222 is both a Special Number and an Inadequate Number

Cannabinoid Profile Test Results
December 18, 2015
Labbiness in Washington Labs: Where is truthiness when you need it?
December 29, 2015
Show all

222 is both a Special Number and an Inadequate Number

(Author’s warning – this is a 21+ – only posting, as it deals with Numerology, and I do not believe that children should be exposed to such things.  I know what it has done to me.)

12/20/2015

(JimNote – see that number hiding in today’s date?)

When Senate Bill 5202 pronounced the death of Washington’s long-standing medical market, harm was Legislatively foisted on all patients that incorporate Cannabis into their health regimens and on all of those involved in ensuring that these patients had reliable and ready access to their medicine.

(JimNote:  when de-composing SB-5202, note the 2nd letter of the alphabet being followed by the pair of 2s)

(JimNote2: Many of you have pointed out to me that the actual bill was SSB-5052.  Thank-you — for the record, this fact changes nothing about the odd pattern of results, as SSB5052  still has the 2nd letter of the alphabet, but now it is followed by 2 “5”s, and the final “2” … again yielding 222.  I tell ya’ the truth is stranger than fiction.  My thanks to all for correcting my error.).

On a related note, (stay with me here), the SeaHawks managed to generate exactly 222 yards of offense (+/- certified referee measurement error) in the first half of today’s game (it’s currently 11:08 to go in the 4th quarter … GO HAWKS!).

On the final related note, the LCB announced earlier in the week that they were going to allow the addition of 222 retail stores under the “replace a whole bunch of relatively unregulated access points with some regulated ones” provisions of SB-5202 that I’m writing about on 12/20/2015.

Why is this triplet of 222s of interest (aside from numerologically)?

Because when you triple 222, you get 666 — the Number of the Beast.

I know that SB-5202 was partly evil.

I know that 222 incremental access points is not enough to service our medical needs and that is partly evil.

I know I’m writing this today (12/20/2015) and, while it does not feel evil, I AM writing during the game.   It’s at least wrong that I am doing this, so it is also partially evil.

Repeal SB-5202, give us a sufficient number of access points, and outlaw writing blogs critical of poorly-informed Government decisions during sporting events by the SeaHawks.  By doing so, you would strike down the Number of the Beast.  You would destroy at least these 3 partial evils.

 (JimNote:  numerologically, I believe that the minimal number of incremental access points that should be considered is also hidden in a number used above {the 11 minutes and 8 seconds remaining in the game that I noted earlier while writing this post).  That number represents 668 seconds … that is exactly 2 more than 666 – spooky, isn’t it?)

Isn’t that a simple solution?

Having 668 access points in the State (medical & recreational combined) if the Washington State Liquor and CANNABIS board were to simply (and minimally) double (that’s 2 x) the number of access points deemed appropriate by them to serve the recreational needs of the state.

Simple solution.  It’s still too few stores, but it is much much better than the proposed number … and it even makes sense (numerologically).  It is also much more defensible, as some of BOTEC’s earlier work done for the WSLCB suggested that the medical market was about the same size as the recreational one (e.g, the 2 together were 2 times the size of each).

My analyses still suggest a need for between 666 and 999+ stores.

But I’m not on the Team.

Go HAWKS … 7:00 left (that would be 420 seconds).

Jim

3 Comments

  1. W. Heisenberg says:

    SB 5202 refers to, “Creating the companion animal safety, population control, and spay/neuter assistance program” in Washington State.

    How about, SB 5052?

    😉

    • Jim says:

      You are correct … I meant to say SSB-5052.
      My thanks to you and to the others that have pointed this out to me.

      Note that SSB-5052 still parses to 3 “2”s: The letter B (2nd in alphabet); the 2 “5”s, and the final “2”.
      So the point of my numerological rantings remains as it was before my mistaken “222” was replaced by the accurate “222”.

      Thanks again.

      • Jim says:

        Werner, I know from your posting that you likely appreciate the uncertainty inherent in any system of measurement and, perhaps more importantly, how the simple act of measuring something can, apparently, change the very thing being measured.

        Along those lines, my biggest conundrum in this space is how one can possibly reconcile a measurement of 60+% THC for flower, while at the same time seeing a total LACK of reporting on Terpene concentrations. Would measuring the Terps in some way change the level of THC displayed by the Flower? I don’t know but I (and, I suspect, you) occasionally lose sleep contemplating the possibilities.

        But … then again, Shrodinger's Uncertainty Relation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *