Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
RSR ROBBINS Research - Canada Politics July 26, 2007
  Jul 26, 2007

A random sample of 2,440 respondents throughout the country of Canada between July 3-23, 2007 of Canadian Internet users between the ages of 18-45. This dynamite ROBBINS poll (and I mean explosive) was sponsored by all the usual suspects including our good friend Jim Van Rassel (see him at the charity speed boat races in August in Harrison Hot Springs, August 10, 11 and 12th, 2007, the most beautiful area in the free and natural world). Jim also supplies sun glasses for the Annual Poker Run prizes which all benefit that charity. You can help to fund search and rescue for the Harrison Aggisis region (604) 328-5398. ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) is the real deal as our new CanaBUS poll attests.

Question #1
Which in your opinion is responsible for more social harms, trouble and costs?
Alcohol abuse    77 %
Marijuana abuse    23 %
Undecided    09 %
Question #2
For purposes of this question (on the decriminalization of marijuana), decriminalization is intended to mean that we would not prosecute individuals who had a quantity of marijuana in their possession such as 2-3 rolled joints which have been prepared for use and not ’loose’ in a bag which might imply potential commercial trafficking. In your opinion based on the amount described (2-3 joints), would you support the complete decriminalization of a small quantity of marijuana rolled joints under this ROBBINS proposal for Canadians who are 18 years of age or older?
Yes    66.5 %
No    33.5 %
Undecided    04 %
Question #3
To legalize marijuana under this ROBBINS proposal would be deemed to mean that marijuana production and sales would be regulated by the government, taxed by the government, with heavy fines for those who produced and sold marijuana outside government control. Like liquor, under this ROBBINS proposal, marijuana would not be permitted to be smoked in public places accept those with a government license, and those businesses would not be permitted to hire employees owing to the dangers of second hand smoke to those employees. In your opinion based specifically on this ROBBINS proposal do you support the legalization of marijuana?
Yes    44 %
No    56 %
Undecided    10 %
Question #4
Should individuals who smoke marijuana and operate a motor vehicle be subject to the Criminal Code of Canada as those who drink alcohol and operate a motor vehicle?
Yes    76 %
No    20 %
Question #5
Is it fair to say that you have smoked marijuana in the past twelve months? (based on respondents who answered)
Yes    41 %
No    59 %
Question #6
Is it fair to say that you have smoked marijuana in the past month and regularly enjoy marijuana? (based on respondents who answered)
Yes    30 %
No    70 %
Question #7
Do you believe the axiom that “he who has the gold makes the rules” is true?
Yes    82 %
No    18 %
Question #8
Would you be happier if those with the gold in the preceding question did not make the rules?
Likely    54 %
Unlkely    46 %
Question #9
Which federal leader and political party do you support most at this time?
Stephen Harper and Conservative Party    28.5 %
Stephane Dion and Liberal Party    23.5 %
Jack Layton and NDP Party    23 %
Elizabeth May and Green Party    10 %
Gilles Duceppe and Bloc Quebecois-    08 %
Marc Emery and Canadian Marijuana Party    6.5 %
I am not interested in any of these political parties    24 %
Undecided    14 %
Respondents in this ROBBINS poll of Canadians aged 18-45 generally agree that alcohol is a greater cause of “Social harms, trouble and costs” than marijuana is. This was relatively even among the two pools of age groups (18-30) and (34-45). Across the provinces the lowest percentage of blame against alcohol was in the Atlantic Provinces (52%), and Saskatchewan (56%). The highest ‘blame’ against alcohol was in British Columbia (86%).
Based on the ROBBINS ‘rolled joint’ proposal and decriminalization, the highest “Yes” was in British Columbia (70%). Quebec was second with (68%) supporting decriminalization. Saskatchewan was lowest in support of decriminalization (48%), with Atlantic Provinces second lowest (52%). Ontario supported decriminalization (64%), with those Ontario respondents in the younger age pool supporting decriminalization (69.5%).
Ontario and Quebec were tied for legalizing marijuana (45%) under government control, while BC was third at (44%). British Columbians particularly in the younger age group did not believe that government could produce a good quality of marijuana, and thus preferred decriminalization.
Driving while under the influence of marijuana had some interesting responses. Some of the younger age group in BC were of the opinion that “people could drive better after smoking pot”, however the (52%) of that age group still affirmed use of the Criminal Code. Others, particularly in the older age group thought that people who smoked pot were “in worse condition” to operate a motor vehicle than individuals “who had had a few drinks”. Perhaps not surprisingly, a higher minority in this latter group was also somewhat more inclined to the opinion that marijuana caused more social harms, trouble and cost than alcohol. (There are an awful lot of people who still drink alcohol (but are not drunk and are over the legal limit), who get pulled over by the police and get a roadside. If the police ask them if they have been drinking and the driver tells the truth and says how much, the police might be less inclined to charge them. If you lie to a police officer on this subject, you can be sure you will be 'hung out to dry').
41% of decided respondents (Canadians) in this age demographic smoked marijuana in the past twelve months, while 30% of the same category are smoked it in the last month and "enjoy it regularly". This age demographic represents nearly 40% of all Canadians. This means that even if non-respondents and all other Canadians under the age of 18 and over the age of 45 had no encounter with marijuana, that an estimated net 15% of Canadians smoked pot in the past twelve months, while another 12-13% smoked it regularly. This before considering those under 18 or over 45.
An overwhelming number of respondents agree with the axiom that he who has the gold makes the rules, and over one half of them say they would “likely” be happier if this were not the case. Many respondents who answered “unlikely” to Q#8 were also more inclined to choose “not interested in any of these political parties”.
The big surprise is that nearly 30% of the youngest half of the population supports Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, including 36% from the 31-45 demographic. The Liberals are in a very difficult position with this younger demographic as it is clear that they are splitting 50/50 with the New Democrats, and easily split on the left by the Greens. This question is manipulated in that it includes a fictitious political leader and party, Marc Emery (BC Marijuana) and Canadian Marijuana Party, which grabbed 6.5% of respondents support, mostly from pot smokers in this poll.
This ROBBINS poll provides a tremendous opportunity to avail the readers of ROBBINS overall purpose in public opinion polling (other than the objective of being the most innovative, insightful, and forward thinking). We believe that market research where historically political beliefs and/or motivations surrounding these beliefs are measured against income is outdated and fast becoming irrelevant. In fact it was ROBBINS who began in 1998 to ask fewer and better questions (including manipulative and 'push' questions), that set the stage for mainstream billion dollar polling firms to follow.
We also believe that the Canadian Marketing Association which governs (or whatever its authority is) public opinion in the country, exists more to control information which is disseminated through mainstream media in the country rather to properly and effectively promote true and honest information about what the public really thinks. When someone in the establishment or mainstream says 'that isn't scientific', well let me tell you what is scientific. Studies that take place over an extended period of time with comprehensive controlled data collection are the basis of true science. In public opinion, mainstream players use the term science to 'Santa Claus' those individuals who want to believe in authority and accept that billion dollar outfits must be science. The public relations 'shit' that is propagandized by every (very) average daily in Canada all links back to some benefit for a for profit company, whether or not it has a medical doctor or a PhD behind it. Those studies that say so much wine, or beer, or coffee or other will make you live longer or so on, all marketing. All Santa Claus marketing for the nitwits in the world who WANT to believe it. Here is the excellent news! The marketing companies are still employing these same PR tactics, however the pool of 'suckers' is quickly shrinking.
Although the CMA provided ROBBINS with an opportunity to join, we ask:
Why? The CMA suggests it has to do with credibility. We ask just exactly who is judging what or what isn’t credible? Look at some of the Corporations on the CMA Board of Directors.
BMO Bank
Microsoft (American)
Citi Bank (American)
Rogers Cable
Ipsos Reid public opinion (why are mainstream pollsters also on the Board?)
Province of Ontario Liquor Board (why is the Ontario liquor board involved in this?)
Canada Post (why is the government involved in this?)
Obviously the CMA is Ontario centred. Obviously, the entire country is run by Ontario. This is also where my province (BC’s) news in also centred. CTV in Bell Global Media (Ontario), CKNW is Corus (Ontario). Major news is Global TV (Winnipeg), Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Province (Winnipeg).
Each of the main Board of Directors have an interest in keeping control of dissemination of information to the public. The major banks want consumer confidence up but don’t want to talk about the gouging of consumers that continues constantly in this country from ATM machine charges, to direct payment gouging (over 70% going to the banks favour). Microsoft now dominates two major search engines on the Internet, MSN and Yahoo. Growth levels in this technology sector are flat lining and new markets particularly in the areas of education are required. There is information gathering going on right now which may call into serious question the true attributes of profit making these search engines are ’enjoying’. What impact might this have on multi billion dollar capitalizations if these are exposed?
Are consumers satisfied? Citi Bank (Cards) is one of the largest banks in the world predicated on stock capitalization. What role are they playing in the matter of predatory mortgages which are a factor in a slumping U.S. real estate market if any? How is this translating to the matters of mortgage brokers conduct in this country and how will it impact on our real estate markets? Is it buyer beware or do we need some real regulation over these ‘monopolies’ in this country?
Rogers Cable et al. Really doesn’t the name say it all? How can the CRTC in this country let any of these telecommunication players achieve any of their objectives without much greater scrutiny of consumer satisfaction? Are you going to believe the mainstream polls or the new surrogate polling firms that are emerging to prop up frail credibility? If having the gold makes you credible than the CMA and its associates in big business, mainstream news, and mainstream public opinion are credible. Otherwise, the standard of credibility is in the eye of the beholder, and only in eye of the beholder.
It is the veracity of what the public really thinks is what makes us so influential at ROBBINS. Real public opinion is achieved through contact with the regular public and accompanying research not through the payment of a cheque.
French polling firm Ipsos married Angus Reid a number of years back, and now Angus is on his own conducting Internet polls. Why are any polling firms on the CMA Board? Watch for more press releases of new research firms spewing their mainstream renditions of public opinion. Is it real? If your not sure ask ROBBINS
Now here in this ROBBINS CannaBUS (like magic huh?) poll are numbers don’t really look like anything we have seen to date from the mainstream. Who do you believe? Are you going to believe anyone who is associated with the nations so-called association for “ethical standards”? whose Board of Directors include the Ontario Liquor Board?
Please, enough control already give us all a break!
ROBBINS history of unequivocal accuracy at every level of government both in the United States, Canada, in our home region British Columbia, and even at the municipal level make our growing readership very delighted. What they read at ROBBINS is not what they are offered in the mainstream. A growing IP readership in BC alone of 70,000 different addresses attests to why so many talk shows, or mainstream newspapers are beginning to hear the message of ROBBINS readership. (Are we ready to make the types of claims in politics that Beatle John Lennon once made in rock)?
In British Columbia we have recently forecast the end of Gordon Campbell, Premier of the province. Courageously, this man, and his friends in the media wake up each morning and place their Emmitt Kelly clown nose on and do their best to make people in BC think everything is okay while it breaks down all around them). We predicted this four months ago, while at the same time the Ontario centred mainstream members of the CMA conducted polls which reinforced the exact opposite? ROBBINS recently gambled that if Campbell stays on and wins, our firms reputation may take a hit. But if he resigns or loses, the credibility of the mainstream (who currently likes to dole out the credibility rations), particularly those of the mainstream press, will be little if any.
Like Joe Kennedy the patriarch of the famous Kennedy family, a stock market aficionado in the 1920’s and 30’s who was hired by the mainstream regulators to clean up the stock market (when Kennedy was one of the problems in the first place), he eventually introduced the concept of short selling stock but only on the ‘uptick‘. (This means that you cannot legally profit on an investment on a stock going down in price unless it is purchased at a higher price first). One can see there is no regulation for short selling politicians or political parties. With growing Internet exposure this ROBBINS experiment will ultimately prove one thing for certain. Who is better at forecasting political 'futures' ROBBINS or the mainstream? What will happen to hard copy news already a significant polluter, when forecasting by ROBBINS will make it impossible for them to drag out political news. In British Columbia, it has become very clear that all institutions including (and particular) the courts are not separate from political institutions (see BC RAIL), and in fact are tied in. (This is undertaken through the BC Attorney Generals office). Be very careful what you say on this subject, because the same lawyers who are hooked into the BC Attorney General are also hooked into other provincial AG’s offices and also Canada Revenue Agency. It's a filthy little scam.
(If you believe that Canada actually operates as a true democracy, watch ROBBINS make the Marxists look like geniuses by the time we are through). Look at some of the players we have mentioned on the CMA Board, look at the tie in to the Canadian Federal government. We are a large country with a small population. (There are but a few people pulling the strings).
Having forecast Stephen Harper’s huge upset win over Paul Martin’s Liberals we are hopeful to continue this pattern of successful public opinion nationally and are massive contribution to real democracy, not contrived democracy which benefits only the ‘holders of the gold’, and a few of the little pilot fish that muckrake on their behalf from time to time. If ROBBINS can accomplish this here at home in the volatile political industry, think what we can do for consumers? Do you actually have confidence in a survey conducted by a major public opinion polling firm for say a major bank when its nominees/executives sit across from the Board Room table (and likely the lunch table)? I don’t think so.
ROBBINS has spoken with owners of well known franchise labels and persons employed at the highest levels of corporations, who are terrified at the prospect their goodwill may ultimately be in the hands of a public opinion pollster who isn’t in their club, and whose numbers cannot be controlled but are being read by tens of thousands of consumers everywhere around the world. They are right to be afraid, unless that is they are doing a good job and telling the truth? Much of our internal polling of these types of businesses underscores why large corporations are only 10% more efficient than government when this number was once 40%. The multi million (multi billion) goodwill which large Canadian and American corporations say they have, may not in fact exist.
Before we go after well known labels, let me provide you with an example of one lesser known. A Vancouver company which we investigated (I did this personally) is selling lottery tickets abroad. This company is clearly picking on elderly people, but despite our warnings to BC politicians, federal politicians, and even the Opposition party in British Columbia nothing was done. This same party is billing out its telephones at enormous rates from the parent company to the subsidiary creating 'book' losses, yet never has another client. Canada Revenue Agency is losing tens of millions of dollars in taxes because of the political influence to let these people operate. Why? We are hostage to Corporations that employ people and if they scam people in other countries, who really cares? We're Canadians and everyone must like us even when were crooked.
In Canada if you are large enough and employ enough people you can break the law with impunity. Let me say this once again. In Canada, if you are large enough and employ enough people you can break the law with impunity. There is no way to cover this up indefinitively. That is why we tell readers, don’t break the law, but do everything you can to pay as little tax as you can. Otherwise you are subsidizing crooked businesses, crooked bureaucrats, and often crooked politicians. Accountability is either near or on the federal government's books, but the mainstream does not want this legislation to take hold. Why? Once it does, many of the political and legal institutions that are operating crookedly will have to fess up their sins, and after that comes the corporations. ROBBINS thought we could get a head start! Like what we're doing?
The mainstream news will offer up the odd scammer and others (some crusty old broad at the volunteer based Better Business Bureau), just to make the public think they are on top of it. Who are biggest rip off artists? If you talk to the people you may be very surprised to find out who they really are!!
The CMA, the mainstream press that is tied to them, and the politicians and institutions that are also there to support them, (and not you) may give themselves a bronze, silver or even gold standing. There are never enough awards to go around for this self-serving group. As long as they are handing out awards to one another, they hope and pray that 'the people' are distracted sufficiently to buy into the fractured legitimacy they sell every day. But information, particularly on the Internet is going to slowly kill their claims of viability, and the nouveau information systems like ROBBINS will slowly begin to seep into the public conciousness, (particularly with those who ain't on the old booze train eh)?
But if ROBBINS has not put its stamp of approval on your Corporation, or your political candidacy you’ve got nothing. ROBBINS is the platinum standard, or in today’s world, the Uranium standard. Why? Because if we audit the work of your public relations people, we will give you the truth of the matter, not some rendition of it conconcted by accountants owned by multi-nationals half way across the world.
Most importantly at this juncture however, if you are a country which covers the second largest land mass in the world, and you have a population of only 33 million, don't mess with a 'dog' that has enough juice to reach enough of the public with enough of the real story to pull down your flimsy deck of cards. I think y'all know what I'm talking about.
Wait and see.
Additional data:
Smoked pot in the past twelve months: 18-30 (52%) "Yes"; 31-45 (30%) "Yes".
'Regular' pot smokers: 18-30 (39.5%); 31-45 (21%)
Provinces (last twelve months)
BC: 18-30
BC 18-30 "Yes" (62%); Alberta "Yes" (47%); Saskatchewan "Yes" (31%); Manitoba "Yes" (39%); Ontario "Yes" (48%); Quebec "Yes" (60%);Atlantic Provinces "Yes" (44%).
BC 31-45 "Yes" (38%); Alberta "Yes" (27%); Saskatchewan "Yes" (24%); Manitoba "Yes" (27%); Ontario "Yes" (28%); Quebec "Yes" (34%); Atlantic Provinces "Yes" (27%).
More regular smokers BC 18-30 BC "Yes" (52%); Alberta "Yes" (31%); Saskatchewan "Yes" (26%); Manitoba "Yes" (30%); Ontario "Yes" (34%); Quebec "Yes" (50%); Atlantic Provinces "Yes" (42%).
Addendum: Jim Van Rassel and Glen P. Robbins each sent their clean criminal records to the Canadian Press. (Ironically Vancouver city councillor Tim Stevenson decided to plead guilty to a drinking and driving charge-good honesty Tim).
Jim Van Rassel likes to have a few alcohol drinks now and than, and although Glen P. Robbins does not drink alcohol he has smoked marijuana a number (few) times and did inhale.
(My researchers say this is what explains my writing style---huh?)

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2021