Kevin Tarr wrote:
...
> >(Actually, I agree with whoever said that the wording
> >was far too strong to answer a flat 'yes' to many
> >questions, but a graded response would have placed me
> >on a somewhat more libertarian side. But only
> >somewhat!)
> >
> >Debbi
>
> Every question seemed easy to me; they were straight forward.
> Paraphrasing:
> Do you think medical marijuana should be legal Y/N?
> Do you think carrying less than 5 grams of marijuana should be legal?
> Do you think any amount of M should be legal?
> Do you think all drugs should be decriminalised?
>
> Isn't that how a person forms their thoughts? No qualifications, no if/but;
> just this is the issue in black and white, this is a dividing line, which
> side do you choose?
I took it, and got a 10 or something. I don't think it
was well-designed, because it insisted on viewing complex issues
in terms that were too simple. For instance, I'm usually for
market-based solutions to problems. But a completely free
market is seldom best, government regulation is needed to
"frame" the market so it operates well. How should I answer?
"Sometimes" is not an option.
Kevin, your drug example is a special case. Most
issues are not so straight forward.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
