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

I believe that everyone is in agreement that the housing issue will come up and especially in the work of Dr. Ivers around that recovery capital piece. If the person cannot access housing then he or she is already at a deficit. Drugs possession is in the most serious category. No matter how simple the possession is, it is currently in the category with serious sexual crimes, murder, and firearms. It is already captured in something that will not ever leave the person's record even under the spent convictions regime that currently exists. Hopefully, as we go through the modules, we can look at all those other blocks around people being able to safely seek help, whether it is with abstinence or harm reduction models, going forward.

I will finish with one or two comments and one question. Sometimes I am a little bit uncomfortable when it slips into the conversation about the drug trade. In my work with people who have been involved in the drug trade, they are people who have come from the exact same vulnerable backgrounds. They have experienced the exact same poverty, abuse and violence. Obviously, there are different levels of that but we need to remember that often they are not two mutually exclusive groups. Sometimes they are the same group but unfortunately they are in a situation where they may appear to now have some sort of power or extra resources or whatever, when actually the underlying issues of the social determinants of dealing at a community level and upwards are often similar social determinants to those who end up in drug addiction. We need to be careful about the language we use when we talk about those people. They are within the community and they are loved ones often of people who are on the other end and caught up in addiction. The idea of being a victim of drugs gets me thinking about sometimes seeing people who use drugs to survive, because they have been victims of abuse, inequality, poverty and all of those things. It can be really hard for some people to understand that heroin kept somebody alive. It dulled and numbed a part of them they did not have the capacity to process in the real world in real time everything that was happening to them. It is counter intuitive to think that. I am happy that we spoke about the social deterrent determinants, trauma and poverty because the addiction piece is the outcome of all of those. It is good to try to keep that in our minds as we continue.

I have one final question before we go and it follows on from points raised by Deputies Kenny and McAuliffe about the legalisation of cannabis. The vote went a particular way, and I understand that. I know we cannot go back to put a different question to the assembly, but consider if an alternative question was put to the assembly, namely, to look at the model in countries such as Malta and Spain where cannabis is not for profit, is not about the tourism piece and is not in the shops but it is about social clubs and a licence to grow a small amount. Do the witnesses believe that if an alternative question on the legalisation of cannabis was put to the assembly, where cannabis was not a for-profit industry, there may have been a different outcome given the conversations in the room?