Proposition 50K1889

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 24 février 1921 concernant le trafic des substances vénéneuses, soporifiques, stupéfiantes, désinfectantes ou antiseptiques, et l'article 137 du Code d'instruction criminelle.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

June 21, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

drug addiction criminal procedure criminal law public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V LE FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Léon Campstein (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Jacqueline Herzet (MR) abstained from voting.
• Simonne Leen (Groen) abstained from voting.
• Patrick Moriau (PS | SP) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 12, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Deseyn has the word in the general discussion. I think both ministers will come.

Where is the Minister of Health?

If the House has one minister, she wants a second, whoever is the second.

Admit that they are of different allure.

What you ask me now is difficult. Here is the second one coming too. Now you have both allures here.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker...

We are with two, Mr. Deseyn. I also listen, more than you think.

of course . From what the colleagues of the CD&V group have said, it is clear that we are not really fond of the present texts. It was actually said that we would address the issue in the Public Health Committee and not from a judicial or criminological point of view. We would look at the drug issue and everything related to it from the perspective of public health. We have had many debates and held long hearings. It shows that there are actually a lot of risks to health and ⁇ to public health in general.

As for the intervention of the Minister of Health, however, we notice a very strange attitude. Let me give an example from the recent past. Yesterday, in the Public Health Committee, it was discussed about spraying substances on fruits and vegetables. We received a whole explanation from the minister that in the event of any suspicion of norm breach, a whole chain is launched, with a strict reaction following. They take measures. There are also punishments for the fruit growers. But what do we see for the cannabistelers? One does not know it, because no one can say if it can be grown within the domestic circle for own use. This is the most uncertainty. I have heard this question ⁇ fifty times in the last few weeks and months, but still we have not received a clear answer. It would therefore be very desirable if this evening, both by the Minister of Justice and by the Minister of Public Health, a clear collective position of the government would be taken, so that at least on that point some clarity can be provided.

It is clear that there are a lot of related problems for public health. I will name only a few. Cannabis can generate problems for motor skills, time consciousness and sensory perception. These are just some of the problems. If there are such serious risks associated with the THC molecules in the cannabis product, should we allow that from the public health point of view? Shouldn’t we make every effort to ensure that it falls under the prohibited products and approach the affairs in that way?

There is a problem for safety in general, but for road safety in particular. We have heard — including in the hearings — that there are serious problems with regard to driving skills. I would like to go into this a little deeper.

What is the effect of cannabis on driving behavior? Although alcohol is the biggest culprit in traffic, it is noted that the influence of cannabis can also be very concrete the cause of road accidents. I think it is so important to emphasize this once again because the government wanted to make road safety an important priority. We see that it actually does not fit in the overall approach. However, what is happening today seriously impairs your intentions to optimize road safety.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer at the end, but I am now given a very concrete thing. One tries to say that the message is confusing. I agree with those speakers who say that the confusing message indeed came from CD&V, more specifically around what you are now saying about road safety and driving under influence. At the same time, several speakers in the committee, including from your group, have repeatedly stated that there was uncertainty about it. Over the course of time, I showed both the brochure about the drug policy itself and the brochure on drug-free driving from the Institute for Traffic Safety, as well as the advertisement that was once placed together two years ago. In all three it is very explicit that the two do not go together. Not even cannabis. Here now it is said that there would be uncertainty about, so it is not correct.

Two very brief things, Mr. President. The Minister of Health has no right to speak about the accusation that there is confusion by the opposition until he speaks the redemptive word about, for example, growing cannabis plants in the home. That he is clearly in it! If he is clear and in line with his colleague, he has the right to speak and criticize.

Second, when it comes to driving under influence, it is not at all that this is contested in some way. I understand very well that the Minister of Justice advocates for zero tolerance. I do not know what you are above.

This is the brochure or pamphlet from one or two years ago from the Belgian Institute for Traffic Safety. In this brochure and in this advertisement it is very clear. Those who have created confusion around it are only people from your group. This was done intentionally to create confusion rather than clarity.

The problem that the CD&V faction finds here is as follows. Cannabis use continues to be detected for more than a week because it is absorbed in the fat and slowly decomposes. The problem is the following. If one wants zero tolerance — we are behind it — this means that whoever promotes the doping policy must tell the cannabis user that he can’t sit behind the wheel for a week. It cannot be detected otherwise. That is the problem. On one side, it is said that the use is drowned. If one is consistent with its zero tolerance in traffic – we agree with it – then this means that, because technically it cannot be otherwise, one actually tells the user – elderly, not problematic, no inconvenience – not to crawl behind the wheel for a week, because one can always find this product. If that is the message you want to give, then give it in all clarity. We have no problem with that message. We support them. However, on the one hand, wise and on the other hand, wanting zero tolerance in traffic and knowing how difficult it is to detect the product is still creating a problem. So be clear and say not to use it. That is simple!

Mr. Goutry, I refer you to Via Secura, February 2003. Read that: driving under the influence of drugs. Then you know what the problem is.

I was given the word very shortly, because I was not able to follow the work in the committee. One of them raises his mother when it comes to the book price. Mr. Minister of Health, I would like to have a response to this, because a lot of young people have asked me about this. You can say that this is in the brochure, but frankly, that’s not in it. I mean the whole concrete question.

The whole concrete question is whether young people who may occasionally use drugs may not drive a car for a week. After all, it is scientifically proven that the drugs remain in the blood for a week. I do not deserve this, but I allow myself to say that the only one who gives some clarity to the public opinion about this is the Minister of Justice. He talked about zero tolerance. I read in the brochure that one should not drive under influence.

The questions are accurate. It is better to be answered later. You will be vigilant enough to follow it, Mr. Minister. Mr. Deseyn, keep going, otherwise I will not get out of it either.

Colleague Vandeurzen takes the words out of my mouth for a bit. This clearly shows that at least the CD&V fraction is on one line. For some groups it is indeed less difficult than for others, Mr. Coveliers.

I just wanted to serve the Minister of Replication, because his answer, of course, testifies to a certain simplism. We advocate zero tolerance. But when you look at the percentage of potential and effective cannabis users, it is still an illusion to be able to realize that policy with what is now ahead. Mr. Tavernier, one knows how long the after-action in the body lasts. Specialists are convinced that the concrete side effects on physical behavior last at least 48 hours. When one finds that there is a reduced focus on complex tasks such as driving, you cannot simply make a certain category of adults legally inviolable for cannabis use. One cannot do without the other. One cannot say that one category will be protected by the courts and on the other side on the barricades stands swinging with zero tolerance in traffic. I think that cannot go together.

Scientific research shows that those who drive under the influence of drugs – including cannabis – are at greater risk of serious or even fatal injuries. Even if it is just for those few extra percentages that will now be influenced — possibly by a previous use — I still think that we are talking about a heavy responsibility here. Among the seriously injured drivers, there are 15 times more who are positive for drugs — including cannabis — and only 7 times — if I can say so — more who are positive for alcohol. So one could say that it is twice as bad.

In general, cannabis has a calming effect with a number of undesirable effects on driving behavior. That is quite clear. We are constantly assuming that framework of zero tolerance. A comprehensive road safety policy should be accompanied by a stricter approach to drug use. After all, the concrete behaviors of people after cannabis use are as follows. There is a form of apathy. In addition, there is dizziness, drowsiness, euphoria, feeling of superiority, reduced critical ability, reduced concentration ability, prolonged reaction time, change in visual and auditory perceptions and movement disorders. People who are sensitive to this should then try to drive a car decently. Mr. Minister, these effects make it exactly impossible to drive a vehicle in all safety. Both lab tests and real driving skills tests show that drivers under the influence of cannabis, even under the influence of very low concentrations, have problems with eye-and-hand coordination, with keeping the car on track, with perception, with alertness. In short, it reduces the ability to drive. That is already one thorough and good argument to act stricter and not to convulsively make one category of users legally inviolable.

We have already said it in the committee: smoking a joint corresponds to an alcohol content of 0.3 to 0.7 promile. I think these are speaking figures. Some experts speak of 0.8 promile, a severe excess of the norm. I would like to reiterate that this should not be done so defaitistically. When young people in the private sphere smoke a joint in the evening, one focuses on the atmosphere of that evening itself and one is a little blind to the after-action in time, not only in the traffic situation but also on the work floor. I will come back to that later.

When we read the reports on them, we see that colleague Ansoms asked Minister Verwilghen about various aspects of cannabis in traffic. Collega Ansoms has rightly concluded that we are in a very strange situation: Stevaert advocates zero tolerance for alcohol in the blood, Agalev had expressed the same opinion in congress texts, and also the government advocates zero tolerance in front of the outside world, but nevertheless one wants to raise the limit values for cannabis. For us it is clear. We do not want to take that schizophrenic attitude: on the one hand, preaching for zero tolerance in the framework of road safety, but on the other hand, nevertheless, try to speak as well as possible. CD&V is in favour of zero tolerance for drugs in the traffic. As signals are also received from the transport sector about the alleged use of stimulants by truck drivers, it seems reasonable for us to also test this category on the use of cannabis and stimulants, among others, and to act against it harder than is now the case.

I talked about after-effects in time, not only in the traffic situation, but also about the concrete consequences for functioning in the work situation. Mr. Coveliers, I am now addressing you specifically. You just said that the limited category for whom the law provides an exception does not cause any harm to society. I think this is a ⁇ short-sighted vision. When someone does not perform well in his work situation, there is always a minimum, even if it is only economic damage.

If someone, without harming anyone, wishes to do so. The development — which is shown in an article...

The difference is that your individual freedom is an absolute freedom, where we always prioritize authentic freedom. That is exactly the ideological difference between your and my party.

You are for a freedom that is imposed. You are making people happy, but preferably in the afterlife, not now.

Freedom that comes with responsibility. This makes a difference with your group.

That’s obvious, responsibility, but you should limit that freedom as little as possible.

We may have an ideological debate about this later.

We will not agree on this, colleague Coveliers. This is our basic starting point for doing politics. We do not need to be unanimous on this.

The question now is what the social added value of the law is. I think that it is null, that it is non-existent. The question is: why do we have to wrinkle in such curves to create something that does not bring any added value to society? You laugh at it, but I don’t think it’s all to laugh. Let us focus on the question of clarity.

Mr. Minister of Health, now you want to start a number of things on the opposition, just as if it was our fault that there was uncertainty created. A lot has been said about the brochure. Well, I would like to quote it again. There is written: “In the future, there will no longer be prosecution if it comes to the production of a quantity of cannabis intended for personal use under the known conditions.” And that is daring to be called “the known conditions.”

We have been debating these concepts in Parliament for days. In fact, I think it is an overestimation of the youth. They take this brochure quickly. It is described in the brochure as "the known conditions", just as if the problem has been solved with it. For many people in the emergency sector as well as in the judiciary and police, there is a high demand for clarity. That is at the forefront.

There has now been a completely wrong perception in the heads of the citizen, of the man in the street. You should not think that as a member of the opposition I am so happy with that state. I feel sorry for the whole of politics. It does not contribute to the credibility of politics. It is bad for politics. We therefore stand here with some substitute shame, because this point from this Parliament was communicated in this way by your government. People do not think so nuanced. Don’t take this as an opposition speech.

Several experts stated that a small group in society has very large problems with cannabis. This is estimated to be 5% to 10% of the many users. These are usually people who are socially and mentally vulnerable. I find it hard to fight a little more for that group of 5% to 10%.

Mr. Coveliers, on this point we again differ substantially. We believe that we should take care of those who have not had the opportunity to build a certain resilience. From politics, we must offer some protection. This will ⁇ not be the case with the text presented here.

( ... ) You have an ideal. You want to impose that ideal on others. I know that. That is your vision. I think there is the mistake.

We want to work committed.

You are really the missionaries. I ⁇ ’t offend the Scotchers by saying that.

Mr. Coveliers, the Shoutists also had a beard. The [...]

Scheutists or undressed Carmelites, all of them have demonstrated their services in society. Therefore, I have no problem with creating such associations.

It is clear that the priority within the triangle prevention, relief and repression should go to prevention. However, we see that even in the postal sector the current government team has problems with priority. Priority is literally “what comes first.” What comes first is prevention. At this point, the government has failed. This is also true at the Flemish level. However, we should not hide behind levels of competence. The same parties are in power at different levels. Therefore, agreements can be made on budgets. These budgets were promised. However, they were not paid, neither on Flemish nor on federal level.

Another issue is the case of minors. Nothing will change for minors. I think I cannot.

The [...]

We hear that often say. It is said that for minors by the draft law nothing changes. I have heard this statement several times in the committee.

( ... ... ) There may be other differences. However, it has been said by everyone that much is changing for minors. After all, it is even excluded that someone else uses cannabis in the presence of a minor. This is clearly stated by all the speakers. Mr. Goutry, that is indeed even a floor higher said.

Three important things will change. First, there is the uncertainty. You will not be familiar with the legislation. They will not know the border. Some politicians talk about 16 years old, others talk about 18 years old. The uncertainty will ⁇ not diminish with such debates.

The second is the uncertainty. And in the third place — and ⁇ the most essential — there is the sphere of influence. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, who naturally come into contact with eighteen-year-olds and older people, are naturally strongly influenced in their habits by older friends or comrades within youth culture. I think this is underestimated, comrades. Unfortunately, there are very few shooters here tonight.

It is obvious, of course, that there is a great need for unambiguity and that this is the essential condition. This is what the youth demands. I don’t know if you, as a politician, have tested that. However, colleague Goutry can testify that we have recently done the round of the youth homes. We have been to various youth homes. It was indeed not all youth homes that were populated with Jong-CD&V'ers. Even among those who are responsible in the youth movement, we have seen that one is not very beneficial in what is now ahead. One has a certain need for standards and one has very little understanding of what is happening now and all the communication that is being carried out erroneously.

I would like to address the issue of minors. Most cannabis users start using between thirteen and eighteen years. It seems that that period of thirteen to fifteen years is fundamental for a later problematic addiction pattern. Research shows that the younger a person begins to use drugs, the more likely they are to get into problems due to drug use. But whether they use or not, smoke for the first time or administer for the first time, many young people almost never make the difference between those difficult terms like the decriminalization of cannabis and its legalization. A lot of students, ⁇ in the technical and vocational education — without stigmatizing anyone — are ⁇ confused by the reports about cannabis, according to the surveys and testimonies. When nuances are laid out, one gets too soon to think that cannabis use is permitted. I once again advise that very carefully be skipped with such nuances.

Many young people use cannabis before the age of 18. That is a determined fact. By decriminalizing the use of cannabis from the age of eighteen, the use of cannabis for the period of eighteen years is wiped off. What would be wrong if it wasn’t punishable for older friends and comrades to use in certain situations? This will not cause so much harm to health. Faulty behaviour is washed away by such laws. Minor friends know very well that their eighteen-year-old friends already use cannabis by the age of eighteen. Take those two together and you will have the impression that their use can remain unpunished until the age of eighteen. One must only take care not to be cut. The signals about public health are then completely going up in the fog, Mr. Minister. After that time limit of eighteen years — for some up to sixteen years — they can then continue to use impunely, and I place the emphasis on continuing to use.

We must also realize that it is almost impossible to control the use of legal products, alcohol and tobacco, in minors. 10% of 11 to 15 year olds smoke. But the decriminalization of cannabis will inevitably lead to an increased use of cannabis by minors. One can say that one should not do so dramatically about it and that this will only be the case for a few percent. For that percentage, we must continue to fight. As Ms. Descheemaeker said regarding her past smoking experiences, the role patterns and the examples of peers were also important for those in the sphere of influence.

I would also like to make a few connections. I will not go too far into technical details, but I will give a short inventory of what cannabis use is scientifically linked to.

First, figures from the emergency services show a clear correlation between cannabis users and people who do not use cannabis. There is also a link between cannabis use and crime, cannabis use and traffic accidents, cannabis and the development of cancer, cannabis and the harmful impact on the respiratory system, cannabis use and the harmful impact on the immune system, cannabis use and the harmful impact on the heart, cannabis use and reduced performance in school and at work, cannabis use during pregnancy and the harmful impact on the child, cannabis use and the development of an addiction to it, cannabis use and taking other illegal drugs, cannabis use in interaction with some drugs, cannabis use and the harmful impact on the nervous system. Whether all these factors are 100% scientifically proven or not is less relevant. The fact that there is a correlation may ⁇ encourage us to reflect and encourage us to look at things more closely.

Well, 10% of all cannabis users develop an addiction. The big problem is that the user cannot adjust his doses at all due to a large form of ignorance. The doses can vary from 5 milligrams to 150 milligrams per joint. This afternoon has been said several times that it is no longer about the less harmful joints from the hippie era and the flowerpower movement. Nowadays we have to deal with harder products.

As for clarity, I would like to say the following. Can we grow plants? How many plants? Are ten plants acceptable, as I said earlier this afternoon? No minister or any member of the majority can say that clearly. There is no concrete norm. No one dares to say here whether ten plants are acceptable within the current texts. Mr. Minister, I would have liked to hear this from you. How many grams can one possess, 5 grams or 3 grams? We almost negotiated on this in the committee meeting. Is 6 grams acceptable for you?

The [...]

Will that be included in the letter? I believe that we cannot conduct this important debate if we do not have a draft of that message.

The biggest giller in the texts, however tragic it may be, is the difference in sales to finance your own addiction and the sale from profit. Ha ha ha ha! Imagine the agent who should assess it. You are laughing at it, but I think it is especially scary. This is a complete uncertainty for the police officer.

I laugh a moment because I know Mr Van Parys will be angry again. First, the distinction, in terms of illicit drugs, between cannabis and the other, was made for the first time more or less officially in the 1998 Circular, though it was only a Circular and not a law.

Secondly, the term "for personal use", which you mention, is also mentioned in that circular letter. There are not so many new things being invented today.

The [...]

I can hardly believe that. I have to hear this from Mr. Van Parys himself.

However it is so.

( ... ...

So much has been said here, Mr. Van Parys. Everything can be said, you know.

Mr. Vandeurzen, try to explain it.

The Minister of Health is trying to make a turn.

Previously, the arrangement was as follows. From a user volume, such as in the definition that you now want to pour into a law, a process-verbal was formerly formed.

The [...]

Can I speak for a moment? In the new system, of that user quantity from your definition, no process-verbal is formed more. The problem that Mr Deseyn raises is as follows. How do you now know if that man has a user volume with him to deal and sell or for his own use? In any case, the seller, dealer or retailer knows that he must only ensure that he has only a small amount with him, in order not to be harassed by the police anymore. In the past, this was the case. The police officers explained this to us with hand and tooth. If you say that the police should ask nothing or make a trial verb for someone who has a number of users, then you tell the dealers that the best way to deal, the easiest and even the law-safe way is to spread with all small amounts. That is the problem. In fact, it is not so difficult.

Colleagues, at this level of the debate, I must remind you that we have a debate, a general discussion on draft laws. Unfortunately for those who may envy it, the speaking time per speaker is thirty minutes. I let them go beyond. Mr. Vandeurzen, you ⁇ spoke forty minutes. Mr. Van Parys, how could it be different, even a little longer. All together a lot more. Mr. Deseyn told me that this is unlimited. That is not true. Unfortunately it is only thirty minutes. You can say a lot in 30 minutes. Mr. Deseyn, you are now working twenty-two minutes.

I am also often interrupted.

I always cut off injury time. You should try to decide within a little ten minutes. You have the word.

The fact is that it is actually not acceptable that (...). Imagine, it will only happen to you as a simple policeman or policewoman that you are actually facing a moral dilemma there whether you use that link with assistance through the judicial route, starting with a trial-verbal, or you are limited to the nominal registration about which there is still the biggest discussion and where we have noticed that colleague Bacquelaine does not explain the nuances as they come out in the texts. In fact, it is a little unfair from the legislator to wave this down on the lowest link, if I can express myself so.

One more word should be said about the need for more reception opportunities. In fact, they are trying to reverse the steps. If one is going to approve such matters, one would ⁇ also have to work harder on more accommodation opportunities. Especially for young people who are struggling with a drug problem, there is an urgent need for reception capacity. At this time, the brothers — and then we are again with the brothers — Alexians in Tienen are the only institution in Flanders with a solid accommodation for minors with a drug problem. The consequences are clear, colleagues. The waiting lists are endlessly long. These long waiting lists should actually be a warning for us in the context of this problem. The worst thing is that within the problematic users one will create two other groups, one that can resort to this form of assistance and accommodation and one that cannot rely on it. The fact is that Minister Vogels absolutely does not pay attention to the group of young people with a drug problem. I would like to say this here in this federal Parliament, within the framework of the cooperation agreements with the regions. So far, the minister has only announced seeking help for psychiatric patients. Nothing has happened to the drug addicts so far. The budget is insufficient and not all promises and commitments are fulfilled.

In this regard, I could also say something about the healthcare circuits such as those included in the federal drug note but which are ⁇ not yet elaborated. There is still a huge problem in the field. We were able to question the people about this. These are the good aspects of the drug note, we should dare to say that too. They have not yet been realized. What one had to realize first, apparently comes into the forgetful corner, all afterwards to be able to realize yet only the fetish, the hype of installing the dog policy. This repression, to a greater or lesser extent, is of course closely linked to prevention and assistance. Of course, there must be a process verb to be drawn up in order to be able to align the assistance with it, precisely to be able to map things, to be able to do a better prevention, to be able to include in the prevention matters of repression as a flashlight, as a red light, to say that, if one does this, the problem is there.

With murmuring at the repressive luke, one puts things like prevention and assistance at risk. This may not be the intention. They make it a lot difficult. First and foremost, sufficient credits must be drawn for assistance and prevention. I have a good tip for you, colleagues who will support this bill. You may be able to spend part of your campaign budget on drug prevention and public education. That seems to be a fair agreement if this draft is approved.

Even though drug possession is not de facto removed from the legislation, the fact that it is clearly agreed that the adult who uses cannabis does not cause harm and does not use it problemically, will not be prosecuted, means that there will be a drug policy. One doesn’t like to hear the term “sucking policy”, but that’s exactly the policy that will be carried out. No matter how politics will be explained, people will interpret it this way. In fact, they are already doing so because of the mass reporting that has already been around this intention.

If I see what remains in the draft regarding confiscation, I can only conclude that the government is making a lot of ridicule with this. The police officer is not honored in his duties if he is not allowed to intervene and not to take concrete measures if a problem arises.

I would like to say something more about the residential treatment for minors but I will not do that. I will respect my speech time. I hope, however, that more attention will be paid to both forced and voluntary residential treatment of minors. This has not yet been provided in a legal framework and this closely aligns with what I just proposed about the care circuits.

The most important thing is that there is a need for clarity and clear communication. The contradictory interpretations that have recently appeared in the press are nefaste for politics and for politics. I go around. For us, it is not normal, it is not simply too bold, it is unacceptable that one would find that normal for certain groups. For the red-blue-green team it is: drugs, yes but. However, people only remember the yes. For us it is clear: drugs, no.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the reporters and the services of the House for the many reports.

Drug policy is about more than just cannabis. The Government Agreement of 7 July 1999 entitled “The Bridge to the 21st Century” stipulated: “The Government will submit to Parliament an evaluation report on the current drug policy after its entry into office. The report will evaluate, among other things, the common directive of the former Minister of Justice on the prosecution policy on drugs and the retail trade of illicit drugs, the report of the Parliamentary Working Group in charge of studying the drug issue, as well as the experiences in other countries. Based on the results of this report, the government, in consultation with the Parliament, will develop a coherent drug policy."

This bill is in the extension of the government declaration and the federal policy note on the drug issue. People with problematic use do not belong home in prison, but need to be helped by the relief service. There is no drug-free society. Policy should be organized in such a way that prevention is the highest priority.

The government aims to reduce the number of drug addicts, both for the legal and for the illegal drugs. This policy is a standardization policy that also fits the criminal justice policy towards the problematic drug user. Criminal justice policy should be based on the following principles: Criminal justice intervention is always the ultimum remedy for the drug user. Outside specific risk situations, such as driving under influence and causing social inconvenience, drug use is not a reason for retaliatory intervention. The criminal judicial intervention takes into account the individual situation of the person concerned. Problematic drug users who come into contact with police or justice will be directed to the relief service. The starting point is the voluntariness and respect for the own finality of justice on the one hand and the provision of assistance on the other. Medium dependency is never a reason to dismiss criminal behavior.

Very important in this integrated standardization policy is the cooperation agreement of 2 September 2002 between the State, the Communities and the Regions establishing a general cell Drug Policy, as announced in the federal policy note. The Signatory Parties undertake, respecting their respective powers, to engage in consultations with a view to harmonising their policies on drug use prevention, assistance and treatment offerings, control of the production and trade in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, on the basis of objectives.

This draft was discussed and approved in the committee. All governments have signed this agreement. Parliament is invited to approve the agreement in order to start a global and integrated drug policy as soon as possible. This is a big step forward.

The drug policy is based on three pillars: prevention, aid and repression. Prevention is primarily a competence of the Communities. The Flemish Community increased its 1999 budget by 2.714 million euros by half to 4.90 million euros in 2002. The federal government calls on the Communities to structurally incorporate prevention training in the training of teachers. The Government, in consultation with the Communities and Regions, will encourage the municipalities to develop local policies and to organize information and awareness-raising actions on the influence of drugs, legal, illegal or obtainable.

In relation to relief, the drug note contains a comprehensive list of initiatives to improve relief to drug users. Addiction care will be expanded through local healthcare circuits: heavy addicts who have been treated repeatedly and have recurred and are difficult to integrate will be followed individually. There are pilot projects; there is the intensive treatment of psychiatric patients with drug problems; there are the crisis screening for addicts - there are 9 new units: Antwerp, Brussels, Charleroi, Bruges, Gent, Genk, Leuven, Namen and Luik - and there are replacement treatments for heroin addicts.

To bridge between justice and relief services, a judicial case manager is appointed. It should inform the parquet magistrates and the police services about the provision of care and give advice on the desirability of certain measures.

Now to the repression issue. The fight against the production and trade of substances necessary for the preparation of synthetic drugs such as ecstasy, and the trade in drugs is raised. The fight against the import and trafficking of cocaine and heroin continues. Opportunities for the seizure and confiscation of drugs are improved.

Information on drug-related police actions is centralized within the federal police. Belgium also actively participates in all international initiatives aimed at combating organized drug trafficking. In connection with this bill, Charles De Winter, chief commissioner of the federal police and chief of the drug cell, said during the hearings that anonymous police registration of cannabis is possible without inconvenience or problematic use.

With regard to Belgian drug policy, we are not alone within the European Union. In the 2002 Annual Report on the State of the Drug Problem in the European Union and Norway, we read on page 33: “In 2001 in some Member States there was a tendency to anchor legal changes to better distinguish drug users from other drug offenders and to distinguish cannabis more clearly from other prohibited substances.”

I am deciding. Let us approach the drug problem of legal and illegal drugs from public health and join forces to implement an integrated global drug policy within Belgium and Europe, through good and correct information, good agreements, good cooperation agreements and with a continuous evaluation to be able to guide the policy. The submission of this draft means that the government is joining a renewed trend in Europe. Other countries, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Portugal, have adopted similar arrangements.

Mr. Goutry, I then reminded our Benjamin, Mr. Deseyn, of the regulations concerning the time of speech. I know I don’t have to remember them, you know them. You know better than anyone, from your long experience, that you have thirty minutes. I give you full confidence in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, Excellencies, Colleagues, there are, of course, matters that do more than to give a speech here at this timeless hour for a few people, but nevertheless — and given the intense attention I receive — I will do my best.

If one makes a law in Parliament, then one actually leaves for a reason, and one has a purpose. They simply don’t make laws. There is a motivation for this. We call that the added value or the added value to make a law. Then we ask ourselves: Why do we make this law? Where do we want to go? What is the purpose? How can we serve the public interest or well-being with this law? How can we provide clarity? They make a law to regulate things.

What does it mean instead of added value? Nihil, Dude and we are gone. Is there a purpose? That is unclear, it is half and a half. They leave it on its course and will see. The public interest is completely out of mind. Clearness has never been such a big confusion. I have never experienced it. I have been here for 11 years in this Parliament. I have never experienced that there was such confusion in the creation of a law. One could be for or against it, but that one did not know what it was about, we have never experienced. Regarding the aspects of rule making and the objectives of laws, there have never been made fewer rules than in this draft. It is a total grey zone. It is, as colleague Vandeurzen Haarfijn proved this morning, de facto a dog policy. It cannot be otherwise. It mouths out. They say about certain things, even though they are so-called to be punishable: we let this happen, we do not report this. This is nothing more or less than a trick.

Gray zone, uncertainty trove! This is reflected in the reactions of people on the streets. Their

Mr. Coveliers, we have experienced a rather embarrassing spectacle. Two weeks ago, Ms. Descheemaeker was interviewed. She hesitantly said that it was not an effort but a clarification. Luttle moments before, Mr. Coveliers had stated that it was an effort. No one understood anything.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, I will develop a few short statements to prove that we are facing an important social choice. Thro ⁇ the day, the debate has already revolved around the social phenomenon. The question is how to deal with it. One must choose. You have to go in a certain direction. Their

There are many arguments to think about.

The first position. There is a social phenomenon that is known to be unwanted, unhealthy and harmful. That is out of doubt. Minister Tavernier has already confirmed several times that it is harmful. It is unhealthy and it is undesirable. We cannot go down there. What does a Minister of Health do in this case? Either he tries to ban and ban the phenomenon because it is harmful and unhealthy, or one lends himself to the existence of the phenomenon and accepts it because it is already far advanced and the people accept it. They try to keep it in tume. This is a first choice that can be made. Normalization is called that, a very strange verb. Normalization already exists. Now the term is used to make normal what is not normal. Translated in this context, it means that what is criminal will no longer be prosecuted and punished. That is the first statement.

The second position. It is stated that a social phenomenon is no longer in the hands. The phenomenon has spread. Some people like it. It is a means of pleasure. What does a Minister of Health do in this case? Or he decides to be sympathetic. In our circles there are a lot of people who like to smoke a joint. Why should one be against? Prefer not to hang out the ambetanterik but serve people on their tips. Adults know what they are doing. According to the Minister, one does in his own house what one wants. There must be a clear distinction between public and private. Let people who like to smoke a joint at home act calmly on the condition that they do not bother anyone. This is the attitude that one adopts towards personal cannabis use. Or he does not accept it and decides not to participate in it. One decides to go up against the current, even if one does not sympathize with some people. That sounds less good in times of everything can and everything can. Nevertheless, one dares to say “no” and one does not accept cannabis use either in private circles or in other spheres. It is forbidden. Their

Third position . The phenomenon is undesirable. One can decide to limit the damage and set boundaries. For young people under 18, it is prohibited, for adults not. In this way, one tries to create the impression that a good arrangement has been developed. The rest of the problems are seen through the fingers. We worshiped .

We dare, if it doesn’t get too bad and if people don’t bother each other. Or we say that we don’t want a dog politics. We don’t want grey zones, we don’t want to see things through our fingers, and we don’t want hypocrisy. We are against. Then come with the well-known arguments. Smoking has also spread, it is accepted and one can no longer resist it. Alcohol is the same. Their

This is why this is such an important moment. That is why this is so critical.

Sorry, in 1997 you chose the standardization policy. I want you to read it quietly here.

That word is in it. I just told you that it was then used in a slightly different meaning, but if one does not want to listen to each other in the debate, we can never get out of it. The track was completely different then. There is indeed a social phenomenon. We do not deny that. I use it continuously as a starting point in the considerations that we need to make. There is a social phenomenon. That is right. The question is what is done with it. In the older way of acting, indeed, one acted fairly quickly punishing and following up, to put people in prison, and so on. Through insights, a different way of prevention and deterioration has emerged against all addictive drugs, including against alcohol and smoking. One uses the method in which one is not anti, but proposes to discuss the issue, to deal wisely with the legal drugs and to demonstrate what their dangers are. Within that culture we said that there are two paths. Or you say it is there, so you let it happen and you try to keep it within the limits. Either it is forbidden and it is not admitted. Of course, this prohibition will not be interpreted or prosecuted like other crimes. That is the choice that was made then. Their

The standardization policy in 1997 had the following meaning. When people are in such a situation—especially those who use them—we should not punish them. We must try again to give those people a chance to adapt, normalize themselves, and re-enter society when they have stood aside by the drugs. That was the meaning of the term "normalize", not at all as it is now used repeatedly in the committee, including by Ms. Douifi. That is a very different meaning. This is something that is not actually normal. It is criminal. You have said yourself that we must find a way in the international treaties that prohibit it from us. We need to set up a structure that allows us to normalize something that is not normal, so you are going to normalize it.

I come to my fourth position. People themselves know what to do. They are boss over themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I have always listened to colleague Goutry and colleague Van Parys with great interest, but since Greta D'Hondt is now present in the hall, I still find it important to make this comment. I sometimes look at the different speakers of the CD&V faction. Mr. Goutry always wants to give the impression that we have really done well with a policy that was conducted in the previous legislature. A completely new policy would be implemented today. However, colleague D'Hondt thinks differently about this. You need to explain it to me. I quote from the Metro of January 21, 2003, “Roads of Cannabis Plants.” Driven around employment, Greta D'Hondt says: "CD&V House member Greta D'Hondt calls on the government to work on employment policies in the last months of her legislature, as it points to the decline in employment in our country, that youth unemployment is rising rapidly and that more than a hundred jobs are currently lost every day. Meanwhile, the government is spending its remaining time looking for compromises around futility.” What you have spent so much time on in the last few weeks, she says in the Metro, is futility. "Will there be verbalization for possession of two cannabis plants, or should there be three? Those are the questions.”

It is also a futial gazette.

by Neen!

I do not want to be miserable that Mrs. D'Hondt will subsequently ask for the word because of a personal fact!

Of course Mr President. Please allow me to take the opportunity to inform the courageous colleagues present at this late hour that it has just been announced that Jean-Luc Dehaene will be on the list.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I have indeed pointed out the terrible figures on unemployment. When I talked about futilities, I did not mean the debate we are conducting here, but the question of whether two or three plants are harmful. That is for me a futility in the debate that our youngest colleague very clearly ended with: "Drug? No, thank you!”

The question of whether two or three cannabis plants are harmful is futile, because the answer is nothing!

Mrs D’Hondt declares very correctly that she had expected a different debate on such a socially important topic and no futilities, and that she had hoped that a different arrangement would have been conceived for it than the one proposed. That is exactly what she meant, Mrs. Douifi.

I will return to my comments regarding the right of self-determination. We can’t get around it: that has become a bit of the red thread in this entire legislature. We have seen this in the euthanasia debate. That’s where our roads split up, I think. This has been said here a few times and it is your full right to have any opinion about it. However, it is also our right to point out that it becomes socially difficult when one reasones from a kind of absolute right of self-determination. Then, of course, one comes into a context in which one can solve everything. If one invokes the full right of self-determination, then one can keep the matter together with a handful of rules and then there is no problem. Then every one does what he wants, in the way he wants, as long as he does nothing, as long as he is commanded by no one. He does what he wants, he has full self-determination over himself. In addition, that sounds even good. Be honest: If you tell people that they have self-determination, you could win almost any debate. Only, if one completes how one deals with the ethical problems and social phenomena and then one falls back on the right of self-determination, then the discussion is closed. Then, indeed, one has something like a dog policy, assuming that, since people have self-determination, they still know what is good and bad, and we do not have to tell them. They must decide for themselves; they must choose for themselves, and for the rest they must only draw their plan. However, what a contrast when there is an unhealthy product in a shop rack or a dioxin cap runs around! Even then people know whether they eat the chicken or not, and yet there is a large tram field. It is of a different order. Then those who now call us moral knights were the first to come out on the streets, almost dressed as a beak, to say what dangers all threatened in our society. You use all those terms, all those words in the way that is best suited.

In any case, colleagues, we do not want to participate in a society full of self-determination — I have said that in the committee — where the motto is: draw your plan and find it out yourself, if you but nobody ambitious. We want a society where one indeed dares to take responsibility, also together, for one another, where rules can be agreed and imposed, which may not all be sympathetic, where one does not ask you and we turn, but where one indeed builds, where one knows where one wants to go and where one tries to realize a social added value.

So we put the self-determination, which is explicitly stated by you as an absolute right to everything, against responsibilities that appeal to us much more. They appeal more to the duties that people have towards each other. This, of course, does not sound sympathetic. Mr. Coveliers has already spoken about it. He said we were not going to tell them how to live. Of course, I would not dare. By the way, you will already have enough self-determination right, Mr. Coveliers. I only note that in these twisting times a lot of people actually look, look, look for examples, read things, try to mirror themselves, and try to find a way in life that is not always the way they invented.

A final statement or possibility is to leave everything on its way, to intervene when it becomes too bad. “It keeps itself in toom.” It is the belief in people’s self-regulation. Or we will give perspective and create clarity. You will have understood at least after today, but also before, that this is clearly our track. So, my colleagues, such a debate cannot be overlooked. You cannot be for and against at the same time. Indeed, one must choose a position. That is a bit difficult. After all, this is what you are constantly trying to do. Each of you is trying on its own as the cameras turn to explain what important achievements you have achieved. The Greens are talking about clarification. “Look what we’ve achieved,” they say. The liberals say it is a struggle. “Look what we’ve achieved,” they say. Others then say again that it is actually a continuation and that not much has changed. One tries to turn things a little around and reverse things according to the explanation one wishes to give to them. They do it for their own benefit and preferably with as little courage as possible.

However, you are forced to make an irreversible choice. You cannot otherwise. This is not, of course, a test setting. If you say now that we are going to use drugs like in the Netherlands 25 years ago, then you can never come back on that again. That is obvious. We are the second country to do this. The Netherlands was the first country 25 years ago. We also find it necessary to do this now. We do this despite the lessons we could learn there. This is an irreversible choice, as in the Netherlands. One now meets there every day again to see how one will try to deconstruct, correct and mention that — let us say — three-fourths of failed torture policy.

However, it is a decision that will be very decisive. This was stated by Mr. Van Parys. We will never be able to destroy it again. It is your responsibility. I am glad I do not have to take them with me. I say it with all sincerity. I would never have approved it if I had been in the majority. I would never approve of such a thing because I do not want to stand behind such a choice. A choice that will be so decisive in relation to the rights and duties. It is the choice between freedom and responsibility. It is the choice between a grey zone and clear rules. It is the choice between comfort or courage. It is the choice between letting beaten or forbidding and daring to pull out the neck. It is entering into fashion trends or showing stamina. It is the choice between, on the one hand, tolerating and letting beaten and, on the other hand, encouraging, choosing the direction of people who try to do social construction together and dare to take a stand in it.

In short, it is a fundamental choice, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. It is an irreversible step. It is a step connected with the human image, with the social image, with the values and standards that one has. You will also have understood that in this little choosing can not. You really have to go for it. So you have to choose a path. You cannot pretend that you have supported something here in order to take away from it afterwards. That is the only thing that will not be dotted in this.

It is also typical of purple-green. I think they could not do otherwise in this formation. If such ideologically different parties are joined together and attempt to create a project and program with them, then it must be kept neutral. This must be done colourlessly. This must be done primarily technically. It cannot be allowed to survive. This should not be too much checked on the back. Therefore, clear statements should not be made. Then one should try to save the cabbage and the goat, not to pull out his neck and leave everything on its way, and to turn a goat, knowing that one still plays together in the team but that it comes to Europe that increases the transfer price. We will see later how they will play.

Well, colleagues, we predict it to you, and we will remind you of it, more than you are dear: this will lead to skin decay and norm fading. This is already full of work. This is even better proved in the Netherlands, after 25 years of drug policy. Read everything you can get in your hands. After 25 years, this is a reliable material. This is the society you want: everything can, everything can, everything for free, if it is easy, if it does not take any effort, and if one comes to command us nothing. We do not want to make that choice, my colleagues.

Mr. Minister, I have found interesting reading about what you said in the Committee on Public Health, about your ultimate aspirations about the private and individual freedom of people. I will say something about this later.

What I am surprised, Mr. Minister, is that it is precisely a Green Minister of Public Health that makes this happen. The term is charged twice: you are green and Minister of Public Health. In principle you should apply the precautionary principle twice, you who so love everything that protects life, nature, butterflies and bites, and so on. But exactly that green minister of public health says: look, although I know that it is harmful to public health, to the people, and even though I am green and minister of public health, we will let it happen, if it does not go out of hand, the people must only know what they are doing. What a contrast – I have already said it – with 1999, when the Greens overwhelmed the country because of the chickens and the eggs and the dioxin problem they brought into a context that separated from any knowledge of the dossier. I remember very well the images of them walking around the streets dressed as chickens to campaign and blame us for the dioxin that was in the chickens. That was our fault and only our fault, it was harmful and had to be banished immediately, our society was half poisoned... And now that same Minister of Public Health, with the same smile, knowingly and intentionally, sweeps harmful products, saying that one knows that they are harmful and bad for health, but that one is going to sweep them. But the dioxin at the time, oei, then the land was too small.

Mr. Minister, as soon as there is a product in the shops — and this has already happened a few times — about which there is even a slight suspicion that there is something wrong with it, even though it is not at all proven that it can harm health, there is immediately a great alarm. Then the product must be immediately removed from the shelves and the origin must be tracked. Then there are heavy security measures such as import bans, and so on. But with the same ease you now want to allow those harmful things. I could say it with a boutade: the chocolate cigarettes out of the shelves, the cannabis in the shelves. I come to the second part of my brief speech. When you say a, you must also say b. They choose a certain path. The choice is made clear, I think. No one will come back, no one still has any doubts. The majority are convinced that they have made the right choice. Consequently, you must bear your responsibility, Mr. Minister — together with the members of the majority — for the next.

First, one can blow under certain circumstances. Indeed, where 70,000 people come together, of whom 69,999 are major and 1 is minor, those 69,999 will not be allowed to blow. But, in the assumption that one can blow, it can, but one can buy nothing and distribute nothing.

The drugs will fall from the sky. The drugs will come from your roof.

They ⁇ won’t come from there.

I do not yet know. They don’t want coffee shops. You leave it grey. You leave it illegal. In other words, the first, tremendously big ambiguity is the fact that it is allowed under certain circumstances. However, you need to see yourself how you get to the products.

Mr. Minister, a second point is a matter that has been being discussed in the Netherlands for twenty-five years. This is about the problem of the back door. Or can you give me a solution to this problem? How can one get the products in his possession?

We are out, dear friend. This case was already decided in 1997. You had the policy in your own hands. You come here now to criticize a problem that you have initiated yourself. I will show you that word by word later.

The adults will then blow without the presence of minors for their own use. How should they obtain the products?

That is not our affair. We reject the use completely.

This may be the problem of the Dutch. They have known the politics for a while longer than we do. They do not have that famous problem.

They have coffee shops.

They made the mistake of providing the supply. That is exactly the mistake they made.

That is right. I hope that as Minister of Justice 01.48 you know the problem of coffeeshops in the Netherlands. Do you know this problem? Do you know how many coffee shops have been added in the Netherlands? Do you also know why?

Mr. Goutry, did we choose coffee shops?

and no.

Do not compare with the Netherlands. We did not choose the coffee shops. So you should not make the comparison. You should not compare apples with lemons. It does not go.

We are talking about good quality. We are talking about 9% and 10%. In the Netherlands, they can still regulate the good quality at least somewhat.

So you are in favor of coffee shops, if I understand it correctly?

When you say a, you must also say b. If I support your policy, I would make sure there are coffee shops. I would make sure that there are good products, that the quality is good. It is one or the other.

Mrs. Descheemaeker has not interrupted anyone yet. He interrupts the first speaker.

Some people have talked about quality. That quality was related to the amount of active substances released. This was wanted to be controlled. However, no one has ever spoken about coffee shops at any time. After all, one of the major disadvantages of the system in the Netherlands is that it is not just about cannabis. The use is also linked to atmosphere, to conviviality, to being together. This has never been discussed here in any way.

I also find the comparison with the situation in the Netherlands not relevant. After all, the situation is completely different. In no way can a similar situation here arise from the text presented today.

Mr. Goutry, however, I do not understand the consequence at the end of your speech anymore. The consequence should actually be the question of whether CD&V will order all CD&V Mayor’s to start holding raids in the places where smoke is smoked. The present text, on the other hand, specifies the cases in which prosecution should not be carried out. Is that ultimately your decision?

This was not done in the previous legislature. I live in Torhout, you know that very well. I am sure you have also visited Rock-Torhout. I have visited it for years and I have never seen problems with drug use there. It is true that, like at other festivals, one smells the smell of weeds here and there. However, I have a CD&V mayor in my municipality, for all those years that I am in the municipal council. I agree very well with him on that policy, we are on the same wavelength. I challenge you to understand all of my presentations in which I am asking for raids in those neighborhoods where there is no non-problematic use of cannabis. This is a very different use, even among young people, but in a different subculture. However, I did not manage to keep him racing at Rock-Torhout. He is of your signature. Do you know why not? Because there is no problem there and because that was exactly the spirit during the previous legislature. Where there is no problem, one should not make it. When it comes to festivals, we would be better off doing prevention where large groups of young people gather, rather than creating problems and criminalizing them. Have you ever held raids in all those municipalities where you are in the administration?

Mr. Speaker, if one is sitting here and not standing on the floor, one can observe the different reactions of the rare colleagues. Mrs. Descheemaeker, you say that we are not advocating for coffeeshops, but when the word coffeeshop came down, Mrs. Genot applauded, just behind you. So there is a bit of a double split. I see what I see, and you will have to make it clear, Mrs. when you say, “You are not going to hold raids.” It is not about that. I have not followed the committee, but I am very interested in the matter. Not the least of the majority I have heard in the last few weeks talking about the case of minors and adults mixed up and about what is happening on a festival farm. I have heard members of the majority, who are fortunately still in the hall tonight, say, “This can’t be.”This is something else than raids, but let’s be clear: here there is no plea for raids. It is only about what can and cannot.

The [...]

Mrs, he’s not talking about raids. I say only what the interpretation, the explanation that members — and not the least in interest — of the majority have given to the question that is asked to them. It is not the least who sit here—that is twice—that have said that this cannot be done. Then you shouldn’t ask whether we’re going to hold razias. You have said yourself that this cannot be done. It must then be taken care that it cannot be done, not with razias. That is the law that you ask us to approve.

Madame Genot, you are being accused of physical behavior. Can you explain it?

This is absolutely not a secret. We had submitted a bill for the legalization of cannabis. Therefore, we would have liked to have resulted in the sale of a controlled product. The way Mr. Goutry talks about the situation of "coffee shops" in the Netherlands is ⁇ hypocritical in my view. In fact, all our young people go many kilometers, in the evening, in bad conditions, to go to Holland. I hope that the situation will evolve, that we can progress and that you will be one of us. I still don’t understand what the speakers of CD&V want. Today I have heard them criticize many things. But what do they want to make it really work? Let us stop laughing! To say that the old system with PVs was effective is hypocritical. You don’t ignore how the policemen worked: one was tolerant, the other not. This system was inoperative.

Mr. Goutry, I have withdrawn injury time. I have 10 minutes to speak, which is a lot. I hope you will stick to it.

I was concerned with logic. It hurts, and that is the reason for the reactions.

I look forward already. You needed a first step. So much was clear this morning. Mr. Mayeur has said it. For us, it does not go far enough. For the VLD it is already going too far, but one must have something about it. The Greens give the impression that it is good, but they also know that there is a hidden agenda.

As in all other debates, the next steps are already being considered. That is logical. One cannot do otherwise. If one does not take the next steps, one will have a crack-like solution, just like in the Netherlands. I am a strong opponent of your solution. I would never dare. But when you do, you have to be consistent. Then you have to do B, C, D and E as well. Then one must have the people grow, one must control that, one must ensure that there is a good supply, one must ensure that there are controlled products, one must ensure that there are coffee shops, one must ensure that there is a good control and that people can do everything in the best conditions. That would be a consistent policy. And then it must and can be discarded. However, one must then let those who then do it under your responsibility, who have the permission, do it well. That is the difficulty of this whole story.

If it does not succeed in the Netherlands, it is precisely because one has a dog policy there, in which one ends up, stays and no longer leaves the rest of the road. It is obvious that it can no longer succeed. It is not possible in the Netherlands, precisely because the road has not been fully completed. They do not dare. Of course, it is one step too much. If one has to allow the breeding, the trade has to allow, everyone begins to get chicken mould. However, what’s wrong with those products being brought as you don’t have a problem with certain people using them in the private sphere?

The same applies to the debate around the age of 18. This is the third inconsistency. Do you really think this will last? It is the result of a compromise. It serves to allow Mr. Coveliers to say that, even if there are three ceilings and four floors in between, a joint should not be used in a building where there is one minor. That was the example he gave on television. You shake your head. I would not have used such a stupid example on television. I have heard it. You think the next debate will not be about age. It’s already working, I’ve heard it today. There are already people who ask who spoke of the age of 18 and why. In fact, they have been working since the age of 16. Should we no longer look at this reality? Shouldn’t we take into consideration that a lot of young people of 17 years of age blow? No, we will say up to 18 years. We will tell the young people that, even when they blow, they must pretend they don’t blow, that they must shut off the joints and that they can do it from next year, when they have made their solemn communion and when they are big, like the big people can do it at home. Their father can do it, but they can’t. That is the third major inconsistency: either it is harmful or not. If it is not harmful, or if it is harmful and you discourage it, but it is not so harmful that you do not find it difficult to ban it, then why should you ban it until 18 years of age?

Why would it be more harmful than when you are 18, or vice versa? Those are curvy reasoning. You would accuse us of hypocrisy. If that is not hypocrisy! It was clear this morning. I repeat that Mr. Mayeur broke the pots in this regard.

Persecution is the next big ambiguity. What I have heard here today, what will all happen later. Everyone knows what will happen. I can quote it from the book by Frank Bovenkerk in the Netherlands. He has said it for a long time. He says the police in the Netherlands no longer come to the streets to check. He doesn’t do it anymore, because he knows if they just discover a plantation, or stop a few people, they don’t turn their back yet, or they’re working again. “Our people can’t motivate you for that anymore,” they say in the Netherlands. However, Mr Coveliers says the policy will tighten. We will strictly watch that it will not happen under 18, even if there is one on the lawn that is a minor. So you see, Mr. Coveliers, that this is an unachievable thing. This is an inconsistency. This is exactly what ruins your dog policy. This will cause you to get through it now in the short term, three months before the elections. Then you will find yourself in great trouble.

Problematic use and discomfort; how many times has this question been asked today? How can we determine what is and what is not problematic? This is the fifth big ambiguity in your dog policy. That’s what I’m struggling with: you’re going a certain path, but you’re not consistent. You do a little bit of pretending, you try to save the goat and the cabbage, you try to satisfy everyone and you say - this is a murderer - that no one is obliged. Whoever wants to do it. Those who do not want do not do.

I had a third part about the drug policy in the Netherlands. Following the debate and the discussion in the committee, I took the effort to study a number of documents from the Netherlands. Among other things, I studied a note from the Ministry of Justice. A note from 2000 where one tries to summarize all the problems, and they are not small ones, about the tooth policy. They say that they do not go a step further and nothing more extra courageous, because the inconvenience, the problems are much too big. This is stated in the report of the Dutch Ministry of Justice.

We also read the book of Frank Bovenkerk, a well-known criminologist in the Netherlands – whom I do not know – in which he clearly describes (...) I am glad that you say that, Mr. Coveliers, because I had some scorn to quote him, not knowing that he is so high attributed. You have read what this man wrote. I hope you find that in your speech. I hope you can adjust this and give a meaningful answer to your well-ordered, rule-expecting, standardized backbone, because that’s the people with you. They expect things to go well and that there is order. They expect society to get a little better together. You will then be able to explain to them where this leakage will lead. You will compare with the Netherlands and say, "Look, in the Netherlands they have been doing it for 25 years. We see that, we know that, we read that, and we are so foolish to replicate it. We will do that too. It is a good system.

It flaps there, it fails there, they call the people together in need, because they no longer know how to hold the policy in their hands, and you say, "We will do this too." You do this, poor, under pressure to stay in power, to keep your coalition on its feet. It was in the government agreement. It had to come out of it. Only the timing is terribly bad. It is three months before the elections. God spare you, but you could have found a better time.

I would like to quote a few small quotes that appear in that note, among others from the Ministry of Justice. It states, first, that there was an important reason for this drug note in the Netherlands, namely the increasing discomfort. There are 25 years of dog politics and an increasing discomfort. Their

Second, organized crime is growing hand in hand. The Ministry makes a note on this, all because of the good solution that one has in the Netherlands: you do what you want. We will not stop you. You know it is not good, but we let it happen, because in this way we will be able to remove the illegality and we will be able to open the system much more. This will cause much less crime, and so on. However, the reason for the note was the organized crime that is increasing hand in hand.

Third, there is drug tourism. Dear friends, those who live in the region of Luxembourg, Germany or France, expect it. Mrs. Genot said it herself. The shopping will begin, as with the fireworks we will then get people year by year who walk back and forth to be able to distribute all sorts of those products. In the Netherlands, it is said to be lucrative. Growing and trading these types of products is a very interesting way to make good money in the short term. In the Netherlands they say now: we are completely unreliable, because we actually do not have a weapon. We allowed it, we dared it, and then we would now find it difficult to deal with the fact that it still needs to be traded. Now they say: what is this a situation? The current coffeeshop policy, which on the one hand douches and on the other hand ⁇ ins - which is stated in a Dutch note - is, according to some mayors, unclear and leads in their view to undesirable side effects such as injury and crime. Their

We will not do that. There are no coffee shops. We will all do it differently, we will do it in the corner of the street or in a family circle. In the Netherlands, you can have 5 plants per head. It involves 30 family members, 5 plants. This way you get 150. They are distributed over the different tents and when you are called to the court you have 30 people who grow plants for their own use, and no plantation of 30 times 5 plants. These are the texts of Mr. Bovenkerk, the criminologist praised by you.

Part of the supply of coffee shops goes through the illegal, almost commercial cultivation of cannabis at home addresses. These are the suppliers through the famous back door, of which no one knows how they enter there. It makes a lot of trouble for surrounding residents and puts a lot of pressure on the backward neighborhoods.

Often, the necessary electricity is used illegally and small surfaces are used for the cultivation of large quantities of plants. These crops are often controlled by criminals. This is obvious and has been acknowledged by several colleagues.

Another point is an important quote from the drug note. I quote: “One of the possible causes of the increase in the number of uncontrolled point of sale is the generally strict compliance with the age criterion of 18 years.” You expect an additional problem, Mr. Coveliers. Up to 18 years is prohibited. What is shown in the Netherlands? To the extent that this age criterion is strictly applied, one gets uncontrolled points of sale. Who dares to swear that young people under the age of 18 will not use it despite the provision in the law that cannabis use under the age of 18 is prohibited?! There is a double morality: above 18 it is permitted, under 18 it is forbidden. Young people will not understand why anything until 18 is forbidden and from 18 is allowed. Either a full line is drawn, or a point line followed by a full line.

Mr. Goutry, you have to decide.

Mr. Speaker, I will be forced to skip a few quotes. I regret that because I had prepared myself seriously for this debate. I was present all day in the hemisphere.

You always prepare everything seriously. Now you can make serious decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I decide and address in particular Minister Tavernier.

Mr. Minister, I read an article by Patrick Loobuyck, a moral philosopher at the University of Ghent. It calls on the parties to not want to propose policy decisions as technical solutions to concrete problems, but to define them within a certain value framework. According to Loobuyck, there is a risk that values and beliefs become subjective matters that should be neutralized as much as possible in the public space. He continues, I quote, “To want to neutralize values and beliefs and to refer to private life is already an ideological approach to politics.” The slogan religion is private affair is extended to everything that is value-bound, is private affair. The deprivation of political decisions of ideological connotations is, according to Loobuyck, typical of the liberal citizen approach. The liberal citizen approach is one of "find it out yourself, values are something for home". It does not go for sale. Everyone does what they want, but they keep silent about it. They are neutral and do not stand up for their values. One makes it much easier and believes that everyone has their own values. The values of others do not interest me. I have mine and I am smart and old enough to do what my heart, my values and my conscience instruct me.

In the future, the political struggle of ideas will only be about changes in the margins of an economically and politically liberal system. Then the Greens go with them. “This politically-liberal system states that the government must adopt a neutral attitude towards everything that is values-bound or life-conscious.”

Mr Goutry .

I quote, by the way, the euthanasia debate, which said that no one can be forced against his will to participate in it. The same Mr. De Gucht, however, said later that he would change the opinion of those who did not want to cooperate, but rap. This will happen now too. A first step has been taken and a next step will follow. If we do not like it, then a new law will be made about it. Mr. Coveliers, with you, the openness consists in “that everything is tolerated,” according to Mr. Loobuyck, “without distinction.” Such pluralist fulfillment is indifferent to the difference. It is colorless pluralism. Against that indifferent and colorless pluralism stands a responsible pluralism,” said Mr. Loobuyck.

I conclude with his last sentence. These are not my words, but I find them very relevant and will therefore quote them for all of you: "I hope that the parties will respond to Loobuyck's call to have the substantial courage to present a value-filled project to the voter." Mr. Coveliers, this will also be needed in the Senate. “It allows us to talk in the coming months about the role of values in politics and the relationship of values to politics. It may allow us to choose on May 18th between those who are free of value, those who are worthless and those who advocate a valuable public space.”

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, I would like to create the atmosphere that prevailed during the discussion in the Committee on Public Health and which has now come up somewhat again. It was often a complaint about the normlessness of our time. It was unfortunate, especially in that context, that the discussion of this bill took place largely. Words such as decadence and leatheredness were shaving and embroidering. That reminded me then of the following quote: "The youth of today loves luxury, she has bad manners, despises all authority, has no respect and speaks as if she should work. Young people speak against their parents, talk in society, scare at the table, and tyrannize their parents."This social analysis was from Socrates, who lived between 469 and 399 BC. Despair about youth and about the future is of all times and usually has to do with a changing human and worldview. Colleagues, I would like to emphasize this extra here, especially with regard to Mr. Goutry. No party has the monopoly on norms and values, even progressive currents are valuable. The fact that they do not specifically refer to a religion does not mean that they do not refer to values and to a substantial human and worldview. on the contrary. Their

There is also a clear difference between permissiveness and tolerance. Tolerance based on respect for other opinions, is a value and is ⁇ not the same as indifference to unacceptable behavior. Tolerance does not mean that everything is allowed.

During the discussion of this bill, the impression was created that the debate took place between pro- and opponents of drugs. If there were indeed two different approaches, then it was between those who want to address an existing social phenomenon with a realistic policy and those who nurture the illusion that a zero tolerance will solve the problem. Their

Pleasures have been inherent to every society for centuries and are bound to an evolving culture or subculture. The use of means relates to both legal and illegal drugs and therefore relates to both tobacco, alcohol and medication as well as to illegal drugs. Each of these means can be harmful to a greater or lesser extent and can lead to abuse and addiction. Their

The consequences of the abuse of any means may result in both personal suffering, social suffering, costs or harm.

The problem of substance use is very complex and depends not only on the substance used, its quantity and frequency, but equally on the individual and its living world and environment. Such issues must therefore be addressed in a coherent and integrated way in order to be efficient. The present draft, the cooperation agreement between the different policy levels, the Royal Decree and the Circular are a step in a policy that aims to normalize an existing reality, with the main objective of avoiding or reducing the potential harm to health. Hence the approach and coordination from Public Health. Health and well-being are fundamental conditions for quality of life. In such a policy choice, detachment and prevention are essential. Prevention is primarily a competence of the Communities. Hence the great importance of the cooperation agreement. The main objective of a coherent drug policy, in addition to prevention, is to prevent and mitigate the risks for the user, for his immediate environment and for society. Cannabis is held here in criminal law, precisely to avoid its use being considered obvious or everyday. Problematic users and addicts must first be taken, helped and treated, while repression for them is the ultimate remedy. Detection and prosecution, however, must be applied very consistently among producers, traffickers and dealers. In my opinion, this design responds to the right principles, with as clear pillars eviction, prevention, relief and repression where necessary. This does not prevent the work from continuing and requiring refinement. In the drug aid provision, a uniform registration and a broad evaluation of the methodologies are needed. The registration must be collected and exchanged federally. Through the case manager, agreements must be reached between Justice and Assistance. There should be clear arrangements concerning the exchange of information between emergency services and the Judiciary, in which the welfare worker should be aware of the scope of the professional secrecy and of the reporting obligation. Their

Assistance centers are still facing interference in the assistance process, with clients having to be imprisoned for a period of time during the course of therapy, to then be dropped again into a program. With clear arrangements, a residential reception can be a full-fledged and better alternative to prison. There is a need for a specific policy on the drug issue in prisons.

Staff should be better trained. Cooperation with external therapists is necessary to ensure continuity of treatment during detention.

It is necessary that the employment contracts of prevention workers and ambulatory care providers provide perspective. They should not be limited to uncertain one-year contracts. In this way, no quality or expertise can be built. It is very appropriate — not to say necessary — to structurally integrate prevention training into the training of teachers and to open up space in the educational package for teaching life skills. This should be done from elementary school so that children are resilient.

For some, it has become a cliché and even a caricature to claim that the Greens are against tobacco advertising and for drugs. That is not our position. Our principle is that prevention is better than healing. We defend the ban on tobacco advertising. We advocate for deprivation and for prevention in order to avoid addiction. The same applies to any drug use. However, we cannot close our eyes to the existing reality. It took courage to make a clear statement, knowing how this can be misused by opponents and how much effort is being made for disinformation. Therefore, the Agalev faction is behind this design. It is a draft that aims to approach the drug problem rationally and realistically from the public health concern and reserves repressive action for problem situations and for crime related to drug use and drug trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, colleague, dear members of Parliament, in response to all that has been said, I would like to point out first the global policy note of the federal government on the drug issue. I think this was the first document so comprehensive that was devoted to this issue at government level. I think that the document for more than 90% or even 95% takes away the approval of the vast majority of the House. When we come to a legislative change, it must be clear that we frame them in the first place in that general policy note. The message here is very clear and very unanimous — from the majority at least — that all drugs, without distinction, are harmful, whether they are legal or illegal drugs. They all carry the danger of addiction or dependence. In other words, the people who use them must be pointed out about the potential hazards and one must also give correct information. We find that at least some of these drugs have a problematic and non-problematic use. When setting out a policy, it should be about the problematic use. Of course, the priority must be where the problems are the greatest. I think this is very clearly reflected in all the information provided over the past years from the government and from the majority: the harmfulness is a fact. Therefore, it is important that these issues be approached from the public health.

At the same time, we must also take into account the actual high availability — although often illegal — of certain drugs. In addition, in some cases, the use of certain types of drugs is age-related, generation-related. But don’t be mistaken, it’s not because you are dealing with, for example, a younger generation that automatically accepts or rejects a legal or illegal drug.

There are many subcultures among young people. From discussions with young people, it is clear that the discussion we conduct here is the same as the discussion with young people. Alcohol drinkers are opposed to cannabis users and vice versa. There will also be a number of young people who need to know nothing about both groups. There are also young people who use everything. So everything is not so simple. I have experienced a lot of discussions. In some discussions, it’s a bit the pot that blames the boiler for being black. The one who regularly drinks one cup too much, sometimes blames the other that he smokes a joint. Of course, I’m not talking about you. I am talking about young people. You are a little over that age. Sometimes, however, they accuse each other of using another drug.

This is also an example. Sometimes I get that accusation.

I think it is quite important that we do not sell generals. In addition, it is also true that in the educational process of young people and in a society, one is confronted in any way with means of enjoyment. One can step into the youth with the means of enjoyment distributed legally or illegally in a society. The problem can also be discussed with young people. In that case, it is true that their first question is usually not whether or not it is prohibited. Their approach is actually the degree of harmfulness of the product and the dangers associated with the product. I think that approach to educating young people is the first question. Young people are also asking for objective information. Objective information is sometimes subjective. Depending on a particular study, a different outcome can be obtained. Over the years, there has also been an evolution in the results of the studies. After a few years, after all, you have long-term results, which you initially did not have.

That is why I would dare to say the following very carefully and as an example. According to the latest data, cannabis is somewhat more dangerous from the public health point of view than it was proposed a few years ago. I think that is based on the trends in a number of studies. However, in terms of harmfulness and danger, there is a clear distinction between cannabis and the other illegal drugs.

It is necessary to give information as objectively as possible, otherwise you will get rid of young people. Should it be propagated or said that it is not harmful? No, on the contrary, one must continue to stress that there is a problem there. Then the question arises how to teach young people to walk or to arm themselves against it. Anyone who has ever been involved in education in schools, with their own children, in youth clubs or in youth movements knows this problem. Well, that is a very difficult process, in which the element of prohibition is but one of the elements of belief and in most cases not the belief element. You have to use other things. Therefore, one may wonder at some point whether that is the right path. Socially speaking, in addition to prevention, the curative, and of course also the repressive, the prohibition measures, must be introduced. One must see the relativity of the success of such a thing and not think that it is solved if one prohibits it.

As for adults, one should keep in mind that certain things may not be so harmful. If the use has little or no influence on others, in other words, if it takes place in a private circle and therefore without inconvenience, then should one introduce specific punishment provisions? Mr. Goutry, I think the government should not bother with this aspect. I say very clearly, only if your choice does not affect the outside world. I think that, in line with the 1998 circulation letter — I am not saying it is the same — and as a result of the conclusions of the parliamentary discussion and of the Parliamentary Working Group, we should go through normalization in part. What was not regulated by law and was regulated only in a circulation letter, we will now make it clearer by the law itself, with a certain description. Furthermore, I have found that amongst others the helpers in the committee found it one of the positive points of the law that we distinguish between cannabis and other illegal drugs. However, we know that everything remains harmful. This message must also be very clear.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in order not to disturb the statement of the Minister.

Mr. Minister, I would like to point out something fundamental, which makes it equally difficult to communicate. You look at it quite technically. You say literally, “The government doesn’t have to bother with that.” It is not about the government, but about society, about all of us. That goes beyond “government.” Who is the Government? We have been talking in the discussion for a long time about what choices we make as a society, through mandated people or through people who can regulate them legislatively. However, the fundamental question goes far beyond creating frameworks and laws. The fundamental question lies, looking at the whole perspective of the developments in this society: what kind of society do we choose? Are we choosing a society that goes out of the neck and dares to stand up for certain values? Then the difference between what you do at home and elsewhere disappears. It is about values. They are not taken out just like a jacket is taken out. That is, therefore, a completely different approach, which, of course, we can never touch each other in the debate.

Yes, because in some cases, of course, it is quite fundamental to know what we include in the criminal code or not. The government must protect or regulate and order that society. That choice must be made. The choice over a particular aspect must be clearly expressed in the law and the legislative amendment that entails. Of course, there was also a look over the border to the Netherlands.

Mr. Goutry, I would myself be a little less negative than you in your evaluation of the Dutch experiences. I would like to refer again, not to the study you cite, but to the official progress report on drug policy, the report of October 2002 of the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport. If I see that data and read that report, it is quite nuanced, but it is ⁇ not a black painting as you showed it in your presentation. There are a number of negative elements, but also a number of positive elements. For example, I mention that it is clearly stated that the inconvenience has been reduced. The number of addicts has decreased, just to name something. So it is at least more nuanced than what you claim.

Of course, you should compare apples with apples. The Netherlands spends twenty times as much on prevention as the Flemish and Belgian. An integrated policy has a preventive gap. When you refer to the Netherlands, you should also dare to say that we do not succeed in Flanders, even now that it needs to be less tight in the judicial loop of the integrated policy, to really give a great push effect to the prevention loop. Your party is responsible for this on the Flemish side. Contracts are not more stable and so on. I think we should look at all this as a whole.

You just said that one should conduct that discussion when one calls something criminal. That is a very correct approach. It is not only the question of whether we punish something; it is and remains punishable. With this law, you now ask the question of how you can ensure that it is criminal and that it cannot be prosecuted or that it cannot be responded to. This is something different than a debate. Look, today in the Flemish Parliament was debated whether the non-compliance with compulsory citizenship should be criminalized. They discussed a new penalty. That is not the point of discussion here. You must acknowledge that you can’t do anything but keep it criminal, but you still want to give it a wrong to get out of the criminal carcan with all the social side effects of it. That is the problem of course.

When one says that something is punishable, one must at the same time also determine what the penalty is and to what extent it is performed. In other words, there is a double question and that is also a bit more nuanced. This question is made very clear, even in this case.

I think we focus too much on the repressive aspect, the provisions of the Criminal Code, throughout the debate, although the major problems clearly do not arise in that area. Problems are associated with young people and especially the group of twelve to fifteen years. Moreover, the biggest problems are not related to cannabis, but to ecstasy, for example. There is also a much larger problem for polydrugs users. I have not even heard anything about it today. I have the impression that you, while still finding differences with the majority, are fixing on marginal elements of the big debate about the new approach we propose here.

I give one element. You talked about the punishment provisions regarding the use of the prohibited substances, but about the precursors there is no word. However, a huge step forward is being made in this area.

That is positive.

Mr. Verwilghen, we have taken an important step forward.

You have done what Europe has asked for.

What is important in the context of discouraging, of saying it is harmful, of protecting young people? Strictly speaking, there is actually too little talk about young people here for some, because that is partly community matter. It is important that we say to adults more clearly and harshly than before that adults who focus on young people and in some way encourage or incite them to use drugs — including cannabis — will be addressed harder than before. I think these are two elements with which I have no problem that we say we are stricter. This is one aspect of which it is said not to create problems where there are no. By the time we talk about it, some are beginning to wonder about the number of grams. I take the text of the documents and the last annex to the report. When I read what it says about the number of grams, that is very clear. It depends on the concentration. It’s like asking how much alcohol you can drink. That is a meaningless question. This depends on how strong the drink is. The number of centiliters depends on whether it is a light beer, a table beer, a heavy beer, wine or whisky. One should ask meaningful questions instead of trying to give a jaw blow by a detailed question that we can’t answer correctly.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health says that since the amounts of TAC consume enormously, we cannot actually record it.

If you say how many grams, then that is indeed ...

Then I have a question that you can’t avoid. This is, of course, a trick to not have to answer. We have been asking you for months how many plants people will be allowed to grow without it being punishable.

Mr Tavernier, this question is in the same sense as Mr Vandeurzen’s question regarding the quantity.

Mr. Minister, I think that if you answered yes or no to three or four questions, your presentation would advance the debate. One of those questions is what is going on with these plants. If I understand your reasoning well, you say that we cannot put grams on it, since it depends on the concentration of the substance.

Did you understand my example of alcohol?

I understood this very well. I had just understood from Mr. Coveliers that in that circulation letter there should be nothing but an indication of grams. I think I have understood that the party leader of your coalition partner said it right. Mr. Minister, when it comes to legal certainty, is the whole project intended to draw a uniform line in that arbitrary setting of the prosecutor’s office in Brussels, in Torhout and everywhere else? How will that policeman know if the concentration of that substance in that joint is a user quantity? Can you explain how this legal certainty is created?

I think there is too little confidence in the common sense of this man. Where is it down? What is essential in this case. You trade or you do not trade. What is Trade? Buy and sell. From the moment that this element is there, it is quite clear. It is trade whether one gram or ten grams is bought or sold. This is not bound to the quantity. The (...)

No, I do not say that. Even with a small amount "hangs" one. That is clear! You are looking for difficulties. Rely on common sense.

You do not rely on the common sense of the parket judges.

Not through the law, but through agreements, one will find the right attitude.

You find that there are too many different practices in the field. The common sense is not of nature to get there the transparency and uniformity that you think is necessary for a policy of withdrawal. You say that we do not only rely on the common sense of the parquet officers, but now all the police officers must also have the common sense. Can you tell me what will happen if I lose 3 grams?

No, I cannot say that.

How would a police officer know this?

I should know what substance it is, and they will know it and make arrangements about it. I should not do that. I have all confidence in this in the Minister of Justice and those who do that in the field (...)

Everyone calls the Minister of Justice. It all comes from the Minister of Justice.

By the way, I note that some in their discourse leave with an image that today, or take two or three years ago, in the previous reign, at any time were formed simply simplified processes-verbal. What do I record when I look around and ask the people on the ground what they are doing? First of all, we look closely at what is happening. They check if there are problems. If there are problems, one can act. Therefore, one does not make a process-verbal to the current band, nor does one make a simplified process-verbal. Then I find that the registration we are doing now, monthly reports, for drug policy is much more important. You want to address the user. I say that it is anti-drug policy that we carry out and not anti-drug policy.

I would like to urge you to get some clarity from the government on this issue. Therefore, they say that the trade in cannabis is not allowed. Buying and selling is not allowed. Now imagine a police officer entering a building with 5, 10 or 20 plants. From what moment will that policeman say: is this a plantation whose production is used for trade, or is this clearly intended for own use? How can this police officer judge the case?

You may also wonder how that policeman enters there, probably because he had already seen that there is a coming and going there, and that there is actually trade. I think that will work well on the ground and in practice. In addition, I would like to say that the questions about a number of problem situations are always given the same answer. I am especially concerned with drugs in traffic. In all brochures and publications from two years and a year ago, it is clear that this is not possible.

As to the conclusion, Mr Deseyn, I would like to refer you to the article from Via Secura from which Mr Coveliers quoted several hours ago. It says very clearly that cannabis works as many hours, as is the case with alcohol. This is something different from the period in which it can still be detected. We talk about three to six hours. Further investigations and investigations are carried out.

Furthermore, I think we should note that within the framework of this government’s drug policy — or anti-drug policy — great advances have been made in the provision of aid. I just heard Mr. Deseyn complain that it is scandalous that there is a shortage of places in Lier. In the meantime, I have information about it. As part of the renewed policy, a number of beds have been transformed in Lier. In the child psychiatric unit, a new child psychiatric unit has been established, specifically for addiction problems among young people. So a new unit was launched, as there are also pilot projects regarding double diagnostics in Sleidinge and Luik, as there are nine units for crisis and case management and as a number of health care coordinators were appointed, specifically to approach this problem via a consultation platform.

For quite a few facilities, RIZIV conventions were concluded. It can be said that these measures are insufficient. However, the fact is that a number of very important and new initiatives have been taken. I admit that some of the initiatives are pilot projects. There is no structural financing. I have repeatedly explained in the committee that in many cases the funding is provided until the end of 2003 and then needs to become structural. Given the novelty of some projects, I think it is normal that we have launched them as a pilot project. Studies are conducted and the projects are monitored so that they can later be structurally embedded and financed.

There has been no denial in the committee that some initiatives have been taken. Mr. Minister, starting from the common view that drug policy is an integrated policy, I have been able to conclude that your note was promising in terms of prevention, stability and sustainability of contracts, so that people with experience do not face the oatmeal with job security, and on the organization of emergency services. You added the timing. In short, everything was on and on.

To my disappointment, however, I must note that the present bill does not mention a number of points that are really necessary, such as healthcare circuits, registration of drug users, stable contracts, separation of domestic affairs, a good legal framework for all possible modules of assistance. Your note, which ⁇ the full support of the field, had the ambition to pursue sustainable structures, sustainable financing and clear legislative frameworks. These points are not found in the present draft. I have trouble with that. No one can deny that you have made efforts. However, the ambitions of your note are not fulfilled in the design.

I would like to make an important clarification. The Minister spoke of Lier. I was not talking about Lier at all, but about the reception as it is offered in Tienen to the Alexian Brothers whose institute states that the waiting lists for such reception are endlessly long.

Actually, it was about Tienen. I would like to reiterate that we have taken a number of initiatives. In part, I can understand and accept criticism. We need to work more structurally. It is correct that not all ambitions regarding embodiment have been fulfilled. However, I would like to point out that the cooperation agreement that hopefully will be approved tomorrow is a huge step forward towards an integrated drug policy. This is structured. This debate has mainly and too much turned around justice. I would like to point out that this link is also made with the aid provision. Also in the judiciary and in the penalties stipulated, succession is provided, including the judicial case managers. This is a huge step forward for a truly human approach to the drug user and to the drug problem. We are starting from public health to address the problem in a good way.

Yes, that is the question that concerns us all day.

I’ve told you it’s about trade or not. In the latest appendix to the report — the latest version of the answers after the discussion in the committee — you will find the elements you are still concerned about now.

We have clearly emphasized the need for clarity for youth. Can they grow at home for their own use? Yes or No? This is not a difficult question. Can they grow at home for their own use? The Minister of Justice has already said that this breeding cannot and you leave the greatest doubt about it, because you do not make statements about it. I would like to hear it from you now. Can they grow? This is about one plant, Mr. Minister. Should it or should it not?

Can you read?

The confusion in communication is our fault.

Can one plant be grown? Yes or No?

That this confusion in communication is your fault has become even more clear to me today. You are just looking for...

I am talking about a plant.

Mr. Deseyn, I will let the Minister of Justice answer. You might ask him the same questions. That can not hurt.

I find it ⁇ faint and very sad that one does not want to create clarity.

I give the floor to the Minister of Justice. Then let the speakers briefly replicate. We had a long discussion with 14 speakers.

Mr. Speaker, colleague, members of Parliament, I had this impression when I heard Mr. Goutry later that the government has come up with something that is actually without any preceding.

I would like to remind you of the government’s starting point in this debate. These are three points. First, there is the report of the working group charged with the study of the drug problem. This is a report submitted on 5 June 1997. If I am not mistaken, Mr Vandeurzen was one of the rapporteurs. Second, there is an evaluation report prepared by the professors De Ruyver and Casselman — they are often mentioned — together with the Criminal Justice Policy Service. Thirdly, it is based — which was also stated in the government statement, by the way — on the experiences gained abroad in relation to this matter.

I would like to come back briefly to these three things.

The first thing I would like to say is that Parliament sets out six priority axes in its 1997 report.

First, the reduction of drug use and the reduction of the number of new drug addicts. Second, the protection of society and its members. Third, the establishment of an international collaboration based on police and judicial mutual assistance, the adaptation of the legal arsenal, the activation of property penalties and the fight against money laundering. Fourth, the adjustment of the criminal policy towards consumers. It should be avoided imprisonment of consumers who have not committed a criminal offence other than drug possession. Fifth, the establishment of a prison policy that prevents prisoners from acquiring drug addiction behavior and provide for a regulatory framework that allows prisoners access to the treatment they need. And sixth, the regular evaluation of the measures implemented.

The latter I would like to emphasize here again. It was then explicitly agreed to re-evaluate the policy carried out. I would like to address this, because the evaluation report will show three shortcomings. I am not saying that those shortcomings have been desired by my predecessors who wrote the circular, but these are three shortcomings that are important. First defect: no quantities have been determined, says the evaluation report. Secondly, there are no more process-verbals drawn up by the police services. In other words, what colleague Van Parys has taken so strongly this afternoon is a consequence of the application of the directive, says the evaluation report. Third, we talked about prevention, but we did not propose any means for prevention, and there was no bridge between the judiciary and the police on the one hand and the aid services on the other. Their

I would also like to return to the third point. We said we would charge experiences from abroad. I will leave the Netherlands out of consideration, but you know that Germany, France, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, to name our closest neighbors, have systems similar to our system. We also read this in the evaluation report. I want to tell you one thing. You spoke with relatively much praise about the coffee shop. You said, “If you start with the kind of policy you are now outlining, you should not just say a, you should also say b, like the Dutch.” I must tell you that we are trying to pursue a uniform policy at the European level in the fight against drug trafficking. You know, we would have had a Framework Decision for a long time if it had not been a country that was involved in it. You know that the third pillar requires unanimous vote by the fifteen Member States. Do you know which country? The Netherlands . Do you know which minister? Minister of Justice, Donner. Mr. Donner is now the informant in the government to be formed for Mr. Balkenende. He was the Minister of Justice of the CDA. Why did he not want it? Because he absolutely wants to keep the coffee shop. The Netherlands is therefore a supporter of its own politics, even if you rightly say that one in the Netherlands has returned to its politics, that the number of coffeeshops has been reduced and that one complains about a large piece of organized crime that one generates at the back door of the coffeeshop.

Of course, it is clear why such a position is taken. There are two reasons for this.

First, one realizes well—per ⁇ too late—that once the step in the dog policy has been made, there is no way back. They are now trying to control it administratively and so on. There is, once the door of the wise is open, but one logic and that is more wise. One is very well aware that the way back is simply no longer feasible because it has historically begun.

Secondly, the Dutch have introduced the tooth policy. They chose the path that would allow the user’s contact with the distribution system to have at least a separate system for cannabis.

We are not in favor of the first step. Mr. Goutry’s point was, of course, that when you take the first step, namely the cultivation of cannabis, you should definitely try to limit the risk that one comes into contact with other drugs in that illegal market. That is, of course, the unforgiving logic that the Dutch can no longer get out of. So it is not surprising that after 25 years, one cannot say that one is going to flat out the leaf and start again.

There is no impenetrable logic. The Dutch have in contact with Prime Minister Verhofstadt at the world of Prime Minister Balkenende indicated that they want to align themselves in a joint struggle Belgium-Netherlands. At the same time, they want to enter into the European context. Only in their election period have they not had the courage to add the act to the word.

I now come to the question of justice, Mr. Speaker. I will focus on this and not on public health. First, there is the safety plan, one of the nine priorities. In those priorities we write that we want to reduce drug crime and drug trafficking. Based on this chosen priority, we have determined our criminal policy. If we have defined our criminal policy, then of course we will give instructions to our prosecutors how they will prosecute. These parquets will, of course, give instructions to the police services on how to locate them. There are no 101 possibilities.

Colleague Vandeurzen, you wrote it yourself in your 1997 report. The first option you had was an absolute ban, a prohibitionist policy — to use that difficult word. You say in your report that the 1993 Wathelet circular, which is its translation, has become a pure failure. Indeed, one cannot prohibit in the sense that the social reality is different from the pure prohibition. It is almost a similar situation to the one known in the past with alcohol.

Second, one can, of course, strive for a very broad acceptable policy. Drug use will be legalized, decriminalized, and decriminalized. You choose for my part but the word you use. Or you will choose a dog policy. Two things are said about it. First, it violates the international obligations that countries have entered into in the international treaty. That is right. Second, it leads to an explosion of drug use and everything related to it.

Third, the third option is the one that Parliament has chosen. We are implementing what Parliament decided in 1997. This is a normalization policy. Mr. Goutry, I will now read the definition.

The definition of normalization policy states: "... It is based on a historical reality and determines within what limits the use of means is acceptable and manageable for a society.” This is what your Parliament decided in 1997. I have already told you what the few shortcomings were then.

I come to the question, the action of the court. Should the court be brought for an individual, adult cannabis user who smokes within the closed walls of his private home, without causing any social inconvenience, without being addicted, without having a problematic use? I think everyone in this room, except those who are in favor of an absolute ban, will answer no.

Should the court be appealed when it comes to checking the supply? This is where the chain begins, at the second supply. Everyone will answer yes to that question. How should this happen? This must be done through international cooperation. There is no discussion possible on this. It will also have to be done through a reinforced repressive policy. Is this reinforced repressive policy there? Yes, that is there. I note that the arrangement for telephone calls has been adjusted to be able to perform, and that performance will be further improved when the new telephone call room enters into operation. I note that since 1999 special methods of investigation have been established by law that also provide an answer. I note that a federal prosecutor’s office has been established, having jurisdiction across the border of the district and having international contacts. I note that there has been a federal police force that can deal with the phenomenon — including drug control. I note that there has been legislation on witnesses, not only to allow them to testify audiovisualally, but also to allow them to testify anonymously, to enjoy protection when threatened. And all that for tackling the phenomenon of organized crime and drug supply.

I have not yet spoken about the shell-picking legislation, which shifts the burden of proof, and about the Central Body for the Seizure and the Declaration of Confiscation, which have been created to work on that second pillar.

Are there results? Yes, there are results. I will give you a few. The number of drug labs that have been rolled up over the past two years has increased remarkably. You have already received these figures through Mr De Winter. The number of cannabis farms and plantations that have been able to dismantle has increased spectacularly. The number of drug seizures in general — for any drug — has increased significantly.

That is the implementation, not of the decision we make today, but of the decision that was taken in 1997 and that has been implemented since then.

I think we should dare to say at this point that the Parliament’s decision of 1997 was a good decision. This decision should not be broken. It must be evaluated. The assessment shows which three points are difficult.

The three main instruments enabling the designer to have a policy on drugs are: - the prevention for the non-consumer and for the non-problematic consumers; - the assistance, the reduction of risks and the reinsertion for the problematic consumers; - as well as the repression for the producers and the traffickers, or the safety chain of the security plan. Now I come to the strengths of the federal drug policy. Mr. Speaker, I have already said that this new drug law is not a legalization of drugs. Drugs do not disappear from the Criminal Code, nor does cannabis and possession of cannabis. We will not choose the system of a doctrine policy. A doping policy dopes drugs on a large scale for a broad category of citizens. Therefore, we will also not choose the coffee shop in our streets, where one can supply and one may still do other things than supply.

Therefore, we do not have a broad category in mind. No, we have a limited category in mind. I have already mentioned who is in that limited category. They are not in the sight of justice and police. It is the adult recreational home users who are not problematic and do not cause social inconvenience. I must honestly say that you do not know them, that I do not know them, that the police do not actually know them, and that the judiciary does not know them, except in exceptional circumstances when they are faced with it due to other facts.

For me it remains unclear. I have said that if one says a — that would never be my choice — one should also say b.

However, you say that you will not allow coffee shops. You want to discharge.

I will come back to that later.

In hell, you say that you will not bother yourself with certain things. That you have just outlined: under certain conditions will not be performed and you let the people free. They must know it themselves. The question, however, is how these people get to those products.

I have then said in a ⁇ somewhat brutally sounding response that this is not our concern in an evasion policy. We do not wish to facilitate this, we do not wish that there are points where one can supply. Once this is made possible, one is in a fundamentally difficult position that one can never again get in accordance with international treaties. As long as these international treaties are not amended, I think we should put the tering to the nerve.

That normalization policy is not just coming out of the air. I have already mentioned that it was launched in 1997. I have already said that a number of countries around us also use this. We remain within the international treaties.

We actually have six points that we want to realize in that federal drug policy. The strength lines are: one, the harsh approach of the producers and the dealers, two, the detachment of all drug use, three, no drugs for minors - there is therefore a zero tolerance for -, four, driving under the influence of drugs, Mr. Deseyn, can never, five, clear delimitation of the boundaries for recreational adult user and, six, an integrated policy towards the problematic user. I will briefly introduce each of these six things.

First, the harsh approach of the producers and dealers. Whether it is drug production, drug trafficking, possession of drugs for the purpose of selling and distributing, even of the smallest quantity of cannabis, is a priority for police and justice. Let there be no doubt about this. I will show you. A first difference from the 1997 directive, Mr. Goutry, is that the penalties for these activities are heavier. It is no longer the penalty or the prison sentence, no, it becomes the penalty and the prison sentence. We add here the precursors — we have just received a flower from you — and the transit through the country. I assume that you will take the same attitude.

Therefore, I also dare to say that in the approach that is ours and with the resources that we have at our disposal, we must specifically focus on international contacts with our neighbors. What are we doing in this area? We have agreements with the Dutch. I assume that the political situation in their country is not yet such that we can stand as far as we can with the French. With the French we have concluded agreements that have brought the French drug tourism in Antwerp to such a stage that we can immediately deliver the perpetrators we catch, the drug tourists — it may be in ridiculous quantities, but it is for us a drug burden and that will be certain and certain in the future — to France with the certainty that France will also judge them. We are conducting a similar procedure for Liège, with respect to foreign nationals in the Maas-Rhin border region.

Second, withdrawal from all drug use, thus also with respect to the adult recreational drug user who wants to use cannabis. It falls under that for us as well.

No drugs for minors. I must honestly tell you that the use of all drugs, including cannabis, for minors is prohibited. Drug use of adults in the presence of minors is also not possible. We consider this as a social inconvenience and it is the subject of a criminal sanction. That is a second difference with the De Clerck-Van Parys Directive. That Directive did not make that distinction. There is no zero tolerance for minors. We do that now. A minor for us, let there be no dispute about it, Mrs. Van Weert might want it otherwise, but that is the same definition as the one that we have retained for the criminal protection of minors. This is also consistent with international treaties. A minor is 18 years old for us.

It is important, even after the statement of Mr. Mayeur. If I understand the minister correctly, is there now a zero-tolerance that did not exist before? Does that mean that we are going to zero tolerance at the festivals?

For me it is quite clear that festivals that take place in the public, in a public place, are not the places that correspond to the one we have wanted to give a certain freelance. That is especially the adult recreational user who would use cannabis between his four walls. For everything that falls outside, and that will be interpreted so strictly and strictly, the zero tolerance applies.

You will, of course, ask me quid the performance at those festivals? I want to say the following. There are some responsibilities here. Does politics take responsibility? and no. Order-keeping is the responsibility of the police services and judicial action is the responsibility of the prosecutors. They must take their responsibilities in the circumstances in which they think they should take them in the manner most appropriate to them. In any case, the signal of that nature will be that, as far as I am concerned — and Mr. Mayeur, who is not a police officer and as far as I know he is not a substitute prosecutor of the King, may possibly have a different opinion about it — these people with great firmness in any case do not fall under the arrangement that we have intended to provide.

I have never gone so far in my words as you. I am in favour of this kind of discussion. I say again that I have never gone so far in the discourse about zero tolerance. However, your colleague on the Senate list, Mr. Schueremans, has shaken me out for less.

I read what Mr. Schueremans said about this. I think we should stop saying the following in interviews: I think that with regard to drugs a strict policy is needed. However, if it’s on my festival, the NIMA syndrome applies, it’s not in my backyard syndrome. In this respect, it is permitted to us. This is not the case, and we must dare to be consistent. I think Mr. Schueremans was mistaken on this point. Per ⁇ he holds a different personal opinion, but that personal opinion does not correspond in any case with what the government foresees with this measure. The fourth point concerns the prohibition of conduct under the influence of drugs. The fact of smoking a joint and the conduct under influence are mis on a foot of equality. In this regard, the government opted for the more strict approach because the cocktail murderer "alcohol and drugs" at the wheel is already responsible for sufficiently the dead. I immediately reassure you. I would like to refer directly to the law of 1998. This is not the law of this government. This is a law from the previous government of Mr Van Parys, which is very strict in it. He also drafted a royal decree, in which he provided for the various degrees of control. He also provided the figures to be taken into account when checking for external signs, then in the urine test and then in the blood test. This must also be implemented further. By the way, I wrote a circular about this in 2000, which was not misunderstood. Their

The fifth point is the clear delimitation of the boundaries of the recreational user. This is the question that has been most discussed today. The normalization policy concerns – although it remains criminal – the possession by an adult of several grams of cannabis, intended for use in private circles. I think there is an important difference with the previous circular. This circular of my predecessor has not brought within the judicial districts the unity they had expected. The professors say this is because they did not want to quantify. In the meantime, we heard why they did not want to do this at that time. They did not want to give the signal that what falls below the limit is permitted and that one can therefore calmly move on. Their

What was the consequence? There has been a very incorrect application. There are people who have been convicted in certain judicial districts with two grams of cannabis in their possession. In the large court districts, I have seen that 50, 60, 70 grams were considered a quantity for personal use. It is that phenomenon that is at the basis of the fact that certain police services, ⁇ completely discouraged, have said at a certain moment that there is no need for them to prepare a process-verbal anymore. As Minister of Justice, I will, in consultation with the College of Attorneys-General — I will do so after the law has been passed; I cannot do so before — draw up a letter of reference with a clear limitation of the number of grams equal to possession for personal use. It is already stated that it will be less than 5 grams. I oppose that strict interpretation that should be possible within the criminal justice policy that the Minister of Justice can outline with the College of Attorneys-General. So I will stick to it. Their

I tell you that from now on, possession of that extremely limited amount of cannabis is not free for the adult, because he will not be allowed to use it when it is problematic for him. There is no public harassment. It is said that these two concepts are not sufficiently described. We have already put them into law. They used to be in the circular. They were less defined than they are now defined in the law. In the meantime, a piece of justice has been established around it. I would ⁇ like to emphasize the following where one asks who will judge that there is discomfort or who will control that problematic use.

Do you know that the police services are now assigned that task, without having received the training for it? When the directive will be there, one will be able to appeal to the specialist by appointing the case manager. So it will be the doctor-specialist or the field worker who will determine whether there is actually problematic use. He will provide assistance to the police services. In this regard, I think there is a clarification of the situation.

Finally, I come to the integrated policy with regard to the problematic user. At every stage of the course of the case — whether it is the investigation or the stage of prosecution, of the measurement of punishment or of the execution of the sentence — the magistrate telkenmale has the legal capabilities to refer problematic users to the drug aid provision.

There is also another important tool: the judicial case manager. However, I should not go further into this. There is also the important instrument of the resources made available. It is about 12.5 million euros for preventive aid, which is a sum of half a billion Belgian francs.

Mr. De Man, I would also like to answer your question this morning. In fact, you asked whether there are enough police officers prepared for this task of carrying out control. In 1999, 200 people from the federal and local police were trained in order to train their colleagues. Meanwhile, Mr. De Winter has told me that there are more than 2,000 members of the police services capable of operating on the ground.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a few comments. The first observation relates to Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was formulated by Mr Van Parys. Mr. Van Parys knows the answer. I will repeat it again. Article 29 does not pose any problem, since it stipulates that the drawing up of the process-verbal is done for the misconduct and crimes, the two most serious categories of crimes, while the mere possession — category 1 — is an offence. So that is not the problem.

There is a problem with Article 40. In this article, a choice was made that should be explained in the context that was also discussed today in the discussion. I think that one should always keep in mind that the policeman, first of all, can draw up a process-verbal. In the second instance, however, you must not forget – and then we are still in accordance with what is stated here – that the complaints or statements submitted to a police officer, as well as the information obtained from the notes of crimes and the findings made are included in the process-verbal which is transmitted to the competent judicial authorities.

You know that the registration, and that is stated in the circulation letter — it is now in the draft, but it will in any case continue to take care of it — will be sent monthly to the services of the parquets, which, though not communicated the identity of the perpetrator, but that identity of that perpetrator is known and registered and is in the POLIS system. In this regard, I refer, by the way, to the presentation made by Mr De Winter in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of the report, I would like to point out that the non-verbal communication of the Minister of Health and his backbone speaks book parts. With a confirmation, the minister can remove any doubt and make it clear that he is on the same wavelength. In two words, the confusion can be put to an end. I think to discover that he does not really see the explanation of Minister Verwilghen.

Mr. Minister of Justice, I think I have understood that you argue that the police officer who simply establishes cannabis possession with the adult does not have a ban on drawing up a trial-verbal, but has the possibility to register and also may choose the trial-verbal.

Article 40 does not contain any prohibition. Article 40 provides that an exception is allowed. If it is a license, it can deviate from it.

Where is the great legal certainty in the mind of the user? After all, the police officer can choose whether to draw up a trial-verbal or not.

When a police officer 01.115 is confronted with that adult user who is not problematic and does not cause any inconvenience, it is perfectly possible for him to draw up a process-verbal. He may feel dismissed from that job.

Dear Minister of Health, do you agree with this interpretation? One word is enough to remove the confusion.

The [...]

Mr. Minister of Justice, based on the note spread one and a half years ago, I do not understand how these people will be prosecuted. However, you did not make that note.

One should not blindly look at a note from a year and a half ago.

You did not make it, of course!

It is not about that. In the meantime, this issue has undergone further treatment. Since then, the government has not only drafted a bill but also a royal decree. Moreover, I even communicated a draft directive. After the legislation has been approved by the House and the Senate, I must submit this draft directive to the College of Attorneys-General. I am very pleased to inform you that this text was drafted together with the staff of the Attorney General competent in this matter. You should not think that I just shaken that directive out of my sleeve.

Mr. Minister, should I understand from your explanation that the brochure massively distributed does not correspond to reality? You have stated that the design sounds different because the views have evolved. What do you think of the decision to distribute a brochure one and a half years ago stating which law the Parliament will pass and stating that although cannabis is not legalized, the police will in principle no longer draw up a process-verbal on name if adults are found with a quantity of cannabis for their own use. They will no longer be persecuted. What do you think of this behavior in a dossier where prevention and communication are so important?

If you now say that it is a possibility but not an obligation, I don’t quite understand who now takes political responsibility for the debris in communication based on a brochure that the Minister of Justice now says that spirits have evolved in the meantime.

I just hear the minister say that the police officer can deviate, but I read in the text article 15bis new: "In derogation from the provisions in article 40 of the law on the police office, in case of establishment of possession by an adult of a user quantity of cannabis that is not accompanied by public inconvenience or with problematic use, only to registration by the police."

It is that.

He can no longer have freedom. He can only register. You insinuate that there may still be a process-verbal.

It is an exception to Article 40, which imposes a general obligation. We agree on this. Article 15a makes an exception to that general obligation. What prevents them? Who can the plus, can the less.

I quote from the French version: "It will only be carried out a police registration."

The capacity range is the same, whether it is formulated in French or Dutch. It is an exception to Article 40. Who can the plus, can the less.

You are well stuck there.

I feel like they are really trying. How should this be interpreted now? Take the text as it is. By way of derogation from Article 40, in the case of property, registration is carried out only by the police. If you think it is something else. Mr Coveliers explained this in the committee at the time of the discussion of the article. That was perfect.

This is an exception. If that situation occurs, a registration is actually enough, but that agent or verbalisant can perfectly say that he is not so sure that those conditions are met. Therefore, he can make a process-verbal.

It is important what is said here.

We are not going to start a criminal law with such kind of shifts. What is the situation? The police officer is in honour and conscience convinced that it is a property for his own use. The person is mature, it is not problematic use and there is no inconvenience. What is his duty? Should he register anonymously or can he — he is convinced that those conditions are present — choose? That is the question. The Minister of Justice says he can choose. Who can the plus, can the less. The Minister of Health says he can’t choose.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer at 01.134 what is actually very often discussed today, in particular the cultivation. Cultivation is not in the law.

We agree that cultivation is not prohibited by law. It is also not discussed in the law. Should a Procedure Act be drawn up? Well, a process-verbal will have to be drawn up from the moment when one determines that the yield of the plant or plants one has in his possession is greater than that for personal use. In other words, that will be in a lot of cases and sure and firm when it comes to a plurality of plants, anyway. Furthermore, that will also be held and included in the circulation letter. It can be made clear in this regard in the transmitted letter by stating that in those circumstances, when it goes beyond personal use, a process-verbal is drawn up.

No process verbals.

Thus they will be. You know that the yield of a plant, when it is harvested, is usually enough for single use for itself.

So that is clear. That is to say, according to your standards, it is really cultivated, even in that limited extent. This is totally contrary to the European position.

Colleague Vandeurzen, I want to. Call me the article in the current law or in the previous law where the crop is fished, for example in the law of 1921.

Now there is a new law! The [...]

Mr. De Man, I will remind you for a moment of the judgments issued by various courts of our country against people who have been persecuted only in relation to the breeding. They were released, whether you like to hear it or not. I think you interrupted me about that at the time. In this regard, I tell you that cultivation that gives rise to a yield that goes beyond personal use cannot be done and that process-verbal will be drawn up.

Of course, it is in the new design, which is obvious. But, Mr. Minister, in the text of the brochure I find the government’s answer to the question of whether cannabis can be grown from now on: “The possession of self-growing cannabis remains punishable in our country.” This is not a source of right, of course. It is your political responsibility.

Mr. Vandeurzen, for me this is not a source of right. The source of law is the law, the royal decree and the circulation letter that will come. The letter will only be approved by the College of Prosecutors-General with the Minister of Justice, after the law has been voted. We cannot go down there.

I would like to say one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is my final words. When I make the comparison between 1997 and 2003, it is clearly about the same principles that are transmitted. There is a change in the penalty level: it makes it harder. There is zero tolerance for minors. Quantifiability is switched to quantifiability because it is requested and is one of the recommendations shown in the evaluation report. There is the integrated policy with respect to the problematic user.

I would say, where is the difference except for the fact that after evaluation things are more accurate. This evaluation will also need to be carried out continuously with regard to the new policy that will be carried out. This too will need to be revised and adjusted over time. In these circumstances, I think it will always remain an equally difficult debate.

It is of course good to be able to communicate the latest state of affairs in a confrontation with young people. In summary, I can conclude that if there was a contact by a police officer with a situation where drugs play a role there is always, whatever the circumstances, ...

There will always be a process-verbal and the parents will always be contacted.

I also speak for all categories. I also speak for adults where there is no problematic use, no social inconvenience.

Mr. Deseyn, you can play with it, but not too much.

You have changed, Mr. Minister. There was no agreement yet. Therefore, I remember that there can also be drawn up a process-verbal. It can also be in this situation. I thought the Minister was not really clear about this.

Mr. Deseyn, there are boundaries. I explained very clearly what it is about. I do not think that this is still subject to any discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I had another question. I think a key element in the Minister’s statement was zero tolerance for the domains and cases he has designated. He has literally said that it is in fact an effort. He will not tolerate it. There is zero tolerance. That was exactly the criticism that was constantly being made to the former. By the way, nothing has changed. In recent years, there has been no more or stricter action than before. How will you be able to ⁇ that zero tolerance? How will you do that in the concrete reality that minors under 18 years of age fly against the lamp, that all merchants at the least will fly against the lamp, that all people in traffic will be punished from the least to the most? You talked about zero tolerance. That is to say, there will therefore be about package chances and constant control. Otherwise, you cannot speak of zero tolerance. My question is whether you have the resources. How do you see this concrete?

Will the answer end the general debate?

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that you will ask your police services through your parquets to consider this as an absolute priority. In other words, you will write it down in your circular. A circular is binding. It is in the circular. An individual prosecutor may derogate from this. He must justify why he turned away. There is no letter in it, no jota difference between the circular from 1997 and the circular from 2003.

Mr. Minister, maybe I did not follow well, but until today I have never heard about adult private use. It was about adults who use without problematic use or inconvenience. I also see nowhere in the design that there would be mentioned in the circulation letter a certain number of grams that would be less than 5 grams.

Mr. Speaker, since no provisions have been made in the provisions of the law in this regard — which was one of the comments in the evaluation report — I will include my responsibility and include it in the letter of reference. This should be discussed with the College of Attorneys-General. I cannot make a decision on this one-sidedly in advance. This will be done in consultation with the College of Prosecutors-General.

To be honest, I am surprised by the position that Mrs. Leen takes. It has always been very clearly stated that the category of users that we wish to respect – adults who use cannabis under the known conditions that must be met – will indeed have to do so within the private sphere. In all other circumstances, there is a risk of either coming into contact with minors, or causing inconvenience in public places, or driving cars under influence. One must learn to take into account the consequences associated with it. Moreover, characteristic of an evasion policy is that people are warned of this problem and that they are hoped to see that it may be better for their own health not to start with it.

Feb. 12, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I welcome the presence of the Minister of Health. For obvious reasons, however, it seems to me important that the Minister of Justice would also be here, given, among other things, the contradiction between the ministers and their groups. Per ⁇ he is currently experiencing the trial-finding application of the bill at this time.

He is coming. He is currently detained in the Senate. This morning Mr. Verwilghen was present and I have now waited until Minister Tavernier was there.

I would rather have the Minister of Justice there.

He is coming.

I would rather have a present minister than a future minister.

Usually the presence follows the coming.

Then I think we should follow up until the result has occurred.

I let him call. I think he is in the Senate to answer.

I know your appreciation for the Senate. It is not about that. I think it is important that we have the constant, attentive presence of the Minister of Justice.

He will be like that. It does not come in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Verwilghen asked me to be here at three o’clock. So I was just a little too late. He is in the Senate, you can check that. He was here all the morning until a quarter after one. That is normal. He is present in Parliament, he is available and will return soon.

He will be there in a few moments.

I ask for a suspension.

If it takes too long, you are right. I let him call. The Minister cannot be in two places at the same time.

Neither do we.

Mr. President, where should he be?

Since we had decided to open the afternoon meeting at 15:00 instead of at 14:15, the minister has begun to provide some answers in the Senate. I let him call. I was told that he would end there and come here. The government is represented by Minister Tavernier. Mrs. Van Weert, I suspect you do not have a problem with this at the moment? He will be here, Mr. Leterme. You were not here this morning, Mr. Van Parys. That is your right.

Who should be here: the former minister or the minister?

Maybe both. We also abolished the committees this afternoon. You know that too. Mr. Erdman is here.

If you accept this, Mr. Speaker, then, of course, a parliamentary debate on such an important social problem makes no sense. I urge the Minister of Justice to follow this debate in full. It is up to you to enter or not on the claim we make to get the Minister of Justice here.

He has been here.

If he is not here, then it is clear that he attaches less importance to this problem than to the problem that is being discussed in the Senate. There is no choice possible.

He has been here from a quarter after ten to a quarter after one. As for its permanent presence, do not make it an incident. If he is not here in the next few minutes, then I give you the right.

Mr. Speaker, I find it important that the VLD Minister of Justice bears the full paternity of this bill and that he is present from the beginning of the debate.

The two ministers are now present and Ms. Van Weert has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I am touched by the action of the CD&V Group, which apparently considers it important — and I agree with it — that the ministers are present at the discussion of this very important draft. I would like to pre-expose this concrete draft ...

Mr. Coveliers was involved in a conversation with himself.

I want to give you an idea from the world in advance. According to some, Spirit has the image that we are for the permissive society, that everything can be, that everything can be, that we tell the young people that they can only do it, that they can use soft or hard drugs, that we all can not care. This is a caricature. I want to use this opportunity to help the world out of this misconception. I think it also has a little to do with people who have left our party. However, this does not diminish the substantive points of view that I will express clearly later.

The [...]

Mr. Leterme, I clearly used the word Spirit.

It’s a caricature that makes it hard for me to live. As a mother of three young children, I am absolutely concerned about the dangers of addiction on the health of young people and people in general. As for Mr Vandeurzen, this is for us the starting point of the debate. However, legal certainty and the elimination of arbitrariness are important principles for our party when making laws. Both, health care and legal certainty, are perfectly reconcilable in our vision.

We are a party that does not put the head in the sand when it comes to problems. We have no message of hypocrisy and we dare to call things by their names. We want to find solutions for social evolution.

First, I will make a few concrete comments on the present draft. In our view, the design shows some shortcomings. Next, I would like to explain our general view of drug use, and more specifically soft drug use.

