Cbs: 83% Now Accept Mmj. Up From 77% Last Year.

[peanutbutter]

Well, the polls were coming in at around 58-59% before the election 2008. We won with 62.8%.

 

So when your poll came in at 62%, to me, that was a rise in the polls of 1% outside of the margin of error.

 

So, yea. I would appreciate results when they come. :-)

 

So the context within the time that I had the poll ran.

 

A few months after BS came to power. Court rulings (COA) had gone against us. Bills had already been introduced against us.

 

A lot of negative PR. That pulled results down.

 

It had been told to our enemies to expect voter support would reverse after the law went into effect. An odd prophecy. Odd in that no one questioned the accuracy of a vision into the future.

 

Soooo .. what they playing with behind the curtains ...

 

Lets see .. how does it work? .. paint a picture of the future to walk into .. Oh yeah. I see you.

 

Some believed the prophecy without question. It was their reality. And they acted as if it was reality every step of the way. Without question and without data.

Edited December 11, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

Now comes another dart:

 

"We have already lost the battle, so we might as well give up." It's supposed to be best that way.

[peanutbutter]

Actually the 59% was a month before the election. :-)

 

I guess I forgot about that one.

 

The 59% I remember was the study that triggered money from MPP for the petition campaign.

 

These polls are all snapshots at that moment. They shift.

 

One thing should be clear from the CBS poll. We are in an upswing of public acceptance.

Edited December 11, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

Why do so many claim BS without checking into the poll itself?

Oh I did check into it. I always do check into things before I comment if I am going to be making material representations as to validity.

 

What did my checking reveal? That CBS says the sample of phone numbers was cell phones and landline. They don't indicate where they pull the numbers from. That is troubling if you plan on depending on a study. They also indicate a sampling error that could be minus 6 points PLUS un undetermined error based on subgroup sampling. So what does that tell us? The only thing representative about the poll, from a scientific standpoint, is that this percentage result is representative of the people called and cannot be extrapolated to the entire country.

 

Next, and don't quote me on this precisely (only generally) because I read it a few hours ago, the sample included fewer Republicans as a percent of the sample size than is the percent of people in the US that identify themselves as Repub. This was by about 4 percentage points. They did the opposite with Dems--included more dems than the percentage of Americans that identify as Dems. To their credit they did poll about the same percentage of independents as exists in the country. Also throw in the fact that more older people are less likely to use a cell phone than younger people. So the cell numbers skew toward a younger generation.

 

At any rate, the numbers are increasing. But this poll is likely wildly inaccurate. By their own admission, the total error rate couldn't even be calculated by CBS.

[t-pain]

which poll had the 77% number and did CL agree with that one or not ? lol. (but i am curious on both points)

[peanutbutter]

Oh I did check into it. I always do check into things before I comment if I am going to be making material representations as to validity.

 

What did my checking reveal? That CBS says the sample of phone numbers was cell phones and landline. They don't indicate where they pull the numbers from. That is troubling if you plan on depending on a study. They also indicate a sampling error that could be minus 6 points PLUS un undetermined error based on subgroup sampling. So what does that tell us? The only thing representative about the poll, from a scientific standpoint, is that this percentage result is representative of the people called and cannot be extrapolated to the entire country.

 

Next, and don't quote me on this precisely (only generally) because I read it a few hours ago, the sample included fewer Republicans as a percent of the sample size than is the percent of people in the US that identify themselves as Repub. This was by about 4 percentage points. They did the opposite with Dems--included more dems than the percentage of Americans that identify as Dems. To their credit they did poll about the same percentage of independents as exists in the country. Also throw in the fact that more older people are less likely to use a cell phone than younger people. So the cell numbers skew toward a younger generation.

 

At any rate, the numbers are increasing. But this poll is likely wildly inaccurate. By their own admission, the total error rate couldn't even be calculated by CBS.

 

I think the 83% was an honest reporting of what the data they collected showed.

 

I also think that there has been a gain in public acceptance in the last year. Which is one of the main points of the story.

 

And the debate here seems to be is it 70% or 80% ...

Edited December 11, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

which poll had the 77% number and did CL agree with that one or not ? lol. (but i am curious on both points)

I don't necessarily disagree with the poll at all. I am just saying that it SEEMS unlikely and that CBS didn't even assign a complete margin of error because apparently they couldn't..

[CaveatLector]

I think the 83% was an honest reporting of what the data they collected showed.

 

I also think that there has been a gain in public acceptance in the last year. Which is one of the main points of the story.

Yes, and I could poll 100 diabetics and ask if their fav snack is a twinkie. Probably would overwhelmingly be a big fat, "no." The poll isn't representative of the general population but what if I passed it off as such? It's a good study for diabetics but the issue isn't that, it's what the pollster is representing as fact by extrapolation.

[peanutbutter]

Yes, and I could poll 100 diabetics and ask if their fav snack is a twinkie. Probably would overwhelmingly be a big fat, "no." The poll isn't representative of the general population but what if I passed it off as such? It's a good study for diabetics but the issue isn't that, it's what the pollster is representing as fact by extrapolation.

 

It wasn't a poll of cannabis consumers.

[peanutbutter]

which poll had the 77% number and did CL agree with that one or not ? lol. (but i am curious on both points)

 

The 77% poll was also conducted by CBS. One year ago.

 

I figure that whatever biases may be present were there in both studies.

 

"They" may as well give up.

Edited December 11, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

It wasn't a poll of cannabis consumers.

And my twinkie poll wasn't a poll of twinkie consumers.

[peanutbutter]

And my twinkie poll wasn't a poll of twinkie consumers.

 

diabetics.

[CaveatLector]

diabetics.

Yes. And therein lies my point. Like you said, a poll is good only based on its limits. The CBS poll has limits. It cannot be extrapolated to be seen as representative of America.

[peanutbutter]

Yes. And therein lies my point. Like you said, a poll is good only based on its limits. The CBS poll has limits. It cannot be extrapolated to be seen as representative of America.

 

Can we leave it at "there has been a gain?"

[CaveatLector]

Can we leave it at "there has been a gain?"

I should hope. I think we will see other states fall like dominoes as MPP pushes on. I would think that at least by the time we topple state number 25 or 26 the feds will have to rethink things. I doubt that we will ever get all 50 but I'm sure we can get a majority. They should be rethinking now with the outright legalization starting to emerge.

 

I would caution that legalization, at least in Washington, doesn't really affect federal standards of prosecution anyway. Reason being that you can't grow and you can't have more than 1 ounce. When is the last time the feds have prosecuted someone for smoking marijuana or for carrying an ounce or less? They aren't street cops and don't go after stuff like that. So legalization in WA likely won't concern them much. CO may be a different story.

[peanutbutter]

I should hope. I think we will see other states fall like dominoes as MPP pushes on. I would think that at least by the time we topple state number 25 or 26 the feds will have to rethink things. I doubt that we will ever get all 50 but I'm sure we can get a majority. They should be rethinking now with the outright legalization starting to emerge.

 

I would caution that legalization, at least in Washington, doesn't really affect federal standards of prosecution anyway. Reason being that you can't grow and you can't have more than 1 ounce. When is the last time the feds have prosecuted someone for smoking marijuana or for carrying an ounce or less? They aren't street cops and don't go after stuff like that. So legalization in WA likely won't concern them much. CO may be a different story.

 

I was told very late last night ..

 

All proposed bills have been removed from the agendas.

 

I should go to Lansing more often.

[CaveatLector]

I was told very late last night ..

 

All proposed bills have been removed from the agendas.

 

I should go to Lansing more often.

You had them running scared peanut!

 

Wow! Are you seriously claiming ownership of that?

[Restorium2]

Very late last night? The ghost of Christmas?

"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato."

Edited December 12, 2012 by Restorium2

[+washtenaut]

I was told very late last night ..

 

All proposed bills have been removed from the agendas.

 

I should go to Lansing more often.

 

The Senate agenda shows medical mj house bills as items 22-25, that I've noticed. They are currently working on agenda item number 8

 

So, it looks from here like they are coming up in the Senate shortly.

[peanutbutter]

You had them running scared peanut!

 

Wow! Are you seriously claiming ownership of that?

 

Ummm I just did a part. A multi year effort. Involving lots of people holding up signs saying "Cannabis cures cancer."

 

The claim can't be made effectively by exposing the target once. It has to be many times before it becomes less ridiculous.

 

Many people worked behind the scenes in efforts to soften the proposed bills. Each time this succeeded, it gave me more time to work my foundations. Thank you.

 

Monday I delivered the MRI scans. To every single elected official.

Edited December 12, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

The MRI scans were on the back of the page that quoted this study.

[peanutbutter]

The Senate agenda shows medical mj house bills as items 22-25, that I've noticed. They are currently working on agenda item number 8

 

So, it looks from here like they are coming up in the Senate shortly.

 

Oh well .. reality shifted again.

 

The person that mentioned it to me was looking at committee agendas.

[+Malamute]

They have been on the agenda since they passed committee. That is not a way to tell if they will be brought up.

 

It has been inferred by a couple key Senators that these bills will "likely" not be passed this session.

 

Every second that passes without them passing the bills is one second closer to making that statement true.

[t-pain]

you know what other bill 'wasnt on the agenda'?

 

that other bill wasnt even written, and it got passed in a day. with 12000 protesters protesting.

these legislators can pass anything they want at any time.

 

i'm just being realistic. i cant see the future.

 

i mean, after rick snyder lied about it not being on the agenda...

why would you trust anything they say about whats on or off the agenda?

Edited December 12, 2012 by t-pain

[CaveatLector]

Ummm I just did a part. A multi year effort. Involving lots of people holding up signs saying "Cannabis cures cancer."

 

The claim can't be made effectively by exposing the target once. It has to be many times before it becomes less ridiculous.

 

Monday I delivered the MRI scans. To every single elected official.

Soooooo, let me get this straight. You distributed MRI scans coupled with a simple claim that cannabis cured the cancer? No professional opinions? No controlled studies? No indications whether the cure claim could, in reality, be part of a spontaneous remission statistic? No claim made that cancer was clear (eg. possible yet to be discovered metastses) but only a claim that a particular tumor or lesion shrank or disappeared?

 

You do realize that anyone who is educated, and probably most who aren't, will see such an MRI scan as proof of NOTHING, right?

 

I would hazard a guess that the majority of the legislators are educated people. Even if your claim is true (that cancer was "cured") those people have no proof of that by looking at an MRI scan. And even if the MRI scan was proof of remission it is not proof of treatment. So, in the end, all they have is the word of one person and somehow you think they will rely on someone whom may, or may not, have ulterior motives.

 

Furthermore, and no offense intended, I think a lot of them already see you as a froot loop because of past behavior (a la, "Hey Rick Jones, I'll prove that cannabis doesn't alter driving ability. Come take a ride with me!"). So why, pray tell, would anyone think that literature passed around by you means anything? I wonder what your answer would be.

 

Again, no offense. This is just reality. You really ought to try and step back and consider what your behavior looks like to someone who has your literature dumped into their inbox.