Civil Society, Democracy
and the Foundation
for a Drug-Free Europe
January, 2006
Of all the
possible political systems available to man,
democracy is probably the most difficult
beast to ride well. In essence, it first
makes every individual citizen responsible
for policy, and then, to make the system
workable, allows those citizens via the ballot
box to hand over their share of control of
policy to a relatively tiny group of elected
politicians and appointed civil servants,
in the belief that that small group can be
trusted to do what the majority need and
want.
However, on a huge number of subjects this
does not and cannot work, simply because
there is no clear cut majority of citizens
all wanting the same policies. But this is
not true when it comes to the handling of
the drugs problem.
Surveys show that, on this subject, the
electorate break down into three very distinct
groups with pronounced ideas on what should
be done by their elected representatives
and their civil service.
On the one hand we have:
- The drug users, who obviously wish to
be able to go on using inexpensively, without
resorting to crime and without threat of
legal action in the form of fines and imprisonment.
- Then we have the liberalisers, the decriminalisers
and the legalisers who mainly say that the
electorate must have freedom of choice to
use or not use (and this group also includes
some current users).
And finally we have by far the vast majority
of voters who expect that the exercise of
their vote will give them the drug and addict
free society they want for themselves.
Because 1) and 2) above are clearly in
the minority, in order to attain their policy
goals, they tend to become campaigners and
lobbyists for their particular policy preferences,
whilst 3) above, having delegated their power
to their MPs and MEPs, tend to sit back and
trustingly leave it to their political representatives
and civil servants.
However, when you survey all three groups
on the question: “Do you want a policy
which will likely permit your children to
become drug addicts?”, even the majority
of committed addicts says: “NO!”
The liberalisers break down into
- those who profess libertarian beliefs
to justify their own recreational drug use,
so that this sub-group tends towards the: “NO!” of
the committed addict or a simple: “Not
really,”
- AND those with a genuine libertarian
belief who say: “DEFINITELY NOT, but
it is important that even children have
the freedom to choose for themselves”.
In other words, viewing the future drugs
problem for our children and grandchildren
(rather than the current situation which
includes groups where the drug of choice
is doing the talking rather than the individuals
themselves) one finds that well over 90%
of the voting population want a future drug
free society, and that over 65% expect it
right now.
As a consequence, the FDFE believes that
the first right action for the European Commission
is to check the above statements by running
its own survey of a broad cross-section of
voters attitudes
- a) towards a drug free society for themselves
AND
- b) towards a drug free society for their
descendants.
The results of that survey will without
doubt give the Commission the right to proceed
with its policy-making on the basis of a
majority desire for a Drug Free Europe. A
basis which will nevertheless permit the
concurrent development alongside fundamental
drug free policies, of sympathetic policies
for the minority groups 1) and 2) in paragraph
five above.
Because Europe truly does have a silent
majority – who remain silent only because
they have already trustingly made their statement
at the ballot box – the above will
permit the Commission to avoid the trap set
by those seeking to pack a “steering
group” with the continuous and loud
lobbying voices of the minority groups which
were present at the recent conference.
This is particularly important when one
bears in mind that a numerous and wide variety
of such lobbying groups are provably encouraged
towards drug usage and legalisation by hidden
commercial interests, who not only benefit
by expanding their own present legal drugs
sales, but also by taking over currently
illicit drug sales via prescription (e.g.
methadone) and eventually by having statutes
passed which they hope will legalise drug
sales under their supervision.
|
