Pollini et al. (2015) investigate various aspects of marijuana

decriminalization on California drivers. In table 3 of this paper, in the

2012 column, the authors report a confidence interval of (20.2, 49.8).

Give a proper interpretation of this confidence interval, in the context of

the problem. (You may need to read some other parts of this paper to

properly interpret the meaning.).

Table 3 is attached below:

2008-2010 (N = 1718) 2011 (N = 574) 2012 (N = 568) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) Overall Cannabinoid positive 203 11.8 (10.3, 13.3) 74 12.9 (10.2, 15.6) 101 17.8 (14.6, 20.9) Cannabinoid negative 1515 89.4 (88.4, 90.4) 500 87.4 (85.5, 89.3) 467 82.0 (79.8, 84.2) Males Cannabinoid positive 173 12.7 (10.9, 14.5) 66 14.4 (11.2, 17.6) 87 18.1 (14.7, 21.5) Cannabinoid negative 1190 87.3 (85.5, 89.2) 392 85.6 (82.4, 88.8) 394 81.9 (78.5, 85-3) Females Cannabinoid positive 30 8.5 (5.6, 11.3) 8 6.9 (2.3, 11.5) 14 16.1 (8.3, 23.8) Cannabinoid negative 325 91.6 (88.7, 94.4) 108 93.1 (88.5, 97.7) 73 83.9 (76.2, 91.6) Age 16-20 Cannabinoid positive 41 21.1 (15-4, 26.9) 14 25.9 (14.2, 37.6) 14 35.0 (20.2, 49.8) Cannabinoid negative 153 78.9 (73.1, 84.6) 40 74.1 (62.4, 85.8) 26 65.0 (50.2, 79.8)Age 21-34 Cannabinoid positive 97 16.0 (13.1, 19.0) 30 13.3 (8.9, 17.8) 44 20.4 (15.0, 25.7) Cannabinoid negative 508 83.9 (81.0, 86.9) 195 86.7 (82.2, 91.1) 172 79.6 (74-3, 85.0) Age 35-64 Cannabinoid positive 60 8.3 (6.3, 10.4) 27 10.9 (7.0, 14.8) 41 16.2 (11.7, 20.8) Cannabinoid negative 660 91.6 (89.6, 93.7) 220 89.1 (85.2, 93.0) 212 83.8 (79.3, 88.3) Age 65+ Cannabinoid positive 4 2.0 (0.0, 4.0) 3 6.3 (0.0, 13.1) 2 3.5 (0.0,8.1) Cannabinoid negative 193 98.0 (96.0, 99.9) 45 93.8 (86.9, 99.9) 56 96.6 (91.9, 99.9) Bold font indicates statistically significant difference compared with the 2008-2010 period (p