Wednesday, 2 June 2010

COWARDISH POLITICIANS CHOOSE DELIBERATELY FOR A WRONG CANNABIS POLICY - Encod.org

COWARDISH POLITICIANS CHOOSE DELIBERATELY FOR A WRONG CANNABIS POLICY - Encod.org


English
The entire site
Cannabis Social Club
Encod.org
European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD)
Secretariat: Lange Lozanastraat 14 - 2018 Antwerpen - Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)3 293 0886 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +32 (0)3 293 0886 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
E-mail: office@encod.org
Home page > English (en) > NEWS > COWARDISH POLITICIANS CHOOSE DELIBERATELY FOR A WRONG CANNABIS (...)

COWARDISH POLITICIANS CHOOSE DELIBERATELY FOR A WRONG CANNABIS POLICY

published Monday 15 February 2010 11:02, by encod . update Monday 15 February 2010 16:56

All the versions of this article: [English] [Nederlands]

Source: De Volkskrant

By Gerd Leers, former lord mayor of Maastricht (NL)

4 February 2010


If Dutch Members of Parliament would follow their heart and common sense, there would be a majority for the legal regulation of cannabis tomorrow.

No issue in the Netherlands (but also outside) is charged with so much hypocricy as the policy on soft drugs. We know that we cannot reduce their use – therefore we tolerate sale and possession – but we still want to follow other European countries. And that is why we prohibit cultivation and purchase of large quantities.

And therefore, police commissioner Max Daniel is right when he says (Volkskrant, 1st February) that the cannabis industry has lost his innocence. However, one can ask: what’s new? Above all the lord mayors who have been struggling to make the best out of the impossible Dutch policy on soft drugs. If you prohibit a product that is very much wanted, of course the market will go underground. We know that since the days of Al Capone and the drought in the 1920s in the United States.

The most important question is: do you reduce the use of this crap by prohibiting it? Because as yet, no-one disagrees with the fact that it is crap. Just like alcohol and tobacco. Concerning health damage, cannabis has already lost its innocence long ago.

Only, the fact is: prohibition does not help. If that would be the case, we would quickly have closed this discussion. But in countries that surround us, where the policy regarding cannabis is much more repressive than in the Netherlands, the levels of use are higher. And the step towards hard drugs is taken much quicker.

That is logical: if you force cannabis lovers, especially young people who want to experiment, to buy their stuff from a hard drugs dealer, the step towards cocaine and even harder stuff is made quicker. In the Netherlands, the blower can go to the coffeeshop – where dealing in hard drugs is impossible – and see: the stepping stone-theory does not work anymore.

In terms of public health, Dutch tolerant policy is good policy. But it can still be improved. Because by taking out cannabis out of the taboo environment you can inform about it just like it happens with tobacco. And tax it like tobacco. With the same consequences as tobacco: a steadily decreasing consumption.

Because believe me: cannabis is crap. I am against it, very much so, and most Dutch people agree with me. And therefore there is only one way to reduce the use of it: regulate the cannabis market. But regulate also cannabis cultivation and cannabis trade.

Police commissioner Max Daniel is probably right when he says that 80 % of Dutch cannabis cultivation is meant for export. But he is wrong when he draws the conclusion that regulating cultivation and trade for Dutch coffeeshops would have no sense. In the first place many lord mayors would be very happy if they would be liberated of 20 % of pressure on the local police force. But more importantly, we would finally be able to prove that regulation leads to less crime ánd a better public health. With those figures we can convince Europe of the madness of the war on drugs, a war which Joseph McNamara and Dries van Agt characterised some time ago as: ‘The war on drugs causes more misery than the drugs themselves.’

Exactly for that reason, an agreement was formed in the city of Maastricht in 2005 between the national parties and the city government to start an experiment with the regulation of the backdoor of the coffeeshop. This agreement was signed by Nebahat Albayrak (socialdemocrat party, PvdA) – today vice minister of Justice (so in charge of making decisions) and Frans Weekers, still a MP for the liberal VVD, but redrawn by the party leadership that wants to make the message more conservative out of fear for the growing competition by extreme right populist Wilders.

If Dutch Members of Parliament would follow their heart and common sense, there would be a majority for the legal regulation of cannabis tomorrow. And the day after tomorrow would be the first of a long journey to convince Europe. Not an impossible one - see for instance the tolerant policies in Belgium and the Czech Republic. We are not the only ones anymore. And it would also not be the first time that the Netherlands would lead in an issue that everybody prefers to ignore, but where the majority finally is convinced of the fact that a good regulation causes less damage than tolerance or senseless repression.

