For The Antiprohibitionist Reform Of The Un Conventions On Drugs

Thank you Chairman, Thank you Marco,

but, to say the truth, I think you’ve cut my age down by ten years, because the first anti-prohibitionism protests and battles date from early 1962-63 and not 1972-73.

In general, when people say “We saw how things were”, “we said it ten….twenty years ago, forty years ago”, my reflex response is to say: “OK, he said it forty years ago but did not succeed in averting it….he saw it ten years ago and did not succeed”. I’d have the urge to say ”My condolences... go and do something else, give up”.

I believe in both scientific and cultural research. I also believe that the problem is to be up to the research we take on and achieving success. We have certainly reaped success on the Italian front and, to some extent on other fronts too, we certainly cannot evaluate how much we have sown in terms of cultural anthropology, in terms of anthropology, and also if we consider the relations with our actions. It comes as no surprise that they are Ghandian and neo-Ghandian actions as their non-violent radicalness is clear to see.

One characteristics of Ghandi's history and culture is communication through one’s body, the only thing that men, women and humanity have when they are poor or wish to be disarmed. And so we talked with our bodies… with our feet, on the walker rounds, on the marches, and with other parts of the body in the sit-ins etc.

It was not by any chance that, by voluntarily ‘visiting’ law courts and prisons in the manner of Socrates or Ghandi, did we talk with our bodies to which we denied food and even water. We talked constantly, giving life to ideas, ancient hopes, simple things, with the help of the constant, continuous evidence of the good reasons we had assumed and which passed through us. They passed through our action, and constantly nourished our intelligence with facts which we managed to analyse through debate, the only path to knowledge for laymen, which means gaining a knowledge of different ideas and truths through debate: for us this is the quintessence of democracy, in terms of tolerance, the quintessence of the exercise of freedom and responsibility.

Why am I digressing in this way? Because I believe that, now, when we must admit to ourselves that we are taking on quite a handful, I’d like to thank Professor Arnold Trebach. I wish to thank him, because of his decision to yet again serve his ideas, culture, hopes, by accepting the leadership of the re-launched International Anti-prohibitionism League, associated with CORA, which evokes the radical battles, and his battles with the Drug Foundation and everything else we’ve been through. This slow continuity passing through us is the long-lasting proof, one of Bersonian duration, the one which is the shape of things, of ideas, the shape of the battles we succeed in fighting. And I’m very happy and confident in thanking him, and seeing him here is not only a good omen, but something important we must treasure.

There are so many anti-prohibitionism motives we constantly see day to day, we constantly see that the prohibitionist reasons manage to exhibit themselves in their intolerant presentation of ethics which, as far as I’m concerned, clash with the legislator’s ethics, which must be pragmatic. We can see that the force of prohibitionism always presents itself with fundamentalist and statist claims.

I went to Colombia a few times ten years ago, twenty years ago. If I went there again tomorrow, from what I read in the papers, I would find the same scenario, the risk of some palace or minister getting blown up, the risk of massacres between drug producers and drug traffickers, revolutionaries and partisans, revolutionaries and others, parts of the state that are unrecognisable.

Emma Bonino is now in Ecuador because she chairs the group of EU Observers for the Ecuador elections to be held on the 20th October. in that country – where there was no talk of this twenty years ago – the entire northern zone is beyond electoral control, also because it is barred from elections. But why isn’t the zone governed by law? First of all because prohibitionism makes the state unlawful, but also puts beyond the law those who should represent the law, the general principles of law, it puts constitutions beyond the reach of law where there are constitutions, and also the rules disciplining people through the millennia- and centuries-long secretion of the trial paths of Common Law and Civil Law. All of this is continuously being destroyed. So the problem is probably like this: we won, time by time, every single battle which – for our culture - had to be based on an empirical view of reality. We did that, but we were all vanquished. The world, UNO, the EU are ideologically anti-prohibitionist. We must be careful because our principles of a law-based society and tolerance are being continuously massacred.

Colombia is being massacred - I’m notoriously pro-American spelt with a K, I’m ultra-Israeli and a member of the Mossad, an ultra-American of the CIA. But I must say that the American responsibilities, with this imbecile, foolish, grotesque fundamentalism… a reverend. The United States should be the bedrock of the American Revolution. They used to guarantee to the entire continent political freedom, political democracy, respect of laws, a state based on laws, respect of persons and individuals. But now, for decades, the United States have simply been exporters of war. And then what are the results? They have trebled the world’s drug producing countries. Thanks to the economic and social effects of anti-prohibitionism, they have made the drug producing chemical industry an attractive prospect.

In the face of these results, how can it be that we should be rejoicing as a success of Marco Cappato and Chris Davies’s the fact that we have a room, that maybe we are ten, twenty, or thirty Euro-MPs meeting here, that we can finally get the Lisbon drug observatory to speak, whereas in the past, the only thing one could obtain from the UNO was the falsification and concealment of the Lisbon data. I’m declaring and repeating this. People must not know the truth because the truth is inconvenient.

There’s that goody-goody guy Friedman in the States, an advocate of laissez-faire, a liberal who does his best to show some things that even left-wing radicals understand and which all the liberal, tolerant middle-classes to some extent, support. It’s forbidden.

We have alcohol prohibitionism, and there’s little talk about it in the Middle East, because it’s verboten, it is forbidden to talk about the right in the Middle East, in the Arab countries. It’s a well known fact that in the Saudi royal house, it is a tradition for both hosts and guests to drink alcohol. It is true that when you go out in Egypt, you drink orange juice, but first of all, the house offers an aperitif full of high-proof alcohol – this happens everywhere. If we talk of drugs, we are talking about drugs, if we talk of marijuana, of hashish, I’m talking about non-drugs both because of their characteristics and because I cannot accept confusing them with alcohol, which reaps millions of deaths every year, or with tobacco which wipes out tens of millions. So, in terms of semantics too, we’ve got to stop accepting this obtuse and violent terrorism.

They are non-drugs, their inclusion in the tables and conventions does not turn them into drugs, otherwise we should change life, not just language, completely.

Just like you, I too am against formula one advertising, TV advertising in favour of alcohol, tobacco, etc.

When one expects to cancel, to ignore natural faculties though laws, these laws create aberrations. At this point, the Transnational Radical Party insinuates itself. We will hold our congress at the end of the month in Tirana.

This Congress will signal the battle against prohibitionism seen as a scourge. In some corners of the world, we have succeeded in defeating that filthy, bloody scourge: clandestine mass abortion. We managed to intervene by legalising, and regulating. So we succeeded in cutting the figures of this scourge down from a million and a half abortions to one hundred and fifty thousand. But now they do not allow us to take action, otherwise there would not even be the remaining 150 thousand – the battle is now, the battle over life.

So we will have, I hope, at least 4-5 Miss World candidates in Tirana, from the various countries coming to Tirana. That is because we have won the operation to boycott the Miss World elections in Nigeria. Instead, here we are organising the mass protest to defend the woman who must be lapidated for alleged adultery – but also because Nigeria is at a democratising stage. So we have a fact: regarding Nigeria, the boycott of Miss World, etc, where they did not lapidate the first condemned woman and will not lapidate the second one – we can guarantee this – the Sharia will be defeated in good part thanks to our action, in support of Nigeria’s President.

But the problem is a different one: there has not been any denunciation, any boycott, following the 27 lapidations this year in Iran, 19 of which concerned women – nothing….that’s the world’s scandal.

How can one explain that Nazism could have existed? How can one explain that Pol Pot could have existed? History is dramatic and must be faced for what it is. Today prohibitionism is the figure that unites all the aberrations we have behind us. It is an enormous attempt to relaunch, or better still to vindicate the violence of power, of its omnipotence over tolerance, the road of tolerance in modern law-based society, of political democracy, of rights.

If we bear this in mind, we will find what is needed. We must risk our lives, to avoid risking death and the triumph of death. Therefore the ultimate prohibitionism, the most serious example we have, is against the freedom of scientific research. Some eloquent messages can be heard from the Vatican today. A person I love very much, and this love seems to be to some extent exchanged. I’m talking about Pope John the Second. In Poland,. just like in the Syllabus of 1870, he launched an anathema against liberalism. 20 days ago Iran’s chief religious authority literally denounced laissez-faire. So our battle will probably have to take shape, which will have to pass through de iure condendo this could be the Parliament, but also law and jurisdiction. As in the case of Socrates: to provoke the trial as non-violent people. And this is one of the paths I will request of LIA, also in terms of projects to be presented to all possible supporters and financiers. A project that studies the capability and the possibility of defending rights and defending the reasons of rights through Ghandian non-violent techniques. In this way, we will be able to go everywhere, across the world to organise the defence of the victims of prohibitionism, whether they are the adulterous woman, the alleged adulterer of Nigeria, the Muslim or Arab person who drank a drop of wine because he was not a prince. And the others who seek the freedom of scientific research, who wish to use embryos for research instead of having tens of millions of people condemned to death because new prohibitionism.

Many thanks indeed.

Marco Pannella, Member of the European Parliament , Leader of the TRP

(Text not revised by the author)