Riksdagsledamot för Centerpartiet. Kandidat till Europaparlamentet från plats 3 på Centerpartiets EU-valsedel.
Grön liberal som eftersträvar frihet, ansvar och en god miljö. Botkyrka, Björbo, Bryssel.
onsdag, december 08, 2010
Drogdebatt
I dag hade vi en debatt eller en diskussion är bättre benämning hos Malou vin Sivers på Efter 10 i Tv4. Det var Magnus Linton som skrivit Cociana, Folkhälsominister Maria Larsson och jag. Ni hittar inslaget här.
Du förde dig mycket bra där, blev lite besviken att Linton inte förstår att förbudspolitiken har samma problematik var den än förs, sverige som mexiko - om än i mindre skala här. Men att den alltid stjälper mer än den hjälper.
Du är anledningen att jag röstade på centern, ett parti som jag långsiktigt tror kan erövra endast om man tar den liberala fanan från Fp som smutsat ner den så länge, tvättar den, och börjar föra riktig liberal politik för en gångs skull.
Apropå nolltolerans-ideologin i Sverige: ett utdrag ur mitt blogginlägg om samma ämne:
Like elsewhere, around here 'zero tolerance' demonstrates that the augury of tolerance is not always read upright, that it does not always represent equality or pluralism. It can be inverted and mean persecution. For this reason, in a truly pluralistic society the antagonistic dualism of tolerance would collapse on itself with the true law of zero – zero tolerance for zero tolerance.
Nollvision.org, an organization for citizens' rights in relation to Sweden's large predator politics, points out that defending your family or your pets from large predators on an afternoon walk in the forest gives you a larger punishment than pedophiles, rapists and drunk drivers ”who drive over children” receive. Their slogan is ”dare to take a stance” (Våga ta ställning). Which stance? Are they willing to accept an opposing stance? Of course not. Their policy is a form of zero tolerance for zero vision. That is the stance. What is important here is that "dare to take a stance" is implicit in all zero tolerance and zero visions. By naming what will not be tolerated the proper stance is demarcated and everyone knows which side they are on. We see that zero vision creates three categories of people: those who do nothing (take a stance!), those who do something (take our stance!), and those who do the wrong thing (we will make you zero!)...
A highly developed form of oppression, zero vision, as aforementioned, immediately makes a separation between the good and the evil. It robs the one not tolerated of their identity, because it prescribes what they are: a subtraction waiting to be performed, a possible deduction from the system that helps bring the tally down to zero.
Du förde dig mycket bra där, blev lite besviken att Linton inte förstår att förbudspolitiken har samma problematik var den än förs, sverige som mexiko - om än i mindre skala här. Men att den alltid stjälper mer än den hjälper.
SvaraRaderaDu är anledningen att jag röstade på centern, ett parti som jag långsiktigt tror kan erövra endast om man tar den liberala fanan från Fp som smutsat ner den så länge, tvättar den, och börjar föra riktig liberal politik för en gångs skull.
Apropå nolltolerans-ideologin i Sverige: ett utdrag ur mitt blogginlägg om samma ämne:
SvaraRaderaLike elsewhere, around here 'zero tolerance' demonstrates that the augury of tolerance is not always read upright, that it does not always represent equality or pluralism. It can be inverted and mean persecution. For this reason, in a truly pluralistic society the antagonistic dualism of tolerance would collapse on itself with the true law of zero – zero tolerance for zero tolerance.
Nollvision.org, an organization for citizens' rights in relation to Sweden's large predator politics, points out that defending your family or your pets from large predators on an afternoon walk in the forest gives you a larger punishment than pedophiles, rapists and drunk drivers ”who drive over children” receive. Their slogan is ”dare to take a stance” (Våga ta ställning). Which stance? Are they willing to accept an opposing stance? Of course not. Their policy is a form of zero tolerance for zero vision. That is the stance. What is important here is that "dare to take a stance" is implicit in all zero tolerance and zero visions. By naming what will not be tolerated the proper stance is demarcated and everyone knows which side they are on. We see that zero vision creates three categories of people: those who do nothing (take a stance!), those who do something (take our stance!), and those who do the wrong thing (we will make you zero!)...
A highly developed form of oppression, zero vision, as aforementioned, immediately makes a separation between the good and the evil. It robs the one not tolerated of their identity, because it prescribes what they are: a subtraction waiting to be performed, a possible deduction from the system that helps bring the tally down to zero.