New year should not be synonymous with new bans

the New year will now with a vengeance if the new ban. On new year's eve they were shot last unlicensed boosters to stick up for that brighten the night sky, the next years requires the application to purchase and fire a rocket to celebrate the new year.

Just in time for the summer heat made it cozy outdoors entry in addition the ban on smoking at outdoor cafes in the force. A ban also covers e-cigarettes because it emerged not as a protection for even marginal threat to the health of others, but to ”avnormalisera tobacco use in public space”.

Ban is more than an opinion. Prohibition entails costs and causes problems.

Last year, it was forbidden to hold a mobile phone when you are behind the wheel. A ban that has not prevented the mortality rate of the traffic, preliminarily looks to have increased compared with previous years – an unfortunate reversal of the trend which indicates that the ban may not necessarily solve or even help with the problems they were intended.

to take the prohibition of the perceived problems, because it is a simple way to signal to take action. Interest groups and lobbyists expressing it that often, Sweden ”is located after” if we do not have as far-reaching prohibitions in other countries, which sometimes even becomes the medial angle.

a Little to the man's reasoning in a similar way. Many förbudsförslag has the support of majorities in the opinion polls. Most seem to simply see their own disapproval of a phenomenon that a sufficient reason to prohibit it.

But the ban is more than an opinion. Prohibition entails costs and causes problems. It annoys some can be others ' pleasure and enjoyment and in a free society need to both be able to coexist and be tolerated – especially when it's about different tastes and interests.

We discuss the values of trust and independence, but connects them rarely to the progress of the state through the finicky restrictions shows that it does not trust us.

the New laws requires resources from the police and the judiciary, and means that anyone who violates the law is liable to be punished. Is it really reasonable to punish an otherwise law-abiding Svensson, who shoots rockets at new year or a restauranteur who let people smoke on the outdoor terrace, and to take police officers from other assignments in order to maintain such laws?

the criteria are restrictions and lagskärpningar, which can be justified, but the combined power of the new prohibition is a bad omen. Shouldn't the freedom for adults to make decisions about their own lives rather increase for each year? We discuss the values of trust and independence, but connects them rarely to the progress of the state through the finicky restrictions shows that it does not trust us.

the New freedoms in place of the new prohibition is not an untested idea. A number of nyårsaftnar in the early 2000's expanded the ration of alcohol we got to take with us from travel in the EU countries gradually to today's generous limits. For each of the years was the swede a little myndigare and was entrusted with a little more freedom. It went well. Once we receive the whole of the EU-ration decreased importation and drinking steadily for many years. The freedom were handled with responsibility.

introduced is also a choice. The same government that thought that it was important to put forward proposals on purely moralistic laws about smoking and increased red tape for those who sell tobacco products have, for example, will not put any bill to abolish the requirement of danstillstånd. Despite the parliamentary decision in 2016 on the elimination still requires the application for people to get moving to music in a public venue.

the Priority should be the reverse. Dare to welcome each new year with all together to enhance the personal freedom and thus the confidence of its citizens. See, for example, to drop the dance free.