In "the Right to self-determination" sets the twin towers Einar Øverenget important questions. Based in coronakrisen he asks whether there is a reasonable relationship between the grip we have taken and the real risk, or if there has "been built up such a strong narrative about the fear that we forget how we usually handle the danger".
Question touches a central mainstay of our grunnlovstradisjon. It reminds that there must be a certain relation between goals and means, and the mind goes on to ruspolitikken.
For, as the philosopher says, "If you going to limit people's self-determination in order to protect people's ability to exercise self-determination, saying that it is crucial to debate that has proportionality to do: Represent a given action, or situation, so great a threat to others' self-determination that it should not be prohibited or require the open society that the dangers, including death, must be accepted?"
the Problem only becomes more relevant to the illicit drugs. That over 300 million people use these, says a lot about how important the choice of drugs is for the users. They have been exposed to the largest masseforfølgelsen in modern times. Nevertheless, despite all obstacles, the state has added to the reason, they are growing – and when not even the threat of the death penalty in 33 countries has created narkotikafrie society, is it in the cards that straffesporet should be reassessed.Young people misunderstand the concept of the decriminalization Debate
It is this the world's most progressive states has understood: The more we battle against the users ' autonomy, the more the water heater we the way then, and at a price that makes all of us losers.
We are therefore witness to a avkriminaliseringsbølge. Large parts of the world, and as this movement spreads about itself it will be more difficult to see away from the question of self-determination. This is the irrevocable result of a decreased fiendebilde; a result of a more intelligent policy, and it is in this context, it is no coincidence that the ruspolitiske conventions for the last ten years has gone from to be interpreted in the light of the narkotikafrie the ideal, and the prohibition as an appropriate tool, to emphasise the realities and the intention to protect the public health.
When it comes to public health realizes namely more and more that the ban has made matters worse. Rather than reduce the supply and demand, the ban inflicted on us a series of unfortunate tilleggskonsekvenser and it is in this context, human rights have been lifted up.
These rights to protect the individual against excessive state intervention. They are based on principles of equality, proportionality, self-determination, and frihetspresumsjon, and more grunnlovsdomstoler has the later time concluded that the prohibition – in any case for the cannabis plant's part – violates fundamental rights like the right to health and privacy.
This is a problem that Norway has not yet taken hold of. Rusreformutvalget considered punishment for the use was within the limits to which human rights adds up to, and concluded with the opposite.
They wrote a whole chapter about this, but went unfortunately not further to investigate with the right state prisons involved in the illicit market. It was taboo enough to look at rettighetsbildet to the users; so taboo, in fact, that the public debate still has not taken the consequences of the committee's report, and the idea that manufacturers and sellers could be unjustly persecuted was apparently too much.Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError TESTS: Thomas Seltzer, known from the "social security office", tests medical marijuana in the new documentary "Cannabis" on NRK. Show more
despite the fact that also this grouping had the requirements to get clarified their rettighetsbilde, was not selection. Most likely, it became too controversial, for what does it mean if the analysis should show that violations have taken place?
It would mean that the state in 60 years, with greater and greater overlay, has pursued policies that don't measure up. It would mean that we have had with a scope of arbitrary prosecution, to make that lack precedent in modern history. And it would mean that the state has a responsibility not only to provide the persecuted redress as quickly as possible, but to punish those who have opposed the realization of a rettighetsbilde.
This is what a human rights perspective, the force of the reflections. Moral panic is already proven by the committee, and there is an obvious connection between this phenomenon and menneskerettsbrudd. The question is just how bad it is – and whether or not the state can provide good reasons for maintaining a moral distinction between use and sale, suggests all that we have with an upcoming rettskatastrofe to do.
What is certain, is that much is at stake. It is over ten years since the Norwegian users did the current human rights protection; since that time, several hundred thousand new narkotikaforhold processed by the prosecution; tens of thousands are thrown in jail, but it remains to be seen whether the state has had her on the dry. Only a further investigation can resolve this question. Only an independent, impartial, and competent tribunal can ensure a rettighetsbilde that has been ignored for far too long, Rather than to slow down the necessary progress, the politicians should take to prepare for a Truth - and forsoningskommisjon.
This is the natural the result after 60 years of failed policies in totalitarian terms. As a society we face a moral reformation in line with Germany after the second world war and South Africa after apartheidregimet. We need to realize that narkotikalovgivning and healthy morals have been two different things, and we need to take us to what extent the prohibition has gotten us to commit atrocities against others.Calm down. Rusreformen bust don't Debate
This can be difficult for a society which for so long have accepted the ban's terms. Nevertheless, rusreformutvalget has already divested political fictions as "narkohaien" all credibility. Not only is it the same as the supply and etterspørselsproblematikken involved, whether we are talking about alcohol, tobacco, sugar, coffee, or illegal drugs; it is also the same varying brukermønstrene, and we must realize that the demonization of narkoselgere is pointless.
all other areas where the supply and demand prevails, it is the first and foremost dealers of a product given a certain load. I'm not saying that it necessarily is correct. The Stigma has to complicate healing, but it is in any case absurd to judge an employee at the Supermarket or Monopoly for how the citizen uses alcohol.
We know from before that it is an irrational distinction between legal and illegal substances, and the challenge, therefore, to forbudstilhengerne – if they want to assure the quality of the legislation – is to show what an average narkotikaselger have done of crimes against samfunnsstoffet as a regular employee in the consumer products companies do not have.
in terms of human rights, it is here we need to add the list. No one has any good answer, is it not just obvious that we have allowed the unconsciousness to design ruspolitikken; it is also obvious that forbudstilhengerne have more to answer for than narkotikaselgerne, and that they owe the world a greater excuse.May be the government's proudest moment Comment
Want to discuss?Visit Dagbladet debate!