Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)

I thank Deputy Sherlock and the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion. The opportunity to discuss decriminalisation can never come too soon. I welcome the opportunity to speak on it today. The motion states that we recall the Citizens' Assembly on Drugs Use, the interim report of the Oireachtas Committee on Drugs Use and the Misuse of Drugs Act. All we are doing is recalling them, because all of these measures, debates and conversations have been had, but the same policies remain largely in place despite the evidence the various initiatives have brought forward. We are stuck remembering promises that have never yet become policy. While successive Governments have talked about a health-led approach, what they have actually been giving us is a criminal justice system pretending to be healthcare policy. Any day of the week at the Circuit Court, there are people facing charges and offences and, in the vast majority of cases, if we could back over that person's life, we would see substance misuse, trauma and a form of substance misuse that is about self-medicating for traumas that may go back generations in some part. Every single day in this country, people of all ages are stopped and searched, charged and shamed, often for having been caught with a small amount of drugs for personal. In reality, that should be a matter for a GP and not a garda.

Since our inception, the Social Democrats have always been clear that if a Government truly believes in a health-led approach, then it is time to act like it. That absolutely starts with the repeal of section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. We cannot have a decriminalisation-lite model subsequent to winning the argument, hopefully, on decriminalisation. Decriminalisation actually means removing the criminal offence of possession for personal use. The citizens' assembly was clear on that, as was the previous Oireachtas committee on drug use. Everything else, the sale, supply, cultivation, manufacture, remains illegal. That is the distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. Decriminalisation does not mean the free-for-all that some people fear, as has been expressed in the Chamber already. It does not mean drugs are sold in shops. It means people are not dragged through the courts or branded as criminals simply for struggling or making a personal choice that harms nobody else. I will talk at the end about the mechanisms we can put in place should we repeal section 3 of the Act. We have all heard the scare stories. We have been told decriminalisation will make things work, use will skyrocket, dealers will thrive, communities will become less safe. The evidence internationally tells a very different story. In Portugal, where they decriminalised over 20 years ago, injection-associated HIV infections have fallen, the number of people in prison for drug offences has dropped, drug-related deaths have declined and, crucially, drug use did not increase. That is because when we stop treating people like criminals, we create a space for them to be treated like human beings.

I represent communities where drugs have done untold damage, families are devastated, people are living in fear of drug-related intimidation and organised crime feeds on poverty and despair. I understand why some people ask how this will make things better where they live. The answer is that criminalising the drug user has never made communities safer. It has not stopped dealers, dismantled networks or brought down levels of violence. All it has done is fill our courts, ruin young lives with criminal records and make recovery harder. When Portugal decriminalised, the police did not lose power, they refocused it. They shifted from arresting people with tiny amounts to targeting those higher up the chain. The weight of drugs seized actually increased. Far from helping dealers, decriminalisation takes away the smokescreen that lets them operate in plain sight. Some people say it is too complex to repeal section 3 but I would argue that is not the case. Section 3 is a stand-alone offence that can be repealed by a single Act of the Oireachtas. There is nothing complex about it except the political courage required to do it. In Oregon, for example, it was pointed out that after removing possession, drug use operated without sanction, which led to drug dealing and consumption in parks. That was their model, however; it does not have to be ours. If we were to repeal section 3 of the drugs offences Act, as expert testimony has indicated, we could and should replace it with council by-laws much as we have for alcohol. If somebody were to leave the Chamber now and buy a bottle of alcohol, the possession of that alcohol is not illegal. If they walked into St. Stephen's Green and opened the alcohol, it would be illegal under the council by-laws. If they consumed the alcohol and their behaviour became erratic, that would fall under the intoxication Act. We have mechanisms in our jurisdiction that would be suited to decriminalisation without the free-for-all that has been referred to. The removal of section 3 and innovative practices within the Irish model are there, have been argued for and would suit our Republic really well.

Repealing section 3 would not legalise drugs. It would simply stop the State from wasting Garda and court time and prison resources chasing people for small amounts. Those resources could be redirected to addiction services, outreach, housing and harm reduction. That is what Portugal did. Multiple UN bodies have urged us to do this. It is what the Citizens' Assembly thought it was voting for, until a flawed process left decriminalisation off the ballot entirely. The chair of the assembly has been crystal clear. Members wanted decriminalisation and voted for decriminalisation. The only reason it did not appear that way on paper was how the question was written. We have an opportunity now to finish the job they started and to respect the democratic process that this Government says it values. That is why I will keep calling for the national drugs strategy to be designated as an interim strategy. The Committee on Drugs Use, of which I am incredibly proud to be the Cathaoirleach, is still doing the hard, detailed work of building a policy that reflects the evidence and the voices of people living in this reality every single day. To push ahead with a final strategy before that report is complete would be to bypass democracy entirely. We owe it to the people who have come before that committee - the experts, workers, families and most importantly the people with lived experience - to get this right. We must ensure that their voice, when they came to a committee established by this Government, is actually catered for in the work it charged the committee to do. It is essential that it is an interim strategy. We are clearly nowhere near where we should be.

It took nearly a decade to open a single medically supervised injection centre - a decade. Now, almost a year after opening, we are seeing how effective it can be. In just seven months, it has taken thousands of injection events off the street, has saved lives and is preserving people's self-respect. In the absence of safe injection facilities, what we had for over 40 decades in this country was unsafe injection facilities in our laneways and parks. These have left the user incredibly unsafe but they also leave all of us unsafe. That is what a health-led response looks like in practice - not rhetoric, results. We should be scaling that up, not patting ourselves on the back for opening one facility a decade late.

The criminalisation of people who use drugs is one of the greatest policy failures of modern Ireland. It wastes Garda time; fills our prisons with people who need healthcare, not punishment; stigmatises people who are already struggling; and traps them in cycles of poverty and exclusion. The evidence is overwhelming. Decriminalisation does not increase use, does not empower dealers and does not erode communities. What it does is save lives, restore dignity and bring honesty back into our drug policy.

If the Government truly believes in a health-led response, it must prove it. For me, that starts with the repeal of section 3. It would designate the national drugs strategy as interim, listen to participants of the citizens' assembly, fund harm reduction services properly and most of all, bring the voices of people with lived experience into every decision we make. This is a really welcome debate and I am very interested in hearing the viewpoints of people across the Chamber. The work of the committee is ongoing. We are hearing some incredible stories that are empowering and heartbreaking. The stories we have been replicating for four decades of failed policy not only in this jurisdiction but elsewhere. At the end, we can have a document that contains evidence, reason and the heart of people who have given of their time to appear before the committee. I believe it should be respected. We need a new approach. Nobody is underestimating the task but every single day, lives are being eroded because of what is often the self-medication of trauma, poverty, harm and hurt. If we get this right, we can get it right for the next four to five decades. I thank the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion today. It is a really worthy discussion.

See this speech in context