David Norris (Independent)

However, we cannot do it in this country only. It must be done Europe-wide. One can fight drugs for as long as one likes and we will be fighting them in 100 years' time but we will have made the situation worse.

With regard to alcohol, a schizophrenia or double-think exists. I agree with what Senator Keaveney stated but she was not hard enough on the drinks industry. The Senator made a very useful point on labelling. How can one be careful or prudent? The industry does not give a rattling damn whether one is careful because it is interested in profit. The "Drink Responsibly" slogan is a soft soap and mirage. It is a classic fig leaf because the last thing the industry wants is responsible drinking. It targets young people in the same way the cigarette industry, having been driven out of this country by action, is targeting Africa. We need resolute action and if the Government were serious, it would stop all booze advertising straight away. Having had the courage to take this step in the case of nicotine, it should do so once more with alcohol because advertising spreads the epidemic.

We know what are the factors that drive up alcohol consumption, namely, cheap prices and ease of access. This has been demonstrated by scientific studies all over the world, yet we have this stupid, industry-funded organisation, MEAS — how independent is that? — producing idiotic slogans and doing its best to undermine the professionals and medical experts working in this area.

It is extraordinary that Mr. Prasifka from the Competition Authority is now sticking his nose into this issue. As a member of the policing committee for the north inner city, I raised the issue of licensing as part of our discussion of planning and licensing. I noted that every huckster's shop in the north inner city is stacked to the rafters with gin, wine, whiskey and every damned alcoholic drink one wants. The response I received was that any restriction on this practice would be a restriction on competition, which is not in the interests of citizens. Where did this idea come from? It derives from the fact that at the highest levels we have an ideological commitment to competition which frequently is not in the interests of the ordinary consumer. The case I highlighted is a classic example. The neighbours of the shops in questions, the local police and, in some cases, the city council objected but the shops still have licences. Why? People should be made accountable.

We know consumption declines when taxation increases. Taxation on alcohol was last increased on spirits and the measure led directly to a 20% diminution in the consumption of spirits. In recent years, however, we have not had a single increase in the rate of duty on pints of stout, beer, alcopops and so forth, whereas the profit margin on these products has increased by 50%.

We still have people such as Bill Prasifka objecting on ideologically driven competition grounds to any interference with the practice of selling below cost. In what kind of society does one charge 50 cent for a tin of beer as an inducement? I am utterly opposed to this practice. In a way, I am like Janus in that I am facing both ways. On the one hand, I am a liberal who does not believe what people ingest is the State's business unless it leads to them manifesting bizarre and dangerous behaviour. The reason people manifest such behaviour and batter old ladies is that they are starved of the drugs they want, principally heroin. By demonising cannabis, one does not do justice to the cause.