1) Neither I nor anyone else that I know was ever polled by these people for either poll. So how can you say the poll participants were random, when we both know you don't know?
2) As we all know, Soros is a long time advocate for drug legalization. Since we can neither assert nor deny the presence of a bias in either of the latter polls due to that reason, they are in and of themselves absolutely and completely irrelevant.
And your implying both my opinion and that of those I know is worthless compared with a silly poll is just poppycock.
Random sampling is a standard part of polling; the burden of proof is on anyone who claims a pollster did not do a random sample. (And whether you or I know anyone who was polled is utterly irrelevant to that issue.)
2) As we all know, Soros is a long time advocate for drug legalization. Since we can neither assert nor deny the presence of a bias in either of the latter polls due to that reason,
The Pew poll had no connection to Soros. And since a pollster's business success depends on credibility, and thus pollsters have a clear incentive to poll objectively regardless of who commissions the poll, the burden of proff is on those who claim that sponsorship proves bias.
they are in and of themselves absolutely and completely irrelevant.
And your implying both my opinion and that of those I know is worthless compared with a silly poll is just poppycock.
Wrong, but your ignorance of basic statistics is hilarious.