I strongly support legalization of soft drugs since I think that these things are better when legislated than when outlawed. Especially in the Netherlands, where marijuana has been decriminalized for years, the step further to a full legislation should be easier to make. When usage of substances is just decriminalized, it leaves a lot of loopholes people call fall through, and the rules are not completely clear either (simply because there are not many clear rules, but rather no penalties for usage). I think that when substances are made legal, the government can have a better control over it and so usage, distribution and creation will be monitored so that less people are harmed in the process. The Netherlands is doing great so far but I think a full legislation of soft drugs will make rules and laws clearer. Also, disobeying the law will lead to penalties which are good as the government and make more money out of it (which should be invested in the quality of distribution and creation of drugs and controlling them), and also because makers and distributors who don't follow rules and guidelines will be forced to quit what their doing, which will also result in better quality of drugs and life of people in the Netherlands.

I don't think that businesses being sustainable and having a good CSR is the most effective way to solve environmental crises- obviously it's very important for businesses to be mindful of the environment and social issues around them, and by having this mindset they are able to have an impact on their clients, but I don't think just this is enough to solve a crisis. I think that governments and their regulations have a lot more to do with preventing and creating environmental crises than companies themselves. For example, if it's illegal to use pollutant substances, businesses will have to abide by this law or be heavily fined.

I chose the 'no' option not because I think that CSR and sustainability in businesses is worth nothing, but because I think it should come for top-down rather than bottom-up. Businesses might have an influence on their clients and other stakeholders, but the government have an influence on businesses and therefore can and should take the responsibility to enforce sustainability and environmental-friendly laws and regulations.

I don't think smartphones make as smarter per se, but I think that the more we use them the better we get at solving problems (for example, navigating to find a certain application or function of the phone, something our parents can't really do). The more we use technology, the more we are open and flexible with other, more developed technologies. So in that sense, it does make us better. But it doesn't directly affect our brains, I'm afraid. I do think that the ease with which we can get answers to all our questions does make it more likely for us to become more knowledgeable on things, but that's not exactly being smart.

I would say I agree if it weren't so general. In some cases smartphones can make us better and more adaptable, but not for everyone of course.

I don't think that social media make people less social, I think they make them social in a different way. Via social media people can stay in touch with others all around the world, with an ease that was unheard of a few decades ago. Social media help people stay connected, even though the connections might be slightly superficial. It's true that people spent a lot of time today on social media, the Internet and their computers, but that doesn't necessarily make them less social, but rather as I said, differently social. They may be connecting with people they wouldn't have the time to do so with otherwise, or people they wouldn't be able to stay in touch with.