Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one question, which is an extension of the line of questioning I was pursuing earlier. It is around the objectives of criminal law, which include deterrence, rehabilitation and so on. By our failure to condemn, we condone. The argument about decriminalisation is well made. It is still a tacit acceptance that there will be a market for what are now prescribed drugs and, in the absence of legalisation, it will be supplied by actors that I have described as evil. That may be melodramatic on my part, but generally if you operate outside the law, it is survival of the fittest, and the fittest are not often the nicest beasts in the jungle. Does that pose a problem?

Two of the contributors have argued for legalisation. If I understand Professor Stevens, he is more focused solely on decriminalisation rather than having it be wholly decoupled from legalisation. Does he see that it is an acceptance that there will be a market and that that market will be supplied by people operating outside the law? If it is illegal, of course they are operating outside the law. It will be difficult to ensure any sort of regulation or safety of supply of this substance, the use and possession of which is decriminalised.

On a separate but maybe related question, what is the evidence for it hampering efforts? There are many downsides, as have been highlighted, but in respect of search and so on, I would have thought that if a police force finds somebody in possession, it will be in a position to find out where that possession originated and thereby trace its way back to dealers and importers of drugs. Those are two separate questions I would like to pose to Professor Stevens, in particular, given he did not really get in during the previous round.