# Is America's 54% Support of Legalized Marijuana a Lie?



## gabechihua (Jul 30, 2014)

Just curious how people feel about this number that is always fed to us by the mass media. I question the legitimacy of the number for one main reason. I've read several articles on the subject over the last few years and on more than one occasion there have been surveys at the bottom of these articles that ask if you support legalized marijuana. Now you would think the survey results would be close to that 54% number we're always fed, but on more than one occasion the survey results showed approval actually hovering in the high 90's. Some may argue, well it has to do with the type of people that would be reading that article they would probably all be stoners eager for legalization. That argument might make sense, but I've also seen articles with identical subject matter that had reader surveys with results that matched that 54% approval mark. It leads me to believe that these pole numbers are being manipulated by people in control of mass media to match a hidden agenda. I know some may think that a conspiracy to manipulate popular opinion is a stretch, while others will think it's just another day in mind controlled America. Anyway, tell me how you feel about this number that is fed to us. Is it a lie or is it the truth? Here is a link to a recent US News and World Report article with a survey that shows reader approval hovering at around the 97% mark to help you decide whether there is manipulation at play. 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/07/28/is-the-new-york-times-editorial-board-right-about-legalizing-pot


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 1, 2014)

Looks like Bill O' had a survey blow up in his face when he posed the question on his website, 89% of respondents favored legalization. If Bill O'Reilly's website that is mostly frequented by right wing fanatics gets survey results like this you know the poll numbers are being fixed. The news site that reported this story however states that online polls are notoriously unreliable, and suggests that polls by Gallup and Pew are much more reliable.  Polls by Gallup and Pew are always suspect in my book, it's extremely easy for them to fake their numbers. The fact that Gallup and Pew are mass medias' two big standbys for poll numbers make them even more suspect. Of course websites with live polls can easily fake their numbers too, but when poll numbers like these keep coming in from websites like billoreilly.com and us news and world report who have absolutely nothing to gain by making legalization look more popular and are actually against legalization it starts to make it obvious that Gallup and Pew are the ones who are notoriously unreliable.

http://theweek.com/article/index/265651/speedreads-bill-oreilly-took-a-poll-on-legalizing-weed-youll-never-guess-what-happened-next


----------



## Dat Dank (Aug 5, 2014)

Bill O'Reilley is a right wing hack who is paid large sums of money to perpetuate his fascist agenda. I won't trust Faux News polls like I wouldn't trust a guy selling Rolex's on a street corner.The biased and conceited nature of Faux News never fails to baffle me. Even when the man is hit with FACTS from his own poll...he still acts like a majority of Americans don't want it legalized. I'm surprised he's even still on air. Faux is the reason I don't watch T.V anymore.


----------



## Rrog (Aug 6, 2014)

Seems like NORML or the MMP would have vetted these numbers


----------



## Wilksey (Aug 6, 2014)

Polls are bullshit designed to sway the opinions of idiots that don't realize that polls are bullshit.



> Bill O'Reilley is a right wing hack who is paid large sums of money to perpetuate his fascist agenda. I won't trust Faux News polls like I wouldn't trust a guy selling Rolex's on a street corner.The biased and conceited nature of Faux News never fails to baffle me. Even when the man is hit with FACTS from his own poll...he still acts like a majority of Americans don't want it legalized. I'm surprised he's even still on air. Faux is the reason I don't watch T.V anymore.


NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, they're ALL hacks paid to shill propaganda. EVERY LAST ONE.

Too many people associate "freedom of the press" with integrity, when all it means is "free to publish bullshit".


----------



## Rrog (Aug 6, 2014)

oh


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 7, 2014)

Dat Dank said:


> Bill O'Reilley is a right wing hack who is paid large sums of money to perpetuate his fascist agenda. I won't trust Faux News polls like I wouldn't trust a guy selling Rolex's on a street corner.The biased and conceited nature of Faux News never fails to baffle me. Even when the man is hit with FACTS from his own poll...he still acts like a majority of Americans don't want it legalized. I'm surprised he's even still on air. Faux is the reason I don't watch T.V anymore.


O'Reilley is hardly fascist. He is paid well because he is popular and draws lots of advertising dollars. He is the most popular cable news/opinion show on. You don't "trust" Fox news because they tell you things you don't want to hear. But not watching TV at all probably will make you smarter.


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 7, 2014)

Fucking spammer, go away!


----------



## Dat Dank (Aug 7, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Fucking spammer, go away!


Who are you calling a spammer?


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 7, 2014)

I forgot the name, but it wasn't you. The mods seem to have deleted all his multiple threads. One of his posts directly preceded mine, but is gone now. I suspect he was banned as well.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 9, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> You don't "trust" Fox news because they tell you things you don't want to hear.


The reason people don't trust Faux News is because everyone knows it's non-stop right wing spin. I don't consider it a news channel, I just consider it right wing entertainment for those who like to feed their faces full off right wing spin.


----------



## Wilksey (Aug 9, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> The reason people don't trust Faux News is because everyone knows it's non-stop right wing spin. I don't consider it a news channel, I just consider it right wing entertainment for those who like to feed their faces full off right wing spin.



What do you call CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and pretty much every other "news" agency out there?

Are THEY actually "fair and unbiased"?

FUCK NO!!!

They're pitching the same BULLSHIT FOX is, but for THEIR agenda.

THEY'RE ALL SCHILLS. PERIOD.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 10, 2014)

Wilksey said:


> What do you call CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and pretty much every other "news" agency out there?
> 
> Are THEY actually "fair and unbiased"?
> 
> ...


Did I say I watch any of that crap? I find politics incredibly boring, I stopped paying attention to the dog and pony show about seven years ago. However I do find it incredibly annoying when Fox constantly beats you over the head with their lame ass "fair and balanced" slogan. All those channels are seriously boring to watch, but I do find Fox's style to be quite a bit more nauseating than the rest. I think Michael Stipe said it best when he said, "I'm not a fan of their puff adder style of journalism".


----------



## polo the don (Aug 10, 2014)

Money talks. 
Everything else walks.


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 10, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> Did I say I watch any of that crap? I find politics incredibly boring, I stopped paying attention to the dog and pony show about seven years ago. However I do find it incredibly annoying when Fox constantly beats you over the head with their lame ass "fair and balanced" slogan. All those channels are seriously boring to watch, but I do find Fox's style to be quite a bit more nauseating than the rest. I think Michael Stipe said it best when he said, "I'm not a fan of their puff adder style of journalism".


If you haven't watched it in seven years and still complain about it, it must have incredibly annoying. Apparently, there there is something more to it than it being merely annoying. Or you're not being honest with yourself.


----------



## Wilksey (Aug 10, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> ... but I do find Fox's style to be quite a bit more nauseating than the rest.


Biased liberal douchebags usually do.

Not saying that YOU are a biased liberal douchebag, of course, just that biased liberal douchebags are usually the ones calling out FOX due to the fact that they lack the integrity, or intelligence, to see and call out the liberal bias in every other source of media. Biased liberal douchebags don't care about bias as long as it's THEIR bias.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 10, 2014)

Wilksey said:


> Biased liberal douchebags usually do.
> 
> Not saying that YOU are a biased liberal douchebag, of course, just that biased liberal douchebags are usually the ones calling out FOX due to the fact that they lack the integrity, or intelligence, to see and call out the liberal bias in every other source of media. Biased liberal douchebags don't care about bias as long as it's THEIR bias.


Dude quit trying to finger me for being a liberal just because I don't like Fox's style. I'm not a political person and I don't associate with any political party. I'm guessing this is a touchy subject, it usually is for conservative right wing douchebags.


----------



## Wilksey (Aug 11, 2014)

ayr0n said:


> News sucks.


If they can't figure that out, then yes, they deserve the Retard moniker, with a capital "R", along with all the other scorn they get.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 11, 2014)

ayr0n said:


> Btw no reason to call dude a fucking retard because he doesn't agree with you. Sounds like some Fox shit


I didn't call him a retard because he didn't agree with me. I called him a retard because he came on my thread and called me a douchebag and a fucking moron.


----------



## ayr0n (Aug 11, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> I didn't call him a retard because he didn't agree with me. I called him a retard because he came on my thread and called me a douchebag and a fucking moron.


Was talkin Bout him ..lol


----------



## Wilksey (Aug 11, 2014)

ayr0n said:


> Was talkin Bout him ..lol


Hence, the moniker.


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 11, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> Dude quit trying to finger me for being a liberal just because I don't like Fox's style. I'm not a political person and I don't associate with any political party. I'm guessing this is a touchy subject, it usually is for conservative right wing douchebags.


You finger yourself for being a liberal. You clearly are political. Your denials do not ring true.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 11, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> You finger yourself for being a liberal. You clearly are political. Your denials do not ring true.


How the hell does not liking Fox make me a liberal? I'll repeat it one more time, because obviously I'm dealing with a couple of thick skulls.* I don't like politics and I don't like the channel.*


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 11, 2014)

Then why post in the politics forum?


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 11, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Then why post in the politics forum?


 This isn't the politics forum.


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 11, 2014)

Damn , you're right!


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 11, 2014)

you're a fucking idiot, red.


----------



## bigbuddin84 (Aug 11, 2014)

I do find it hilariously amusing when I come to threads like these and people say things like "Faux News", and "I'm not biased one way or the other" in the same statement. Not that I saw it here. But I smelled hints of it. Just amusing is all.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 11, 2014)

bigbuddin84 said:


> I do find it hilariously amusing when I come to threads like these and people say things like "Faux News", and "I'm not biased one way or the other" in the same statement. Not that I saw it here. But I smelled hints of it. Just amusing is all.


Wow, just wow. I can't believe this is the third person that can't figure this out. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have a biased opinion. In order for my opinion to be biased I would have to say I only like liberal media, but hate Fox. I already stated I don't affiliate with any political party and don't watch any kind of political media.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 11, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> Wow, just wow. I can't believe this is the third person that can't figure this out. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have a biased opinion. In order for my opinion to be biased I would have to say I only like liberal media, but hate Fox. I already stated I don't affiliate with any political party and don't watch any kind of political media.


you'd be surprised by the number of fox news devotees we have around here.

they hate it when you blaspheme the altar at which they worship.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 11, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> you'd be surprised by the number of fox news devotees we have around here.
> 
> they hate it when you blaspheme the altar at which they worship.


Yeah, it's starting to look like it. I regret responding to red's initial post, I didn't think it was going to turn into all this shit. All I was trying to say is Fox is all right wing all the time and that's why they're not widely accepted as a credible news source. I should have known it was gonna ruffle the feathers of the die hard right wingers, they hate it when you trash their beloved garbage.


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 12, 2014)

You don't watch Fox, but hate it anyway? Fox is the the most widely watched cable news network, drawing more viewers than all other US based networks combined. You're making statements that are untrue to support your bias. Yes, bias. You single out Fox for criticism while ignoring all the others. You should know thyself.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 12, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> You don't watch Fox, but hate it anyway? Fox is the the most widely watched cable news network, drawing more viewers than all other US based networks combined. You're making statements that are untrue to support your bias. Yes, bias. You single out Fox for criticism while ignoring all the others. You should know thyself.





Wilksey said:


> What do you call CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and pretty much every other "news" agency out there?
> 
> Are THEY actually "fair and unbiased"?
> 
> ...





gabechihua said:


> Did I say I watch any of that crap?


Is calling the rest of the competition crap singling out Fox? Oh yeah, I'm real biased.


----------



## ayr0n (Aug 12, 2014)

Not sure why my post got deleted...got a conservative mod? 

There's a couple quotes of it still lurking n the thread if you'd like to finish your cleanup job...

http://rollitup.org/t/is-americas-54-support-of-legalized-marijuana-a-lie.839702/#post-10785070

http://rollitup.org/t/is-americas-54-support-of-legalized-marijuana-a-lie.839702/#post-10784859


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 12, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Fox is the the most widely watched cable news network, drawing more viewers than all other US based networks combined.


