Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

In picking up on Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's point about trying to dovetail analysis and banning with the presentation or the advent of a new substance, I note it probably is extremely difficult. I refer the Minister of State back to the earlier point I made. Is it at all possible to be out ahead of it? Without wishing to repeat everything I stated earlier, I suggest a general ban on human use or absorption of substances that are not actually deemed legal and within approved purpose might be a means by which the Garda would be better able to carry out its function in the face of the presentation of new substances on a continuous basis, which is the case and unquestionably will continue to be the case. I refer to when a new substance presents and the definition as to whether it is psychoactive. The laboratory testing will make a determination as to whether the chemical structure of the new substance is comparable with existing psychoactive substances. However, of itself, it perhaps cannot decide that it is; it can only tell one what is the make-up of the substance and that it is similar to known psychoactive particles. Is there a way, within the existing or the new legislation the Minister of State is planning, of having legal certainty whereby one could allow for the prosecution to proceed on the basis of the laboratory testing and of all the available information? Is there a way to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that this comparable make-up to known psychoactive substances is sufficient to proceed? It is the case that some of these are challenged, there is uncertainty and it is unknown, particularly in respect of synthetic cannabinoids. As I stated in the earlier session, these are not the same but are mimicking what something else we know of can and does do. Can the legislation be amended to ensure the laboratory test is adequate confirmation of the purpose, the intent and the effect of the use of these substances?

I refer to the role of the mental health services in treating induced psychosis or other presenting crises such as, for example, suicidal ideation. I made the point earlier that there is not immediate access. There must be an amendment to the existing brief regarding mental services in order that people are not turned away only to then go back to a community-based or similar service within the community. There must be some access to professional help and services, not awaiting the person to be off the particular drug in which he or she is involved. For all of this, increased investment in treatment and support is needed. Finally, I refer to the establishment of inpatient stabilisation and detoxification facilities. Are these matters the Minister of State will proactively consider in the new amending Bill he proposes to bring in before the end of this year? He should provide members with greater certainty as to what he intends to do.