Mr. Tony Duffin:

Thank you, Chairman. I am the director of the Ana Liffey Drug Project. For anyone unfamiliar with the project, it is an non-governmental organisation whose core work is providing direct social and medical services, mostly to active drug users. We work within a harm reduction ethos, in line with the overall objective of our current national drugs strategy, by seeking to tackle the harm caused by drug use. We are almost entirely funded by the State or statutory agencies and we are very grateful for that support. I am accompanied today by my colleague, Mr. Marcus Keane, who is head of policy and advocacy.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it to discuss this important topic. Having worked in addiction or related services for more than 20 years, I believe the prevailing sentiment regarding drug policy among those who deliver services in Ireland is more positive than I have ever seen. There is a widespread and honest recognition that our current approach is not as effective as it could or should be, accompanied by a willingness to consider other approaches. That this committee is discussing the issue of decriminalisation of possession offences is indicative of the current mood and is to be both commended and welcomed. The fact that possession of certain drugs is a criminal offence makes this committee an appropriate forum for the current discussion, but the evidence internationally is overwhelmingly in favour of drug policy in general shifting from a criminal justice footing to a health footing. The simple fact is that criminalising people who use drugs enjoys the twin distinctions of being both expensive and ineffective.

This is a useful starting point for a discussion on decriminalisation. As a policy response, what does criminalisation of possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use achieve? The objective, presumably, is that should be a deterrent, intended to reduce demand. However, there is no evidence it is effective in that goal. The committee has seen this at first hand in the case of the Portuguese experience. Contrary to predictions, the sky has not fallen in there and that country is not overrun with drug addicts and drug tourists. As the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, EMCDDA, notes, drug prevalence rates in Portugal have not confirmed the theory that decriminalisation, or a less punitive approach, leads to increased use. Indeed, it seems that criminalisation - or decriminalisation, for that matter - is not significantly linked to demand.

Given that this is the case, the question becomes one of whether criminalisation is the best policy response to the problems associated with possession of drugs for personal use. The answer to that must be "No". In fact, criminalisation does nothing to address the issues citizens face which have led them to be in possession of drugs in the first place, nor does it serve to protect society at large. All it does is simply punish a behaviour. While it should and must be acknowledged that judges and other officers of court are all too aware of the issues surrounding drug use and do what they can to approach personal drug use from a humane perspective, it must equally be acknowledged that this is not their role. The criminal justice system is simply not the appropriate system to deal with what is undeniably a health and social issue.

This leads me to my second point, which is to tell the committee about the people we work with at Ana Liffey. In general, they are problematic drug users, many of whom are also dealing with comorbid issues such as homelessness, mental health diagnoses and physical health diagnoses. It is a group with complex needs and the fact that possession of drugs is not criminalised does nothing to discourage these people's drug use. Criminalisation, however, further stigmatise them unnecessarily. Although people are not dissuaded from their drug use by the existence of the law, they are afraid of the consequences of breaking the law. I have met people who were scared to seek help because of the fear of criminalisation. Whether or not they are correct in these beliefs is immaterial; the fact is their beliefs are honestly held and real and act as a barrier to their getting help.

Thus, the question for me is not whether the status quo of criminalisation for possession should be maintained – it is ineffective at best and damaging at worst – but what should replace it. Drugs can be harmful and drug use can cause great hardship to individuals, families and societies. It is correct that we as a society have a response for people who are in possession of drugs. The question is what it should be. Ana Liffey is an organisation which is committed to reducing harm. Consistent with that view, we support the implementation of policies that minimise harm. The committee will be aware that the evidence from Portugal indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding. As such, the Portuguese experience is instructive in terms of the general framing of any policy response.

However, we must look at the issues we face here and develop our own response to suit. There are many factors to consider when deciding what such a policy might look like in practice. The Ana Liffey Drug Project is happy to make further submissions to the committee on those possibilities if it would be of assistance. I am satisfied, in general terms, that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Complex problems require tailored solutions. A person in possession of cannabis may require a different response from that which should apply to a person in possession of cocaine. A person found in possession for the third time may require a different response from what should happen when a person is found in possession for the first time. A problematic drug user may require a different approach from what is appropriate for an occasional drug user.

The important thing is that the approach is person-centred, rooted in health and directed towards realistic and helpful outcomes. This is true not just of decriminalisation but of drugs policy as a whole. Drugs policy has traditionally been driven by fear, morality and ideology. This is no firm grounding, and we have reaped the results. Instead, we need a drugs policy that is rooted in health and based on evidence, pragmatism and respect for every individual in society. The criminalisation of simple possession meets none of those standards.