EU - EU Commission buys silence of citizens in drug policy debate

[Encod]

Dear friends,

Today, the deadline expires for presenting applications to the call for
proposals for the European Commission's budget line on Drug Prevention
and Information
<http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/drugs/funding_drugs_en.htm>.

This budget line was originally created to facilitate ways in which
European citizens who are daily affected by the drug issue could have
their say in decision-making processes on drug policies. Instead, the
European Commission has converted it into a tool to ensure their voices
will be excluded from these processes.

ENCOD (European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies) is a
platform of more than 160 organisations of citizens from 27 European
countries. Since 1993 we have been lobbying for more transparency and
participatzion of affected citizens in the drug policy debate. We have
decided not to apply to this call for proposals. In the following
statement: http://www.encod.org/info/COMMISSION...ILENCE-OF.html
, we explain why.

Best wishes,

Joep

[Lunar Loops]

It very much looks like a cosmetic exercise on their part (being seen to do the right thing) rather than anything with any 'real' substance. They are only paying lip-service to the idea of inclusion. They have already decided that they only want hear voices of assent and not dissent.

It will be interesting (or probably not) to see how they respond, if at all.

[Encod]

Dear friend,

No response from the EU (yet) but yes a reaction from another source: Eric Carlin of the Mentor Foundation from the UK has had enough of our comments, he advises us to "get out of business":

Read:

Mr. Angry
10 April, 2008
http://mentoruk.wordpress.com/

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.

-------------------------

We are preparing a response...

best wishes,

Joep


--

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Mr. Angry

It all just makes me think that some people have forgotten why we’re in this business. Maybe they should get out of it.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Why we got into this business? If we are talking about Marijuana you mean American racism coupled with the British hysteria? We got into it in the first place because we wanted to control people more than we wanted to control drugs, because we believed that it was the role of government to protect people from themselves. Anyway, the reasons as to why we originally started prohibition are so far removed from the reality of its effects - we started the war in Iraq because we thought Hussein had WMDs, now we are still there, long after realising it was a bloody foolish thing to do, because we would lose face if we didn't. Just because something was started for good reasons doesn't mean that the results are going to be good; as they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"*

If, on the other hand, you are talking about why we have a consultation process then the answer is the obvious one - to make it look like people are listening, even though nothing changes despite that fact that we have almost daily reports of the failures of prohibition.

*"Actually the road to hell is paved with frozen door to door salesmen. The younger demons use them as sledges on weekends." (T.P.+N.G.)

[Encod]

Dear friends,

Today we received this response from the Commission on our letter of 14 April. We are preparing a response, any suggestions are welcome!

Best wishes,

Joep

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY

Directorate C : Civil justice, rights and citizenship

Unit C2: Coordination of anti-drugs policy

Brussels, 22 April 2008


DG JLS/C2/TJ/md/D(2008)6303


European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies

Mr Joep Oomen

Lange Lozanstraat 14

B-2018 Atwerpen

Reference: Your letter of 14 April 2008


Dear Mr Oomen,

Thank you for your letter on the Drug Prevention and Information Programme 2007-2013.

As you may know, this Programme was adopted on 25 September 2007 by the European Parliament and the Council as part of the General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice‘. Unfortunately, there were some considerable differences of view between the Institutions, which delayed the adoption process. The Programme‘s late adoption in 2007 meant it was too late for the Commission to fully implement the programme before the end of the year.

Nonetheless, the Commission took rapid action to ensure that the Programme Committee adopted the 2007 and 2008 work programmes before the end of 2007, thereby making sure that the budget would aetually be available for beneficiaries for these two years. The Commission is now working on to a very tight timetable in 2008 to implement two work programmes in year. Unfortunately, this has meant very short deadlines also for the applicants.

The application formalities of the Programme are similar to those of the other programmes on ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice‘, they were not defined specifically for the Drug Prevention and Information Programme. We regret, if you feel that this undermines the participation of some organisations and certainly look forward to these organisations applying for Action Grants in the framework of 2008 Work Programme later this year.

