Dr. Garrett McGovern:

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to present my thoughts on this important issue. I have worked as a doctor in addiction treatment for almost 25 years. In many ways, I started at the deep end in treating heroin addiction. This was at a time when the methadone treatment protocol was implemented, which helped people address their addiction. What struck me in those days was that almost all the people I encountered were in the criminal justice system for possession of drugs charges, many of them over many years. Looking back to those early naive days as a doctor cutting his teeth in an area where there was little or no training, I would be lying if I said I thought anything of it at the time. I did not. I just accepted it. People committed the crime and people did the time.

As the years progressed and I became more experienced and picked up qualifications through training, it began to dawn on me that I was treating a recognised illness, drug addiction, and yet the patients I was treating had to break the law to keep that addiction going. Thankfully, opioid substitution treatment, with a stellar international evidence base of effectiveness, is able to treat the problem and remove opioid withdrawal symptoms and craving so the need to use large amounts of heroin is significantly reduced. Without treatment, the problem is usually overwhelming and causes huge harm to sufferers, their families and their communities. Why, in these circumstances, do we criminalise the very same people for showing symptoms of their disease?

I also encounter people in my work who do not have an addiction as such but who may have been referred to me or been required as part of a court order to seek help for possession of what are usually small amounts of cannabis, cocaine or sometimes other drugs. They are irregular users but because of the illegality of the drugs they use, they find themselves facing conviction and a criminal record for an endeavour they would see as no more abnormal than going out to have a few drinks with their friends. The implications of a criminal conviction can be severe. Stigma, shame and potential restrictions on travelling abroad are real concerns. To put one person through the criminal justice system for simple possession is costly in human and financial terms and yet the international evidence base shows it has little or no effect on the likelihood of that person using drugs again.

We need a fresh approach to this problem and one rooted in evidence rather than moral ideology. We know from the experience in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised in 2001 and a health-led system replaced a punitive one, that the country reversed its trends in overdose and HIV transmission prevalence. Presenting for treatment for an addiction problem was no longer stigmatising. It was normal. While Ireland currently has no plans to regulate illicit drugs, it is worth noting that in countries that have taken this approach, with cannabis, for example, the sky has not fallen in. In Ireland, people who use cannabis, many now for medical as well as recreational reasons, are criminalised for possession for personal use. Many have had to go abroad to be able to access cannabis for chronic medical conditions. This is inhumane and just plain wrong.

During the presentation of these statements, the committee will doubtlessly hear about how harmful cannabis is, that the drug causes psychosis and other mental health problems and that people who use it should be prosecuted and criminalised because that will be better for them. I treat cannabis problems, and while the majority of cannabis users use the drug without many problems, a significant minority develop consequences of addiction, including mental health problems. We must remember these problems are occurring in a paradigm of prohibition and criminalisation, so none of them can be blamed on a legalised, regulated system. We do not have one in Ireland.

Whatever views people may have on legalising cannabis, there is no justification for criminalising people who use the drug. I urge the committee not to be swayed by arguments contending that criminalising people is good for them because it acts as a deterrent for further drug use. There is no evidence internationally that this is the case. As Abraham Lincoln once said:

Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.

Many years later, another US President, Jimmy Carter, remarked - and this is particularly relevant to today’s debate - “penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself”. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak.