Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-13-Speech-4-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030213.2.4-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, given the seriousness of the drugs problem I find it incomprehensible that Mr Byrne and the Malliori report are recommending a ‘beating your head against a brick wall’ policy in this way.
Parliament's resolution on the Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000-2004) clearly indicated at the time that drug abuse results in biological, psychological and social problems, disease, problems with families and at work, committing offences, traffic accidents, and so on. Drug abuse is also a threat to young people. For these reasons, in 1999 the same resolution called for everything to be done to give priority to protecting children under the age of 18 and to reduce the number of drug-related deaths.
It is well known that there are differences between different kinds of drugs. The most serious drug problems affect intravenous drugs users, of whom there are, according to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, between 500 000 and one million in the European Union. Intravenous drug use inevitably results in social exclusion, as it soon excludes the essential elements of normal life – work, family, personal relationships and a permanent home.
That is not to say, however, that there is nothing wrong with other drugs. It was wrongly stated in the discussions that so-called soft drugs are harmless. It is partly on account of this belief that the use of cannabis has increased enormously. It has furthermore been scientifically proven that there is a relationship between the use of these drugs and mental health. For example, the chance of developing schizophrenia is 30% to 50% higher for cannabis users. I am quoting the British Medical Journal of 23 November 2002.
What is more, the policy of tolerance of soft drugs – as in the Netherlands – has resulted in an increase in use, particularly among young people. In practice the switch to hard drugs has also been shown to be much easier; after all, the use of drugs is already accepted.
The recommendation before us is about the health risks associated with drug addiction. The European Commission mainly places the emphasis on limiting the risks instead of prevention. The rapporteur is arguing for additional measures, particularly for the care of drug users at local level, for example by helping drug users achieve a healthier life. The rapporteur cites the provision of a number of elementary health services such as clean hypodermic syringes and blood tests. This may perhaps go a little way towards achieving better hygiene, but does not contribute to solving the problems. I am firmly convinced that kicking the habit is the best way of achieving a healthier life.
The policy of harm reduction does not work, as it has been shown that the overload caused by users increases again after a while and the provision of free methadone seems only to result in additional addiction. The negative effect of a liberal drugs policy has the effect of drawing people into certain other areas. Crime, decay and the lack of safety in certain parts of towns and cities have taken on serious proportions.
To dismiss these arguments with the argument that this recommendation is only about the effects on health is misplaced. The effects on health can best be reduced by means of a restrictive policy. In addition, I am also in favour of proper help for addicts. It does depend on how this is done, however. We do not help drug addicts by only treating symptoms. If we want to get drug addicts out of the downward spiral, kicking the habit – either voluntarily or otherwise – is the best option. In the Netherlands there are fortunately examples of so-called hopeless cases who, with the right motivation, have been helped to achieve a drug-free existence. This approach does most to benefit health.
I cannot accept Mr Bowis’ suggestion for Amendments Nos 60, 61 and 64 to be regarded as additional ones."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples