Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I am not always sure what one does with these products, but apparently extraordinary things can be done with them. I am told that Deputy Shatter's proposed inclusion of "applied to the body of any person" and the reference to "ingested" are appropriate, so I am pleased to support the amendments. This is the definitions sections and the definition of "psychoactive substance" is central to that; it is what the Bill is all about.

The document that is somewhere in the Attorney General's office and which the Minister did not get to see raises a question that concerns me and which I have raised before. In referring to the definition of "psychoactive substance" in the Bill, that document states:

It is immediately apparent that the definition is extremely broad. Of particular note is that it purports to define a psychoactive substance not by reference to any immediately identifiable characteristics but rather by reference to a capacity to cause certain effects. In so far as the definition requires only that the substance have the capacity to produce the effects or responses thereafter, there is no further qualification as to the dosage or level of exposure that is required to cause the specified effect.

This begs the question as to whether there is any substance which might not be regarded as having the capacity to produce one of the effects described on the human body. I sincerely hope that the Minster's approach to this is beyond challenge or, if not, that it would be capable of resisting any challenge. Since we have this definition for which the Minister has opted, the amendments from Deputy Shatter which refer to "ingest" or "rub on the body" are appropriate additions.

See this speech in context