Why do we keep asking the same wrong question?

[tonymon1]

As most of you know Digg is doing an interview with Arnold Wednesday. The #2 question posted is...

What is your stance on the legalization, cultivation and regulation of marijuana in the state of California?

It is a horribly stupid question. He has already said what his stance is, all he has to say is "I am open to an honest discussion on the issue."

But that had me thinking about the questions we do ask... The number one question is "Do you believe marijuana should be illegal?"

That question allows people to recite untrue "learned" information or in the case of professionals like John Walters perpetuate and create new false information. Which we then have the up hill battle of fighting.

I am a fan of semantics and context, a fan of language in general, I find it fascinating that I could make the same point while saying it 5 different ways, each of them invoking a difference response.

So what question should we be asking? What way can we phrase our question to start a discussion that we are the guiding it instead of following behind trying to clean up the mess they leave?

Do you believe if government commissioned research concluded penalties regarding cannabis were in a disproportionate nature to the harm caused, Congress should at least then hold hearings to review current policy?

I feel that question could be improved a little but I like it. I picture asking it to John Walters and I figure his answer to be "If that were the case then I would not be opposed to it, but the research the government has done states (fill in your own lies). So there is no reason for Congress to review the issue."

To which the our side would respond by holding up every government document we can find, mainly "The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse." Then hold them up 1 at a time and say "This report concludes cannabis should be decriminalized. This reports the gateway theory is the least likely conclusion to come to after examining the data. (That is really a World Health Organization conclusion though) ect, ect.

Another thing that needs to be brought up in the same debate is that when marijuana was put under Schedule 1 it was a temporary classification until "The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse." was published with it's recommendations. Which as I just stated it recommended decriminalization.

[tonymon1]

I suppose I should post the conclusion for anyone who hasn't previously read it.

The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.
A Final Comment

In this Chapter, we have carefully considered the spectrum of social and legal policy alternatives. On the basis of our findings, discussed in previous Chapters, we have concluded that society should seek to discourage use, while concentrating its attention on the prevention and treatment of heavy and very heavy use. The Commission feels that the criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal is socially self-defeating as a means of achieving this objective. We have attempted to balance individual freedom on one hand and the obligation of the state to consider the wider social good on the other. We believe our recommended scheme will permit society to exercise its control and influence in ways most useful and efficient, meanwhile reserving to the individual American his sense of privacy, his sense of individuality, and, within the context of ail interacting and interdependent society, his options to select his own life style, values, goals and opportunities.
The Commission sincerely hopes that the tone of cautious restraint sounded in this Report will be perpetuated in the debate which will follow it. For those who feel we have not proceeded far enough, we are reminded of Thomas Jefferson's advice to George Washington that "Delay is preferable to error." For those who argue we have gone too far, we note Roscoe Pound's statement, "The law must be stable, but it must not stand still."
We have carefully analyzed the interrelationship between marihuana the drug, marihuana use as a behavior, and marihuana as a social problem. Recognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about marihuana as a drug, we have tried to demythologize it. Viewing the use of marihuana in its wider social context, we have tried to desymbolize it.
Considering the range of social concerns in contemporary America, marihuana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize marihuana as a problem.
The existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug. To replace it, we have attempted to design a suitable social policy, which we believe is fair, cautious and attuned to the social realities of our time.

[TheJew]

great point man
i agree

[weedski]

If you ask a question that leaves space for a 'half answer', that is what you will get. Like you said, it would be much better to ask a question that leaves no space for wriggling out of.

[tonymon1]

Originally Posted by weedski

If you ask a question that leaves space for a 'half answer', that is what you will get. Like you said, it would be much better to ask a question that leaves no space for wriggling out of.

Lawyers live by the saying "Don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to." Anyone in a debate should as well. Not only know the answer but know what your response to that answer will be.

[tonymon1]

Just a reminder the Digg Dialogg is tomorrow.

We’re interviewing California Governor & actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and asking the most popular questions as submitted and voted upon by you live from the Capital Building in Sacramento, CA. From now until Tuesday, May 26th at 12:00pm PDT, you can submit and Digg up questions to decide which will be asked. The full interview will be live here from CNN.com on May 27th at 2pm PDT & posted shortly afterwards.

[tonymon1]

Well as expected Arnold said nothing of substance on the issue because the question allowed him not to. With that said this is really nothing more than a shameless bump because I think it's something more people need to read.

[Salvial]

I was thinking the exact same thing. Vague questions do nothing to help our cause!