed in Washington is consistent with what I’ve seen myself. If I’ve sampled even 50 different growers from dispensaries that is an error of 14%. So it is very unlikely (although not impossible) that I have a biased sample. Just because I support increased access for those who cannot find good caregivers does not skew my perspective for all CG. However, if there are so many good, easy to access CG out there then why is the dispensary business booming? It’s because bad CG exist, people’s crops die or get infested, ect. But I can’t agree with claims that every CG is perfect or that the issues affecting the MMMA community are due to a single lobbying effort for dispensaries. I’m all for a common sense system that will work with everyone except for the people who's patients are running away from them. One side wants to screw over all the patients who can’t find good CG, the other wants to screw over CG and anyone who isn’t rich. I’m on the side who doesn’t want to screw over anyone except for the greedy republican police state and wealthy special interests; it's as simple as that.

Yes and those are all good examples as to why it would be difficult to get an exact answer, especially when considering that ‘medical quality’ is a subjective term. As you said, one product may be potent and contaminated while another mediocre and clean/organic. Obviously I can't detect pesticides when I smoke, so I was basing it off mostly quality. IMO medical quality should be both potent and uncontaminated. With 13.5% of the Washington samples being contaminated with pesticides alone, I would say that it is certainly greater than 10% when considering poor quality also. Either way, we have gone way off topic. I was attempting to demonstrate that there are many more roadblocks to implementing ones own dispensary bill than simply lobbying. The police state controls what is discussed and passed in regards to medical marijuana. They have proven this on several occasions. These people can lobby all they want, but the only reason Jones is excited to bring up a dispensary bill is because he and his buddies will benefit from it. Call it whatever you want, but I don’t believe the dispensary lobbies are the central problem here. They could be an annoyance that is strongly disliked by the CG community, but look at who actually has power behind the scenes and their motives. The bills won't even make it to the lobbyist's targets unless it is OKed by the judicial system first.

From some searches on Google last night I found a few recent articles showing companies being fined for pesticide use, several mentions of banned growing products, funding into trace detection, published HPLC-MS results showing 5 out of 37 with high levels from Washington dispensaries, ect. Even in states that regulate what products growers use, some producers are putting hidden pesticides in their 'organic' products and mislabeling them. I know that some CGs spray pesticides indoors around their plants also, it may be a very small minority but it happens. http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/02/11/23553397/washington-state-fines-two-marijuana-growers-for-using-prohibited-pesticides http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_flags_potential_problem.html https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/03/21/23800116/a-clarification-and-some-more-context-about-last-weeks-pesticide-testing-results If you include samples from dispensaries and how their suppliers change over time, it is still a somewhat significant result. I typically purchase products from top to bottom shelves, choosing the best they can offer. So 25+ dispensary trips (~12 different places), 3 – 5 different strains per visit plus the 10 or so I’ve directly sampled from other CG/growers. That is 85 – 135 samples. Maybe the conditions I have seen or heard about in grow rooms consist of a smaller sample, but I have a general understanding of the quality among growers. And yes there are always additional factors that may or may not play a role. I’m not planning to publish a scientific article on this, just saying what I’ve seen from CGs to dispensaries. ‘Medicinal quality’ is a subjective term. I’m not saying 50% poison their crops with pesticides or that 50% can’t keep a plant alive. It is just my opinion on who can produce properly grown, dried and cured bud suitable for treating debilitating medical conditions.

I didn’t ask them what method the lab they send samples to uses, but probably HPLC-MS. They listed several cannabinoids on the labels with good quality bud, though very few dispensaries in Michigan actually do this. Any qualified lab should have a database of various chemicals such as pesticides that will show up as peaks in the results. They have further implemented systems in other states to detect pesticides and allow only certain products to be used. This probably won’t detect trace amounts, but they are working on that also. If people want to trust and buy direct from CGs that's up to them, but for stores putting products on shelves testing should be required. I’ve seen around half a dozen grows, heard about many more and sampled a dozen or so dispensaries around Michigan. If there are 30,000 CG that’s about 1 in every 330 people. I doubt there are even that many botanists in this country. Based on what I’ve seen I believe 50% is a reasonable estimate for being able to produce medicinal quality products, and probably around 10-20% for people who shouldn’t even be growing. When considering all the factors however, finding a good CG can take some time. Price, quantity, quality, distance, personality, dependability, ect. It would be interesting to do a survey on here to see how many caregivers people have gone through, either connected or not. Maybe see how many dispensaries people have gone through also. Growing good bud however isn’t as easy as most think, especially for beginners who try using hydro. You need to know the basics of several natural sciences to do it properly, either that or you learned over years through trial-n-error or had someone teach you. There’s chemistry, botany/biology, physics (some quantum mechanics if you really want to understand light efficiency), electrical engineering, ect. I've seen what happens when people do not understand the basics of this and it isn't pretty. Extension cords about to catch fire, fried plants, gnat infestations, diseased plants with malnutrition, 1500W+ of light being wasted, 'quick drying', refusal to properly cure and too many others to list. It's like those people who buy a restaurant and store cooked meat on top of the raw, there are people out there who are lazy and not very bright.

Dispensary interests were not the ones passing the illegal transport law after significant push back from the community. They were not the ones putting the Swift family on display for a saliva-test sympathy vote right after AAA called the ‘science’ BS. If the police state really wants to pass something, it will do so regardless of push back from the citizens or even science for that matter. I can't attest one way or the other whether this lobbying attempt had any real chance of succeeding; whether or not patient advocates effectively blocked their attempts. I can only demonstrate that they didn't get what they were asking for and that judicial interests are winning in this regard, not the citizens. But when the system is corrupt to the point where punishment typically begins at first encounter and fighting back in court is the exception, it doesn’t really matter if they get 75% to modify the MMMA as we have seen. LEO does whatever they want, cause you know… they are super awesome. It isn’t just independent groups lobbying either, it’s the Chiefs of Police, Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, State Police and the Sheriffs Association (in addition to the AG). When those groups say no, bills get automatically shutdown. When they say yes, they pass even against significant push back. I have never seen any interest group more powerful then these guys and they have no right being in that position. How many times has there been a last minute call from these guys and a planned bill never comes up for discussion? Furthermore, the bills will not even make it to the floor without passing through the judicial committee, which is headed by Rick Jones. And from what I’ve seen, Jones isn’t going to be pushing any dispensary bill unless it financially benefits the sheriff departments, other LEO organizations and their buddies. I don't see how either side could come to a compromise, because they are both fighting over who gets to profit. But in terms of who has near absolute power and who doesn't need to compromise with others, well that's the police state; so expect their version of things to be pushed through if they decide to do so, not the dispensary groups. It's more like the judicial system is hijacking the lobbyists attempts at hijacking our act. There are several locations where dispensaries can operate without being harassed. In fact, I don't quite understand why a group from Ann Arbor would want to modify dispensary laws as no one is bothering them. I don't understand why any operating dispensary would want more restriction unless they are operating in a not-so-safe area. This alone leads me to believe that at least some of these groups consist of rich, outside interests that want to open 'legal' dispensaries in Michigan. The MMMAs purpose was to allow citizens in Michigan to grow or obtain medical marijuana to treat their conditions, not to financially support individuals by letting them grow plants. I'm for whatever system would provide the most affordable, highest quality medicine as possible. What they are proposing is definitely not that, and I believe the proper system would be a hybrid. Overages go to dispensaries, allow some quality control, ramp up competition to lower prices and the patients get to choose where they go. Then if your a good caregiver you would have nothing to worry about; everyone wins except for the crappy growers who shouldn't be growing. I would say that at minimum half the caregivers out there do not know how to properly grow or produce medicinal quality. Many also use toxic chemicals around the plants, which are never tested or checked for. I know a dispensary that charges CGs $50 to test their bud in Ann Arbor, compare that to a pound and your talking about a 2% markup in price to keep patients safe. And yes, dispensaries usually cost more than caregivers but not always. My first CG was charging $180 a month for garbage, I went to several dispensaries and dropped to ~$120 per month. Now with another CG I'm around $80 per month, so it varies by quite a lot. The thing is, I needed good meds at the start. I didn't have 16 months to search around and would have been better off just going to a dispensary until I found someone legit. Well if that's true then these people are lying. But there are a lot of aspects that do not make sense to me when looking at the bigger picture, at least if these groups still support the garbage Jones came up with.

I can understand lobbying being part of the offer to legislatures, but what I’m trying to say is that these groups have nothing to offer that the government couldn’t take on its own. For example, every change being made was already wanted by LEO and the judicial system, which is a much stronger lobbying group with direct ties to Rick Jones. Thus even if some dispensary groups didn’t supposedly sell out the medical community, these changes would have occurred anyways. Some dispensary groups may be on the wrong side, but they are not the central issue. An out of control police state that runs off robbing and unfairly taxing its citizens is the issue. That is their end-game, to make the MMMA into an even greater cash cow for LEO, not private interests. Yes and that is why lobbying is probably the better word for what's going on rather than cutting deals. These dispensary groups are not going to get what they want with Rick Jones in charge and have yet to receive anything. The only ones who would be supportive of the current bill are likely not operating dispensaries at the moment, as they would begin to loss a significant amount of profits from the over-regulation. I do not believe all dispensaries are on the same side. There are clearly certain groups who are making the bad decisions and lobbying. I don't support cutting off the caregiver system, but my number one priority is the patients. We need easy to access and affordable, high quality meds that are not covered in toxic chemicals. We also need a choice of growing it ourselves unless insurance is going to pay for the additional costs of a centralized system. Otherwise the black market is going to make a strong come back. Are any of the groups still willing to push the dispensary bill after the recent changes? Horner now seems focused on defeating the bill and several other groups who initially supported it no longer do. Their original goals of having a dispensary bill seem to still be there however, as they want to try again from scratch in 2017. by Ben Horner HB 4209, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Facilities Act has been stalled again in the Michigan Senate. HB 4209 is designed to create a state regulatory model for dispensaries, and while in the hands of Senator Jones in the Judicial Committee, two other bills have been added to control seed-to-sale and distribution via secured transportation services, which would theoretically act as a completely regulated commercial cultivation system. National Patients Rights Association (NPRA), MPP, Michigan Cannabis Development Association, Ann Arbor Cannabis Guild and the Lansing Cannabis Guild have actively been working to pass these bills, and have been willing to compromise patient and caregivers right to grow in exchange for the state to license their dispensaries and commercial growing. Two Groups, Evergreen Management and the Cannabis Stakeholders Group, have actively been trying to expose these corrupt officials that want to turn cannabis into a private government controlled program similar to the way the state regulates gambling, tobacco, and alcohol. The legislative lame duck session will be coming up shortly after the election in November. Jones has vowed to make another attempt to pass the bills that nearly all patients and caregivers are against at this point. If patients, caregivers and small business owners want to prevent this from happening and wait to retry from scratch in 2017, a massive organizing effort must take place. The Cannabis Stakeholders Group will be working with groups like Evergreen Management to make this happen and continue the advocate for comprehensive legislation and local initiatives that work for all Michiganders, not just the 1%. http://www.mmmrmag.com/images/AUG16_mmmreport_WEB.pdf

I just don’t see how the dispensaries have any real say in this. What powers do they hold over the various branches of government? How does the collective of dispensaries in Michigan have any say over what laws are going to be passed, i.e. what do they have to offer in the first place? They don't get to cast votes on the bills and they are not 200,000+ voters in the MMJ system. The fact that we don’t have a dispensary law says to me that they hold very little if any power over the judicial or legislative branches. They were not even listed in the exclusive meetings held by Jones. So if a deal was made, they gave nothing up of their own and received nothing in return... that doesn't sound like a deal to me. There may be a few ‘bad apples’ in the legislative and judicial branches who plan to profit on future marijuana laws, or maybe have their buddies get in on it. However, the vast majority of these objectives seem to be focused on the following. 1. Drastically decreasing access for patients, both in suppliers, methods of use and affordability. 2. Having patients and caregivers pay for their own harassment by law-enforcement. 3. Centralize access points for easier raid targets and larger forfeitures. 4. Making the system so regulated that they can still run their departments and courts off proceeds from the medical marijuana community. If they pass their supposedly agreed upon dispensary bill then I'll be open to changing my mind, but I doubt that will be happening anytime soon. In addition, the groups that initially supported the dispensary bill are no longer in favor of it after Rick Jones laid hands on it; i.e. National Patients Rights Association (NPRA), MPP and Michigan Cannabis Development Association (I'm unsure about Ann Arbor of Lansing Cannabis Guild's position at the moment). Supporters like Thompson told FOX 17 they are no longer on board with these bills, but still support the non-smoking bill, or medical marijuana concentrates legalization through HB 4210. The National Patients Rights Association Legislative Liaison Robin Schneider was also not attendance Tuesday but told FOX 17 both NPRA and several pediatric patient groups do not support the added regulations; instead they favor “vertically integrated” companies that would create a more affordable system for patients to get their medicine. http://mcdagroup.com/ What you are saying seems more along the lines of what the MMMreport claims as of this month, National Patients Rights Association (NPRA), MPP, Michigan Cannabis Development Association, Ann Arbor Cannabis Guild and the Lansing Cannabis Guild have actively been working to pass these bills, and have been willing to compromise patient and caregivers right to grow in exchange for the state to license their dispensaries and commercial growing. http://www.mmmrmag.com/images/AUG16_mmmreport_WEB.pdf Somewhere there is misinformation going on.

Here is an article from late 2015 that discusses the various interests. On November 10, representatives of the Michigan Chiefs of Police (MCP), Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM), Michigan State Police (MSP) and the Michigan Sheriffs Association (MSA) gave testimony in the Senate Judiciary on a trio of medical marijuana bills proposing to establish new dispensary laws and change current language in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Committee Chair Sen. Rick Jones allowed only these specially-selected groups to tell him what they want him to change. No citizens were allowed to testify, just cops and lawyers. http://www.theweedblog.com/cops-to-senate-eliminate-the-marijuana-caregiver-system-in-michigan/ I don’t see any dispensary interests in there, just the top players from our judicial system. What do these people want? 1. Banning the caregiver system. 2. Refusing to ever support medical marijuana. 3. Banning all edibles. 4. Increase DREs while taxing patients to pay for it, implement saliva tests and remove patient protections on the road. 5. Choice of either dispensary or caregiver, but not both. 6. Tax patients for their medicine and give the proceeds to the county sheriffs. 7. Banning BHO. 8. Allow inspections and access at all times. 9. Testing and labeling of products. 10. Switch from product weight to THC limits. 11. Ban all delivery services. Seems like everything that has happened and everything being pushed for originated within our judicial system. A very small minority in Michigan’s overall population, yet with near 100% power and control. All they care about is money and power.

If some really were selling out to get a dispensary bill passed, well they didn’t do a very good job. The fact that the legislature failed to even consider a dispensary bill makes me think that the dispensary lobbies lack real power. The ones making the decisions are the legislatures, judicial system and state police. Think about it, how could a few lobbyist running illegal businesses have more say than 200,000+ patients plus caregivers? From previous bills, it was complaints from the patients and caregivers that got them shutdown. Dispensaries have very little say in all of this, much less than the state police... otherwise they would be legal by now.