Knowing that it can be done more healthy, that it can be done more safely, but not doing it because it is difficult to explain it to the voters; that is hypocrite. It is cowardish. It seems - in the short term - to please the voter, but in the long term it is another contribution to the failure of political authorities.

Reply to this article

1 Message
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, 1 June 2010

UN decries Israeli flotilla raid - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

UN decries Israeli flotilla raid - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

News Middle East

UN decries Israeli flotilla raid


Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin reports from Jerusalem on the storming of the flotilla and its aftermath

The UN Security Council has condemned acts leading to the deaths of civilians during Monday's Israeli attack on a humanitarian aid convoy that was headed to the Gaza Strip.

In a formal statement adopted after more than 10 hours of closed-door negotiations, the council requested the immediate release of ships and civilians held by Israel and called for an impartial investigation.

Prior to the emergency session, almost all the 15 members of the council deplored the attack that left at least 10 activists on board the Freedom Flotilla dead and dozens injured.

"It is clearer than ever that Israel's restrictions on access to Gaza must be lifted in line with Security Council Resolution 1860," Mark Lyall Grant, the British ambassador, said on Tuesday.

"The current closure is unacceptable and counterproductive," Grant said.

France, Russia and China also called for the blockade to be lifted and for an independent inquiry.

The United States, Israel's traditional ally, did not request specifically that Israel end its blockade on the Gaza Strip. But it hinted that the measure at least should be eased.

Alejandro Wolff, US deputy permanent representative, said that Washington was "deeply disturbed by recent violence and regrets tragic loss of life and injuries".

Meanwhile, Egypt opened its Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip letting Palestinians cross until further notice.

Palestinian TV said that Mahmood Abbas, the president, phoned Hosni Mubarak, his Egyptian counter-part, to thank him for "responding to the massacre" by opening the post.

Deadly raid

LATEST COVERAGE

Live updates: Aftermath of Israel's flotilla raid
Recounting the mid-sea horror
Flotilla takes media centre-stage
Gallery: Protests around the world

The statements reflected the international community's strong disapprovalof Monday's events in the high seas, when Israeli soldiers stormed the six ships in international waters about 65km off the Gaza coast.

The ships with about 700 pro-Palestinian activists were carrying 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid for Gaza, the coastal territory under a crippling Israeli siege.

Israel insisted that its troops had acted in self-defence after being attacked by those onboard.

But Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, onboard the lead ship Mavi Marmara, said troops opened fire even after passengers had raised a white flag.

Israeli troops have taken the ships to the port of Ashdod after seizing them.

Activists who were injured are being treated in hospitals while 480 others are been detained and subjected to interrogations. Another 48 activists have been deported to their respective countries.

Al Jazeera's Elshayyal is reportedly being held at a detention facility at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport, together with two of his colleagues.

Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from Ashdod, said: "We are still trying to get information in terms of the condition of the passengers...

"An identification and interrogation process has gotten under way, to identify the individuals and then provide them with the option of being deported immediately or sent to prison here," he said.

Global outrage

The attack on Freedom Flotilla has incensed people, triggering mass protestsin cities across the world.

IN DEPTH

Blog: Israel defending the indefensible
Twitter: Sherine Tadros
Pictures: Protests around the world
Outrage over Israeli attack
Previous activists killed by Israel
Focus: On board the Freedom Flotilla
Focus: Gaza's real humanitarian crisis
Video: Israel's Gaza PR offensive
Programmes: Born in Gaza

Thousands marched in the streets of Istanbul, London and Amman in Jordan among other cities on Monday, denouncing the deadly raid on the ships that sought to deliver much-needed supplies to Gazans.

But Israel has remained defiant with Mark Regev, its government spokesman, insisting that "Israel was totally within its rights under international law to intercept the ship and to take it to the port of Ashdod".

He said the people on board the flotilla were not peaceful activists.

"They are part of the IHH, which is a radical Turkish Islamist organisation which has been investigated by Western governments and by the Turkish government itself in the past for their links with terrorist organisations."

Reporting from Jerusalem, Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland said Israel's reaction has largely been of defiance.

"Many [Israeli citizens] have flocked to the port of Ashdod to basically express their rejection of what they see as the foreign media's negative spin on events.

"...Israeli spin masters have been going into overdrive, doing their best possible to spin this event as though the Israeli commandos were not the ones attacking but rather the attack was perpetrated by people on board," she said.

Israeli 'cover-up'

But Israeli efforts notwithstanding, the country has come in for strong censure.

PEOPLE ON BOARD

Two Palestinians who are also members of Israeli parliament
Swedish author Henning Mankell (unharmed according to the Swedish foreign ministry)
Northern Irish Nobel peace prize laureate Mairead Maguire
Aengus Snodaigh, member of the Irish parliament
Irish writer and historian Fintan Lane
Three German parliamentarians

Murat Mercan, the head of Turkey's foreign relations committee, said that activists on board had links to terrorist organisations was Israel's way of covering up its mistake.

"Any allegation that the members of this ship is attached to al-Qaeda is a big lie because there are Israeli civilians, Israeli authorities, Israeli parliamentarians on board the ship," he told Al Jazeera.

"Does he [Regev] think that those are also attached to al-Qaeda?"

Mark Taylor, an international legal expert, told Al Jazeera that every state, including Israel, has the right to self-defence.

"In this case, we're looking at a humanitarian aid convoy, with prominent people and activists, clearly not a military target in any way whatsoever."

Israeli media reported that many of the dead were Turkish nationals.

Hamas, the Palestinian group which governs the Gaza Strip, said the assault was a "massacre" and called on the international community to intervene.

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, urged Arabs and Muslims to show their anger by staging protests outside Israeli embassies across the globe.


Comments:~

Well! America did say that Israel can have the atomic-bomb, but Iran must not have a nuclear-power. That's fair

enough isn't it. They might use it one day in warfare. Wait just a dog-gone hour, seems I recall America has done just that, after a little thinking, I can remember Hiroshima&Nagasaki, it was a 'human holocaust' if ever I have known of one. The suffering shown on News reels at the time, was horrendous & inhumane. How can a nation impose that level of suffering on women and children, all civilians running along a road. I saw a young girl about 7-10 years of age, naked and with her skin burnt off her body & still burning as she ran. Amazingly, I do believe this young girl survived as a result of much medical interventions, perhaps because she was on prime time News. But there were hundreds of thousands running with their bodies burning from the nuclear weapon's dropped on these Towns in Japan. You can view it for yourself, if you really want to see such a sight. I never want to see such a tragedy again. irra

Posted by at No comments:

The case for a Bill of Rights - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

The case for a Bill of Rights - UK Politics, UK - The Independent


The case for a Bill of Rights

Criticised by many Tories, defended by the Liberal Democrats, the Human Rights Act is highly divisive within the coalition. In fact, it doesn't go far enough: if we care about liberty, we must create our own declaration, argues Geoffrey Robertson QC

Tuesday, 1 June 2010

Thomas Rowlandson's Old Bailey (1808)

Getty

Thomas Rowlandson's Old Bailey (1808)

    Read more »
    Posted by at No comments:

    ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICIES IN EUROPE

    ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICIES IN EUROPE

    NR. 64 JUNE 2010

    WOULD LEGALISATION HARM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?

    Last March, during the CND meeting in Vienna, the head of the United
    Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa warned
    that developing countries could face a "health disaster if wealthy
    countries fail to control drugs”.

    Costa pointed to a growing drug problem in impoverished nations. He also
    remarked that the "developing world – already struggling to deal with
    health, education and unemployment problems – lacks the treatment
    facilities and law enforcement to control narcotics". And he continued:
    "Poor addicts– and there are millions of them– have been pushed to the
    margins of society, deprived of medical attention, often exposed to
    conditions, including imprisonment, that exacerbate their illness’.

    Costa also seemed to have already found the ones to blame for this
    fatidic destiny: "This seems to have been forgotten by people in rich
    countries calling for loosening of drug controls," and he concludes:
    "Why condemn the Third World, already ravaged by so many tragedies, to
    the neo-colonialism of drug dependence?"

    Mr. Costa is speaking to us from an imagined moral high ground, but in
    fact advocating the continuation of the harmful policies that are the
    main cause of the misery that he tries to make his opponents feel guilty
    about.


    It is true that developing countries that have important connections
    with the illegal drug market, as producers or as trade routes, have been
    struggling with drug related problems for decades and it is also true
    that many of them have increasing rates of drug consumption. It is also
    quite obvious that developing countries are expected to have less
    resources to adequately address drug addiction, and have more
    aggravating circumstances then developed nations (urbanization, poverty,
    migration, educational deficits, income inequalities...).

    But let’s make one thing clear here: what was exactly the role of
    “neo-colonialists”or “rich countries” in this “disaster”? Certainly it
    was not the “loosening of drug controls”. Let’s forget the rhetoric and
    look at the facts.

    The so-called War on Drugs, fiercely pursued by rich nations led by the
    US, was forcefully imposed to developing nations, and is becoming
    tougher and tougher each day. It is widely acknowledged now, and even
    admitted by UNODC, that this policy is also systematically generating
    immense “unintended consequences” such as a criminal market,
    displacement of routes, markets and substances, and the marginalization
    of users. Despite strong indications of failure of this policy,
    organizations such as UNODC are still encouraging countries to join
    international drug control efforts.

