I mean, I agree that this is 95 mins largely wasted, but how do you make the EP responsible in principle for the issue without having them have to go through details like this?
I guess at least in my experience, this is one of those difficult balances that every parliamentary democracy tends to get bogged down in?
This seems to be how it works in the US, at least:
The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a drug to be included in each. Two federal departments, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the Food and Drug Administration) determine which drugs are added or removed from the various schedules, though the statute passed by Congress created the initial listing. Classification decisions are required to be made on the criteria of potential for abuse, accepted medical use in the United States, and potential for dependence.
Benzylpiperazine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Benzylpiperazine (street names include "A2", "frenzy" and "nemesis"[1] ) (BZP) is a recreational drug with euphoric, stimulant properties. Its mechanism of action is believed to be similar to MDMA and the effects produced by BZP are comparable to those produced by amphetamine. Adverse effects have been reported following its use including psychosis, renal toxicity, and seizures. It does not appear to be very addictive and no deaths have been reported following a sole ingestion of BZP. It is banned in a few countries, including the United States, Australia and in parts of Europe. However, its legal status is less restrictive in some other countries such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada.
I don't see, a priori, why a parliament shouldn't be called on to look into this kind of matter.
And, after all, doesn't it raise the level of transparency you (and I don't disagree) were asking for? When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
