 The folks that come here are law enforcement people. They are the ones that stand outside of needle exchange programs, methadone programs and arrest people. They are the ones that are going after young kids looking for half a gram of cannabis. A very disappointed harm reduction isn't in there. It is absolute nonsense that all parts of the United Nations directly support a set of activities and one part of the United Nations opposes it. It's ridiculous, it's untenable and it must be put right. For us harm reduction is important because it symbolizes a whole route of working with drug users that at this moment is excluded. We have drug prevention, people not using drugs, drug treatment for people who want to stop using drugs. People who use drugs are excluded and harm reduction is incredibly important because it means that we can include people who use drugs in drug services and that they can have a certain autonomy over their own lives. It's important for the EU as well as the commission to include this because it is part of the EU strategy on drugs. It's in there, the word is in there, the concept and the activities in there. It has been in the last two EU action plans on drugs as well. So we were a bit surprised when countries began to try and keep it out of the declaration. There are many countries outside of Europe that practice harm reduction. It is becoming increasingly a preferred option to deal with drug problems. We have seen, we've heard Iran, for instance, explain what it's doing. They have turned from being very strictly prohibitionists to doing harm reduction. Up to what point is the European Union going to defend harm reduction in the political declaration? Is Europe united to defend harm reduction policies? Thank you for your question. You know, I'll be very open. I don't care too much about the name. The contain is more important and harm reduction is a part of the rational anti-drug policy based on four volumes as the repression prevention of therapy and harm reduction. And maybe you've noticed that even Mr. Costa mentioned harm reduction in her speech. So it shows that the doors for using not only the container but also the name harm reduction is open. I think the difficulty around words being in or out, particularly these words, harm reduction. I think for developed world countries it has very little meaning. Countries like the UK, Holland, Denmark will continue as they did before to apply harm reduction. The real challenges for developing world countries that are facing new emerging drug problems, they're looking to the world for leadership, looking to the United Nations for leadership and the United Nations is saying to them very clearly focus on supply reduction, don't focus on harm reduction. And that is very dangerous because we leave the most vulnerable people in the world without the policies that save the developed world from HIV. And now this is a real contradiction. We're saying we've saved ourselves from HIV but now we want you to live with the dogma that will destroy your communities, that will destroy your healthcare systems and will leave your people marginalised and alienated. The fact that this declaration is going to come back home with no mention of harm reduction is going to be a real problem for folks in Russia that are work again a country with very high HIV rates among drug users. They are working on donor money, there is very little if any Russian money that's going into needle exchange. Harm reduction is not necessarily the favourite of the law enforcement in Russia. So I think what we're doing is we're failing with this declaration those people who are need our help the most. You go around the world and there are battles day in day out in each country between those who want to treat drug users as criminals and those who want to treat them as people in deserving of health and deserving of rights. These battles play out in every country all the time and the symbolism that comes out of Vienna from not having harm reduction in the declaration will be used by many people around the world in the coming years to say we would like to help you but we are just doing what the UN tells us so that is very bad and it what's the reason or the argumentation behind this resistance? I think that harm reduction means a new way of looking at the whole issue of drugs and that is something that let's say all thinking doesn't like to accept because harm reduction means that you accept that in the end there will be people who will still use drugs but you have to help them you have not to ignore them. We ended with a very rousing statement of 26 countries basically saying they refuse to go along with the consensus which is which is very heartening to see.