You may remember the post here in which I wondered how the Artur Davis campaign got itself into the trap of allowing folks to submit ideas on the net to make Alabama better, and to then vote on the ideas already presented. It turns out the campaign of Representative Davis' friend, President Obama, did the same thing with the same embarrassing result. The New York Times reports:
"They received 44,000 proposals and 1.4 million votes for those proposals...yet in the middle of two wars and an economic meltdown, the highest ranking idea was to legalize marijuana."That's the exact same thing that happened to Rep. Davis in his Democratic campaign for Governor. His poll was hijacked by pro-legalization forces who got enough people to vote to swing the results their way. The Obama Camp published the results, but quietly. The Davis camp just ignored the pro-marijuana legalization votes and focused on other issues that were proposed. Online is a wild place, with lots of traps and dangerous curves. Proceed with caution!
I don't get the 'hi-jack' thing. Why is it that when the people who want marijuana legalized win these 'polls' you say it is because we 'hi-jacked' it? If some other question had won would you say that the poll had been hi-jacked by people who believed in that cause or would you just report on the cause that got the most votes as a legitimate win? Could it possibly be that a lot of people want the drug laws changed and use the anonymity of the internet to make their feelings on that issue rise to the top of these polls?
ReplyDeleteIt may very well be that a majority of the public wants drug law change, but that can only truly be determined by a scientific poll, not a self-selected poll in which partisans (of either side) are free to rouse their members to vote yea or nay. Politicians who use the open/unscientific polling to determine something are opening themselves up to results that reflect the fervor of true believers, not the feeling of the public at large.
ReplyDeleteIn one of your previous posts touching upon marijuana use and public arguments concerning the same, I commented, sharing small but significant excerpts of the voluminous, longitudinal scientifically valid data demonstrating a clear, unambiguous and direct correlation to marijuana use and schizophrenia.
ReplyDeleteAs well, your post about Mexico's decision to legalize "small amounts" of all currently illicit narcotics including heroin, crystal methamphetamine, LSD and more inspired me to inquire among my colleagues from Mexico about their opinions on that issue especially.
The Mexican professionals with whom I've spoken have not had anything good to say about that decision.
One colleague expressed similarly that children will be the ones that will be harmed. When I asked why, he said that there are no prohibitions whatsoever upon who can and who cannot purchase. Further complicating matters is the inevitable destruction of the social fabric of the culture and society by and through the destruction of lives and relationships caused by narcotics abuse.
Another colleague from Yucatan said that children already have access to these harmful narcotics and that Mexico's move will only hurt the people.
Specifically, I recollect one gentleman's comment that, "I think the previous actions upon narco-traffickers were correct."
"What was that?," I asked.
"Killing them," he succinctly replied.