I know all the Fox devotees love to point to this fact. Just as much as I love showing them just how many people are actually tuning in. Just some facts from Wikipedia...

"In 2008, in the 25-54 age group, Fox News had an average of 557,000 viewers, but dropped to 379,000 in 2013 while increasing its overall audience from 1.89 million in 2010 to 2.02 million in 2013. The median age for Fox News viewers is listed as 65+ as Nielsen does not give exact figures for ages over 65."

So It looks like about .1% of Americans age 25-54 are tuning in. Ooh, I'm impressed. The Miley Cyrus special that was on NBC a couple months ago drew about 7 times more viewers. Face it cable news sucks and America knows it.


----------



## Red1966 (Aug 12, 2014)

Still running down Fox, while trying to claim you're unbiased.
And your figures are false. Here are the actual numbers from yesterday. Note Fox is more than double MSNBC. Miley Cyrus isn't a news channel. Why even bring it up?

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Monday, August 11, 2014 






Total Day P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s) 
FOXN 1,229 266 523 
CNN 656 207 325 
MSNBC 362 91 152 
CNBC 127 30 48 
FBN 53 8 23 
HLN 313 125 198


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 12, 2014)

Oh OK I guess Wikipedia is lying, you probably think they're biased too.  Hey red, did you miss the post where I said I find Fox to be more nauseating than the rest? That's not a biased opinion that's an honest opinion, just the way I feel. Did you also miss the post where I explained the difference between being biased and just plain hating Fox. I do not prefer to watch any other station over Fox therefore I cannot be biased. Do I have to keep repeating myself, *I hate every single last one of them. *How about I start a thread devoted to trashing cable news in general? Would that make you happy red?


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 12, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> Did I say I watch any of that crap?... * All* those channels are seriously boring to watch


Are these the words of a biased person?


----------



## TakeTheTicket (Aug 24, 2014)

I think plenty of people personally support the idea of legalization. The problem is that so many people are worried about fitting in with the status quo that they won't ever publicly voice their support. Some people are so full of "Reefer Madness" misinformation that they believe the country will descend into madness if we legalize it. Others think there will be a shitload of workplace accidents.

As far as the 54% figure? Who knows. I think a better litmus test of acceptance would be to ask business owners if they would fire employees for using marijuana. Who cares if it's legal if you can still lose your job/career over it?

Urine tests need to be thrown out. They need a new test that is similar to a breathalyzer which can determine if I'm under the influence right now. If they can't prove that I smoked weed in the last few hours then the test doesn't mean shit for "workplace safety" or insurance or whatever their excuse is for drug testing. 


As for news: Both FoxNews and MSNBC are terrible, they both represent extreme political views. FoxNews is for rednecks, racists and old white men. MSNBC is just... bad. The reason that psychos like Bill Oreilly are still on TV is because they get people talking. Even if that talk is about how crazy Bill is. He purposely says controversial things just to get people riled up. 

I'll occasionally watch the local evening news, but I always read from multiple sources before forming an opinion about a story. I see the news as an alerter and a distracter. Sometimes its useful to alert you to certain events, and you can do your own research on the subject. Other times news stories exist solely to distract you from other events.


----------



## gabechihua (Aug 25, 2014)

Oh and red, one thing you do need to realize about those ratings is that Fox attracts a ton of media watchdog types who agree with nothing the channel spews. I used to tune in just to laugh at the ridiculousness of the bias. There are quite a few who tune in nightly for the same reason. Those viewers who are not fans of the channel count in the ratings, so the ratings can be a bit misleading.


----------



## TakeTheTicket (Aug 25, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> Oh and red, one thing you do need to realize about those ratings is that Fox attracts a ton of media watchdog types who agree with nothing the channel spews. I used to tune in just to laugh at the ridiculousness of the bias. There are quite a few who tune in nightly for the same reason. Those viewers who are not fans of the channel count in the ratings, so the ratings can be a bit misleading.


Absurd! Hatewatching FoxNews?


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 12, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> Did I say I watch any of that crap? I find politics incredibly boring, I stopped paying attention to the dog and pony show about seven years ago. However I do find it incredibly annoying when Fox constantly beats you over the head with their lame ass "fair and balanced" slogan. All those channels are seriously boring to watch, but I do find Fox's style to be quite a bit more nauseating than the rest. I think Michael Stipe said it best when he said, "I'm not a fan of their puff adder style of journalism".


What do you mean boring? Just last week on The Five, that Guilfoyle woman was showing so much leg I swear if her skirt rose another 1/2" I could have seen cleft. I was riveted.


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 17, 2014)

Wilksey said:


> Polls are bullshit designed to sway the opinions of idiots that don't realize that polls are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank God for Amy Goodman.


----------



## Choo (Oct 18, 2014)

gabechihua said:


> Looks like Bill O' had a survey blow up in his face when he posed the question on his website, 89% of respondents favored legalization. If Bill O'Reilly's website that is mostly frequented by right wing fanatics gets survey results like this you know the poll numbers are being fixed. The news site that reported this story however states that online polls are notoriously unreliable, and suggests that polls by Gallup and Pew are much more reliable.  Polls by Gallup and Pew are always suspect in my book, it's extremely easy for them to fake their numbers. The fact that Gallup and Pew are mass medias' two big standbys for poll numbers make them even more suspect. Of course websites with live polls can easily fake their numbers too, but when poll numbers like these keep coming in from websites like billoreilly.com and us news and world report who have absolutely nothing to gain by making legalization look more popular and are actually against legalization it starts to make it obvious that Gallup and Pew are the ones who are notoriously unreliable.
> 
> http://theweek.com/article/index/265651/speedreads-bill-oreilly-took-a-poll-on-legalizing-weed-youll-never-guess-what-happened-next


I myself am a "right winger" and I am all for legalization, for medical use at least. I am not at all surprised at the O'Reilley poll results since so many conservatives tend to be more libertarian and therefore have a more live and let live attitude.
Polls are manipulated in the way that the questions are asked. Did you notice whether they included the question with the poll results? I would say probably not because they wouldn't want the more intelligent of us to see their methods of manipulation.


----------



## Collisto's Orbit (Oct 25, 2014)

All television news is filtered bullshit. The agenda of each is that of the corporation that owns the network. I don't watch or believe anything (including ebola, shootings, ISIS, al quaida, etc etc) on television news networks.


----------



## TakeTheTicket (Oct 25, 2014)

Collisto's Orbit said:


> All television news is filtered bullshit. The agenda of each is that of the corporation that owns the network. I don't watch or believe anything (including ebola, shootings, ISIS, al quaida, etc etc) on television news networks.


hahaha "I DON'T BELIEVE IN EBOLA"


----------



## Aaronthet (Nov 3, 2014)

I believe the 97% polls. I worked for a polling place for a month and it was the biggest joke. It was clintons political polling group and the question always pointed to the answer. The 54% question is probably when they ask if pot should be completely unregulated or at worse recreationaly legal. Every non filtered poll Ive seen is 90%+ and i just don't believe people are running around stacking non political polls while leaving the political groups at 54%, there is more reason for votes to be messed with...

What I want to know is what they've done in florida to get support from 89% to 43% in 30 days for amendment 2. At the beginning of october it seemed like a landslide and now the news places are all but declaring it dead.


Just fyi- 

I'm a right leaning libertarian Christian that hates fox, cnn, msnbc, pretty much all of them and thinks the western "church" has been hijacked and turned into a political movement. Scripturaly I can make the argument that anyone that speaks against any herb for mans use is a liar...yes it's in there, 1timothy 4, but they translated the word for herbs/sustenance to meats in the king james and really changed the whole thing in later versions like NIV.


----------



## Collisto's Orbit (Jan 24, 2015)

TakeTheTicket said:


> hahaha "I DON'T BELIEVE IN EBOLA"


Look at how quickly the "epidemic" disappeared from the news. I'm sure ebola exists, and I'm sure it's a nasty death for those that contract and succumb to it, but the television news sensationalizes every issue, and the ebola scare is merely one example. No one is really ever accurately educated by TV news. Accurate education is drawn from other sources.


----------

