Mr. Cathal O'Regan:

I do not believe that the decision was rejecting just the idea of a commercialised cannabis market. That was going to be a follow-on question. If the vote had been in favour of legalisation in principle, there would have been a series of follow-on questions, for example, what form of supply was preferred between a State monopoly, home cultivation clubs, social clubs and a commercialised market. We did not get there, though, because the principle of legalisation was rejected, albeit narrowly. From what I understand, the presentations that were made in favour of legalisation contained some cogent arguments around eliminating the criminal market, improving the safety of supply and so on, but the compelling argument that I believe assembly members picked up on was that legalisation and the messaging that gave would lead to an uptick in prevalence, which would, in turn, lead to an increase in the harms caused in society in general. From a public health perspective, I believe that was the critical distinguishing factor between the vote supporting legalisation and the vote supporting an alternative approach.

What we can say clearly is that, regardless of whether people voted in favour of legalising cannabis or taking a comprehensive health-led approach, both options represented a paradigm shift away from the status quo.