Mr. Angry
10 April, 2008
A number of things have happened in the last weeks that have angered me. As some readers will know, I’ve been very involved with the “Beyond 2008″ process which is seeking to engage civil society with the UN’s review of progress on drug cointrol in the last 10 years and in working out what should come next. The process has been very open, seeking to engage NGOs from across the world with different perspectives, including quite “hard line” prevention organisations, harm reduction groups, drug user advocates and producer reps. Imagine therefore my disappointment to read the following from ENCOD:
“If the UN drug officials have no problem in provoking governments, then what about the chances of citizens’ associations being taken seriously on the highest levels of the drug debate? Virginia Montañes and Joep Oomen (ENCOD) described the perspectives of the so-called “consultation with civil society” that has been recently implemented by the United Nations as well as the European Union, in an effort to open up the discussion to voices who represent non-governmental actors in the drug field. The agenda of these meetings is imposed by the UNODC and a small clique of (prohibitionist) NGOs that have close relationships to this office. No representatives of producers of cannabis, coca or opium are present in these consultations, and almost no grassroots organisations. The way the meetings are organised ensures that no essential questions can be dealt with. ENCOD may continue to attend these meetings just to know what is going on, but we should not expect too much of them either. Only by building a critical mass of public opinion and determination concerning concrete practical solutions to urgent demands can we establish true civil society alternatives to the current, higly cost-ineffective drug policies.”
Sounds good but quite frankly, not true. The important thing about the “Beyond 2008″ process has been that NGOs themselves have designed and planned and implemented the process, people have accepted that they may differ on particular issues, such as the law, but all are being given free opportunity to express their opinions - and, more importantly, to work together on issues that unite rather than divide.
Another thing that has angered me was the way that before the UK’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs had even produced its long-awaited report on Cannabis, it was being reported all over the media. I’m not going to say anything about the confidential discussions or about whether what was reported was accurate or not. If we can respect the confidentiality of clients in our drug services, we can do likewise in policy discussions which will have an important impact on them. The committee’s report will be published soon and the official spokespeople will explain the recommendations and rationale. As a new member, I was incredibly impressed by the depth and intelligence of the discussions about what are complex and difficult matters. It serves no-one, least of all the young people that we’re meant to be so concerned about, to pre-empt the launch of the report by trying to score cheap political shots in the media.
It all just makes me think that some people have forgotten why we’re in this business. Maybe they should get out of it.
