The real inconvenient truth

[pk500]

I support the legalization of drugs.

Well I bet you do, Tokey Mctokerson.

Well, Just Say No and billions invested in the DEA are doing such a wonderful job. Meanwhile, murderers lawyered down to manslaughter walk after seven years, while 700,000 annual arrests for dope possession result in overworked courts and overcrowded prisons.

Makes perfect sense to me ...

Just legally control it, sell it and tax the sh*t out of it like alcohol and nicotine, both of which are far more addictive yet legal, BTW. Raises money for the states and Uncle Sam and vastly reduces black market crime. Bingo -- win-win.

After all, you don't read stories often about people shooting each other over a Budweiser or Marlboro Lights purchase gone bad, do you?

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

I have no idea what that wco post was about either. And it doesn't make a lot of sense to tag this just to the American right-wing; I believe the Canadian and UK right-wing was against it as well. However, the amount of push against it is much stronger in the US compared to these other countries.

However, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of man-made global warming, as petitions signed primarily by non-scientists don't count. For example, below is a link to a study that found that none of the papers published from 1993-2003 on global climate change were against the current scientific consensus. Basically, nearly all peer-reviewed research papers support the consensus position on global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

[bdoughty]

I agree that the penalties for drug use are excessive just as white collar crimes are far too lenient. Although I have no sympathy for those who are caught pushing the illegal product.

My question to you is, what drugs are you referring to, in regards to legalization? Are you referring to any and every drug out there, including the really hard stuff (cocaine, heroin, etc) or just drugs like Marijuana.

[wco81]

PK, on the major fiscal/economic and cultural issues, would you not say that your stances have more in common with the GOP platform than the Democratic platform?

That overall, you're on the right half of the American political spectrum? If you deny that's the case, then it's my mistake but I only based it on the things you've expressed over the years.

As for the opinions of Americans vs. others, there's not as big a gap as I thought. According to a Yale-Gallup poll conducted in 2007, it seems Americans are more inclined to believe that global warming is occurring and that well over 50% believe it's anthropogenic.

However, smaller percentage of Americans are worried that global warming will affect them. Instead, they believe global warming is a threat to people and places far away:

http://environment.yale.edu/news/Resear ... g-summary/

Yet 68% of Americans support action that goes beyond Kyoto, to cut 90% of emissions by 2050.

So it's not even half the electorate that are in denial. There must be more hippies out there than we thought.

As for international opinion, EC commissioned a survey of all its member states and those aspiring for membership, such as Turkey and Macedonia. The poll includes Eastern European nations some of whose citizens say they're not as knowledgeable about the subject but nevertheless cite it as a serious concern.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/arch ... ynt_en.pdf

http://www.tns-opinion.com/publications ... .79#bottom

It shouldn't be surprising since their governments have adopted policies to adopt Kyoto or go beyond Kyoto measures. There would have to be political support to sustain these policies.

[pk500]

My question to you is, what drugs are you referring to, in regards to legalization? Are you referring to any and every drug out there, including the really hard stuff (cocaine, heroin, etc) or just drugs like Marijuana.

Not the hard stuff. But that still poses a dilemma in my mind. Legalizing the hard stuff would kill the black market and most of the crime associated with it.

But the hard stuff is so addictive and so destructive that it's probably best kept illegal for the sake of public health.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

My question to you is, what drugs are you referring to, in regards to legalization? Are you referring to any and every drug out there, including the really hard stuff (cocaine, heroin, etc) or just drugs like Marijuana.

Not the hard stuff. But that still poses a dilemma in my mind. Legalizing the hard stuff would kill the black market and most of the crime associated with it.

But the hard stuff is so addictive and so destructive that it's probably best kept illegal for the sake of public health.

Take care,
PK

Isn't it the hard stuff like crystal meth which is generating a lot of the crime?

Mexican cartels jumped into the crystal meth business in the last few years. It used to be the domain of amateur cooks but the cartels have hired professional chemists, producing more potent stuff.

NPR interviewed an author who researched the history. Some interesting bits include that it was some vets who'd encountered it in oversea deployments who thought of the idea of trafficking in it. Then the Hells Angels tried to take over. Now the cartels have come in.

[bdoughty]

http://environment.yale.edu/news/Resear ... g-summary/

Yet 68% of Americans support action that goes beyond Kyoto, to cut 90% of emissions by 2050.

So it's not even half the electorate that are in denial. There must be more hippies out there than we thought.

If you truly believe that poll is a fair assessment of what Americans think, I got some carbon credits to sell you.


Methodology

This survey was conducted July 23-26, 2007, using telephone interviews with 1,011 adults, aged 18+. Respondents were drawn from Gallup's household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods. The CASRO response rate was 40%. The final sample was weighted to be representative of U.S. adults nationwide. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

[pk500]

PK, on the major fiscal/economic and cultural issues, would you not say that your stances have more in common with the GOP platform than the Democratic platform?

Fiscal? Yes. Cultural? No, not even close. And many of my cultural positions are based upon my Catholic faith, not political ideology. If those positions just so happen to mesh with those of the GOP, it's coincidence. If the GOP suddenly turned tack and supported abortion, I still would vehemently oppose it. Same if the Democrats started to support capital punishment; I still would vehemently oppose it.

My Catholic religious beliefs almost always take priority over my political beliefs, and I try like hell to keep them separate. But it's not a perfect science, that's for sure.

That overall, you're on the right half of the American political spectrum? If you deny that's the case, then it's my mistake but I only based it on the things you've expressed over the years.

Actually, the world's smallest political quiz identifies me as a libertarian. Where do you fall?

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

However, smaller percentage of Americans are worried that global warming will affect them. Instead, they believe global warming is a threat to people and places far away:

That is surprising in its stupidity. Again, I've never denied climate change. I just wonder if it's cyclical or man-made. But either way, it will affect the entire planet.

Take care,
PK

[bdoughty]

Not the hard stuff. But that still poses a dilemma in my mind. Legalizing the hard stuff would kill the black market and most of the crime associated with it.

But the hard stuff is so addictive and so destructive that it's probably best kept illegal for the sake of public health.

Take care,
PK

I could live with the legalization of marijuana but that is pretty much the extent. Never touched the stuff myself but pretty sure I have inhaled my share at concerts and such.

[Feanor]

If you truly believe that poll is a fair assessment of what Americans think, I got some carbon credits to sell you.


Methodology

This survey was conducted July 23-26, 2007, using telephone interviews with 1,011 adults, aged 18+. Respondents were drawn from Gallup's household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods. The CASRO response rate was 40%. The final sample was weighted to be representative of U.S. adults nationwide. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Is that Methodology unusual for nationwide polls, though? I remember when people in the Election thread were saying that the polls showing Obama would win comfortably were incorrect because Republicans are less likely to talk to pollsters.

[bdoughty]

I am a believer in the lies, damn lies and statistics mentality. Any poll can be geared toward eliciting a certain response.

[Feanor]

Oh is that all.

[Jared]

Yeah, the methodology of that poll is pretty standard, and nothing about those methods stand out as biased. Do you have evidence that that poll was geared to elicit a certain response?

[Feanor]

That he personally disgarees with the result.

[wco81]

They obviously surveyed only Manhattanites and nobody from the Gulf states.

If there's a better measure of American public opinion on the subject, feel free to list it.

[wco81]

My Catholic religious beliefs almost always take priority over my political beliefs, and I try like hell to keep them separate. But it's not a perfect science, that's for sure.

However you arrived at it, that stance puts you on a certain part of the American political spectrum.

And certainly, a lot of Catholics all over the world take stances on a number of issues (abortion, capital punishment, war, divorce) which are not in line with Church orthodoxy. Maybe that makes them bad practitioners but I don't know, are they excommunicated or denied Communion?

So Catholicism doesn't necessarily compel individuals to take the stances that they do. And if I'm not mistaken, Catholic politicians who've diverged from the Church on many of these issues still drew big support from Catholic voters.

[pk500]

So Catholicism doesn't necessarily compel individuals to take the stances that they do. And if I'm not mistaken, Catholic politicians who've diverged from the Church on many of these issues still drew big support from Catholic voters.

You'll find that Catholics, especially American Catholics, are not as bound by dogma when it comes to politics as some of the more evangelical Christian groups.

That's why the term "cafeteria Catholics" often is used.

For example, I'm against abortion but approve of contraception. I have no problem with homosexuality, but I don't like the idea of gay marriage.

I strongly oppose capital punishment, but more for practical reasons then religious reasons. The death penalty does not deter crime, and it turns the guilty party into a media-fueled celebrity as execution looms. I would rather just roll the guy in a cell for the next 70 years and forget about him, denying him the Death Row attention that he so desperately craves.

My parents are another classic example. They are devout Catholics who strongly oppose abortion. Yet they both have voted Democratic for their entire lives, as they are children of the Depression and grew up during the New Deal, when government was seen as a force of positive change.

Such conflicts are very common with most American Catholics, a group that always randomly picks and chooses which religious positions influence its politics. That's why it's one of the most difficult voting blocs to categorize.

Take care,
PK

[GameSeven]

For example, I'm against abortion but approve of contraception. I have no problem with homosexuality, but I don't like the idea of gay marriage.

You forgot to include your stance versus the church on masturbation, wanker

[pk500]

For example, I'm against abortion but approve of contraception. I have no problem with homosexuality, but I don't like the idea of gay marriage.

You forgot to include your stance versus the church on masturbation, wanker

Just beat it (you can interpret that any way you like ).

Take care,
PK

[GameSeven]

For example, I'm against abortion but approve of contraception. I have no problem with homosexuality, but I don't like the idea of gay marriage.

You forgot to include your stance versus the church on masturbation, wanker

Just beat it (you can interpret that any way you like ).

Take care,
PK

Touché, brother

[bdoughty]

Yeah, the methodology of that poll is pretty standard, and nothing about those methods stand out as biased. Do you have evidence that that poll was geared to elicit a certain response?

I have a bias against all polls. Were you on the other side of the phone listening in to what the pollster was asking? Was there persuasion? Did they target people who would be more likely to give them the answer they wanted? Did some of the responders just say what they wanted to hear to get them off the phone?

You can call anything random, that does not make it random as I would define it. Do I have proof? Nope. Am I speculating? Yep. Call me silly but if I called a thousand people at random about the Kyoto Protocol, I bet more than 68% of them would have no freaking clue what the Kyoto Protocol is.


Edit: Here is some news to assist my theory. At least in regards to new vehicle buyers. Wonder how they would have answered the poll question?

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local ... 6578.story

NEWPORT NEWS - It looks like the Highlander is in and the Prius is out — for now at least.

Trucks and sport utility vehicles will outsell cars for the first time since February, according to a December report by Edmunds.com, which tracks industry statistics.

Toyota has already slowed production of the industry's flagship hybrid vehicle, the Prius, due to lack of interest and a growing inventory of the once best-selling model, Edmunds.com reported.

[Jared]

You can call anything random, that does not make it random as I would define it. Do I have proof? Nope. Am I speculating? Yep. Call me silly but if I called a thousand people at random about the Kyoto Protocol, I bet more than 68% of them would have no freaking clue what the Kyoto Protocol is.

If the poll asked people what the Kyoto Protocol is, you might be right. But it didn't. The question asked whether respondents would agree "to an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050.” Nothing about the Kyoto treaty in the question.

As for the car/truck article, you're (essentially) criticizing polling based on what you think the results of a a non-existent poll would be. Unless you have a recent poll of people who were planning to buy a car in December that contradicts these numbers, you have no point.

It's easy to criticize imaginary polls or results for questions that were never asked. However, you need a bit more than setting up straw(men) polls to make that point. Lots of polls are pretty accurate at gauging public opinion, as they use well-modeled statistical methods and ask good questions.

(To be clear, there ARE polls that are dishonest and biased: but it's better to be skeptical of dishonest ones instead of the whole field of polling.)

[bdoughty]

To be fair I only read what was in the link produced, not to the link you added, where the question was clear.

I still stand by my Kyoto theory, that most Americans are not that informed and that polls are generally useless fodder. Important tidbits are left out of the questions asked. Redo the question with an estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayer, to cut those emissions by 90% by 2050.

The point of the car/truck link was more to show how monetary effects, like dropping gas prices and great deals, tend to change a persons perspective. I would hope that we can agree that buying a large SUV is not exactly a step an individual would take to do their part in cutting those emissions by 90%.

It is all in the delivery my friend. You can get people to say what you want by just leaving out the little details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtROpqJ_4Q

[GameSeven]

You can call anything random, that does not make it random as I would define it. Do I have proof? Nope. Am I speculating? Yep. Call me silly but if I called a thousand people at random about the Kyoto Protocol, I bet more than 68% of them would have no freaking clue what the Kyoto Protocol is.

If the poll asked people what the Kyoto Protocol is, you might be right. But it didn't. The question asked whether respondents would agree "to an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050.” Nothing about the Kyoto treaty in the question.

Why 90%? Why not 300%? Hell, I'd support, in principle, an effort to decrease pollution but where is the cost-benefit? Ask the respondents whether they would subsidize this with a gas tax. Oh that's right, they wouldn't (2/3 against with nearly half "strongly" opposed) . But they would pay $500 more for a car that required 35 MPG. Well, with gas prices before the recent drop, that's hardly a surprise.

Hell, I love the wording "an international treaty that requires the United States". While many may infer that the same goes for all countries, just the vagueness in the wording in such a poll is laughable. I'll bet if you worded it "an international treaty that requires the China" one might get unanimity!

[XXXIV]

China continues to laugh their asses off...