For instance, the upcoming plenary session, the European Parliament will debate and vote on the Council Decision about the enlargement of Schengen, which is a big, vitally important topic.
They will also spend 95 minutes for a vote on this:
Report: Jean-Marie Cavada (A6-0417/2007) - 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) on the proposal for a Council decision on defining 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) as a new synthetic drug which is to be made subject to control measures and criminal provisions [COM(2007)0430 - 11974/2007 - C6 0285/2007 - 2007/0811(CNS)] Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT The European Parliament is consulted on a proposal for a Council decision on defining 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) as a new synthetic drug which is to be made subject to control measures and criminal provisions. This implementing measure is taken by the Council on the basis of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances. This is the first time that Council formally consults Parliament on such an implementing measure in the third pillar according to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty. The Council has set a deadline of three months for Parliament to deliver its opinion in accordance with Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty. The decision to submit BZP to control is based on a risk assessment report, which has been drawn up by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and submitted to the Council and the Commission on 31 May 2007. Following the recommendation of the report, the Commission has put forward a proposal to bring BZP under control on 17 July 2007. The risk assessment report on which the Commission proposal is based reveals a certain lack of conclusiveness. It points out that the evidence for harms arising from this drug is not strong and that further studies are needed. On the other hand, a range of adverse reactions have been reported by users of BZP and the strict procedural deadlines imposed by Council Decision 2005/387/JHA do not allow for in-depth research. Furthermore, the overall conclusion of the experts is that due to its stimulant properties, risk to health and the lack of medical benefits, there is a need to control BZP. This conclusion is in line with the precautionary principle. The relatively low risks of the substance have been taken into account in the decision by pointing out that the control measures have to be proportionate to the risks of the substance. The rapporteur therefore suggests approving the Commission proposal while pointing out the shortcomings of the risk assessment report.
The European Parliament is consulted on a proposal for a Council decision on defining 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) as a new synthetic drug which is to be made subject to control measures and criminal provisions. This implementing measure is taken by the Council on the basis of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances.
This is the first time that Council formally consults Parliament on such an implementing measure in the third pillar according to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty. The Council has set a deadline of three months for Parliament to deliver its opinion in accordance with Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty.
The decision to submit BZP to control is based on a risk assessment report, which has been drawn up by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and submitted to the Council and the Commission on 31 May 2007. Following the recommendation of the report, the Commission has put forward a proposal to bring BZP under control on 17 July 2007.
The risk assessment report on which the Commission proposal is based reveals a certain lack of conclusiveness. It points out that the evidence for harms arising from this drug is not strong and that further studies are needed. On the other hand, a range of adverse reactions have been reported by users of BZP and the strict procedural deadlines imposed by Council Decision 2005/387/JHA do not allow for in-depth research.
Furthermore, the overall conclusion of the experts is that due to its stimulant properties, risk to health and the lack of medical benefits, there is a need to control BZP. This conclusion is in line with the precautionary principle. The relatively low risks of the substance have been taken into account in the decision by pointing out that the control measures have to be proportionate to the risks of the substance.
The rapporteur therefore suggests approving the Commission proposal while pointing out the shortcomings of the risk assessment report.
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
the upcoming plenary session, November 2007
Two years and 6 months later... -Whomever has been working on it and not come up with real-life conclusions, is fired and investigated.
-All pharma distantly related to the product is excommulgated and forbidden from selling products in the EU.
-I don´t trust politicians being capable of making political decisions, anymore, so why would I trust them to make technical decisions?
-There is probably a new replacement drug on the street already. Made in India. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. --Charu Saxena.
on the basis of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances.
See the following paragraph:
The Council has set a deadline of three months for Parliament to deliver its opinion
So I don't think there's a two-and-a-half year delay.
But OK, you don't trust politicians. And there's a new drug from India, maybe. But the EU can take tough decisions about dangerous substances, see REACH. So perhaps there's some hope after all? When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
