Most people would assume that professional pollsters understand the importance of how their questions are worded. If you want to obtain valid results from your poll, you need to make sure that your questions represent both sides of an issue fairly, without any latent bias in their wording.
For example, if you want to know people’s views on taxation, you should recognise that there is likely to be a vast difference in responses between the following questions:
(1) Do you favour an increase in the level of tax you pay on your income?
(2) Do you favour greater investment in public services such as healthcare, education and policing?
A distinct aroma wafted from the Human and Social Development Building on Wed. Jan 27, as 4:20 Club patrons arrived early to campus to hear UVic professor Susan Boyd talk Reefer Madness.
Her lecture analyzed film and popular media as the source behind Canadians’ view of marijuana as immoral and corrupting. Reefer Madness, a 1936 cult film, is just one of the 120 American, Canadian and British films from 1912 to 2008 that Boyd, a harm reduction activist and author, examined in her lecture.
“I defined drug films as any film that is a full-length fictional film that portrays illegal drug use and trafficking as the main focus,” said Boyd. “I wanted to look at marijuana, specifically, because it’s a natural drug. It’s one of our oldest drugs. It has 460 compounds — just one of them THC — and it’s been used for over 5,000 years for its healing qualities.”
The pictures Boyd analyzed ranged from 1920s state-sponsored drug education films to Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, released in 2004 by New Line Cinema.
“I took a look at the films historically to see if there were certain themes that ran through them or if the themes change depending on the social or political environment,” said Boyd.
Boyd teaches drug law and policy, and theory and research methodology at UVic. She drew from both cultural and feminist criminology in creating a lens through which to understand the films.
The man at the heart of the row over the relationship between politics and science appeared relaxed and unrepentant.
Speaking at a briefing of science journalists, Professor David Nutt leant back in his chair and said his only regret was the way the government had treated him.
He stood by his most controversial comments - such as comparing the dangers of ecstasy with horse riding, as he did earlier this year to the consternation of the then home secretary Jacqui Smith.
Asked in retrospect if it was a wise comparison to have made, he thought it was indeed - and that many parents now thought twice about letting their children clamber on to a horse. Read more »
Welcome to WhyProhibition.ca. We are working to repeal the prohibition of cannabis by organizing and educating the public. Sign up to get activism alerts, and access to organizing tools.
A distinct aroma wafted from the Human and Social Development Building on Wed. Jan 27, as 4:20 Club patrons arrived early to campus to hear UVic professor Susan Boyd talk Reefer Madness.
By Clare Murphy 
