Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-14-Speech-2-323"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041214.17.2-323"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, if I could cut down the use of drugs by voting against this report, I would do so immediately, but that, unfortunately, is not an option. I therefore call on this House to support this report, for it is an excellent and courageous one. What is its objective? I think we all share it. I have also listened to Mrs Brepoels, and we have supported a large proportion of her amendments.
The objective is harm reduction, limiting the damage for the user and for the environment. We must look into the best way of achieving this. We must look to see which policy can produce results, because they are what matter. This is not about ideology, but about results. We must adopt policy that is based on fact, research and exchange of knowledge and experience, rather than on ideology. It is therefore unfortunate that the assessment of the previous strategy was not available on time. Moreover, it was stated a moment ago that the Council would, in the next few days, be deciding to adopt this strategy after all. It would be very regrettable if the Council were to do so without Parliament having had a say in it.
The report takes a pragmatic, realistic approach, and I have to say, in all honesty, that I have interpreted it in a completely different way from Mrs Brepoels. I do not think at all that it rules out repression as an option. It is, of course, the case – and that also applies to Dutch policy, which is widely misunderstood – that such repression must be specific and effective. Looking at the tough war on drugs waged by the USA, I would say that this has done nothing to reduce the use of drugs, but has only lined the pockets of the drugs barons.
Crucial to our approach must be prevention and pragmatism. I will give you a few examples that are controversial, even in the Netherlands. Everyone has difficulty accepting them, and they are not decisions to be taken lightly. Should we, for example, provide needles to drug users who live on the streets? Are we, by doing this, condoning their use of drugs? No, of course not, but if we provide needles, then we know for certain that there are no dirty needles in circulation or in use. At major house parties, where young people take all kinds of tablets, including ecstasy and that sort of thing, should we test the quality of those tablets? Should we provide information? Should we ensure that those young people do not mix alcohol with drugs? By doing this, do you give them the message that it is okay to use drugs? That is a risk. On the other hand, I can see that, if this is not done, then young people die at these parties. As long as they still use drugs, which they do, I think that prevention and information are important.
Finally, we have tabled two amendments about the exchanging of information and consideration of alternative methods."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples