Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. Although I agree with most of them, we are definitely on different sides of the debate and have been for a long time. I want to recognise their contributions. They are in a minority today. I will try to be kind.

I do not misunderstand, in any shape or form, the Portuguese model or many other models. However, I have concerns about some of the submission relating to the Portuguese model.

Rather than using up my time by going through the submission word by word, it might be more beneficial for me to engage directly with the witnesses at another stage about how particular research pieces are not in context, as I would understand or read it. It would probably be too pedantic for me to do so in this session today.

I will give an example of what I am talking about. When drug policy is discussed in Ireland, we tend to completely overlook our own successes and then we talk about opioids and the reduction in heroin use. That is not because of legislation. It is also wrapped up in drug trends and how drug use evolves and changes when different drugs come on the market and certain drugs become much more prevalent. I do not think there is a relationship, in any sense or form, between the two.

Many people of the late 1980s and 1990s who were my friends and community are dead. We talk about the success of heroin use changing but many people are dead, in prison or sitting at home at the age of 40, 50 or 60 because they cannot engage in employment. It is not Ireland's success because those people are still there. We do not have enough information about its being a success because they are not hindered by the convictions that they would have had been handed down while they were drug users. Some of that stuff, which is not really related to prohibition working in any sense or form, or to harm reduction fully working, needs to be teased out. I am uncomfortable with some references to success. I do not know if we would frame a reduction in heroin as a success, because people whose lives were affected are still very much struggling.

We need to be careful on the committee, because there are three conversations going and I am sure it is quite confusing. We are discussing the ideas of medicinal cannabis, legalisation and decriminalisation. We also have another conversation, on which we all agree, in that sometimes problematic drug use is harmful. I was a problematic drug user. I frame myself as a drug user now, not a problem drug user. I have developed drug services and now I work in the legislative framework. I have had many journeys through this discussion. I am very aware that there are three or four conversations happening now that are probably a bit confusing. We might need to have further committees to separate those conversations out. I do not think anyone disagrees that we need to have people working with problem drug use. We just do not feel that they need to be in a courthouse or in prison.

I have a question for Dr. Capaz. I do not know whether it is because of language, but people seem to be much more open when we talk about diversion. When we mention decriminalisation, however, people seem to feel that somebody is getting off with something or that the justice system will disappear. Is there a difference between a dissuasion service and decriminalisation? Are they effectively the same?