    Having considered the efficacy of the current drug “control" system then
    how can Costa call for more of the same? How can he claim that this
    would help developing nations to escape from “drug dependence tragedy”?
    How exactly can more drug prohibition and counter-drug tactics save poor
    countries from a “health disaster”?


    One thing that probably is worrying Mr Costa is the mythological concept
    that the cost of drug use to the individual and to the society
    infinitely outweighs the cost of enforcing prohibition. According to
    this concept any effort to reduce the availability of drugs is
    justifiable. However, evidence suggests that the costs of prohibition
    are, in fact, very high, and evidence on the efficacy of prohibition to
    reduce drug use is, at best, disappointing.

    Even if we admit that the costs of drug use are in fact very high, we
    can not forget the role that prohibition plays in that. It is certain
    that criminalization of drugs is behind the majority of health and
    social problems related to drug use and is also an important factor for
    the perpetuation of poverty, inequalities, corruption, poor governance
    and underdevelopment of many nations.

    Criminalization increases the negative effects of drug use

    1. Prohibition attracts drug traffickers and drug consumption to
    countries in which drug consumption would otherwise not be prevalent.
    The costs of distributing drugs inside transit countries is lower, given
    that traffickers already must build up networks of collaborators to move
    the drugs through. Even though transit countries are poorer, and drug
    prices therefore much lower, low marginal costs make these markets
    highly lucrative. The fact that drug traffickers pay local collaborators
    in drugs, may explain part of the rise in consumption in transit countries.

    2. Illegality undermines the usual vehicles of quality control upon
    which legal markets rely. In this context, overdoses due to uncertain
    strength and poisoning due to adulteration are both certain to be more
    frequent.

    3. Criminalization of drugs and drug use impedes efforts to treat drug
    addiction and to prevent the spread of HIV among drug users. Since
    consumption is an illegal activity in most developing countries and,
    because of that, drug use tends to take place under less than ideal
    conditions, the transmission of contagious diseases and overdoses
    becomes more likely. Access to health care and harm reduction may lessen
    these problems, but users are still reluctant to take advantage of these
    when consumption is criminalized and profoundly stigmatized.


    Criminalization perpetuates corruption, poverty and inequality.

    1. The war against drugs increases the cost of drugs, making drug
    production and sale more profitable and therefore more attractive -
    particularly to those living in poverty. More risks, more profits, and
    even more poor people being recruited to this illegal activity.

    2. To achieve and maintain profit goals, traffickers implement
    strategies to respond to the "challenges" of confronting the state,
    which include corruption of important officials and policemen and
    violence against the state and other competing groups. Corruption
    jeopardizes democratic stability and is a serious obstacle to
    guaranteeing a countrys’ governablility and national security.

    3. An estimated 4 million people depend on income derived from the
    cultivation of illegal drug crops. In many countries, efforts to wipe
    out drug cultivation and supply have a high cost to human welfare and
    lives. For farmers there are few economic incentives for growing
    alternatives to drug crops. Moreover, a major part of the profits end up
    in the hands of those who control the later stages of the distribution
    process (retailers in developed countries).


    4. Two other well-known costs of prohibition are the lives lost due to
    prohibition-induced violence and the productivity losses due to
    incarceration. The majority of people incarcerated in Brazil due to drug
    related crime are uneducated, poor, black young men, who where caught
    selling small amounts of drugs. More people die of drug trafficking
    related violence then of drug-related diseases or overdose, especially
    in developing countries.

    In summary, despite the research and analyses made so far, social and
    individual costs of drug use, and the effects of prohibition on
    consumption are uncertain. Some will argue that it is likely that the
    relaxation of prohibition would lead to an increase in drug consumption.
    However, there is much evidence (see for instance the EC Report by
    Reuter and Trautmann) that the influence of repressive policies on
    levels of drug use is marginal. In addition, the nature of the
    “legalization” regime against which prohibition is being compared is not
    clear. But if drug trade can be regulated and resources diverted to
    other policies, such as treatment and education, with proven efficacy in
    reducing addiction and problematic use, it is likely that the types of
    drug use that impose the largest costs could be reduced.

    Negative health and social consequences related to prohibition should be
    correctly put in the equation when the “tragedy of drug dependence” is
    weighed.

    By: Marisa Felicissimo (with the help of Peter Webster)


    irra
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: , , , , , , ,
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    My Blog List

    Family&FriendsAndPotentialFriends

    Blog Archive

    irrahhayes

    Social Animal trying to live on the dark, mean, and hungry side of Town.