I would like to limit my concrete criticism of the design to the ambiguity about the terms used. For us, that is the Achilles tail of the design. Who of the majority or the opposition can explain here and now, for example, what should be understood under problematic use or public harassment? Almost all witnesses in the hearings asked questions about the implementation of the law. I admit that problematic use is difficult to objectivize. The description given in the design is not sufficient. I already live with the police officer who will have to judge whether there is "a use that is accompanied by a degree of addiction that no longer allows the user to control his use and that is expressed by psychological and physical symptoms."

When it comes to individual use, the design does not indicate a quantity anywhere. One does not want this because indicating the number of grams would signal that cannabis use is normal, but that does not store anything. Failure to indicate a quantity only creates more uncertainty and legal uncertainty. A standard is the least one can ask for. Does anyone now know whether the soft drugs he has in his pocket will be cataloged as quantities for his own use? and no.

In summary, this current bill will not reduce the uncertainty that currently prevails and that was, I thought, the intention. The established terms and principles are so vague and ambiguous that actually no one knows what can or should be. If even most of my colleagues do not know it, what is expected of the population? Everyone; the citizen, the parquet and the police, receives a very inconsistent message and Ivan De Vadder remains sitting with his question whether or not he can smoke a joint on Rock Werchter. How does that come? The present design is actually mosquito nor fish. It is a vague compromise between, on the one hand, the reticent liberals and, on the other hand, the progressive Greens, who in this case, I assume, are reticent.

I think that a sentence on the website of the VLD youths correctly reflects it: "The direction of the drug note is of the Cabinet of Public Health, but the Cabinet of Justice will not be very submissive in terms of prosecution." That the result is a messy, unclear and legally cracking document, is covered with the mantle of love. Rarely during a discussion was, by the way, so covered with "my backbone". Apparently, every representative of the people is free to explain the law to his electoral audience at his own discretion and discretion. Mrs Avontroodt tells her voters that the law actually makes the situation stricter and that one can expect a phone call from the prison if children with a few grams of cannabis enter the weeds of Werchter. On the other hand, there is, for example, the voter of Mr. Goutry who will be told that of purple green everything is allowed, that decadence and permissivity are very strong. What the green voter will hear of his excellences is not really clear to me yet.

The [...]

I do not know. I am not a Socialist candidate. You will have to ask that question later.

I try to prove exactly, Mr. Leterme, that this is the problem with this law. Their

Depending on the point of view of the voter concerned, one can interpret the law himself in this or that direction.

Then I come to a point that is very important to us too, namely the young people. The living world of the young people, their insights, their questions and their problems are at the heart of Spirit. This is a law made on the basis of a reality of increasing soft drug use, mainly among young people, but which, due to the crackling of recent years, would not apply to them. As a signal, this can count. Several witnesses during the hearings, however, stated that the young people did not wait for this bill and have normalized the situation.

So for all clarity, for those who are still in doubt, I would like to repeat what I said earlier: I also worry about the fact that young people are getting younger and using soft drugs more and more. I am not blind to the possible consequences. We have heard this several times during the hearings. Poor relationship with parents, indifference, worse school outcomes, and so on, are the result. Therefore, we support the need to strengthen prevention and early detection. Therefore, there should be intervention plans and drug prevention programs in schools. The communities still have a lot of work on the table in this regard.

At the same time, we regret that this project is criminalizing just a group of young people. The motto is that for young people nothing changes. Believe me . That warning finger, or a strong criminal action, will not change the existing situation.

I even have the impression that the judicial response to the youth will worsen the situation and I doubt very strongly whether this is the right approach. Therefore, we dare openly ask the question whether the age limit for the application of the law should not be reduced to 16 years.

Due to poor communication and unclear legal status, young people are now not too concerned. However, there has been a whole discussion in the committee about when this situation has occurred. Was it in 1998 with the circular letter, or was it in 2001? This is what a very large part of the discussion has focused on. That was quite striking, because at one point there was a witness who claimed it had already begun in 1998. The VLD was ⁇ pleased with this, because they were liberated from all blemish. They would not have been those who introduced this so-called permissive policy.

I just want to say that this is not the essence of the discussion. At some point, the discussion has shifted too much in that direction. It became a political welles-nietes game about where the responsibilities lie for the implementation of this policy.

We will not approve this bill. After all, its implementation will only increase the uncertainty that has prevailed for a while. Arbitration in treatment remains possible. Nobody knows what the consequences are...

Mr. President, I would like to ask a question to Mr. Van Weert. I heard Minister Stevaert on television. He believes that drugs are a problem that should not be addressed in the electoral period or in the election campaign. This is a very interesting statement. If you are dealing with something difficult, it should not be discussed. I had the impression that your statue, Mr. Anciaux, was absolutely not happy with the law.

I have a question about legal certainty. Apparently that problem weighs very heavy for you. This, by the way, is a constant among many proponents of the design. They also say that it is not fair that in a criminal offence someone who lives in ZichenZussen-Bolder has a greater chance that one will respond to it and that that chance for someone who lives in Brussels or Antwerp is less large. Such a thing actually gives a feeling of injustice. Therefore, we must keep it punishable but create the certainty that it cannot be responded. I find that a very peculiar reasoning, apart from the fact that the Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that the use of the opportunity principle by the prosecutor’s office — its technical translation — does not constitute a violation of the principle of equality.

I would like to propose the following. The chance of a speed breach – to bring the discussion on a topic that your cartel party SP.A also likes – may be greater in Flanders than in Wallonia. In Flanders there are anonymous cameras that are not installed in Wallonia. If I follow your reasoning, Mr Stevaert should come to the conclusion that, since it is unfair that the chance of punishment in one region is greater than in another, we should make rules to say that there are circumstances in which one is in breach, but for the sake of legal certainty know that one will not be prosecuted. That is the reasoning behind it. This is close to the views of, for example, Mr De Decker. He says that, if he drives on the street at 160 km per hour at night, that is, of course, punishable, but that it is still not reasonable that he could then be whispered. In fact, that is not a problem and he comes to the agreement that it is punishable, but that if one does it in a safe way, one should not be punished. After all, there is a difference in treatment, a difference in risk of reaction between one place and another.

I really do not understand the following. The sense of legal certainty for someone who does something that is not lawful should ensure that this leads to a breach of a regulation to ensure that someone is punishable, but not prosecuted. Can you explain why this must happen?

If a neighbor's quarrel in a coastal municipality gets more attention from the police than in a metropolitan area, do you think we should dare neighbor's quarrels? Or what reasoning is behind it?

First, I think that the comparison with the traffic situation does not go up, but I will not answer in the place of Minister Stevaert. He must do it himself at every opportunity. This is not the matter here today. If you continued to listen to my speech, you will find that I am not an advocate of the current proposal. Later, I will explain why we in principle think that legalization might be a better solution. Internationally, however, this is not possible, but I will explain that later.

You should not take me further on that.

My question was: Should creating legal certainty for someone who does something that is not allowed to do be the driving force for an adjustment of the law? I do not understand that.

But no ! Leave me a moment later...

Mr. President, the question of Mr. Vandeurzen is very important. It is about the acceptable risk. When is it acceptable that the package is small or not? This is an important discussion, because there is indeed a danger of discrimination. I would like to discuss this.

Mrs. Van Weert, you answer that you are in favour of the legalization of drugs. That is, of course, a utopia, because you cannot do so if you comply with international treaties — and fortunately.

But you do not answer the question of Mr. Vandeurzen. However, this is an important question. You have given the example of Minister Stevaert. This question was not free! How do you motivate in a society in which you make a law—which law may be, and it may be most responsible—so that in certain places, by reducing the chances, the risk increases for the citizen who follows the law? I give the following example. When I get into traffic, I always follow the speed limits — in my car, of course. In fact, I find that I take a risk when I step into the traffic, by participating in that traffic, even if everyone follows the road code. But if the government does not monitor whether others follow the road code, then that risk becomes unacceptable for me. I have no problem with anyone who wants to drive at 160 km/h absolutely against a wall. That is his business, if one makes sure that his inheritance pays that wall. However, I have a lot of problems with someone driving at 160 km/h and it is a danger for others. This is about it. I think that is also the core of Mr Vandeurzen’s question, which could trigger an interesting debate.

Mr. Vandeurzen, you may explain in more detail what you mean.

No, it is an interesting debate, which shows the difference between the political parties. We believe that the government should take these facts into account. The government must prevent people from driving themselves against a wall at a speed of 160 km/h. I think the government should have the ambition to try to prevent this.

That is true, but I would like to say that this is not the case. It is about that when one is caught with a certain amount there is still no clarity. There is still interpretation.

Once you get into the street with a certain amount of the substance, you consciously take a risk. What should the government do? To that man or that woman say that this is the risk. This risk can be realized or not. That is something very different.

Then it must be clearly delineated. Then I come to what we think should happen. I have since tried to make it clear that we really dare to advocate for legalization, knowing, of course, that according to the existing internationally valid treaties this is not feasible at the moment. So I am not saying that we should approve this here and now. I say, however, that we should take initiatives to map these treaties internationally and possibly propose an amendment. That is one. Therefore, we ask why we would not dare resolutely opt for depenalization right now. For us, it is crucial...

Just for the clarity of the discussion. You are in a partnership with the SP.A. Do I understand correctly that Spirit is in favor of the legalization of certain soft drugs?

We believe that this needs to be addressed internationally and that these treaties need to be reviewed. If this is possible internationally, I think this is a solution or a possible approach to the problem. Why Why ? Let me immediately tell you why.

I find you correct and honest in the expression of your position. I only regret that if your image, Mr. Anciaux, is on TerZake, he does not have the courage to say that right in the camera.

I have not seen the conscious broadcast or heard the question. I say here...

It is written forever, Mr. Vandeurzen.

Here is .

There are also cameras, I must tell you, if it may interest you.

We consider it crucial that the market of soft drugs be separated from the market of hard drugs. I think that colleague Vandeurzen actually indirectly expressed the same concern when in his presentations he always speaks of one large supermarket where all kinds of drugs can be obtained. This is indeed the reality today. We therefore say that one must address this reality and separate soft drugs and hard drugs. This can only be done if it can be legalized. We cannot reach this at the moment because we are bound by international treaties. Now people who are looking for cannabis are coming into the market and they are still in contact with hard drugs there. With this legalization, we ensure that the markets are separated. As far as we are concerned, the market may be organized and controlled by the government, especially with regard to product information, quality control, price and sales. At the same time, one of the speakers cited that the soft drugs of the 1960s are no longer the soft drugs of today because of higher concentrations and so on. I think it was colleague Germeaux who said that. These are indeed disturbing evolutions that we have no grip on today, which we have no impact on. With legalization, we could try to gain more impact and capability.

We believe that this proposal is not in conflict with a displacement policy. We remain — just as we must discard that there is excessive alcohol consumption and excessive cigarette consumption — that, of course, there must also be discarded that there is excessive use of soft drugs, given the effects already listed thereafter, effects that are also related to excessive alcohol and tobacco consumption.

Only we clearly differ in opinions on how it is addressed and on the best conditions to bring this problem into the picture, make it discussable and get under control. The need for drugs should be kept as low as possible. We should not just focus on the product itself, although that is important. Integrated policy is necessary. It is necessary to intervene in living conditions related to drug use. I agree with the CD&V vision. As a government, one must have the ambition to protect people from destroying themselves. I think that is a public task. The question is only how it is best addressed. In this we clearly differ in opinions.

Finally, I wish the government success in implementing this bill.

Therefore, you say that the problem of the back door should also be addressed. In your proposal, the government would analyze the products, test their quality. Did I understand correctly that the government would be responsible for the sale? If you want to legalize from the age of 16, someone must sell it anyway.

I did not say that the sale should be organized by the government. I talked about control.

Who sells it then? I would like you to address the problem, but what is your solution?

I should look at Mrs. Van of the 02.37 Casteele. Is it unthinkable that the pharmacist takes responsibility for this? I am not a requesting party.

I did not understand the beginning of your argument about the age of 16 years. I thought you said that one should eventually re-examine the law in order to make it possible to do so from the age of 16.

I am not in favour of this law, but I believe that young people from 16 years old are able to judge about it.

I am once again surprised by the unbroken belief in the beneficial functioning of the free market. This is now preached from Spirit. I wonder if the party with which Spirit forms a cartel believes that too. It is curious that some parties believe that the organization in the free market provides for quality monitoring, even though there is a greater concentration of the product than 20 years ago. Some say it has almost become a hard drug. However, you believe that legalization is the path to follow. I do not always find it consistent. In one debate, we must correct the free market, because it poses a threat to society. In the debate on drugs, it is better to have a free market. We can take an example of product standards. How will we organize this? This should be possible in the circuit.

Mr. Vandeurzen, how is it today? There is an illegal market.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mrs. Van Weert a question. Are you really convinced that if we depenalized or legalized soft drugs, the big problem of quality would have been solved? Do you think that this would eliminate the fundamental problem of risk of addiction among young people? Are you not afraid that attracting young people to what they do not like is the most important thing? Are you not afraid that if soft drugs were legalized, they would lose their appeal to young people and that just that other market of hard drugs, for which we must ⁇ protect them, will have an impact on them? Would there not be a shift due to the fact that the product becomes less attractive? I said that in the committee. I have always said that the great advantage of cannabis is that it is the least harmful of all illegal drugs. If young people show risk behavior and want to experiment, I still much prefer that they experiment with a product that involves a limited risk.

Imagine legalizing that product and legalizing it in young people who are no longer attractive, so that they, for example, start experimenting with LSD, ecstasy and other products. That attracts young people, the other behavior. Ultimately, this is what this text is about: preventing young people from taking that step. From experience, I fear that, if you move to depenalization and/or legalization of those products, those products will no longer be attractive to young people and that other products will be attractive to them. This is a very wrong and dangerous signal.

That is true, of course, I have no overview of what the effects will be. We can only make estimates, including based on the studies made, and that is a real danger. In addition, Mr. Germeaux, I think that because of the clear separation between soft and hard drugs one must also very resolutely choose a harsh approach to trade and the dealers who bring hard drugs to the man. I think that gives us more space to face it very hard. I think that one should also do this very explicitly, otherwise one is with the risks that you refer to yourself. Today there is no social support for this, precisely because the soft drugs are involved, many of which say they are socially similar to alcohol. In this regard, there is actually a bit of acceptance. These two types of drugs must be separated.

The struggle against taxation, against all taxation, whether legal or illegal drugs, is indeed a major public health issue. by

Among the artisans, supporters or opponents of the texts that are presented to us, there should be no difference in this goal. No one says that a drug, whatever it is, legal or illegal, is banal. There is no banal drug, we all agree on that.

We all agree also to say that repression alone is not a satisfactory response to the drug problem, for various reasons. It has been seen, this response has not prevented consumption or even increased consumption. Drugs have always existed and, unfortunately, continue to exist. Furthermore, when one speaks only of repression, one prevents treatment and ultimately adds pain to pain, from social difficulty to social difficulty, one does not solve the problem.

I am not one of those who think that this problem can be solved easily. For example, simply by saying no to drugs or by setting up a strong repressive system. Honestly, I believe that this policy has shown that it was absolutely irrelevant in relation to the problem that we are dealing with. The drug approach is complex and requires a constructed and composed of different elements political response.

Therefore, it is necessary to take the problem arm-to-body and stop covering your face or putting your head in the sand. I think this is the courage that our government has had. I think that is precisely in this that it has differentiated and that it differs from what was happening during the previous legislatures. The interest of the approach proposed to us by the government is that it is a comprehensive and integrated approach. Therefore I will not make the choice of isolating an element in order to diabolize it or to banalize it. I think that by doing this, one goes wrong and that’s why I regret that most interventions so far have focused on one aspect of the problem, as if it were the only response provided by the government.

I insist that each element is replaced in the context of the overall approach advocated by the ministers because it is through it that we will finally be able to try to develop in our country a reasonable policy of fighting against assets and the curtail of risks that they generate.

I would like to highlight from the beginning the importance of one of the texts that is subject to our approval. The agreement relates to the Cooperation Agreement with the Communities and Regions.

Indeed, the amendment of the criminal law, in a less repressive sense, can only be applied if it goes hand in hand with appropriate measures in the field of prevention and assistance to drug addicts. These two areas are public health, education, scientific research, health care, as many skills as the federal government shares with other powers. This cooperation agreement is therefore of paramount importance if we want to strengthen the drug control mechanism.

The other texts submitted to us propose a new drug regulation. This is a partial step forward for better prevention of insolvencies and risk reduction.

For Ecolo, the vote on this new drug regulation constitutes, I emphasize, a partial step forward towards better prevention of abuse and reduction of risks to consumer health. The current text marks an evolution that is part of the extension of parliamentary work begun in 1996, which at the time resulted in the De Clerck circular. We work in a certain continuity.

As is known, the policy of total drug prohibition in force since 1921 has proved to be a failure, both in terms of health and public safety. The failure and impasse of a purely repressive approach to cannabis consumption is fully proven. The original objectives — protection of public health, reduction of drug production and distribution — have not been achieved. The situation is even worse as cannabis consumption has continued to progress at the level of the general population and among the school population. The repression has completely failed and has turned, for about a decade, mainly against drug users.

Through a general ban, consumers inevitably entered into illegality and therefore, implicitly, into crime. Now, as we know, judicial prosecutions undermine the future possibilities of consumers, complicate the necessary work of prevention and assistance to consumers, in short weaken, paradoxically, the fight against drugs.

In the future, adult cannabis consumers should no longer be prosecuted by courts, as long as this consumption occurs in private places, in the absence of minors, and as long as there is no problematic use or social inconvenience.

As regards minors, the principle of prohibition of the use of cannabis is recalled and, in the case of cannabis consumption, the young person will be returned to the youth support services.

By better distinguishing consumers, which will now be mainly considered from the perspective of public health and prevention, by distinguishing them from traffickers, the new legislation limits the criminalization of consumption while strengthening repressive measures against traffickers.

The vote on this new regulation, after long debates — at least two years — will also allow to begin to get out of the blur that is detrimental to the effectiveness of the prevention work supported by the French Community, especially with minors. As a reminder, this work of prevention and risk reduction aims to encourage young people, people, not to consume drugs, by making them aware that the consumption of certain legal or illegal products, legal or illegal, can harm their health and well-being. We also point out that the prevention and risk reduction programmes carried out by the French Community cover both legal and illegal drugs. Let us not forget that the most widely consumed products today remain alcohol and tobacco.

In the implementation of the new regulation, however, special attention must be paid to ensure that the notions of "problematic consumption" or "personal use" do not constitute a new source of arbitrariness and legal uncertainty.

In the same way, we must unfortunately regret that a number of issues are currently not resolved. What exactly does “absence of minors” mean? What are the tolerated amounts of cannabis? What about cannabis cultivation? These are so many unclear areas that unfortunately remain today, we acknowledge it. The construction site opened by the new law is ⁇ not closed. We will have to go back, even if we can see it as a step forward. by

For Ecolo, the partial decriminalization of cannabis consumption eases the regime of possible sanctions. But the state will, sooner or later, have to intervene through institutions other than the criminal, whether medical or social, and take over the regulation of the production and distribution of cannabis rather than abandon its prerogatives to the laws of supply and demand on the illegal clandestine market.

Only a regulatory approach that avoids both the impasse of the criminal repressive approach and the ambiguity of the prosecutor’s circulars, as well as the derivatives of a de facto decriminalization of drug use, is capable of enabling a responsible policy in this area. As everyone knows, we have signed a co-proposal of law — it’s on your table — aimed at regulating the production, distribution and sale of cannabis. This text will allow us in the future to continue to advance the reflection. For us, it retains its relevance.

In conclusion, it is time to take our responsibilities. Our government has done it. Even if some elements of the projects submitted to us do not fully satisfy us, we can consider that this is a step in the right direction. My group will therefore vote for the texts that are proposed to us and will continue to be attentive to this important issue of society.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, colleagues, allow me to thank in advance — not in the usual way but because I think so — the reporters who have comforted themselves the effort to bring here this morning an overview of their report. Mrs Douifi did so with regard to the Agreement with the Communities. The gentlemen Germeaux and Paque have done so about the basic text as such. I would like to include Mr Vandeurzen, who has been the rapporteur from the Committee on Justice to the Committee on Public Health and has done this brilliantly.

In fact, we are talking here about amending a law that will celebrate its eighty-twoth birthday within a few days. The Law on Narcotic Drugs and Pleasures dates from 24 February 1921 and was approved a little more than a hundred years after the opium wars. With the opium wars, the West, and more specifically the British, wanted to compel the Chinese to supply opium. I just want to say that when you look at history, there can be strange things.

I remain with history. In the government statement of the current government, and it is appropriate to retreat from time to time, it is stated that with regard to the drug issue, the government will submit an evaluation report on the current drug policy within six months of its entry into Parliament. The report will include an assessment of the former Minister of Justice’s circular letter on the possession and retail trade of illicit drugs, the report of the Parliamentary Working Group on the drug issue and the experiences in other countries. Based on the results of this report, the government, in consultation with the Parliament, would develop a coherent drug policy. This is the Government Declaration of 1999. That was needed. I am not going to repeat here the newspaper clips that colleague De Man has already discussed. However, this was necessary because, when one looks at the time spirit of 1998, there was some misunderstanding about the circular letter drawn up by the then Minister of Justice. I understand that. First, after all, the medium of a circular letter is good, but not isolated. Secondly, there were some ⁇ difficult to interpret elements in it. It was discussed on the lowest priority of persecution.

I read — as others did — in the newspapers of the time that it was said that the directive drowned the possession of hard drugs, that junkies are no longer automatically prosecuted, that magistrates do not know the drug world. In short, there was widespread criticism of the drug circulation. Mr. Van Parys then, in my opinion rightly, denied that his circular letter also contained any form of legalization of soft drugs. It is true, that was not in it. Furthermore, I think that the merit of that circular letter was that one had to begin to think about whether the problem that constituted the use of narcotic substances, of products that were listed as intended in the law of 1921 but subsequently amended, should be addressed.

The Government has kept the word. After all, in the security and detention plan of Minister Verwilghen, a whole chapter was devoted to the drug problem. It was then stated that, because this is also an undeniably important element for public health, this matter must also be considered from that side. It is from those two elements that eventually resulted in the so-called drug note, which preceded the law we now know.

I admit that that drug note is a little—per ⁇ a little—hypothesized by the way of representation. It has been a bit inconvenient to create the confusion. Indeed, it was uncomfortable from Mrs. Aelvoet. One day she was tempted to make statements about sweets. The other day she began on a drug note that actually referred to that topic. It is regrettable. This note did not deserve that at that time. I think that note was an incentive. It was a good initiative to what would later become the text of the law. Their

It is important that there is, first of all, a legal text. That is, there are clear normative rules in the area of criminal law. These poses a number of principles. Amendments were made, among other things, to the law of 1921, but also to the law on the police office. That is not insignificant. In addition – I will return to this later – there is not only the cooperation agreement, but there is and will also be a round-send letter. This cooperation agreement is of course important for the element of prevention. In the circular letter, some concepts will need to be refined. Their

I would like to immediately answer the question of why there is no mention of a number of grams in the law. This is precisely the reason that colleague Germeaux correctly put forward. The legislation is not very flexible. We all know what counter-strategies are used by organized crime. It is sufficient to increase the concentration in a particular product to escape it. Therefore, grams are not correctly defined in these laws. In any case, the Minister of Justice will have to indicate grams in his circular letter.

I would like to thank my colleague for the suggestion. The Minister of Justice can answer this. I had understood from the debates in the committees for justice and in the committee for public health that it was not appropriate to give the police officer an indication in the law or in the circular letter of the number of grams that was considered a user quantity. I think this position was also strongly defended by the Minister of Health. Colleague Coveliers, I hear you now say clearly that you think the Minister of Justice will have to say in his circular letter how many grams a possession is for own use. I understand this very well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the note of 13 November, signed by the ministers Verwilghen and Tavernier. On page 8, it says “The government has not intentionally set a maximum amount to avoid the signal that cannabis use is obvious, everyday or normal.” This is about the Directive.

You now say, contrary to what is stated here in this document, that Mr. Verwilghen will give in his directive a number of grams. Either you are telling the truth, or this is completely wrong. What is it actually?

Mr. De Man, I can explain to you why one will not escape from it. I need a few minutes of time for that. If you give me the opportunity to develop my reasoning on this, I will explain it to you. I think there should be a provision on this. One will have to come to a unity, to a measure. Their

Mrs. Van Weert is now gone. She may be going to smoke a cigarette. This is difficult for a liberal. I admit that. I think that when one assumes the idea that individual freedom should be as great as possible, it naturally wrinks every time one diminishes individual freedom. Then one says that one goes against a basic principle which one stands for as the regulation of society. The responsibility for this and the strange thing about a liberal view of justice is that precisely in order to guarantee security and to guarantee everyone the same possibility — not certainty — of security, one is obliged to impose a sanction on those who abuse freedom.

That is why we must act against it. That’s why we say that narcotic drugs — I mean the substances on the list — must remain banned. Why does this not apply to the other roasting agents? I am not talking about the roasting techniques, but only about the roasting agents. With the other substances — as some call alcohol, tobacco, and coffee — the freedom of others is not so restricted as yet, and the physical dependence is not so restricted that one should act as a community. That should remain within the freedom of choice, which does not prevent one from asking questions about the risks taken by people who excessively smoke or drink ordinary tobacco. We already put a brake on it by determining that one must not be drunk in traffic — subjective drunkenness — which we objectively establish by intoxication. Whether one should go further in the limitation of that freedom is in my opinion questionable, but we say, for example, that public drunkenness as such — that is a subjective appreciation — is prohibited. Sometimes quite severe fines can be imposed.

The motivation for continuing to prohibit these means is precisely the dependence that is created by them and the damage that can be caused, also to the individual as such, for which then the community must pay through care and the like. I think it is difficult to motivate to legalize these products. The assertion — which I believed for a half-minute years ago, when I studied criminology at the university — that legalization takes everything out of the criminal sphere, testifies to a totally wrong view of organized crime. We have established that the modern form of organized crime originated in the 1920s of the last century, in the United States, precisely during the drying. That drying has caused alcohol to become a prohibited product, which not only allowed alcohol to be stacked, but also transported and distributed. They provided gangs that could protect the alcohol transport and eventually they also went to corrupt — think of the famous figure of Eliot Ness — to try to do these things. By the way, from that period two very famous people emerged in the United States; on the one hand Al Capone and on the other Joseph Kennedy. You can see that this can be done on all sides.

I repeat, it is wrong to think that removing the illegality of the product will remove organized crime. That’s like the idea that by controlling all prostitution, prostitution is gone. That too is, I think, not correct. One must control it, but one should not have illusions with it. It would be the same to say that by removing all forms of property — let us follow Proudhon for a moment — we will also have no more theft. I think that the quality of life would then be so low that it cannot even be considered.

Our position is that drugs are prohibited. The only question we ask is how we should try to maintain that ban. This prohibition is ⁇ ined by seriously addressing organized crime. Anyone who follows the recent criminal history must admit that this form of crime has been identified for the first time — I admit that it is an evolution. You know what is happening, which is very valuable. Thanks to this crime analysis, a number of clarifications can also take place and a number of people can be caught. What is shown from this? That almost never anyone is condemned for the mere use of cannabis as such. I ⁇ won’t deny that there is related crime.

That some are committing a criminal act in the context of a rose, I do not deny. A condemnation, however, for mere use, that does not happen. This is one of the consequences of the circular letter. This must be mediated in order to clarify what we may want to allow — I will return to it soon — or I will express it differently: in order to clarify what we may not persecute. This must be clearly determined. Anyone who does it must know the risks they are taking. I repeat this because I think it is important. We live in a risk society, where a government can insure some but not all risks, where the participant in public life must be able to rely on the government to actually insure the risks it claims to insure. However, there are a number of risks that the government must clearly say that, when that risk is taken, that is for you and that you should not subsequently come to know about a treatment that is or is not correct. No, that risk is taken by oneself, time-bound, place-bound. This is an individual risk.

This is what the government’s action looks like, as the three documents show — they are very important: the law, the cooperation agreement and the circular letter. This is the policy that is being followed: serious combating organized crime, and of course prevention. Prevention is essential, but – in this regard I may differ from the previous speaker – it is only possible if one also keeps repression behind. When one says for prevention: you must not do it, but if you do it, I do not act, then that prevention fails.

Mr. Coveliers, I would like to address you as an expert on the problem of organized crime — and I mean nothing wrong with that; I did not say: an experienced expert. You say that organized crime will definitely have to be addressed properly. However, you know that organized crime is often associated with illegal drug trafficking. This is quite constant with all the mafia we know in our country. You know that our country is a fairly large turntable in this regard. We have that dubious reputation. Can you, however, explain to me why the Dutch perception would be wrong, and that when one dusts the question, and dusts the housekeeping, but for the rest leaves the circuit in the absolute illegality — frustration expressed by a number of colleagues who are in favor of legalization, we not therefore, — this attracted crime. Why would that argument, the Dutch experience that this exactly attracted the crime — thus a completely illegal circuit with a reasonable question and no punishment for any drug use — not apply in Belgium? Does that not lead you to the conclusion that you should not take the same step in Belgium? In your place, with your expertise in the field of organised crime, I would have reasoned that it would be better not to start there because the courage of demand and the creation of an illegal supply — mixed with a supply of all other drugs that involves it — in a country that is already a spin-off for this kind of illegal activity, is an incredible risk of organized crime.

You do not seem to share that argument. You seem to say that one can perfectly sweep the question, keep the rest in the illegality, and yet very efficiently fight the mafia. I honestly do not understand that.

Mr. Coveliers was shaking strongly when our CD&V colleague said that domestic farming will be tolerated. He shook strongly no. However, I think it can be inferred from the texts that a limited amount of cannabis plants will be allowed to be grown at home. Now Mr. Verwilghen also shakes no, but the Minister of Public Health has then again said that this should be possible. It is also stated in the texts, black on white.

Can we ask for clarity in this regard? So, says Mr. Coveliers, one wants to give clear clues regarding the use of cannabis. Therefore, we do not know how much cannabis one can have in his pocket. Maybe it will happen after the election, I don’t know. Furthermore, we must not have clarity as to whether cultivation is permitted or not. The VLD faction leader says no, the VLD minister says no, but the other government partners apparently say yes. That question must be answered!

( ... ...

Mr. Deseyn, you will also speak later. Wait a little while for the debate, let it know its normal course. Mr Coveliers was interrupted. Mr Coveliers has the word and at the end of the debate the two ministers speak. You can say one sentence.

In the committee I recently asked: can I now grow at home, and how much? The Minister of Health replied: Yes, of course, some plants, but if it is a whole plantation, then of course something will follow. He could not put a number on it yet, because that would only create difficulties. There is, therefore, a substantial difference from what the Minister of Justice claims. I think this is a very essential question and I would like to have an answer from the ministers involved.

It is all important, but now let Mr. Coveliers finish his reasoning.

I regret that after the ⁇ interesting social problem raised by colleague Vandeurzen, one begins to question me about a detail to which I will soon return. Mr. Man, let me speak. I don’t think organized crime will be promoted by growing cannabis. That is not true. Read the analyses on this. This is manifestly wrong.

Mr. De Man, it is not correct that you permanently interrupt someone who is developing some thoughts. I would like to allow that. Let him finish his reasoning. He knows the questions of Mr. Vandeurzen and Mr. Deseyn and yourself. He knows well. He is big enough to complete his reasoning. Mr Coveliers, you go on.

I will now respond to the question of colleague Vandeurzen, or try it anyway. I will also address the problem of house, garden and kitchen plants at this time, but not now.

I think it is an important problem. This is also made clear by the somewhat naive commentary of colleague Els Van Weert. You can, of course, eliminate any crime by forbidding nothing else. That is obvious, that is correct. In order to tackle organised crime 100% efficiently, you are right to say that everything is forbidden and is addressed as hard as possible. Although, one has tried to tackle all drug users hard and give a chance to escape. You know the law that stipulated that if one snatched his dealer, one would go freely. There are very few known cases — I believe a dozen — of people who have done so. That is right. What is the attempt you should weigh? I said that in the beginning. This is the question of what we may not be able to pursue. Therefore, it is not a question of courage, but of what we cannot pursue. What can we do if we know the criminal companies? In your region, for example, there are many xtc labs that export almost globally. They move and move very much, including to Dutch Limburg. It seems to have something to do with that area. Someone experienced it in a painful way, as you know, not so long ago. Modern criminal enterprises are primarily going to diversify and are not going to deal exclusively with one aspect of crime. They will simultaneously engage in human trafficking, antique theft, fraud and mention, plus – in this you are right – narcotic drugs. There will not be much distinction between which drugs. If you no longer pursue cannabis and allow a plant at home, then we have a chance that it will be less there. I think this has nothing to do with the approach to organized crime.

For these forms of crime, resources and modern police techniques are provided. I do not think that the failure to prosecute what I would like to describe so quickly will have any negative impact on the approach to organized crime. I know the position of Charles Dewinter which he put forward in the committee. I do not share that fully in that aspect, although I appreciate him as a police officer. Their

Another aspect is the supply of the warehouse system, from the dealers. I think it is a correct conclusion that there is almost a warehouse system. During the persecution, one must be very careful not to let one be deceived, for dealing in itself remains forbidden. Therefore, it is necessary to act against this. What is the situation? You have the prevention that is very important because you basically reach everyone with it. However, you should also have a repression that follows it, otherwise that approach will fail. What is being said about repression? We say that we will prosecute all possession of narcotic drugs, but we will only, under certain very limited circumstances, not prosecute the possession of a quantity of cannabis for one day — as it is literally stated, the quantity will then have to be specified in a circulation letter. Then I’m talking about property. The use of drugs is never prosecuted, only the possession, the trade or the creation. This is because someone who uses it per definition also owns it. Therefore, it is not mentioned anywhere in a legal text.

It is only a very small aspect if one says that only for cannabis a small amount is tolerated for daily use, if it does not mean inconvenience. This disturbance is specified with, first, the presence of minors. I totally disagree with the reduction of age. One must draw a limit and, in my opinion, the only socially accepted age for everything related to majority is 18 years. This applies to voting rights, to criminal liability and, in my opinion, to everything. 18 years seems to me a basic age, a threshold below which I think we cannot go. In the presence of minors, possession is therefore by definition inconvenience and by definition punishable. Their

What does this mean for a festival, because that’s what it’s about? I have discussed this with one of the candidates on one of the VLD lists. Well, then we go back to that risk theory. We have created clarity, which we may owe — I am sure to admit — to the experience of the previous letter of conversion and the difficulties resulting from it in the persecution. It taught us that we must clearly describe when not being persecuted and clearly say that everyone else is being persecuted. Only a certain piece we will not prosecute, where it is the owner of the product who takes the risk. Anyone who has cannabis in his pocket knows that there is a risk that he will be verbalized before that.

He knows that he can stand on a very large lawn, where one minor is present, and that there can be a substitute who will pursue him for that. If that happens, then one should not say: on Torhout-Werchter I am caught and on another pasture not. No, one has consciously taken that risk and the Criminal Code can therefore be applied when the public prosecutor considers that this should be done and when subsequently the judge considers that this should be done, based on the elements contained in the law.

The [...]

That is the problem of Mr. Mayeur.

The legislature will act in a matter where the preventive clear message is so important. If Mr. Mayeur comes here this morning to say the exact opposite of what Mr. Coveliers explains, then there is manifestly something wrong with the quality of our work. I don’t understand it well, Mr. Coveliers. You are now reducing the group who with the utmost certainty knows that they are committing a criminal offence, but are not being prosecuted. You make that group more compact and smaller.

I’m not talking about whether to shoot a mosquito with a cannon, that’s the prosecutor’s priorities. But why should we make such an exception to all the principles of our criminal procedure law for someone who commits a criminal offence — which can be small or large? To give some people the assurance that it is criminal, but that nothing can happen? To give the mafia a chance to bring through the push in the question a dynamic in the illegality of the supply? Why do you want to take that risk? Tell me that.

I think there are two reasons for this. First, because from the past it has been shown that persecuting everyone is apparently completely impossible. The disadvantage of the previous round letter was that because of that impossibility — at least, those who had to apply it so stated — others who had to be persecuted were not persecuted.

Why do we do this? Because we do not by definition want to take away a pleasure opportunity from someone. There are x numbers of people who do so, who in those circumstances do not cause any social damage and therefore do not represent any additional risk and who do not diminish the freedom of someone else. Then our judicial system and our research force should not focus on this. We can better use them to address, among other things, a number of major forms of organized crime with related fraud and the like.

That is why, Mr Vandeurzen. That is also why we say very clearly: Narcotic drugs that are on the list are prohibited, only will not be prosecuted in those circumstances. If you are still taking cannabis, it is up to you to ensure that you remain within those circumstances.

If a public prosecutor subsequently proves that you fall outside those circumstances and the judge acknowledges that, then that is your risk and you must also act for it. That is precisely the essence of this text.

( ... ...

Mr Vandeurzen, I know that you, like many other colleagues, are very motivated about this debate in this Chamber, but it is also difficult for the speaker.

I have no problem...

I know, but Mr. Vandeurzen...

If these are reasonable questions, such as those of Mr Vandeurzen, I have no problem with them.

I would like to hear your opinion on this point and also that of Mr. Erdman. You say that if someone walks around with a user quantity of cannabis, he should make the following estimate: if the policeman finds it is too much, he can draw up a process-verbal and turn on the parquet. In the worst case, the prosecutor will bring you to court. You say that if you only own that number of users, the judge cannot punish you. You also say that in the report, I read it well and I quote it here: "...Immers, in the future, possession of a quantity of cannabis for personal use — no annoyance, no problematic use — will no longer be punishable. Now I find that personally — and I look at colleague Erdman — completely contrary to the letter of the text. In the Justice Committee — and you know that very well, Mr. Erdman — you have said that the prosecutor has all freedom. If he is informed by another source about the fact that someone owns a user volume, he can perfectly condemn him, as it remains punishable.

Look, these are now two eminent lawyers from two majority parties. One says that ordinary use is no longer criminal, something that has never been said in recent years, but now by Mr. Coveliers. Mr. Erdman has said that on the basis of this law the prosecutor who becomes aware of the fact by a circumstance other than the process-verbal, he can punish, because it remains punishable. What should I think of these two interpretations? You have to explain it to me.

I will try to clarify it with an example that falls outside the drug field, but has to do with criminal law. You know that theft between spouses does not exist, even if one is married with a contract of separation of property. If one of the spouses takes away a property thinking that it belongs to his husband or wife, but it later turns out to be even partially owned by a third party, it becomes punishable. That is exactly what I mean. The law says that one will not be prosecuted under certain circumstances. If anyone assumes the responsibility to do so anyway, it will be up to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to see, within the framework of the prosecution policy and within the framework of an efficient use of the prosecution and prosecution capabilities – what is so well called the integral quality assurance that is observed by the Prosecutor General – whether it makes sense to bring that man or woman before the court. Then the judge will still have to judge whether or not one falls under the exception inscribed in this law.

You cannot tell the judge what to do. I have learned from experience that when the judge makes his judgment or judgment, one can interpret it later, but one can hardly say in advance that he should this or that. He will therefore have the opportunity to speak on this issue, even if it is only based on Article 151 of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I would like to briefly say a few things about the registration. I’m not going to talk about discomfort anymore, because we’ve already talked about it. It is a subjective concept, which is obvious.

Mr. Coveliers opposed anonymous registration at the beginning. He now points out that the judge will decide, but on the basis of anonymous registration he will be very difficult to do that. I look forward to your explanation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Man, you know that within the framework of a vision on the enforcement of a limited number of standards, one also has a vision on what Justice should actually do, what the prosecutor’s office, the police should do, and what one submits to the court. Not what the judge should do. That is their job, and the legislator should not interfere with it. That is exactly what it is about. There is an amendment, rightly, to Article 40 of the Law on the Police Office. What does this text say? That text says that police officers — inspectors we must now say — must make process-verbals of all facts that come to their hearing and transmit them to the king’s prosecutor. The only thing that is said in this text is that when, under certain circumstances, an adult uses a daily dose — which will be further described in units in the circular letter — there is no inconvenience, and so on, the agent must not draw up a process-verbal. What does that mean? In any normal police organization, one determines on the basis of the criminal analysis that one receives, on the basis of the response of the client, which is the population, what prosecution policy one is going to develop. There, therefore, one will tell the agents under what circumstances they should not draw up a process-verbal, but register. Simply register that and then it will be transmitted monthly to the Prosecutor’s Office so that the Prosecutor’s Office, if so desired, may start taking more targeted actions.

This is the same with a number of other elements. For example, when one is going to find that certain environmental crimes are ⁇ , registered, including by police officers, then they will not immediately draw up a process-verbal, but rather take targeted actions to be able to act there too. This is called the efficiency of criminal law in which one begins to calculate what it means what one uses on behalf of the community to try to maintain a certain norm and what the result of it is. Then one comes to the determination of the criminal policy when one goes to fit the efficiency of the criminal law there. There are other texts that will be discussed here soon, which deal with global problems, where one should ask the same question about the efficiency of criminal law, by the way.

The question is: is it efficient, what will we do now? We will talk about this when these texts come up here. That is the reason for the registration.

Mr. Coveliers should be correct. The registration provided for in Article 16 shall be the anonymous registration. This is not the autonomous police handling in which the prosecutor’s office or the police officer has some information with them and completes a number of investigative acts to then transmit the file to the prosecutor’s office. The point is that he cannot tell the prosecutor who committed the fact. The intention was clear: the chain of justice, which begins with a determination that should allow the prosecutor to respond, cannot start. In my view, there is nothing written in the law about the prohibition of prosecution. I do not think. I will with great pleasure again ask this question to colleague Erdman later.

I would like to ask you again for clarification. This question is also addressed to the Minister of Health. In your new article, which deviates from article 40 of the Police Act, you say: "In derogation from that article, in the case of the establishment of possession by a major, and so on, the... It has only been registered by the police.” You now say that this means that the police officer should not verbalize. If he does not have to, he can register anonymously. I would have liked to know that. Is this the interpretation that the Minister of Health gives to this? I do not see the usefulness of this whole exercise. Is it true that, according to the Minister of Health, it is stated that, if a police officer catches someone with a joint, he still decides that he can draw up a PV, even if he considers it a number of users? He doesn’t have to make a PV, but he can make one. Is it that, Mr. Tavernier?

This is obvious, Mr Vandeurzen.

I ask this to the Minister.

Is this question less high because you are asking it to Mr. Tavernier?

I think it is important to take the text as it is. You need to take it literally. I believe that it is stated: is passed to. Then I fully follow the reasoning of Mr. Coveliers. What is actually the intention? That is, if through registration, establishing and noting a number of things, you notice that a global problem may potentially increase, you can take targeted actions, efficiently, not based on a mountain of paper, but based on records of which you report monthly. That is the intention. This way you will get an overview and move on to actions if necessary. I therefore fully follow the reasoning of Mr Coveliers.

This is a difficult debate. We should not have a debate in the debate. I ask the Minister not to answer until the speakers have done. I will be able to answer after the debate. You cannot hold a debate in the debate with a speaker who is interrupted every time. This is not the case, you know. The Minister will answer and then the Chamber will have a replica. Mr. Vandeurzen, for the last time and then Mr. Coveliers will decide.

What the Minister of Health says is very important. Mr. Coveliers’s statement concerned the determination of a user volume in the majority with non-problematic use and no inconvenience. Mr. Tavernier says the text is clear in his opinion. There must be no process-verbal and there must be registration. Mr. Coveliers says the opposite, namely, there must be no process-verbal, it must be there. These are two completely different interpretations. Regarding this registration, Mr. Tavernier, I do not understand it altogether. How can one now a month later say that it was problematic and needs to be further investigated if one doesn’t even know about...

On the last point, you misunderstood the Minister. There is no single police service that simply sends its agents out on the streets to pick up everything they can make proceedings. I hope at least. There is indeed — I think — consultation about what should be done and how it should be done on the basis of analyses, neighborhood meetings, the crime analysis that takes place there, newspaper reports and let’s mention. Based on this, it will be said what exactly is the task of a number of police officers. So if you say to the police officers that they should focus on drug possession, you will tell them that, if they think it does not fall under that, they have the right to draw up a process-verbal. It is the same with someone who is parked incorrectly. There are a lot of police officers who then — rightly or wrongly, I will not speak about that — decide not to draw up a process-verbal for that. This is decided by the policeman himself. When it happens very often that the same traffic impairment occurs in a certain place, one will take action. Mutatis mutandis this can be compared with this system. Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to...

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the statement of Mr. Coveliers. In that sense, it is true that a police officer who establishes a crime has the choice to draw up a trial record or not. For example, following a traffic offence, the police officer may decide that it does not seem bad enough to draw up a trial record. Is this so?

You know as well as I, Mr. Van Parys, that this is indeed a daily practice. Nor can it be otherwise. Otherwise, one will not be able to send any police patrol in the city because they will have to wait at every corner to draw up a trial record for a car that is wrongly parked. That is precisely one of the opportunities and one of the provisions in the criminal policy, in the police policy that must be observed. Otherwise, they come to the police who become all crime fighters and catch nothing more. That is the problem. I thought we had gone away from it for a long time.

This means an entirely new position regarding the opportunity principle. If this statement is correct, it means that the police will judge on the opportunity of drawing up or not drawing up a trial record, although at the moment Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the prosecutor’s office the opportunity to prosecute or not, but not to the police to make an opportunity consideration on this subject. I must tell you that at this moment we have truly completely forgotten the principles. Colleague Coveliers, I have always appreciated you for your knowledge of the matter. There can be no dispute about the fact that, when the police services establish a crime, for any crime, they must draw up a process-verbal and that it is then up to the prosecutor’s office to consider the possibility of prosecution. If your statement is correct, then we are in the “police pocket”. Then the police will be able to judge to what extent a process-verbal is drawn up. Sorry, but this is really contra legem, this is really against all the provisions that are currently applicable. I understand that it is not easy to obtain an explanation of what is the task of the police services in relation to crimes related to the drug issue, but to come now to the conclusion that the police would have the possibility to draw up or not process-verbal... I am asking for an act of that in the report. Then the confusion is not only total about the drug issue, but also about the entire prosecution policy.

This arrangement makes it possible for me to argue in the future that the police services, for whatever circumstances, have misformulated the process-verbal.

Absolutely not.

With regard to the drug issue, you have created the total confusion, the chaos. Because you are in trouble with the Greens and the Socialists, you come back to the legality principle. Article 29 exists or does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that the hackketket among the lawyers present brings little sorts to the dig. What people need is clear language! (Hilarity to CD&V) Colleagues of CD&V, I would like to refer to the circular letter of Mr Van Parys, at that time Minister of Justice, on the simplified process-verbal. I quote: “These simplified process verbals will be compiled, recorded, printed, stored and stored by the verbalizing police service together with any annexes. Depending on the amount of process verbals, a listing of all the simplified process verbals will be sent to the parquet every two weeks or every month". Mr. Van Parys, please admit that it was also not your intention that all of these would be reviewed again by the parquet. In that same note you state that contact with the police service that verbalizes — which is now registering — should be considered as a sufficient warning and reminder of the standard for the user. Whether the police officer verbalizes or records, for the ordinary man in the street, there is no difference between! Even if the police only register, he is reminded of the norm. This is about it!

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Mrs. Van de Casteele refers to the circulation letter because this allows me to get into it. The circular letter was the result of the discussions within the Working Group Drugs which in this Chamber has thoroughly functioned among all democratic groups of Parliament. The circular letter is very clear.

During the hearings, the ambiguity and the different interpretations of that letter of reference were repeatedly pointed out.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to quote the circular letter ... It might not be bad to at least try to listen to each other. Of course, this is not easy in this Parliament.

In the circular letter it is stated that, when one makes a determination of simple use, the verbalisers must draw up a simplified process verb. This is a fundamental difference from the new regulation. In case of simple use or when determining the use of cannabis for personal use, a simplified process-verbal should be drawn up. What happens to this simplified process-verbal? These are sent monthly to the parket. Why are these monthly transmitted to the parket? Because on the basis of this registration it can be verified to what extent there is indeed a problematic use or not. At this moment, in the new situation, no process-verbal is formed. How could the parquet then be able to establish regular or regular use? This was the very clear line. Mrs. Van de Casteele, this simplified process-verbal was indeed the only right way, as you also cited.

If you do not want to listen, of course, we can never come to a valid discussion about this problem.

What was the purpose of this simplified process-verbal? It is in the circulation letter and you have quoted it. The intention was a confrontation with the norm and a warning, because at least we assume that no conclusion can remain without reaction. In establishing a simple use, it was very clear that the verbalisant must point out to the person who committed the infringement that he could not do so. This is the fundamental change with what is now in the law. Now it is stated that we do not react and that it can actually not harm and that one can continue.

Confrontation, warning, reminder of the norm. Since there was a record that was transmitted monthly to the parket, the parket was then able to determine the repeated use based on the individualized record in the simplified process verb and then could set the policy of prosecution, respectively, to the aid service and the parket. This was the line of the circular letter which, Mrs. Van de Casteele, was the result of the discussion in the Working Group Drugs with which the party to which you belonged at the time also fully agreed. The line was therefore ⁇ clear and different from the current given in the sense that the response was assured and that there always had to be a personalized process-verbal. Now this is no longer the case at all.

I must remind you that Mr Coveliers is speaking. It has been interrupted and there has been a discussion between the minister and colleagues, which, though, was about important matters. On the length, however, one will ask the Service of the Integral Report what Mr. Coveliers did during that time on the speaker’s seat.

Mr Coveliers has the word.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone asks this question, I would like to make it clear before the report that I encouraged the discussion. I made sure that the discussion was resolved.

I would like to answer two elements to what colleague Van Parys said and then I turn around. The theoretical approach to the police work he has brought forward, of course, cannot withstand the test of reality. In no police organization can one expect police officers to verbalize and transmit all crimes — I emphasize the word crimes, for so it is said. As there is an opportunity principle for the prosecutor’s office, this also reflects on the police services. That is precisely why, colleague Van Parys, there is not only an internal control of the police, but also an external control. That’s exactly to check and make sure this doesn’t slip away.

Second, there is indeed a distinction. That’s right, and I want to write that on your credit. You don’t have to be so ridiculous now, because I just found it an interesting comment. Your body language, as Mr. De Crem tells me, now disappoints me greatly, because it expresses a misunderstanding that I did not expect from you and that does not correspond to your normal reactions. Their

There is indeed a distinction between the abbreviated process-verbal, as stated in the circular letter of the government before 1999, and the registration from now on. I would like to point out that the general reaction in the newspapers at the time was also roughly identical. It was also said that the shortened process-verbal does not attract anything. Their

What has been shown? Indeed, there is not much flowing out of it. Those lists of abbreviated processes-verbal were indeed applied to the parquet and they put them aside, ⁇ rightly, within the framework of the principle of opportunity. In the most favorable case, they put those things on chips to see after a while if those individuals have had anything to do with cannabis if they encounter them again in a case. This is an option that has been taken now. The principle is that drugs are prohibited. There is a small exception, especially all those things. When someone takes that risk, it is up to the verbalisant to possibly say that he is registering. This can be done in cases where there is no discomfort, where there are no minors, where there is no problematic use. We believe that registration as a response from society to this is sufficient. It can be responded, including through the system of the judicial case manager. That system ensures that that repression is viewed from the right perspective. Their

Even after your circular letter it is written that the prison is the ultimum remedy and with it we are — I think — all agreed. After all, even the prison is usually not drug-free. This, by the way, applies to all of Europe. We must therefore try to remedy this through a number of mediation systems or through a number of aid systems. That is the difference between your circular letter and what is now decided in those three elements. Then a name was mentioned and now there is only a record of place and space, which one may later possibly use for targeted actions, if necessary. I repeat that this is a non-problematic use, in which no minors are present and in which no inconvenience is caused. In the other case, there is a process-verbal. I would like to conclude by thanking my intervenants. Through them my argument was substantiated much more than I had initially anticipated. Nothing is so bad as standing talking without giving someone the impression that it interests them. Their

In summary, I would like to say that the fact that we as liberals agree with this text has not just been taken out of the air. We have done this from our vision of basic values, which are ⁇ not imposed on us by the afterlife, Mr. Leterme. That is already one advantage.

The [...]

It was so in your time with the PS, but with us it is not so anymore. We have a liberal vision, in which we say that we must create as much freedom as possible. Precisely in order to create that freedom, we must ensure that it is not mortgaged by abuse of the freedom of others. Their

This is about citizens who can participate in the community, hence the reserves that must be made for minors and for certain disabled persons. The others participate in the community with the awareness of a number of risks, some of which are covered by the community, but also some not. We want to convey this clearly as a message. He who thinks that this small exception should be used, takes that risk and must bear the consequences himself. In this view, we approve this law.

I would like to correct one thing. If Mr. Van Parys says that in the previous legislature I approved the then drug note, then that is true. However, I would like to make it clear that we did not approve the Minister’s notice at the time. We said at the time that the non-problematic use of cannabis should be given the lowest priority, but the completion of it through the circulation letter was an implementation under the head of the then minister.

In my interpretation, dear colleagues, what the current government is doing is just as well an implementation of the guidelines or of the conclusions and recommendations we made then. If you are objective, you will need to find out that this is not so far apart and that after an evaluation of the current scheme, we will do some upgrades, in accordance with what we agreed at the time. None of us has the truth in hand. We were looking for a golden middle. I think this is still the golden middle.

The Chair: Now very briefly Mr Van Parys and then Mr Bacquelaine. You, Mr Van Parys, have four speakers. I know that it is something in which you have been personally responsible, though in the circumstances you have explained. Please keep it very short. Then Mr Bacquelaine takes the floor. Anyone who comes to speak has the right to speak. This is a debate. This is not a deaf pot operation. Here are internet cameras, journalists and there is the integral report. What I say is what you say, Mr. Van Parys. A short response to Mrs. Van de Casteele and then Mr. Bacquelaine.

It is not a matter of looking in the heart or not. It is about what is in the texts. I would like to point out again very clearly what is the difference between the scheme in the circulation letter that was a resultant of the working group that existed in the previous legislature and the current scheme. The difference is that when there is a finding of easy-to-use, at that point the police services had to draw up a simplified process-verbal. These simplified processes-verbal formed, among other things, the identity of the person who committed the offence. These simplified processes-verbals were handed over monthly to the prosecutor’s office which at that time ruled about the prosecution. The current situation is that when establishing simple use no process-verbal is formed, that there is no single registration of the identity so that it is also impossible to establish a repeated use later. That is the fundamental difference. Their

In the so hated past in which one has collaborated — something that one can hardly admit at this moment — every use gave rise to a reaction. It is, of course, not less that in respect of those who commit an offence, the verbaliser gives the warning and appeals to the norm to say that this cannot be done, that this is punishable and that this will cause the verbalized disadvantage. In this way, a prosecution or a call for assistance could also be organised in the event of a new infringement. This is very concrete what was stated in the circulation letter and with which all democratic parties in the previous legislature agreed.

Now they are getting away from this. That one then bears the consequences of the attitude that one adopts. Now it is the case that one no longer does that registration nominatim and that in this way even the repeated use can no longer be established.

The Chairman: You expressed your position very clearly. The word is now to Mr. Bacquelaine.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, after hearing, on several occasions, the long-term argument developed by some, I believe that many of us have questioned the exact scope of the text that is submitted to us.

Finally, the question is what will be, in the future, the policy of prosecution for cannabis possession. Other aspects of federal drug policy are somewhat neglected. It is only on the question of the policy of prosecution in the case of cannabis that the work of the commission has focused. This, of course, was the will of the opposition: to dismiss all decisions made in the field of prevention and assistance and, in some way, to give the impression to the citizens that the current government is showing a true policy of tolerance.

Does this really correspond to the intentions of the government? Honestly, I do not think so. Is this a break from the 1998 directive — this is all the debate I hear this afternoon — taken by the two previous ministers of justice? I also do not think so. We continue to follow the conclusions of the Working Group on Drugs.

( ... )

I have perfectly heard what you said. I would like to ask for a little tolerance. It is not because you say something that you are necessarily right.

The [...]

I will come back to it in detail. I understand that this annoys you, but what is the triptyque proposed by the government?

We can regret that environmentalists including the former health minister, Ms. Aelvoet, made unfortunate statements. Some of his statements have sowed confusion in the public mind with regard to the policy implemented by the government.

Currently Mr. Tavernier is reorienting things, in collaboration with the Minister of Justice, to remove this ambiguity.

As part of the philosophy of the Federal Drug Policy Note, the fundamental message the government has wanted to implement and convey is unambiguous. All drugs, whether legal or illegal, are dangerous substances. Their consumption should be avoided because they involve intrinsically risks. Cannabis, like alcohol and tobacco, is not a harmless product. by

With regard to cannabis holding, it seems to me appropriate to put the pendul on time. I repeat, the former minister of public health had clamored, sometimes loud and loud, that this was a real decriminalization of the possession of cannabis. She even called for some “general play” in this matter. I remember that expression. However, I think the decision made by the government is much more nuanced.

The possession of cannabis remains an offence. On the other hand, amendments and clarifications have been made to the prosecution policy. The government’s bill provides for a new type of punishment. This will be lighter, applicable to import, manufacture, transport, acquisition, possession of cannabis or cultivation of cannabis plants for personal consumption. Therefore, the possession of cannabis remains an offence, even if this detention is only for personal consumption.

Now, let’s get to the action of the police. If a police officer surprises a person holding a quantity of cannabis, he must check whether the quantity held is intended for personal consumption or not. At this stage, an operational criterion has been defined. The draft directive defines what is understood by “detention for personal consumption”. It will be considered to be a possession of cannabis for personal consumption, the possession of a quantity that can be consumed only once or, at most, within 24 hours.

However, the preceding directive allowed, according to Mr. Van Parys, the amount of cannabis we wanted. In your simplified protocol procedure, no quantity criteria were defined. It was even possible to make traffic outside of its own consumption. Police officers could make a simplified record in extremely lax conditions. It could be discussed for a long time to see which directive will be the strictest or laxest in the matter. The government having made a decision based on a certain method, you have now decided to consider your directive as different, more precise, less lax.

I will give the explanation in Dutch. I have great confidence in the translation which is always excellent. Do you listen in Dutch, Mr. Bacquelaine?

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the debate we are currently conducting is extremely important because on the basis of these discussions the law will be interpreted. Based on this debate, our police officers will have to examine what their exact mission is in relation to findings related to the drug issue. I repeat that this debate is of the utmost importance because on the basis of these preparatory texts on which we are currently working, police officers know what to do. This is a ⁇ important fact with regard to the whole drug issue.

We now see that the Chairman of the VLD Group states that the police services should not take any initiative with regard to certain findings relating to drug use and that they have the opportunity to do what they want to do. Mr Bacquelaine, on the other hand, argues that police officers should take the initiative and draw up a trial record when a crime is established. These are two positions that line straight opposite each other. Imagine the situation of a modal agent in Antwerp, Gent, Brakel or the Welsh region who faces this problem after the law, the decision and the circular letter have come into being. The agent knows that one politician claims that a process-verbal must be drawn up and the other politician leaves him completely free in it. Which line should he follow? This is the challenge of the debate. Their

Mr. Minister of Justice, I would like to ask you a few questions. First, a global police officer has...

Mr. Van Parys, it has always been that the Minister answers at the end of the debate. Then you have the opportunity to replicate. Otherwise it will not. Your questions are recorded.

No, Mr. President, I ask the Minister very clearly ...

Mr. Van Parys, you have been a minister. The Minister responds at the end of the debate. I will make sure that the ministers give a full answer.

In this discussion, the Minister of Justice must answer...

He will answer later.

I have not yet asked my question. How can the Minister then answer if he has not even heard my question!

Mr. President, I continue because Mr. Van Parys pretends not to understand.

Mr. Van Parys, you do not have the word.

A little bit of tolerance!

Mr Van Parys, you will be registered for the debate. I write you in! You are registered as a speaker at the end of the debate.

Despite this attempt at obstruction, I continue the thread of my speech.

If a policeman surprises a person who holds a quantity of cannabis, he will check if the quantity is intended for personal consumption. At this stage, an operational criterion is defined. The draft directive defines what is understood by “detention for personal consumption”. It shall be considered as possession of cannabis for personal consumption the possession of a quantity that can be consumed only once or at most within 24 hours. This is an essential criterion as it will contribute to the uniformization of the prosecution policy. If the possession of cannabis for personal consumption is not accompanied by any problematic consumption or any public annoyance, the police will then proceed to a simple finding. Declaration of the offence (Interruption of the I am here, Mr. Van Parys.

Let him speak; he will tell you.

I am explaining. You are an example of intolerance. The constatation of the infringement will then be recorded in the intelligence book, what is called the “current hand” of the policeman, who will then transfer this information to the police computer system anonymously. An anonymous summary report will be sent monthly to the Prosecutor’s Office.

On the other hand, if this possession of cannabis for personal consumption is actually accompanied by problematic consumption or social distress or, for example, aggravating circumstance such as consumption in the presence of minors...

If everyone here would be interrupted who says crazy things, then you should often interrupt. You are registered and can speak later.

I ask for a bit of calm, of 02.98 reserve, of serenity. There is no need to go beyond the limits of self-control in this matter. It’s a bit like for cannabis consumption, you have to keep a chance to manage your own emotion, your own reflection!

So I repeat. If the possession of cannabis for personal consumption is actually accompanied by a problematic consumption — which will be defined — or a public annoyance — which will also be defined, which was not the case before — or aggravating circumstances, including consumption in the presence of minors, the police will then draw up an ordinary record that it will forward to the public prosecutor. At this stage, the government has shown a concern for clarification, giving a definition as accurate as possible of two key concepts that are problematic consumption and public annoyance.

The notion of problematic consumption covers consumption that no longer allows the consumer to control its consumption, which is manifested by psychological or physical symptoms in particular. The notion of public harassment generally refers to Article 135 of the new municipal law. This concept refers to the forms of serious disturbances of public order that normally do not fall within the scope of the criminal law. The most commonly cited examples are noise disturbance, tapping, verbal aggression, impelling others in public or urinating in public — this is one of the examples recalled in this article 135. However, it is also considered to be a public harassment the possession of cannabis in a prison institution, in the premises of a social service or a school establishment, as well as in their immediate vicinity or in other places frequented by minors, for school, sports or social purposes.

When the Prosecutor’s Office is seized, it will be able to direct the person concerned to the so-called “Case Manager Justice” whose role will be to ensure, from the House of Justice, the monitoring of the problem of drugs and drug addiction, as well as the cooperation with the assistance sector. This "case manager justice" will address a therapeutic counselor who will be charged, for his part, to give an opinion. Depending on the nature, combination and severity of the facts, as well as the personality of the person concerned and the opinion of the therapeutic counselor, the magistrate of the prosecutor’s office shall take the measures he considers appropriate. To the extent possible, the cannabis owner, suffering from problematic consumption, will be directed to the assistance sector.

These measures can be of several types: classification without follow-up after referral to a specialized service of assistance, pretorian probation, the extinction of public action after payment of a sum of money or even criminal mediation.

Of course, the options of the government I have just outlined concern only the major. As far as children are concerned, nothing has changed. If a minor is arrested in consumption or possession of cannabis, aid and protection measures may be taken against him. Offences committed by minors remain within the jurisdiction of the Youth Court. The Minister of Secondary Education in the French Community has also recalled, justly and firmly, that drugs do not have their place in schools and that safety measures must be strengthened.

Is the policy defended by the government resolutely — I think the debate is about that — in rupture with the previous policy and with the previous directive? In other words, has the government engaged in the path of laxism? Again, I do not think so. For what reasons did the government decide to review the criminal policy pursued by the 1998 Directive? For what reasons is Parliament preparing to review this criminal policy? Paradoxically, this directive, rather than ensuring some harmonization at the level of the judicial districts, has resulted in an uneven repression of the possession of drugs and more ⁇ of cannabis.

The 1998 Directive was extremely vague in terms of the description of the different categories and thus left too much discretion to the police services and the prosecutors with the consequence that the police services and the prosecutors defined differently, from one region to another or from one place to another, the concepts used.

As regards the concept of detention for personal consumption, police services and prosecutors used divergent criteria that varied from one district to another. The main criteria used were the quantity, the results of the survey, the social and economic situation of the person concerned. As for the quantity, it has been found, it should be remembered, that the criteria used in the different districts of the country for cannabis varied from 5 to 50 grams! There was, therefore, a total let-go from this blurred and ambiguous directive of ministers Van Parys and De Clerck. What was the consequence? Some police officers sometimes considered that 50 grams was the criterion for personal consumption. This was obviously unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask Mr. Bacquelaine where the rule concerning the 50 grams was inscribed in the circulation letter? Can Mr. Bacquelaine tell me where in the circulation letter there was 50 grams.

In fact, it was not the case. That is what I blame. No operational criteria were defined. This is a problem. Some police officers considered that personal consumption was 50 grams, others that it was 5 grams, others even 20 grams.

Mr. Speaker, can I try to clarify to Mr. Bacquelaine what was in the circular letter? In particular, a process-verbal must always be drawn up, whether it was less or more than 50 grams? As soon as that process-verbal was drawn up, it was transmitted to the Prosecutor’s Office. Today it is the case that there is no process-verbal preparation and that therefore, of course, there can no longer be any response. This is what you have achieved in this government and with this new arrangement: there will no longer be a response from the prosecutor’s office, because the prosecutor’s office is no longer informed in the absence of a trial-verbal. This is the new thing you have organized.

I am well aware of this directive. I would like to remind you that I was the Vice-President of the Working Group on the Problem of Drugs and that your directive was derived in particular from the conclusions of this Working Group. I have closely followed the development of this issue. by

What I find is that the situation that prevailed under your directive led police officers to sometimes consider that the possession of 40 or 50 grams of cannabis allowed to follow a simplified protocol compared to the ordinary protocol. It was given as a message that detention up to 30, 40 or 50 grams was not worth an ordinary record, but rather a simplified record. This message was therefore very toxic and, in the case of drugs, this is the case to say. Now, someone who will hold 50 grams will have an ordinary, not simplified record.

I think one is mistaken when one considers that the situation we describe now brings a danger compared to a certain let-go. It is quite the opposite, it was your directive that brought laxism and a possibility of considering that there was no need for an ordinary record when someone held 50 grams. So it was much worse. by

It seems to me a little easy now to pretend that things are transformed into a kind of general laxism. It is quite the opposite. Now we define criteria that are much more in line with reality. Someone who holds a quantity of 2 or 3 grams of cannabis, i.e. a daily consumption, will actually see an anonymous finding. It is true that we will not initiate a judicial circuit that will occupy the prosecutor’s office, on an extremely minor offence. by

In your system, it sometimes happened that the prosecutor’s office, taking the pretext that the minutes were simplified and not ordinary, could let things go for much larger consumptions and detentions than will be the case today.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I understand the outrage of colleague Van Parys very well. That one can deal with the truth in such a way and that one can distort things in such a way as here is unimaginable. A simplified process verb, Mr. Bacquelaine, has exactly the same legal value as a process verb that is one page longer. It contains the identity of the person concerned and the other elements, which were very accurately written. In terms of legal quality, this makes no difference.

Why did you make a difference if, for you, there is no difference between a simplified verbal process and an ordinary verbal process? If you say to yourself that there is no difference, it was really rolling the population to make them believe that there was a difference, while there is no difference...

Mr. Speaker, if I follow Mr. Bacquelaine’s reasoning, we will face the greatest repression here in the coming years.

Then in Brussels one will suddenly follow a completely different strategy. That 5 grams should not even be mentioned, because we can not say how much it is. We cannot say how much it is and how many plants it is. We also do not know exactly what is problematic.

Mr. Bacquelaine, when I hear you, it will become much stricter. The only problem is that everyone thinks that now everything is allowed and that all emergency workers and the police say the fence is from the dam. When one asks an ordinary lawyer whether one is now installing a police policy, he answers: “This is the first time in Belgium that for a particular crime is said that the police cannot do their normal work and that they cannot write it down in the normal way. It is the first time that a genuine drug policy is organised in Belgium."I understand very well that a normal and excellent lawyer such as Mr. Van Parys thus goes against the ceiling.

Mr Vandeurzen, it is quite the opposite. We make a distinction between personal consumption and detention for traffic, which was not the case or was completely blurred in the previous directive. Now it will be clear that in the case of someone who holds a quantity that can reasonably be judged to correspond to personal consumption and not to a traffic activity, we will probably not trigger the judicial apparatus, we will probably not put these consumers in prison. We will arrange to direct them, if necessary, if there is a problematic consumption, to the assistance sector rather than to the judicial sector, that is true.

On the other hand, previously, there was a total blur, a total ambiguity in relation to this notion of personal consumption. There was a message that was not clear at all. If you speak today of a vague and ambiguous message to the public, it is your fault. It is you who deliver this message, it is not the government, it is not the majority. It is you who say that from now on everything will be permitted, which is contrary to the truth and contrary to the texts of the law. It is you who trigger this operation that is intellectually dishonest.

Mr. Bacquelaine, the definition of problematic use was also in the previous email. Only you have now changed that definition. Where previously a repeated use, not only of cannabis, but also of heroin, cocaine and other drugs, was called a problematic use, this is no longer the case in your new definition.

Repeated use is no longer problematic in itself. Mrs. Van de Casteele has also confirmed that.

Marc Verwilghen: Mr. Speaker, colleague Vandeurzen, I think it is very clear that any other form of drugs other than cannabis can always be considered as problematic use. It is always so. There is no exception to this.

As regards problematic consumption, I recall that, previously, this notion merely referred to the persistence of consumption and to this notion of poor socio-economic integration – I will be explained what this means – or to consumption accompanied by other offences. In fact, it seems to me that a consumption accompanied by other offences implies that the offences in question must be prosecuted. Consumption of cannabis or other drugs does not exempt from compliance with the law. It would therefore be a bit easy to consider that someone who commits an offence because he would be a drug user should escape the penalty, this is obviously not the case. Crimes must be prosecuted, whether there is drug use or not.

With regard to the concept of social harassment, the most frequently used criterion previously was the existence of a drug-related crime. Here, we introduce more precision in the notion of public harassment, in particular in relation to the disturbance of public tranquility and freedom of others. I believe it is important to distinguish between a consumption that simply induces a personal behavior, without affecting in any way the freedom of others, and a personal consumption that induces behaviors that disrupt the freedom of others and, therefore, a real social inconvenience.

Both the measures provided for by the 1998 Directive and the vague criteria and the conceptual framework likely to result in divergent interpretations proved insufficient. It must be said that this directive was a failure. The vague nature of its conceptual framework has resulted in a fragmented approach, differentiated from place to place. Each prosecutor interpreted the directive according to its policy. Therefore, it was in no way a question of uniformity of the prosecutions. The peculiarity of this Directive was precisely that, within the framework of the policy pursued, everything was always possible.

The Government’s intention was therefore to correct this Directive and to enact criteria and concepts much clearer and better defined in an operational manner, in order to leave much less room for arbitration and to establish a greater harmonisation of the practices of the prosecutors in this matter. Each pre-defined category shall be covered by a specific procedure involving, as far as possible, the sector of assistance.

With regard to the consumption of other illicit drugs, a clear distinction must be made between detention for the purpose of trafficking for purely profit and detention for personal consumption. The consumer must not be imprisoned. The prisons were not designed to accommodate specific categories of prisoners with problems such as drug addicts. Experts are convinced that imprisonment is not the most appropriate way to end drug use or, for a greater reason, to treat a drug addiction.

Permit me, my colleagues, to cite a few extracts from the 1998 Directive in support of my argument.

Note that the positions of the current opposition and the majority regarding the very basis of the assessment of the objectives to be pursued do not fundamentally differ. There is simply a clarification effort, a uniformization effort and an effort to remove ambiguities, but the three main instruments for drafting a drug policy remain obviously prevention, assistance and repression.

Between a purely repressive approach that we condemn and a approach of tolerance that we also condemn, a place must be left to a third path that was called, from the time of Mr. Van Parys, a policy of standardization. I remember the term "normalization" which was a bit difficult to translate into French in its sense, but we also called this a standardization policy.

The [...]

This is what I am explaining to you.

You will have the floor soon, Mr. Van Parys. by Mr. Bacquelaine said that the word “normalization” is a difficult term to translate.

The [...]

Such a policy obviously does not mean, either in the Directive of 1998 or in the proposal and texts that are being examined today, that drug use can become normal in daily life in our society.

It is important to note that the government has also opted for a policy that I can call “normalization”. This is clearly reflected in the federal drug policy note.

In the second time, I think, the previous ministers, and Mr. Van Parys in particular, set the priorities for a drug-fighting policy that they called realistic and modern. I would like to remind you that this drug policy was largely defined by the Working Group on the problem of drugs. The main goal was to discourage and reduce drug use, to reduce the number of new consumers. This was the case before and is still the case now. The goal is to discourage, reduce consumption, reduce the number of new consumers.

The second priority aims to protect society and its members who are faced with the drug problem and its risks. It also concerns drug addicts who need to be helped to live the best possible despite the drug. I believe that this goal existed before, it still exists.

Third priority axis, it is not possible, it was always said and we always say, nor is it desirable that justice be the only mechanism of social regulation. This has always been said, you have said this, we say the same thing. Drug users must first and foremost be able to use a wide range of solutions for drug addiction assistance. It has been said, we always say it.

Fourth, it is necessary to prevent drug users who have committed no offence other than the possession of drugs from being imprisoned. When was this said? We say this now, but we have already said it and you said it exactly the same way. Prison is not a suitable environment for drug users.

Fifth, the criminal approach, and more precisely the prison, must be — it was said, you said — the ultimate remedy for settling cases where there is a problematic use of certain substances. Effective criminal justice, you said, begins where other mechanisms of par-judicial regulatory assistance have failed or have been ignored, which presupposes a permanent and organized consultation between the relevant actors. We are always in favor of consultation among actors in the field of prosecution of drug use-related offences. I believe that what is drawn from the 1998 Directive perfectly reflects a comprehensive and integrated policy that we have decided to implement. The difference, and it seems to me to be large, is that the government here and the majority are not content with simple affirmations. We are developing a real plan that organizes a comprehensive and integrated policy at the levels of both prevention, repression and assistance.

And with regard to cannabis in particular, I will add — recalling what existed previously in the framework of the 1998 directive — that, I quote: “The possession of cannabis for personal consumption is a crime which should be given the lowest priority in the policy of prosecution. An ordinary protocol would be drawn up only if there is problematic consumption or social inconvenience. “The

Until now, it must be noted that the philosophy defended by the authors of this directive is somehow similar to the one we defend today, with a few exceptions. This is the whole problem of the ambiguity of confusion and clarification. The policy led by the majority is not really in rupture with the policy led by Mr. by Van Parys. It is simply clarified, better defined, more transparent. And the current majority brings more clarity, more precision in order to ⁇ a genuine harmonisation of prosecution.

The government and the majority put an end to the uncertainty created, despite the good intentions, by your directive. There are several stricter points. I am talking about the protection of minors in regards to regulation, currently in force. by

Indeed, as far as the minors are concerned, gentlemen of the opposition, despite what you say about it, there is no longer today any possible ambiguity, which was not the case before, I would like to point out because the confusion was total.

The regulation provided for in the draft laws or in the Royal Decree or in the Criminal Policy Directive concerns — and it is expressly said — only the major. Furthermore, the consumption of cannabis in the presence of minors is now an aggravating circumstance — which was not the case in your head, I remind you — which will be the subject of a referral request or a citation to appear in court. The draft Criminal Policy Directive is now unambiguous in this regard, which was not so clearly reflected in the 1998 Directive. Furthermore, it can be read in the current draft directive that the aggravating circumstance referred to in the main proceedings is that concerning minors. In accordance with the government’s wish, special attention is actually paid to the situation of these minors.

It should be noted that the bill also opens the right to police officers and officials or agents designated for this purpose by the King to enter at any time in the premises where it is used, in the presence of minors, sophoric substances, narcotics or other psychotropic substances likely to generate addiction. In short, when there are serious indications of danger to minors — and this is the purpose of this protection — police officers will be able to search if necessary and if the indications are sufficient. Insinuating that the government and the majority would send a message of banalization to our youth, pretending that the government would put our youth in danger, is the opposite of reality. This is a true disinformation with purely electoral connotation.

I think we should be very clear in the message we are addressing to the youth. There is no question of banalizing the consumption of cannabis. It is also regrettable that some ministers of the federal, I confess to you, or of the French Community, sometimes confuse a little about the correctness of the message. I was talking about Francorchamps. Brochures have been published which, sometimes, lack clarity at the level of the message. I am the first to regret this lack of clarity that can cause some confusion in the minds of young and younger people. I repeat, for me, the majority cannot proceed to any banalization or laxism in this matter. Under no circumstances can the government implement a policy of laxism. It must, on the contrary, adapt and clarify the prosecution policy. For the Reform Movement, it is obviously essential to avoid suggesting that cannabis consumption can be considered obvious or simply banal.

On several points, the draft directive once again denies the allegations of laxism. It provides for what should be understood by possession of cannabis for personal consumption, which was not always clearly defined in the previous directive. It did not establish explicit criteria for distinguishing between detention for personal consumption and detention for trafficking. This criterion will now be operational. The assessment of the previous directive demonstrated, in some districts, a certain divergence in the assessment of this personal consumption and created, as is the fact of the 1998 directive, a climate of permissiveness which had established itself as a result of these unclear, untransparent directives, which were to be adapted and amended.

Only older persons in possession of very small amounts of cannabis, with no symptoms of problematic consumption and causing no social inconvenience, will not be prosecuted.

This is the result of the texts we propose today. by

In reading the draft laws, royal decree and directive, I had wondered whether the criminal policy in the draft would be radically different from the one previously applied on the basis of the 1998 directive. As I have had the opportunity to explain, if the concepts used are, in the background, quite similar, the criteria are finally defined in a much clearer way. My fears have been somewhat calmed by the government’s filing of two amendments that define the notions of problematic consumption and public harassment in a much more explicit way in the law — which was not the case before.

However, I have some doubts about the capacity or, rather, the skills of police officers who will be called to appreciate in the front line whether consumption is problematic or not. Are they able to make this type of diagnosis, if we can speak of diagnosis? I imagine that a module will be integrated into their basic training to enable them to make such findings. The policies applied on the ground will have to depend mainly on how local police officers will deal with cannabis holding for personal consumption. It is true that it will be necessary to judge how these findings will be effective on the ground. Depending on this judgment, this assessment, we may have to adapt the texts in the future; I think that in this matter, there is nothing definitive.

The proposals made by the government allow to exclude prison for the occasional consumer who does not cause any public annoyance and whose consumption is not problematic. The technique therefore allows to avoid imprisonment for those who have not committed any other offence other than the possession of cannabis and to diversify, in my opinion, the reaction of the judicial apparatus. The orientation towards the assistance sector enables a multidisciplinary response to complex and multidimensional problems such as drug addiction and addiction. by

It should be noted that the government’s policy is more voluntary. It organises a true procedure of therapeutic counseling that involves, to a large extent, stakeholders in the care sector. It seems to me that this is still a plus-value compared to the policy defined by the former majority. This bridge between the justice sector and the assistance sector also applies to all illegal drugs. by

The Reform Group is part of the innovative movement that is initiated with a view to conducting a diversified criminal policy towards drug users. Addiction and addiction are essentially complex problems that cannot be solved by repressive response alone. Experts are convinced that imprisonment is not the most appropriate way to end drug use, nor is it even more important to treat drug addiction; prisons have not been designed to accommodate prisoners with problems such as drug addicts. The priority orientation of drug users who have committed no other offence than detention towards the assistance sector is an undeniable progress. In my opinion, both the federal government and the governments of the Communities should invest sufficiently in the aid sector. by

We must avoid – and this will be my conclusion – the banalization of drug use. Drug use shall not constitute an excuse or a mitigating circumstance of criminal conduct. Specifically with regard to cannabis, it is necessary to avoid suggesting that consumption could be banalized. However, I find it useful to remind, once again, that the government has committed to making the criteria and concepts used defined more clearly, in an operational way. by

I recall that in 1997, this famous working group in charge of studying the problem of drugs noted in its recommendations: “Between prohibitionist and anti-prohibitionist approaches, there is room for a third path. This approach is based on a historical reality. The consumption and therefore the abuse of drugs are of all ages and societies and cultures. It is essential to define in this area as in many others the limits within which the consumption of products is or is no longer acceptable and controllable or uncontrollable by the society.

The prohibitionist policy no longer guarantees a better control of the drug phenomenon, and the anti-prohibitionist policy, which would simply limit itself to total decriminalization, would ⁇ result in an explosion of supply and demand. In this regard, we must apply the precautionary principle. It is therefore a matter of finding the right middle between these two extremes: a balance that, given the nature of the drug phenomenon, must be dynamic and evolutionary.

In order to carry out this standardization policy, a permanent balance must be found between the establishment of the standard and the inevitable adaptation of the policy to an evolving social phenomenon. The weighted application of the standard is important if one wants to avoid stigma, exclusion, marginalization, all notions that are completely useless. The only repressive approach to such a phenomenon does not allow to control, let alone to solve the problem. The establishment of the standard must aim to give references both to the justiciable and to the bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with the law.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Working Group, a standardization policy involves the harmonisation of policies, which must intervene in the field of prevention, assistance, social policy but also in the field of repressive policy. Therefore, a comprehensive and integrated drug policy should be organised. It seems to me that the current government — and the majority — is implementing these recommendations. It has not merely made statements of intent or incorporated these principles into a directive. A better integrated action plan has been developed in order to organize, in an operational manner, a policy to combat taxation.

The government has defined its priorities at all levels. The possession of illegal drugs is punishable. In the policy of prosecution, a distinction is made between sale and personal consumption. The possession of cannabis is accompanied by the priority of the weakest in the prosecution policy. In case of possession of illegal drugs other than cannabis, it is recommended to proceed with prosecution when there is social disturbance or when the person concerned exhibits problematic behavior.

The working group concluded that it is neither useful nor effective to want to settle everything by the criminal law. The government does not decriminalize the possession of cannabis. It establishes a policy to clarify the policy of prosecution. For us, it is essential to avoid suggesting that cannabis consumption can be considered as a behavior that is part of the norm. by

Cannabis remains a drug that presents physical and psychological risks. It is important to explain to young people the meaning of government proposals. A considerable effort still needs to be made in this area. It is important to combat disinformation, which is currently the result of the opposition, disinformation that effectively risks making the message delivered to the youth ambiguous or lacking sufficient clarity. It is the responsibility of governments to make sure that the message is quite clear. by

We do not want incentives for drug use. We want to clarify the policy of prosecution. I believe that the proposals made by the Government are in full accordance with the spirit of the previous recommendations. The government does not fundamentally break with the philosophy of the previous directive, but in some way clarifies and corrects what I would call the brochure drawn up by the previous ministers of justice. The triptych proposed by the government is true to the recommendations: clarify the policy of prosecution. The concepts used are better defined and leave less room for interpretation and arbitrariness. The concept of consumption is defined. The government’s proposals will bring – and this is the most important thing – an undeniable added value compared to the Directive on

I propose that Mrs. Douifi be speaking, and then Mr. Van Parys. Mr. Van Parys, with Mrs. Douifi, each group will have been discussed. Then the speakers of the CD&V group come for the second round. I have no problem with Mr. Van Parys speaking. It is about a quarter to six. The rule is clear. Each faction comes in turn and then the second speaker of the same factions. Ms. Douifi is the speaker of the ninth group speaking here. I will ask your group leader who will speak after her on behalf of your group. If so, it will be Mr. Deseyn. If one tells me that Mr. Van Parys speaks at 18:00, then he speaks at 18:00. You decide about it yourself.

Mrs. Douifi, you have the word as the last speaker of the factions

Meanwhile, the emotions are somewhat warm. I don’t know if I will be able to help you in bringing it out, and I also don’t know if it will depend on my argument.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, to begin my presentation by giving an example, a life situation, a concrete example of a young woman. It is a situation from the reality that occurred in the course of last year, 2002.

It is the situation of Mira, who has psychological problems from a young age and sometimes suffers from anxiety and also depression. Gradually, she begins to soften them and escape by drinking. However, the psychological backbone afterwards grows more and more, which she then tries to soften with antidepressants and calming pills. She becomes dependent, so she becomes addicted. She also regularly seeks and finds ambulatory assistance from a psychologist. If the drinking problem goes out of hand, let her take up, get rid of the drink, and after a few weeks is back on her feet. However, the drug addiction remains. The calming pills, however, make her physically and mentally down which she then tries to escape by drinking alcohol and coffee. A vicious circle. Meanwhile, she has also discovered the pleasures of the cough syrup, a magistrally prepared cough syrup based on codeine, addictive but yet relatively easy to obtain. It gives her at the same time an euphoric and calming feeling that sometimes replaces the drink. Her life is increasingly marked by sedative pills, cough syrup and alcohol, a sometimes devastating legal cocktail. She loses her job, her friends, and her apartment. Crises become more severe and recalls become more frequent. She shocks from one psychiatric institution to another where she is helped back on her leg every time, but without a doubt. Her medical records are never passed on. Every institution starts again in advance. A serious succession or follow-up is never there.

In the outpatient mental health care centers there are long waiting lists, but she can’t wait. Meanwhile, she is so addicted that one would rather not see her in the psychiatry because she is too addicted and in the drug care not because she is too psychiatric or because she has no place. Mira tackles mentally and physically further. If the police find her on the street, she is deported to a family where it is neither livable for her nor for her family. So she slides back towards crisis reception in the emergency service. Last year, colleagues, the young woman died at the age of forty-five.

I draw attention to this example because it is an example of the use of — in this case — legal drugs. Whether it is the use of legal or illegal drugs in this case, however, does not matter. With this example, I would like to show where, among other things, the policy for people with real addiction problems is fundamentally failing. People with severe addiction problems are too often sent from the cabinet to the wall because there is insufficient care to suit and insufficient follow-up. In short, there is too little coordination and too little resources. This is precisely one of the pillars of the Federal Drug Note that I would like to discuss for a moment, in particular trying to provide more effective and better assistance to those struggling with serious addiction problems. This can be achieved by trying to improve aid provision in itself and better cooperation between aid provision and justice.

One pillar of the note stands for an integrated and global drug policy, while prevention and repression form the other pillars. Everyone has agreed in the last weeks, months and even the last two years that on drug policy, on the one hand, the prevention and assistance efforts should be increased and, on the other hand, the distress caused by drug abuse should be better addressed.

The texts to be adopted today fit into a globally integrated drug policy that aims to better address the real problems. I therefore regret that the Federal Drug Notice and also the Bill on the Cooperation Agreement between the Federal Government, the Communities and the Regions have received very little attention externally, in the media, and possibly also internally. This was precisely because the policy this time sought to rely on an integrated approach. This is the first time such notes have been submitted. The prosecution policy, the criminal law policy is one aspect of it, but I will return to that.

I don’t want to minimize or banalize it, but as far as the global approach is concerned, much has shifted to the background. We may have concentrated too much in the last few weeks—without wanting to minimise it—only on the discussion of the policy of prosecution, of the police and judicial gap. By the way we conducted the debate, we may all be responsible for the signals sent to the public opinion and for the confusion that has arisen. I would also like to come back to this later.

Why am I sorry that we talked too little about the global drug note and did not go deep enough in the discussion about the cooperation agreement last week? I regret it because the different levels, the federal level, the level of the Communities and the Regions have different powers. However, they all decide on very important keys to conduct an effective and successful policy in the long run. It is also important to emphasize that in a global drug policy we must also ensure that as many people as possible, young people, stand strong in their shoes and feel good in their skin so that they would have less need to use or abuse legal or illegal drugs. We learned from the hearings and from the figures we received from the UZ Leuven regarding the crisis reception of addicts, that it is important to work on socio-cultural trends, on the socio-economic background and on the emotional situation of people and ⁇ of young people, so that we can prevent people who may not be strong enough to otherwise prevent their problems from taking legal or illegal drugs.

The social approach and the perspective from the public health point of view are, in my opinion, too little highlighted this time. Over the past few months, there has been a political debate. This afternoon it turned out that the discussion sends in a welles-niets game about whether there is a drug policy and whether the drugs use standards are now released or not. Some think yes; others think no. Per ⁇ we will continue to play that game for the rest of the day.

First of all, it is a normalization policy, a policy that seeks to deal with the social reality of cannabis use in a more rational way. From that changed reality, the policy sets standards on what is punished and what is not punished. After the evaluation, it shows that the policy is a continuation of the policy in the previous legislatures. Mrs. Gilkinet has already said this.

I would like to get some explanation now. You can keep talking without saying anything. You are talking about winning games. You make it conveniently between yourself. You say that you are above those games and that you look at that much more realistically. What do you mean when you say that you will approach drug use much more rationally?

I just wanted to start talking about standards. If one wants to implement a more effective approach, one must be closer to reality. Mr. Goutry, in the hearings you have heard what the reality is today. I come back to that. If one wants to do risk management and to prevent problems and to better solve them, one needs to get closer to the standards. The closer to the standards, the better enforcement can be done. I mean rational approach. That is the intention. That is the spirit that we find in the text of the draft law.

I could not say it better with what I read in The Last News of 12 October 2002. CD&V Chairman De Clerck said: "The new purple-green legislation, which is yet to be voted, is not fundamentally different from my policy, but the current government has failed in its communication. She sent out the sign: “We were brave.”

I quote this passage because I want to demonstrate that in the standardization policy of that time, especially with regard to the turnover letter of 1998, there was also in the media a lot of discussion and confusion about what could and what could not. Other colleagues have already said that. Articles from that period have already been mentioned. I suspect that for opposition reasons it is said that the government with its drug policy sends bad signals. In the media, depicting politics as a lax dough policy is contrary to what happened in the previous legislature.

( ... ...

Mr. Goutry, you will have the word later.

Precisely in connection with the discussions surrounding the so-called “signal” that would come from here, Mr. Marc Tack, coordinator of the Centre for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Alcoholism and Other Toxicomanies (CAT), spoke in the hearing on 14 January 2003 in the Chamber’s Committee on Public Health about the possible consequences of a legislative change on youth use. He said that the law changes the modality but not the reality of drug use. With this, Mr Tack indicated that politics should focus less on the signal and more on the rational approach to reality. The reality is that one in five Belgians uses cannabis. For 18-year-olds, that percentage is even 35%. However, about 90% of them stop after a while. Even those who continue with it do so without having problems with themselves or their surroundings.

Should we welcome these figures and findings? No, of course not. We do not congratulate them either. But punishing people, taking into account the numbers I just gave, only in the hope that they will therefore stop doing something that neither they nor their surroundings have problems, helps nothing and makes no sense. This, by the way, is not credible and it may also be a waste of energy and resources.

Therefore, the standards on drugs are not released but adjusted to reality. The closer one stays to the norm, the easier one should be able to maintain the norm. This also means for us that there needs to be extra attention to the way prevention messages are given. The past shows that prevention that is primarily based on deterrence and punishment — genre: don’t do it, because it shouldn’t — doesn’t work or only works temporarily. Sometimes it even has the opposite effect because that type of prevention does not exactly match the world of life and the reality of those involved that we want to reach exactly. Also with regard to the prevention messages, we need to get closer to the standards, closer to the reality of those who do it, in order to be able to conduct a more credible and therefore more effective prevention.

This also means for the SP.A that prevention should stimulate the potential risks of drug use, cannabis and others. It is therefore from a coherent set of action points in the areas of coordination, prevention, health care and repression that the contours of the approach to the drug problem must be defined for us. That is the merit of this federal Drugsnota — that can be said — and of the cooperation agreement that is now under vote. This also follows the recommendations of the Parliamentary Working Group on Drugs, which also considered necessary an adaptation of the prosecution policy, the criminal policy towards drug users.

Thus I come, of course, to the delicate point on which in the committee — as journalist colleague Paque said this morning in French — many “passionate” or ⁇ even passionate discussions have been held. The spirit of the legislative adjustments that are ahead is one that does not want to create problems where there are no, so that the policy can better focus on more effective prevention and more effective approach to the real problems.

So the goal is clear, but the way we try to do this is another pair of sleeves, as there is only a narrow maneuvering space. The previous government has sought to ⁇ this goal with a circular on the parks on the priorities and the prosecution policy in relation to drugs, with cannabis being given the lowest priority. The 2000 evaluation report found that unnecessary persecution was still used relatively often.

Today, it has again been chosen to remain within the contours of the criminal law. It, by the way, also fits into an evasion policy, but it is attempted to better anchor non-persecution in certain cases by a change in the drug law, with associated royal decrees and a new circular on the parks. Specifically, this will mean that in possession of a quantity of cannabis for personal use, if it is not accompanied by problematic use or discomfort, there is no longer a process-verbal, but an anonymous police registration. Thus, it is possible to avoid unnecessary prosecution in these cases. By way of an amendment, it is possible to allow the police officer, by way of derogation from Article 40 of the Law on the Police Office, to no longer draw up a process record when establishing a criminal offence, but only in certain cases. There is an anonymous registration instead of a process-verbal. In practice, this should mean that the investigation and prosecution policy should prioritise disaster or risk situations, which should be translated into practice in the consultation between the local authorities, the police and the prosecutor. Regional accent differences may remain possible, but they will diminish.

Finally, I would like to say that the SP.A group does not consider legal or illegal drug use — and I think that applies to everyone in this hemisphere — as evidence. No one does that. The de-trading is a general civil society mandate, a mandate for all, but the adjustments that are underway today must lead to a better and integrated policy. We must strive to ensure and improve the continuity of the integrated policy. This allows us to help risk behavior and problematic users more effectively. Repression can and should be encouraged where it is necessary.

Colleagues, we have heard all the factions and now follows the second round. There are two groups that have designated different speakers. For the CD&V are that Mr. Deseyn and Mr. Goutry and for Ecolo-Agalev are that Mrs. Leen and Mrs. Descheemaeker. Mr. Van Parys, if you wish, I am pleased to give you the word now and then I stop 5 minutes before closing the afternoon meeting and opening the evening meeting.

Now that the cameras are gone...

The cameras are always there, Mr. Van Parys, there are eight.

I hope that I will not be interrupted by you.

Now that the cameras have disappeared, I would like to take the word, so that the work is organized as you wish, with regard to the visibility of the opposition. Since I am committed to fulfilling my mandate as a member of Parliament, I would like to have the opportunity to replicate on some of the issues mentioned here. It would have been such an exciting debate, if we had been able to intervene and have been able to clarify a number of things in relation to each other. You do not want this kind of debate. The greyness of the debate will be the result.

The circular letter discussed was the result of what has been achieved in the Working Group Drugs. The circular letter was one of the few recommendations of the Working Group Drugs that have been implemented in the previous legislature. In fact, the recommendations relating to the prosecution policy were fully applied. When this round letter was discussed in this Parliament, it was even in the form of a motion, unanimously approved by all democratic parties. I hope that one will not deny his voting behavior from then. The truth has its rights.

Mr. Van Parys, you do not seem to grasp this. I have been involved in the drug work group for one and a half years. I have the report here. Indeed, on 24 June 1997, we held a debate in the hemisphere, where we accepted the recommendations of the Working Group on Drugs in a broad line and with a large majority, but I repeat that in those recommendations in no way was stated how this should be implemented. You have made an attempt in your 1998 circulation letter to implement what we decided in 1997 also on the ground. We did not have a debate on this. We also did not approve that circular letter and I have the same right to say that what this government is doing is also a implementation of the recommendations that we then approved.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to the interpellation held following the appearance of the referral letter and to the voting behavior of all of you and of the various democratic groups represented here at the time. There has indeed been a vote on this letter, Mrs. Van de Casteele. You need to know what the consequences of a particular vote behavior are.

However, the content is much more important than the formal. That is why I was so ⁇ angry at the intervention of colleague Bacquelaine. This is the advantage of our President’s debate system. We can now replicate to a man who is no longer present, Mr. President. That is the fascinating thing about the way you organize the debate here. It is a debate in the veil where a contradiction is made impossible. The President has achieved his goal, which is obvious. Nevertheless, we have the honor and pride to replicate here. Their

The content and message of the message is important. This is important in contrast to the current regulation, colleagues. After all, the message of the circulation letter was very accurate. When any determination was made in connection with the drug issue, the message to the public opinion was clear. The message said this could not, should not, and poses a real danger to those who engage in it.

Therefore, indeed, very precise and clear instructions were given to the police services. These were instructions for actually creating a simplified process-verbal. Colleagues, this simplified process verb was described in the circulation letter as, firstly, a warning and, secondly, a reference to the norm. “Lady, sir, this is not allowed. This cannot. This is against the law. This could hurt you."This was the very precise command and message that could be found in the sending letter. Their

The police services then indeed drafted a process-verbal on the name and with the description of the facts. This was submitted monthly to the Prosecutor’s Office. This is very clearly and accurately described in the circulation letter. At that time, the prosecutor had the opportunity to initiate prosecution or not. It at that moment gained knowledge of the data and could judge the opportunity. That is the fundamental difference with the current system. With the current regulation, the prosecutor’s office is out of play. In the case of determinations of ownership for own use, there is no process-verbal. This is the so-called legal security that is being created today. Only an anonymous identification is possible in the carnet of the police officer concerned.

That is the legal certainty that is being created at that moment. The prosecutor cannot be notified of the criminal offence. Therefore, it will also be impossible to determine that it is a repeated use. It is anonymous and is located in that small booklet that the police officer has at his disposal. This is, therefore, the alternative that is currently offered by this majority.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this is the essential distinction that here dead the majority in all languages is ignored. At this moment, in the current new situation, there is no reaction anymore. It prevents the Prosecutor’s Office from intervening and being prosecuted. In the previous situation, on the initiative and following the recommendations of the working group in this Parliament, we had said that there should be a response anyway.

This is harmful. This is criminal. This must have a consequence. Hence, indeed, a process-verbal had to be drawn up in such a way that the confrontation with the norm, that the warning was a fact, and that one could, if necessary, enlighten the environment, the family, the family, the school. The light blinked, my friends. This was the important task.

Mr. Minister of Health, now there is simply no more flashing light. This is the essential thing in the message. The fact that one says: indeed, it can not harm and you can be assured of it, there will be no response, because the only response is an anonymous response that, of course, cannot have any consequence with respect to the individual person. This is true in the texts that lie in the former circular letter and in the current texts that lie ahead, this is the reality of things. I find it unworthy of some members of parliament that theories are proclaimed here that are completely opposed to the texts present today. You simply disable the prosecutor’s office, which has never happened in any other matter, by excluding the prosecutor’s office from taking knowledge on behalf of the individual who is indeed in a state of committing a crime, more specifically the individual who is in possession of drugs or cannabis for his own use.

This is a ⁇ important precedent, but there are other precedents quoted here, Mr. President, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in particular the fact that it is said here on this tribune that the police officers will be able to judge about the opportunity or, following the establishment of a crime, whether or not a process-verbal is drawn up. This is explicitly stated here on this tribune.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether it is indeed possible that, in the whole or following this legislation, the police services have the possibility not to draw up a trial-verbal when a crime is established. This is a ⁇ important principle point, not only in this discussion, but with regard to the powers of police services, respectively the prosecutor’s office. Their

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice, therefore, in a very concrete way, whether it is indeed possible that police services or police officers, when establishing a crime, can judge about the opportunity to draw up or not draft a process-verbal.

Marc Verwilghen: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question in the Committee on Justice. I will repeat this in my replica.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, maybe you can answer them again. It would be useful to engage in dialogue to make the debate interesting and not to organize a debate where one answers three hours after the speaker has made a comment. Is Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code still applicable or not? Should a police officer draw up a process-verbal when a crime is established?

This is the concrete question, to which the Minister can answer with yes or no. I ask this explicitly because it is important that our police officers know where they are.

Marc Verwilghen: Mr. Speaker, I will give a global answer. That is a first thing. A second question is – and it should be discussed – in what capacity Mr. Van Parys is here. He is a member of the Chamber of People’s Representatives. He has the absolute right to express his opinion. I am the last to challenge that. I also understand that he defends his circular, because his signature is also underneath. So we are not here debating how good that is circular and how bad that is circular. I will explain later why this is so. Then I find, frankly speaking, the explanation we have heard thereafter is not the most beautiful one we have seen.

Mr. Speaker, I understand, therefore, that members of Parliament in this debate are being empowered and thus attempted to prevent or exclude the debate. In this, Mr. Minister of Justice, there has been an important discussion. The discussion should be brought back to the next problem.

A police officer finds a crime. Does he have the authority, the opportunity, to judge whether or not a process-verbal should be drawn up? This is explicitly stated here on this tribune and the answer to this question is crucial because in this way our police officers will be able to know what their behavior should be with regard to criminal findings in general and drug crime findings in particular. By leaving this question in the middle at this moment, we organize the police spot, the system in which police officers, as Mr. Coveliers said on this tribune, would be able to establish crimes and then judge themselves whether or not a process-verbal should be drawn up. Mr. Coveliers said here on this tribune: "When a traffic offence is established, the police officer will have the power to judge whether or not a minutes of the trial should be drawn up." If one can and can say this here on this tribune, then this not only opens up the dog policy regarding the possession of drugs and cannabis for personal use, but opens up a dog policy according to the goodwill of the police officer. Then we are facing a fundamental problem concerning the rule of law. Then we will vote here laws that we will see whether the police officers apply them or not. Their

This is what has been said here on this tribune by eminent lawyers and where we can reasonably expect a response from the Minister of Justice, in any capacity, Mr. Speaker. As a member of this Parliament, we want a legitimate answer to remove any uncertainty in this regard. I assume that one does not want to do this and that one wants to let this uncertainty exist. This means, inter alia, that in this way the expression of such statements is legitimized and supported, which raises a fundamental question of legal certainty. Colleagues, from now on it will be that when a crime is committed, the officer will do with it what he wants to do.

In the drug issue, it is expressly stated: "In this matter you will not draw up a process-verbal and you will ensure that the prosecutor's office is not able to prosecute." This is what has been said here on this tribune and what actually should not have been contradicted through the debate culture created by the chairman of this Chamber and through the insane refusal of the Minister of Justice to give the obvious answer, in particular the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure article 29 where it says: "When crimes are established, the police will draw up a process record and then it is up to the Prosecutor's Office to judge the opportunity."

Where do we go in this Parliament if the law cannot be interpreted here as we voted for it here. This is explicitly referred to. That is the challenge of this debate. The way this is happening here at this moment, not only creates the greatest possible ambiguity and chaos with regard to the drug problem as it has already been established abundantly and with bravour by colleague Vandeurzen and colleague Goutry. In response to this, therefore, the problem of the powers of police services to establish crimes has been broadened.

In response to this, the problem has been broadened with regard to the powers of police services to establish crimes. Their

The Chairman of the Justice Committee does not respond. Neither is the Minister of Justice. The chairman of the House allows this to happen. Currently, the police post is accepted.

Mr. Speaker, I have not been too troubled in this debate since I have made my position clear during the advisory procedure in the Committee on Justice. I have no habit of deviating from a position I have taken before. Their

Mr Van Parys, I refer to page 256 of the report where the rules, in my opinion, are very clearly set out not only for the Criminal Code but also for the Criminal Procedure Law. I can only add that after the debate in the Committee on Justice, the Government actually realized that its original text had to be adjusted. Through the adjustment, specifications have been made regarding concepts. It is correct that discussion is possible whether these notions are sufficiently or insufficiently accurately specified. Only one exception to Article 40 is allowed. I have nothing more to add to this. What I have said and is correctly displayed on page 256 I reaffirm here, to the extent necessary.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Mr. Erdman for the correctness he shows and for reaffirming that Mr. Coveliers’ statements are clear nonsense. I repeat that it is clear nonsense! This is what Mr. Erdman reaffirms with wrapped words. He confirms that in the Committee on Justice and during the debates on the federal drug note one and a half years ago he pointed out to the government that its ambitions to be able to organize a drug policy could only be fulfilled by introducing one exception to the general tasks of the police.

Let us begin in this discussion by daring to say what we do. We are organizing the dog policy. You can be for or against it. Striking nonsense from his neck to be able to claim that it is stricter or not stricter is not a parliamentary debate!

Mr Vandeurzen made the conclusion in a convenient and precise manner.

Fortunately, there was another courageous man in this debate, the chairman of the Justice Committee, who said in human language that every police officer will always draw up a process-verbal if a crime is established. That is obvious. Mr. Erdman, you have confirmed this. This is the law. This is what has been approved in this Parliament. There is one exception. In case of possession of cannabis for personal use there is the anonymous registration. This means that the parquet is unable to act, let alone to take any initiative. This is very clear. This is why, Mr. Speaker, the debate can still be interesting. These are the texts that are present.

Colleagues, before you make a final statement tomorrow at the vote, do you have to decide whether you accept that the prosecutor’s office and its prosecutor’s office are put in the impossibility of taking any initiative in determining that someone is found in possession of cannabis for personal use because the prosecutor’s office cannot, should not and will not be informed on the basis of the provisions of the present draft? That is the question that you will have to answer. Whatever Mr. Coveliers and Mr. Bacquelaine may claim, when determining cannabis possession for own use, there will only be the anonymous registration that makes the occurrence of the parquet impossible.

That is why we are talking about a dog policy. A police policy arises at the moment when it is made impossible for the public prosecutor to take an initiative. This is what the government has written in the previous texts. We’re talking about police policy because the police services can only register anonymously. The message that is given with this is nefarious because it gives the impression to parents, to young people, to children in this way that cannabis use can not do so much harm. In this way, we spread the message that this can be done. This is in sharp contrast to the message that always imposed a response. The message from the circulation letter was a warning, a reference to the norm. The person who was found in possession of cannabis was alerted to the risk that could arise. The warning would never result in an immediate arrest. What kind of people would we be! There was a warning. There was a reaction. There was contact with the environment, the family, the family, and the working environment — a kind of flashlight — to point out to people that something might be happening. To the extent that this received an extension in the repeated use, of a addiction or of discomfort then indeed came the prosecutor's office, then the prosecutor's office entered into operation. Their

This was the philosophy of common sense, of what people want. The philosophy that is now introduced is the philosophy of do but, let but go, everything can, everything can. The dog policy is realized and it is translated into human language in legal terms what the chairman of the committee has said.

Mr. Coveliers, you were put on your number here but you unfortunately did not hear it.