David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I was interested to hear what the Minister of State's predecessor had to say. I particularly welcome Deputy Byrne because Part 2 provides for public consultation on relaxation of the criminalisation of all drugs. This is an important matter, which I fully support. It is sad that so many in our society feel it necessary to obliterate their consciousness and to remove themselves from contact with reality and with society. I recall the phrase used in the 1960s: "Tune in, turn on and drop out". We all thought it was a bit of a laugh but this is far from a laugh. Almost 30 years ago, I advocated the decriminalisation of drugs in the House. I did so not because I was in favour of pushing drugs and so on, although I have no problem whatever with cannabis. It is a recreational drug and I do not see any great problem with it, as it much less harmful than alcohol. However, I was not advocating the taking of drugs but I was looking at the situation simply from an abstract point of view.

Money is driving the drugs epidemic. There is a financial incentive and if that is removed and the impetus that drives people towards selling drugs destroyed, a large part of the problem would be obviated.

Experiments were conducted in England and Holland through which heroin was made available free of charge. One was conducted by a priest and a doctor in Liverpool. They were closed down eventually, even though they reduced crime levels by 80%. There has been a huge change in this country since I was a child. I am aged 72 now but when I was a child, I never heard of drugs. I would see some boozing around the docklands area and so on but there was no such thing as drugs. I am fed up as a resident of the north inner city at the way this area of our capital city is treated by the city authorities and by Government. It has been stripped of every decent institution and facility but drug treatment facilities and so on have been dumped in residential areas. It is absolutely outrageous. The people living in the north inner city are never considered.

This type of legislation is not a legitimate response. The explanatory memorandum states it is an important element in the Government's arsenal in the fight against drug dealing and trafficking and consequent gangland crime. There may be a marginal impact but I have lived there for 40 years and I have witnessed this area being systematically starved of investment, except on the occasion my late friend and colleague, Tony Gregory, was in the other House campaigning on the issue and secured the Gregory deal. I recall people squealing about the deal and saying, "That is not politics". What else is politics? They were objecting that some little snotty nosed person from the north inner city was doing the deal. That is what got up their noses but I rejoiced in that fact. A long-term solution, not a short-term solution, is needed with massive investment in the north inner city in housing, employment and education.That is the only thing that will stop it. When we see a fleet of consultants and surgeons coming from Summerhill and driving around in their sports cars, we will have the proper role models. Third generation unemployed persons have no hope. They look around and see those involved in selling drugs driving their big cars, with their Spanish villas and so on and who, of course, become role models.

Things have moved on in the 30 years or thereabouts since I made the suggestion that we decriminalise. There are now many laboratory-created psychotropic drugs available. They pose the real danger because we do not really know or understand what they do to the brain. That is one reason I was always careful to avoid the subway in New York after 6 p.m. because one never knew if the person sitting opposite had swallowed something that made one look like a six-headed beetle with hammers and saws instead of arms and legs. They would have been perfectly justified in doing someone in.

On the Bill, the regulations will be laid before the House, but I ask the Minister of the State if the House could be alerted to them because often regulations go through on the nod without being discussed. One does not see them at the back of the Order Paper. Will the Minister of State arrange to have the House alerted when the regulations are placed before it in order that we can have a proper debate on them?

Also, there will be a hiatus between the abolition of the existing regulations and the introduction of new one. Is the Minister of State concerned about what might happen within that period and will she give an indication of how long that period will be?

I would welcome a debate on decriminalisation and so on, but I refer to the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. I gather that, officially, there is a fairly relaxed attitude towards this, but how does it square with the statement at the conclusion of the contribution by the Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, that "by introducing import and export controls and an offence of unauthorised possession for personal use..."? What is that about? I thought we were moving towards a position where unauthorised possession for personal use of small amounts would be tolerated to a certain extent. Perhaps that is because drug pushers carry only small amounts of drugs and go to a third person to obtain big amounts. I seek an assurance that the provision will not be used against what I describe as ordinary civilians who just want to smoke a joint on a Saturday night, something many of us have done.