As far as your comments on the Civil Society Forum are concerned, these issues have already been discussed — at very considerable length in fact - both in the first meeting in December 2007 and bilateraily with interested organisations. Each applicant for the Forum has been given an explanation of the reasons for their exclusion/inclusion on
request. In cases, where the applicant has felt that they have been unfairly treated, information on how to proceed with making a petition has been provided.

The seleetion criteria applied have been clearly and publically explained in the Green Paper on the role of Civil Society on Drugs Policy in the EU, and again in the report on the open consultation.

The next meeting of the Civil Society Forum will take place in May 2008. We are looking forward to a constructive debate on the lessons that can be drawn from the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008, and to receiving input on how the experience of civil society might enrich/improve the next Action Plan (2009-2013). 1 sincerely hope that all participants of the Forum are taking the trouble to prepare for this while bearing in mmd that the Commission‘s room for manoeuvre is limited by the fact that the Member States hold most of the cards when it comes to drug policy. 1 know that you, as an experienced representative of your organisation at European level will understand this.

Carel Edwards. Head ofUnit

[Lunar Loops]

Do you have a deadline in mind for this letter you are going to compose?

Can you tell us if the follwoing statement from their reply holds any truth:

"Each applicant for the Forum has been given an explanation of the reasons for their exclusion/inclusion on
request. In cases, where the applicant has felt that they have been unfairly treated, information on how to proceed with making a petition has been provided."

Although it does say "on request". I presume they are going to justify this approach on the basis that they feel that each organisation would not want their business becoming public, but that would be very shallow.

[Encod]

Hi there


We are still discussing if and how we are going to respond. We have so many more important things to do than writing letters to the European Commission..

We are trying to find out with some organisations who were rejected of that it is true they were explained well enough. But it becomes a fight on words, the essence is not in there I think.

The most important conclusion is that they have waited 15 years with making a serious commitment to supporting civil society organisations with resources, and then expect organisations to make a professional fundraising proposal in 20 days, fully aware of the fact that only established NGOs (in the treatment and prevention field) could respond to such a deadline.

The most dangerous drug of all: tax money...

Best wishes,

Joep

[Lunar Loops]

I take your point and it does leave you wondering if further correspondence would actually achieve anything when the recipients have blinkers that would require surgery for their removal.

[Alfa]

So the bottom line is that ENCOD needs a professional fundraiser or fundraising consultant. Right?

[Encod]

Dear Alfa,

That would be a very good idea (to increase our fundraising capacities) in order to solve some of ENCODs problems.


But at the same time it would not solve the principal problem: that as long as the official "dialogue" is orchestrated from above, there will always be manipulations like this. A true dialogue needs to be moderated by an independent voice, that looks carefully at the extent in which diversity and transparency is guaranteed in the selection of participants, the agenda, the way in which meetings are organised, and also the distribution of the money that is available for it.

Currently this is all done by the Commission, who is also the main dialogue partner for "civil society". Carel Edwards is like the headmaster who chooses the 26 boys and girls to whose opinions on the school regime he will listen, as representatives of all the millions of pupils....

In the drug debate it is very hard to identify someone who could play the role of independent moderator: we have proposed the european parliament to take this role, but nobody has ever reacted on it, as trying to change the rules that the European Commission has set seems to be mission impossible..


Best wishes,

Joep

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by Encod

there will always be manipulations like this.

Well, isn't that is what politics are made of?

[Panthers007]

The term 'media exposure' comes to mind. Unfortunately most media is as controlled as this so-called civil dialogue. It would be efficacous to find as many independent journalists as possible and align them with as many intelligent sociologists as possible to monitor and write their findings on what this process actually proves(corruption works - people don't matter and can't be trusted to make their own educated decisions).

If people are presented with facts from a non-partisan source or sources, and they know their opinions will actually mean something, they will likely be willing to offer same. Likewise if the people find they don't matter to these better-than-thou Holy Few, an open revolt is possible consisting of boycotts and special elections be called for.

In the words of Edward R. Murrow -

Good Luck.