Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.3.2-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very sorry to distress Mr Cappato, but I too am going to take a line which is not pleasing to him.
This report states a basic position. It is not a response to the current situation, as some would have us believe. In actual fact, for many years, the UN has been maintaining a position against drug producers and pushers, clearly indicating the degree to which the different substances are dangerous and vehemently upholding the need to combat illegal trafficking and the spread of crime at all levels.
After the 1961 UN Convention, there were further declarations: in 1971, 1988 and 1998. Now, in view of the Ministerial Conference due to take place next week in Vienna, the European Parliament is being called upon to present a proposal, to express its position. That is no easy task, given what we have just heard. Although it takes these broad premises as a starting point and appears to be well balanced, the report then comes more or less directly to the usual conclusions which regularly divide Parliament and public opinion too – that soft drugs, particularly cannabis, should be liberalised and legalised and that a distinction should be made between soft and hard drugs.
Some of the Members asked just now how the report could be interpreted in that way, but the points are there if one reads the report carefully. Moreover, the method of treatment using alternative substances is clearly recommended as the most effective system, the most direct way of combating drug addiction. Here too, nothing could be further from the truth. As we are aware, this method is disputed in many Member States because it does not bring about the recovery of drug addicts but just stops them being a threat to society. In other words, the important thing is to remove the problem – this kind of method is not really intended to bring about the recovery of the individuals concerned.
The report also appears to be deficient in that it does not combine the proposals for measures in the current situation with pre-emptive initiatives to limit the phenomenon in the future. In any case, the attempt to liberalise cannabis as a non-dangerous substance is unacceptable in that there is no scientific evidence to this effect. Although it may be true – and here I am opening a window for those who hold a different view – that not all those who start by smoking cannabis go on to take hard drugs, it is now an established fact that all those who are now slaves to heroine started by smoking pot or grass.
These different opinions have already emerged, during the course of the debate in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and it is no coincidence that this report was adopted by 24 votes to 20.
The documentation is clear for the most part, then, confirming how difficult it is in this matter to proclaim absolute truths or to provide conclusive, unquestionable solutions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples