Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.3.2-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have a fundamental difference of political opinion with the rapporteur, Mrs Buitenweg. In so far as Commissioner Vitorino agrees with Mrs Buitenweg’s approach, I also have a fundamental difference of opinion with him.
The United Nations Ministerial Conference on drugs is approaching rapidly; or rather, it is starting today, and goes on until 17 April. I have followed with growing astonishment the activities of the anti-prohibitionists over recent months. It is actually quite clever how they manage to turn up in all the places that matter. Their presentation of the free-thinking attitude to drugs almost makes you doubt. ‘It is a good thing to prioritise the health of addicts.’ ‘It is pitiful that hard drugs have to be bought on the illegal circuit.’ ‘It is their choice whether they take drugs in prison.’ I could almost believe it.
Fortunately, many do not, in spite of the intensive lobby. The anti-prohibitionist lobby has to suffer some heavy blows. Who is not yet familiar with the scandal surrounding Mike Trace? He had to bid farewell to his jobs with the United Nations and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction when his free-thinking intentions became known. The conference on drugs organised by the Greek Presidency turned out to be a fiasco for the anti-prohibitionists. The Member States refused to make a declaration pushing, among other things, for an amendment of the UN conventions. The matter has now arrived, unbidden, at Parliament's door.
The spirit of the Buitenweg report is clear. Although it is not stated in concrete terms, it is insinuated that an amendment of the UN conventions is becoming inevitable in view of the failure of the policy conducted up to now. The free-thinking policy is supposed to lead to undeniable successes. This is a mistaken conclusion, as far as I am concerned. As a fellow citizen of the Netherlands, I am familiar with the pros and cons of our policy. We offer good care for addicts, and we have developed many good initiatives as regards demand, but that is where it ends. Harm reduction alone is not a solution. It implies accepting drug addiction as a social phenomenon and looking on while fellow human beings are destroyed. It is true that we are helping them by providing clean syringes and good user rooms, but the destruction continues. Kicking the habit, if need be with the use of strong pressure, is still the best way of protecting the health of drug addicts. We take the same approach to tobacco addiction.
Does the Netherlands, thanks to our policy, now have fewer drug addicts than other countries? The answer is ‘no’; it has at least as many. Harm reduction has a role to play in dealing with the drugs problem, but, contrary to what the report suggests, it is never an alternative to combating drug trafficking and drug addiction. In addition, it certainly should not be a veiled argument for voting in favour of amending the UN conventions, because the amendments the anti-prohibitionists want go much further than that. The old chestnut of harm reduction is only the pebble that sets the landslide rolling. Their aim is to do away with the present UN Conventions and legalise drugs. Meanwhile, the destruction of lives goes on. As is evident from the 14 amendments I tabled, I do not support in any way, shape or form this ambiguous report. Voting it down and quickly forgetting about it is the best option, as far as I am concerned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples