Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.15.4-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, if there is one issue for which we should keep our heads cool and our wits about us then it must be the drugs policy. The present report drafted by Mrs Giannakou is not exactly a shining example of this clarity. The debate is not being conducted in a very level-headed way. There is too much bellicose rhetoric and frankly, too much hullabaloo.
We have noticed that slowly but surely this House has made some prudent steps in the right direction when it comes to dealing with this complex issue. This is certainly evident if we compare the present debate and text with those of a couple of years ago. At that time, hellfire and damnation were not punishment enough for Members who dared mention the words harm reduction or a therapeutic approach. To most people in this House, it was completely inconceivable that, apart from a repressive approach to the drugs policy, other, more effective strategies could also be developed.
The Giannakou report represents a clear improvement on a number of points. It recognises the importance of urban and regional policy experiments, refers to
and is prepared to evaluate different pluralistic therapeutic approaches. Not very revolutionary and only a small step forward. But it gives cause for hope that bad practices can be compared on the basis of accurate data and that a humane and effective drugs policy will become a likelihood in an integrated European Union.
The way in which these positive elements are formulated, however, leaves too much scope for opposing interpretations. Positive developments evident from the text cannot compete with the repressive mood which is still prevailing. Think, for example, of the enforced rehabilitation of drug addicts in prisons. This leads to inhumane situations and is not very effective if not taken on board out of one’s own free will.
The objective of the aid policy should not be restricted to achieving total abstinence in the long run. One can live with drugs, as is the case – to many people’s delight – with alcohol and tobacco and as is the case with Prozac and Valium. Does the rapporteur’s ferocious war declaration apply here too? After all, research has shown that a good joint is less harmful and addictive than some socially accepted drugs.
Possibilities other than rehabilitation are still not mentioned in this report, although it is established practice in more and more Member States to supply drugs in a controlled manner, sometimes with very promising results.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that a fatalistic outlook encourages drug abuse. This is a fallacy intended to sharpen the senseless war against drug abuse. It exacerbates marginalisation and crime and will lead to more crime. It is a repressive instrument which, unlike the addict, profits from this approach."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"harm reduction"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples