1-3「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」その3

「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」その3　厚生労働省医薬・生活衛生局　鎌田局長が見せた最終挨拶での軽さと思い込みと本音

さて、問題です。以下の1〜3の文章の違いは？Let's think！

1、法改正などの時間を要する制度改正についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組む

2、法改正などの一定の時間を要する提言についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組む

3、法改正と一定の時間を要する制度についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組む

、、、どうですか？違いがわかったでしょうか？

「特に具体的にこの報告書の最後に、法改正と一定の時間を要する制度についても、可能な限り速やかにという御指摘をいただきました」

上記の発言は厚生労働省医薬・生活衛生局　鎌田局長のものだ。ということで、問題の3は鎌田局長の発言だ。

そして、鎌田局長はこうも続ける。
「このとりまとめを踏まえて、関連する法案の提出の準備を進めてまいります。その際に、関係審議会での議論がございます。制度の細部の検討を進めてまいります」
「できるだけ早くこの法案を作成して、できるだけ早く国会に提出してまいりたいと考えております」

あらためて鎌田局長のいう「大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会」のとりまとめの報告書の中の「御指摘」をみると「法改正などの一定の時間を要する提言についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組むことを求める」とある。これが問題の2だ。

鎌田局長の言う「制度」と言う言葉ではなく「提言」となっている。なぜ「提言」ではなく書かれてもいない「制度」という言葉を使ってしまったのか？

それは問題1、「法改正などの時間を要する制度改正についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組む」ならば理解できる。

「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」その1「日本語が読めればわかる検討会の「とりまとめ」で決まったこと」（https://note.com/yosiki1970/n/nf0d627fc7720）でも指摘した内容と重複する部分もあるが、あらためて列挙する。

第6回で提出された資料１「とりまとめ(素案)」（https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11121000/000779388.pdf）
言及なし

第7回で訂正された資料1「大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会とりまとめ(案)
~今後の大麻等の薬物対策のあり方に関する基本的な方向について~」（https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11121000/000785706.pdf）の文面
「法改正などの一定の時間を要する提言についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組む」

第8回でほぼ確定された資料1「大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会とりまとめ(案)
~今後の大麻等の薬物対策のあり方に関する基本的な方向について~」」（https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11121000/000791091.pdf）の文面
「法改正などの一定の時間を要する提言についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組む」

鎌田局長解釈　第8回検討会議事録　検討会鎌田局長の最終挨拶より抜粋（https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r98520000031ehd_00008.html）
「法改正と一定の時間を要する制度についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組む」

以上のことからも鎌田局長の発言は第7回のとりまとめ案に準拠していると考えられる。そのようなことがなぜ起こったかは鎌田局長本人の発言から見て取れるだろう。

「ちょうど国会の時期でもあり、また、コロナ対策ということで出席できず、また、今日も遅れて参りました」と本人が認めるように会議に参加せず、最終日も遅刻し、とりまとめの修正内容、第8回の最終とりまとめである報告書の確認もおろそかにした状態で「このとりまとめを踏まえ」たからだ。

また、「関連する法案の提出の準備を進めて」いくことにまとまったのはいつなのだろうか？「できるだけ早くこの法案を作成して、できるだけ早く国会に提出」とは検討会が求めたことなのだろうか？

鎌田局長が「踏まえた」のは自身が発言した「法改正と一定の時間を要する制度についても、可能な限り速やかに取り組む」ことであり、自身の発言を元に「関連する法案の提出の準備を進め」、「関係審議会での議論」を行い、「制度の細部の検討を進め」、さらに「できるだけ早くこの法案を作成して、できるだけ早く国会に提出」しようとしている。これが検討会で「御指摘」されたこと？これはマッチポンプ以外の何者でもないのではないだろうか？

どのとりまとめを踏まえて、関連する法案の提出の準備を進めていくのだろうか？その際にある関係審議会での議論で制度の細部の検討を進めていくのだろうか？

これらの発言は検討会への軽視であり、真摯に検討し、誠実にとりまとめたであろう委員たちや鈴木議長、検討会をとりしきり議事録やとりまとめ報告書をまとめあげた部下たちを蔑ろにした言動であり、ひいては国民に対する裏切りである。
法治国家の根幹をなす法を作っていく過程である。形骸化した検討会、その上に成り立つ審議会、閣議決定、そして鎌田局長の言う「この法案」にはたして「法の正義」があるのだろうか。法は一部の官僚の思い込みで構築されるものではない。

また、各委員が法改正に賛成なのか反対なのかはとりまとめの報告書が出た時点ですでにどうでも良いことだ。すでに独り立ちした公的文書だ。たとえ報告書がどのような内容であっても、意図に沿わない、そんなつもりでまとめたものではない委員もいるだろう。もしかしたら鎌田局長もそうなのかもしれない。とはいえ、そんな個人の感情は無意味なことだ。それぞれの想いは考慮されない。法改正に向けて手続きを踏むために検討会が行われたという事実（これもちょっと違うのだけれども）が次のステップに進むために必要不可欠なように、報告書でまとめられた内容が重要なのだ。

　 「新しい知見、新しい技術、新しい科学を、私たちの社会に取り込んでいく。その成果を正しく国民の皆様に提供していく。それが医薬局の役割だと思っております。むろん、それは単に科学の成果、技術の成果をダイレクトに取り込むのではなくて、安全とか社会の影響を考える、つまり倫理的な判断、そういったものが必要」（鎌田局長）と考えるならなおさらだ。大賛成であり、そうであるべき姿であるとともにその姿勢を貫いていくには相当の覚悟がいるだろう。

だからこそ、稚拙に急ぐ必要はなく、じっくりと「法改正などの一定の時間を要する提言」について取り組むべきだろう。ただし、「可能な限り速やかに取り組むことを求め」ていきたい。まだまだ議論は終わっていない。もっとしっかり取り組む必要がある。Let's think！（続く）

※ これらの記事は、「こんな検討会で法律変わったら恥ずかしい」「法改正は既定路線なんだからスムーズに進むように意見いれときゃいい」「10年、20年後、カッコ悪い」「変な検討会」「なんの検討会だかよくわからない」といった委員たちの非公式な裏話に準拠しません。公式な議事録、公開された資料、メディア掲載記事をベースに「潮流」と題したルポ形式、僕の感じたちょっとした疑問をコラム形式にした「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」のツーラインで進めていきます。ご了承ください。

How to read the Study Group on Cannabis and Other Drugs, Part 3

Now, here's a question. What is the difference between the following sentences 1 to 3?

1、As soon as possible, even if it takes time to revise the law.

2. as soon as possible to work on proposals that require a certain amount of time, such as law reform.

3. as soon as possible to work on changes to the law or to the system that take time.

Kamata, Director General of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's Pharmaceutical and Consumer Health Bureau, showed his lightness, assumption and true feelings in his final address.

In particular, at the end of the report, he pointed out the need to revise the law and the system, which requires a certain amount of time, as quickly as possible.

The above statement was made by Kamata, Director General of the Pharmaceutical and Consumer Health Bureau of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The above statement was made by Mr. Kamata, Director-General of the Pharmaceutical and Consumer Health Bureau of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.

And Kamata goes on to say
Based on this summary, we will proceed with preparations for the submission of related legislation. In doing so, there will be discussions in the relevant councils. We will continue to work out the details of the system.
We will prepare this bill as soon as possible and submit it to the Diet as soon as possible.

When we look again at the "points raised" in the report compiled by the "Study Group on Measures to Prevent Marijuana and Other Drugs," as Kamata calls it, we see that it "urges that proposals that require a certain amount of time, such as legal amendments, be tackled as quickly as possible. This is problem number two.

The word "system" used by Mr Kamata is not "system", but "proposal". Why did he use the word "system" instead of "proposal"?

It would be understandable if it had said, "We will work as quickly as possible on systemic changes that require time, such as legal amendments.

I'll list them again, although some of them overlap with what I pointed out in "How to read the 'Study Group on Measures to Prevent Marijuana and Other Drugs'" Part 1, "What the Study Group's 'Summary' says you can understand if you can read Japanese".

There are some points that overlap with those pointed out in "How to read the Study Group on Measures to Prevent Marijuana and Other Drugs," Part 1, "What was decided in the Study Group's 'Summary' that can be understood if you can read Japanese" (https://note.com/yosiki1970/n/nf0d627fc7720), but I will list them again. I will list them again.

Document 1 "Summary (Draft)" submitted at the 6th meeting (https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11121000/000779388.pdf)
Not mentioned

Document 1 "Draft Summary of the Study Group on the Future of Measures to Prevent Marijuana and Other Drugs" () revised at the 7th meeting
~The text of "The basic direction of the future measures against marijuana and other drugs" (https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11121000/000785706.pdf)
"Recommendations that require a certain amount of time, such as legal amendments, will be tackled as quickly as possible.

Document 1, "Draft Summary of the Study Group on the Future Direction of Marijuana and Other Drugs", which was almost finalized at the 8th meeting
~(https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11121000/000791091.pdf)
"Recommendations that require a certain amount of time, such as legal amendments, will be tackled as quickly as possible.

Kamata's interpretation of the minutes of the 8th review meeting Excerpts from Kamata's final address to the review meeting (https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r98520000031ehd_00008.html)
"We will also work as quickly as possible on legal amendments and other systems that require a certain amount of time.

In view of the above, we believe that Mr Kamata's statement complies with the draft of the seventh report. The reason for this can be seen in the statement of Mr Kamata himself.

As he admits, he did not attend the meeting because "it was the time of the Diet and I could not attend the meeting because of the Corona measures, and I came late again today. The reason is that "based on this summary".

And when was it agreed to "proceed with preparations for the submission of the relevant legislation"? When did the panel decide to "prepare this bill as soon as possible and submit it to the Diet as soon as possible"?

What Mr Kamata has "taken into account" is his own statement that "we will work as quickly as possible on systems that require legal amendments and a certain amount of time", and based on his statement, "we will proceed with preparations for the submission of relevant bills", "hold discussions in relevant councils", "proceed with the examination of the details of the system", and "prepare this bill as soon as possible and submit it to the Diet as soon as possible". This is the reason why the study group is trying to "prepare the bill and submit it to the Diet as soon as possible". This is what was "pointed out" at the review meeting? Isn't this nothing more than a match pump?

On the basis of which summary, will they proceed with preparations for the submission of the relevant bill? Will the details of the system be discussed at the relevant Council meeting?

These statements are a disregard for the study group, a disrespect for the members of the committee who must have studied the matter sincerely and compiled the report in good faith, Chairman Suzuki, and his subordinates who took charge of the study group and compiled the minutes and the summary report, and thus a betrayal of the people.
This is the process of making law, which is the foundation of a nation governed by law. Is there any "legal justice" in the skeleton study group, the Council, the Cabinet decision, and "this bill" as Director Kamata calls it? Laws are not constructed based on the assumptions of a few bureaucrats.

And whether the commissioners agree or disagree with the amendment is already irrelevant when the report is released. It is a public document that already stands on its own. Whatever the content of the report, there will be some members who do not agree with its intentions and did not intend it to be so. This may be the case with Mr Kamata. Nevertheless, such personal feelings are meaningless. Each individual's feelings will not be taken into account. What is important is what is in the report, just as the fact that the committee was convened in order to take steps towards legal reform (which is not quite the same thing) is essential for the next step.

　 The report's findings are important in the same way that the fact that a study has been carried out (which is not quite the same thing) is essential for the next step: to bring new knowledge, new technology and new science into our society. It is the role of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Bureau to bring new knowledge, new technology and new science into our society, and to ensure that the results are properly communicated to the public. We believe that this is the role of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Bureau. Of course, it is not just a matter of taking in the results of science and technology directly, but also of considering safety and the impact on society, in other words, ethical decisions," says Kamata. I am all for it, and I think it is the way it should be, but it will take a lot of determination to stick to that stance.

That is why we should take our time in addressing "proposals that require a certain amount of time, such as amendments to the law", rather than rushing into them prematurely. However, we urge them to do so as soon as possible. The debate is not over yet. Let's think!

How to read the "Study Group on Measures to Prevent Marijuana and Other Drugs" and "Trends

These articles do not conform to the unofficial back stories of the committee members, such as "It would be a shame if the law is changed by such a study group", "The law is already going to be revised, so we should just give our opinions to make it go smoothly", "It won't be cool in 10 or 20 years", "It's a strange study group", "I don't know what the study group is about". This article will be based on the official minutes, published documents, and articles in the media, in the form of a report titled "Trends", and in the form of a column titled "How to read the study group on marijuana and other drugs". Thank you for your understanding.