Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill which explains in its first four paragraphs its main purposes is very clear and succinct. It refers to head shops being an issue of public concern in recent months, how the Misuse of Drugs Act has not seemed to be satisfactory in dealing with the substances sold in such shops, outlines the Government's multi-pronged approach in terms of the Government order of 11 May prohibiting certain substances and explains the need for this Bill to tie up existing loopholes. There is broad agreement that such legislation needs to be put in place and such powers need to be given and acted upon.

There are concerns about how the Bill addresses the wider issue of drug use here. Senator Quinn outlined many of those questions. The Minister's remit is to take a just approach to this issue and the approach chosen by the Government and the Minister is correct. However, it does not bring us closer to dealing with the wider problem of drug use and abuse here. We all have a responsibility to deal with the societal and health effects which accompany many of these issues. What is of particular concern in terms of the growth of head shops across the country is that it highlighted how young people, in particular, were attracted to the shops and the products they sold and were tempted to use many of the products they contained. As a result of that, there has been a public reaction.

The extent to which this represents a culture which is already in existence and may continue to exist, whether head shops are allowed to retail their substances, is something which we as legislators have to continue to address. We need wider debate on that subject. Whether head shops exist for young people, we will still have many serious problems, in particular in the area of polydrug use where young people who are using alcohol as a gateway drug combine it with smoking cannabis, popping pills or ecstasy, often at the same time, with serious personal and social consequences.

In general, the Minister is taking the correct approach in presenting the Bill, its sections and its powers. I am concerned about section 4. I do not know whether the Minister can consider it on Committee Stage or when it goes before the Dáil. Section 4 states:

A person who sells any object knowing that it will be used to cultivate by hydroponic means any plant, fungus, natural organism or substance in contravention of section 17 of the Act of 1977 shall be guilty of an offence.

Hydroponic cultivation is the cultivation of plants in liquid containing nutrients without soil in controlled conditions of light, temperature and humidity. This cultivation is known to be used for the purposes of growing cannabis indoors. However, this is also true of many other horticultural practices. I would like to know how the Minister feels the general prohibition will prevent other horticultural activities not aimed at producing plants such as cannabis. It is a concern many people have.

The main intent of this Bill is to stop access to the end products of head shops. Section 4 has a particular application in that it addresses hardware which can be used in the production of such products. It seems to be a step removed from the intent of the Bill and much of its other sections. Some thought may be needed on coming up with a definition that permits exemptions in this area, perhaps by way of licence, just as other sections of the Bill make exemptions for medical practitioners, doctors and pharmacists. The Bill has broad support across both Houses and the public but we have a responsibility to scrutinise and test its detailed sections. The only section that I can envisage as being open to a particular interpretation that would prevent certain people from engaging in legitimate activity is section 4 and I would be grateful if the Minister gave his consideration to my comments.

I welcome the Bill in general terms. It will have an effect on proliferation and the ability of head shops to sell their products. I do not believe it will eliminate them entirely but I am not even sure their elimination would be a completely positive development. However heinous their activities or the products they sell, they shine a light on activities in our society. Sometimes we need a dark side to show us where to improve society. I look forward to seeing necessary improvements being made to the Bill as it progresses through the House.