Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.3.2-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Ministerial Conference next week will, therefore, be discussing the evaluation of the progress achieved and the difficulties encountered in meeting the targets of the Conventions. The targets were to do with reduction of use, sale, production, and so on. Those are good targets, and so it is great that Mrs Buitenweg has drawn up a report about them, to give the delegation a couple of recommendations. However, her intentions do not, of course, stop there. As a true politician, she also wants to give some guidance. Her report is cleverly formulated, but is in my opinion based on an erroneous point of view. That is why I am somewhat critical of it.
To my way of thinking, Paragraph 7 is the key section. When it comes to evaluations, criteria have to be laid down. Those are broadly outlined in Paragraph 7;
broadly, as I think that they all deserve to be specified in greater detail. I take the view that scientific research in this field is in any case very difficult, and that it has to be prepared very carefully so that the criteria laid down are adhered to at all times during the research. We all know that any scientific study nowadays can be undermined by another scientific study. You can even hire institutions for it, anyway. We should be extremely careful that it is really done properly, therefore, and so we should heed Mr Blokland’s warning about the staff working on it.
When this issue comes up for discussion, all kinds of emotions are vented. I find that very entertaining to listen to. I have just heard Mr Robert Evans speaking vehemently about these matters. That means that there is some kind of conviction behind his views; either that, or he wishes to project a certain image about himself. I understand that, in the Netherlands, the idea of the autonomy of the individual, who must take central stage, is very important. I do not believe in that position at all. I have a totally different belief in that regard, in that I do not believe that every individual has the right to choose his own addiction – as I have heard proclaimed on Dutch television once or twice. I find it a strange autonomy where surrendering autonomy is actually the highest form of autonomy. I do not think much of that.
Furthermore, the Netherlands has had a rude awakening. Everyone thinks that we have a wonderfully tolerant policy; but we now see it as being very dated, and are looking at other possibilities. We are saying: have we not been much too tolerant? Is that classification of drugs really such a good idea after all? I can tell you, Mr Evans, that the Netherlands is able to grow cannabis that is so good, and so highly concentrated, that the line between this and hard drugs is scarcely perceptible. Therefore, that classification has invalidated itself. In addition, the tolerant climate in the Netherlands – in which large numbers of people do not see themselves as criminals when making ecstasy tablets – has resulted in a production boom, making us, I believe, one of the largest exporters in the world. You could say that this is good for the Dutch economy, but I see that as the wrong way of looking at things. We have to realise that those ecstasy tablets are responsible for a great deal of senseless nightlife violence. I think that we must get away from this, and conduct a more down-to-earth policy along the lines of zero tolerance."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples