ONU poll explores perceptions of 'marijuana' v. 'cannabis'

ADA — The distinction between the terms "marijuana" and "cannabis" may no longer have a strong effect on public opinion, according to the recent results of the Northern Poll, a research initiative of the Institute for Civics and Public Policy (ICAPP) at Ohio Northern University in collaboration with SurveyUSA. In the most recent Northern Poll, ICAPP researchers conducted an experiment gauging public support for and perceived impacts of marijuana/cannabis dispensaries, randomly prompting one half of the 1,600 person sample with "marijuana dispensary" and the other half with "cannabis dispensary." "While the term 'cannabis' typically is used in a scientific context, the term 'marijuana' has historically been used by the general public," said Keith Durkin, director of ICAPP and professor of sociology at ONU. However, Durkin notes "the term 'marijuana' has traditionally carried baggage ranging from cliches about slacking stoners to racial and ethnic stereotypes that have been used in a discriminatory fashion." When asked to what extent respondents support the construction of dispensaries in their communities, both experimental groups reported 19% net support: 14% Strongly Oppose, 15% Somewhat Oppose, 23% Neither Oppose Nor Support, 23% Somewhat Support and 25% Strongly Support for the group prompted with "marijuana," and 14% Strongly Oppose, 13% Somewhat Oppose, 27% Neither Oppose Nor Support, 22% Somewhat Support and 24% Strongly Support for the group prompted with "cannabis." Similarly, respondent opinion on the public effects of dispensaries was nearly identical: only a 1% difference on the economy (net 41% positive for "marijuana" and 42% positive for "cannabis"), 5% difference on the environment (10% for "marijuana" and 15% for "cannabis"), 2% difference on quality of living (11% for "marijuana" and 13% for "cannabis") and 1% difference on public safety (7% for "marijuana" and 6% for "cannabis"). A few of ICAPP's sub-demographics shifted between experimental groups, however. Suburban Ohioans in the "marijuana" sample expressed net 11% support for the construction of new dispensaries in their communities, and this rose by 10 points to 21% net support in the "cannabis" sample. Similarly, perceived impacts increased in positivity by 5% for the economy, 12% for the environment, 11% for quality of living and 17% for public safety. Conversely, rural Ohioans were more skeptical of "cannabis," with 19% net support for dispensary construction in the "marijuana" sample decreasing to 7% net support in the "cannabis" sample. Likewise, net positivity for the impacts decreased by 5% for the economy, 9% for the environment, 2% for quality of living and 21% for public safety. "Suburban Ohioans are more supportive when framed as 'cannabis' dispensaries, and rural Ohioans are more supportive when framed as 'marijuana' dispensaries; while the sociological distinction may not exist among everyone else, it is significant that geographical divisions persist," said ICAPP Fellow Gabriel Mott. "Cannabis" drew more positive predictions for the economy than "marijuana" for Republicans, but "marijuana" drew more positive reactions for Democrats. A result of 16% net positivity from "Strong Republicans" in the "marijuana" sample increased to 30% for Strong Republicans in the "cannabis" sample. By contrast, 75% net positivity from "Strong Democrats" in the "marijuana" sample decreased to 57% net positivity for Strong Democrats in the "cannabis" sample.