Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is great that we are having a conversation about this. I wore my sometimes-dubbed "wacky tabacky" jumper for the occasion. I get lots of comments online about it sometimes. Our view and response to substance use disorders and drug use reveal a lot more about our culture to date, which is slightly changing, than it does about people using these substances. I can feel that shift and I hope we see that shift in how we treat people using drugs. That goes from people using drugs recreationally all the way to people in the depths of addiction, possibly the second, third or fourth generation down, and communities that have been devastated by this. How we have treated all of those people says a lot more about us than it does about them. We are ready and we are already having a conversation in society around our perception of drug use. People are becoming aware of people who are using drugs, particularly those in addiction. As I said, there can often be multiple generations of families in addiction, who are an incredibly marginalised group. Over the past while, a light has been shone on that group. People, regular joes, who will, I hope, be in the citizens' assembly, are becoming more aware of that part of society who, up to now, have been pushed away because we have criminalised them, sent them to the outskirts of our cities or away, put them in prisons and silenced the conversation around them. People are ready and want to have that conversation. We already know how drug abuse is linked to poverty and inequality in our society. We cannot talk about drug abuse or drug misuse without looking at some of the inadequate policies that may have led people into poverty and how we often have continued to fail them a second time through the lack of support for their responses to these failed policies. A previous speaker pointed out how there is nowhere near enough beds or spaces for people when they decide they want to take that step to leave heavy drug use.

Overgeneralisations are sometimes part of the demonisation process there has been up until now and they are often used in defending biases, marginalisation and social exclusion. When this conversation happens, we cannot help those biases coming forward. It is going to be an important part of the conversation, not just for citizens of the citizens' assembly but for those of us in both Houses, journalists, pundits and people talking about this, to challenge their biases before they go forth and declare their thoughts. As a society, we need to examine those biases. We all recall pandemics and endemics and what happened in our cities in the 1980s and 1990s. They are a rooted part of how a lot of people respond to this. There is going to be a bit of a challenge for people to step away from that and the demonisation that has been in play for quite some time. That also comes around to our partial understanding of addiction. Again, that conversation and people's perception is changing. Our empathy towards these individuals is also changing. Up to now, there was huge dehumaniisation of people. We still dehumanise people who are criminals and have been convicted of whatever, not just of drug use, possession or selling. There has been a huge dehumanisation of people who have been through the prison system and the criminal justice system. That is a conversation we need to have. This will all tinker around the edges of the work of the citizens' assembly.

It is not a secret that I am a fan of decriminalisation. I have spoken about this for a long time and about the Portuguese model and the positive impacts that has had. I think in 1999, Portugal had 369 overdose deaths and that dropped to 30 in 2016. While 30 is still too many, those are lives that have been saved through a health-led approach underpinned or supported by the legal system. While we have conversations all the time and I speak to gardaí and we speak to people and they say of course they want a health-led approach and a harm-reduction approach, ultimately our laws do not fully facilitate that yet. I hope following there will be a meaningful conversation about how our laws can have a meaningful harm reduction, safety and person-led approach.

I wish to touch briefly on the reporting around this, which has been mentioned. Already we see the titillating headlines, the, "Look, someone did a drug when they were younger" or "X Minister tried cannabis when they were in college and they went green and they never did it again", or other such stories. They bring nothing to this conversation. They are simply ridiculous headlines. They only serve to further draw attention, particularly to the massive societal divide we have. Few people who have drug-related criminal convictions walk through the corridors of Leinster House whereas others who may have engaged at some point in drug use, recreational or otherwise, have had the good fortune to have not been caught. That is the difference; they have not been caught and do not have a criminal record. They can, therefore, answer questions posed by a journalist or someone else knowing that by answering it, they are not going to end up with a criminal conviction and can continue to walk around the corridors of Leinster House. When those questions are posed, they are done with a bit of a nod, a wink or a giggle. The respondents know there is going to be a flurry online, there are going to be memes and whatnot. The reality is there is little consideration for the fact that we do not know who has come through addiction. We do not know who is walking through the corridors of Leinster House and has come through addiction, be they elected representatives or staff. Those conversations must be so dehumanising to them. It is not the same thing; it is a very different topic. However, we did not ask every woman during the repeal campaign whether she had travelled to the UK to have an abortion, which was illegal here, or whether she imported illegal drugs and took them here in order for her to be able to have an opinion on this. They are two completely different issues, but we had a reasonable, meaningful understanding that we do not simply go prodding around in these issues when they do not have anything to do with the conversation.We need to be mindful of how we talk about drug use in Ireland. We need to cut out the ridiculous headlines. We are ready to have a mature conversation about this. We need to remember that behind every drug that is taken there is an individual. Often there is a family, a group and a society who are impacted by that and we need to be ready to have a mature conversation about it.

I volunteered for the Electric Picnic with Ana Liffey. Obviously, we could not do any drug testing. People were coming to our tent and they wanted to have mature conversations. They wanted to know what they were taking, what the impact of what they were taking would be and, if they took X with Y, what would happen. We had our pages and charts and we were looking and seeing what would happen. People wanted to have a safe conversation about harm reduction and how to enjoy themselves safely. Young people were ready to have that conversation.

I visited Colombia a couple of months ago. It would be meaningful for the citizens' assembly's invitations to include representatives from somewhere such as Colombia that has been war torn through drug use. As part of their peace process, they want to end the war on drugs and look at things differently. An important perspective would be how they see ending the war on drugs and how that will positively impact the people of Colombia. We do not have drugs here in Ireland that do not come from, or are manufactured, somewhere else and there is a chain of misery that comes with them. An important of the citizens' assembly would be to look at other countries and how they want to go forward.