Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-04-Speech-1-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020204.4.1-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, drugs policy has often led to heated debates in the European Parliament. Elaborate expositions used to turn everything upside down and used to touch on family, belief and authority. Today, the waters are somewhat calmer. Since the European Commission proposal is confined to the legal aspects, level-headedness is what is called for.
As the Commission rightly underlines in its proposal, the responsibility for combating illegal drug trafficking lies first and foremost with the Member States. However, since it is often a case of organised trafficking which encompasses various countries, a framework decision which tackles this cross-border trafficking can be a useful addition to national policy.
However, what is missing from the proposal submitted by the Commission is a differentiation between the different kinds of drugs and, consequently, a differentiated penalisation of illegal drug trafficking. An increasing number of countries in Europe distinguish soft and hard drugs on the basis of the health risks to which they give rise, and there is also increasingly more political support for a policy based on straightforward information campaigns and on the prevention of health risks. On this basis, a few Member States are adopting a tolerant policy with regard to soft drugs. It is not the intention that the present framework decision should scrap this policy.
As far as penalisation is concerned, all kinds of factors need to be taken into consideration in order to establish effective and proportionate punishment. Unfortunately, the criteria for determining the seriousness of the crime, such as the extent of trafficking and the nature and availability of the products involved, have not been included in the proposal. This is why my group, together with three other groups, has tabled an amendment in order to have such criteria included. Cultural differences and the different prosecution policies of the Member States, combined with the principle of subsidiarity, provide good reason for restricting this proposal to organised and cross-border illegal drug trafficking. Only with this restriction does the large majority of my group deem that this framework decision represents added value."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples