I should like to stress again that I welcome the spirit behind this Bill. It seems to me to have two main themes: the rehabilitation of young offenders, addicts, treating them in a lenient way with a view to getting an emphasis on the medical, sociological and psychological rather than the penal side, and then heavier penalties for the drug pushers. I could not agree more.
Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, would say something more about a matter which I feel is very important —I think it is covered in section 28 but I am not sure—that is, the compulsory treatment for young offenders who are addicts. For a young offender, an addict, who perhaps has not got very far into the drug scene it is important that we should insist that, if he faces a conviction, treatment can be compulsory, that he can be compulsorily referred to the proper medical services for treatment. That is the emphasis we need.
I should like to mention two cases which I have come up against in my period as Junior Dean in Trinity College having to deal with the problems of discipline and the person upon whom this drug problem impinges. In that capacity I should like totally to contradict the sentiments expressed on the Second Stage debate in the Lower House by a Fine Gael Deputy who alleged that Trinity College was the centre of the Irish drug scene. I can assure him that it is not. It would be quite untrue to say that we, like every other educational institutions, particularly third-level institutions, did not have our problems and that problems are not going to arise from time to time. I wrote to the Deputy concerned, who is a medical man—it was a considerable time ago he made these allegations—and sometime later he verbally retracted to me everything he had said. He gave me a full and very sufficient apology. But there it was. There were headlines in the evening papers. It did not do him or anybody else any good to make wild allegations of that type. All I asked him for was proof of his allegations and, of course, he could not give it to me.
That is not to say we have not had problems. Of course, we have had problems and, of course, we must be vigilant. Of course, we must be prepared for a situation in which the incidence of drug-taking increases. As I said last evening, it is at a particularly low ebb compared with the last five or six years. I am delighted about this. I have had one very minor case in the last 18 months or so. But we have got to be prepared and I am glad to see this Bill going some way along the road to updating our thinking about treatment and penalties, particularly of the young offenders.
The two cases I should like to mention to the Minister both involved students. The first one was a situation in which I was involved. There was a student who was not one of my students—he was not a Trinity College student—but who did appear to be a drug addict. He collapsed in very suspicious circumstances inside Trinity College. An ambulance was called. He was taken to the nearest hospital, the hospital on call for emergencies at the time, and he had recovered sufficiently in the ambulance to walk out. He did not allow himself to be treated at all when he got to the hospital. That must be a citizen's right. It seems to be a problem when somebody who seemed on the point of death a half an hour before, at least to those who picked him up when he collapsed, could be taken off to hospital and could walk out refusing treatment. We have to protect the citizen's right to refuse medical treatment, but it is a problem one has to face. The situation in which the collapse occurred was so suspicious that I was absolutely certain from the background information I had that this man was an addict involved with a particular group of drug takers and pushers. Yet he was able to walk out of the hospital, having been brought there by ambulance, without even being checked. I do not know if there is any legal remedy for this, but it seems to be an undesirable situation.
The second case I would like to bring to the Minister's attention also involves the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. In my period of four years as Junior Dean of TCD in charge of discipline I have had one very serious case of a student who had a conviction for possession of hard drugs. He faced very serious charges of possession and selling rather a large quantity of drugs. For some reason the case had not come off. However, I had every reason to believe that he was not only an addict but a pedlar making a great deal of money exploiting his fellow students in the most reprehensible way. The evidence I had might not have stood up in court. But, as Junior Dean of TCD, I do not have to wait for legal evidence; I have got to act; it is up to me. I imposed very severe restrictions on this gentleman's movements around the college. I said he could come in one day, go to the library, study for his final examinations, have a meal in the dining hall, then leave. He could not go anywhere else. He was not to go into any students' rooms; he had been thrown out of rooms already. He was not to go into the catering areas except at one set time of day when he was to have a meal and get out. He was not to go into any of the general common rooms. That was the most I could do without actually getting him fired out of the college. He was coming up to his finals. I felt: let him finish his examinations and get out. Then, from there on we would see that he did not come in again. As a matter of fact he went abroad.
Of course I faced a barrage of criticism from the students' representatives on the board—I had to go to the board of the college—that I was victimising a student. I said "My job is to protect 3,999 students. If I have to put screws on one to protect the others, then I will stand over it". Fortunately, I got full backing and the penalties were imposed. This gentleman, who knew the law fairly well, came up and threatened me. I said "I am the wrong man to threaten. That just makes me absolutely certain that what I have done is absolutely right. If you get the big charge against your name cleared and you are proved innocent—you have already got a conviction—then I will be prepared to review my penalties". Anyway, nothing happened. I told him that if he could get a letter from the Drug Squad saying that in their opinion he was a reformed character —they do a very good job and the university authorities generally keep in touch with them—that would do me. I told him "If you get a letter from the Drug Squad saying you are not involved, you are completely out of the drug scene, I will accept that and will review the position accordingly". I did not get that either.
Time passed and about six months later I was at home at Christmas watching RTE—the only time I ever see anything like that. I was almost asleep in my chair and saw it almost by accident—I would certainly have turned off this particular film but it stayed on rather longer than one wanted. It was a film made by RTE. I think the title was "The Golden Triangle". It was about Vietnam, Cambodia and the triangle in that part of the Far East where opium is grown in very large quantities, where it is a huge commercial racket. It is very difficult for the authorities, even the Communists, to stop it because it has become such a racket. Everybody makes their living out of it. It is the main source of this particular drug for the rest of the world. Half the film was about the natives there growing it, then its refinement and the animal packs bringing it down to the market. The police were paid off and then the customs officials were paid off and it was sent around the world.
The other half of the film was of a party in a Dublin suburban house. I suddenly sat up when I saw my friend in the party. There he was larger than life, and he gave a complete demonstration on how you inject this stuff into your arm. RTE spent a great deal of time and effort in showing this. He showed how you heat the stuff on a spoon, melt it down, get out the hypodermic, put on whatever it is to get the veins up—and there he was injecting this stuff into his arm. Having dealt with this problem and having tried to combat it, I tried to ring the Director General of RTE. I was going to blow him off the far end of the line. I have never seen such an irresponsible thing as that in the media. A complete demonstration for people who might not know how and where to get this stuff. The whole theme was typical of what you get from the "druggies"— to be a big man you have to take dope. This fellow was showing how big and smart he was and how he could do it in great detail. To my dismay six months later RTE showed this film in full again. I had the unpleasant experience of seeing this drug pedlar going through the whole business again.
We had a supposedly responsible television service giving that demonstration. One must ask what effect it would have on the people on the fringes of the drug scene? These are the people the doctors, the Minister for Health, people in my position and the officers in the Drug Squad are trying to get away from this nauseating practice. I hope the Minister passes on my comments to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and that he gets a few rockets sent around our television station. It was an absolutely disgraceful performance, thoroughly revolting— not because of what this fellow was doing to himself but because of the way he was broadcasting it to our young people. The theme of the film was: if you are going to be a big man this is what you have got to do to make it.
I want also to refer to the problem of cannabis. The Minister mentioned this. From my position, in which I am dealing with these problems, my way of approaching this would be to make cannabis more easily and legally available. The Minister's advisers thought about this solution. I got advice from the medics that, whereas some years ago the theory was that the long term effects of cannabis were nil, some disturbing evidence had come to light only recently that cannabis has disturbing long term effects. It seems that the situation is still pretty fairly balanced. There is no firm evidence one way or the other.
I have not got the latest up-to-date reports from the people who do the tests. My feeling is that it would be better—taking everything into account —to legalise cannabis. This might take a lot of pressure off people who are tempted to use the hard drugs. There is no question that those two drugs, which so many of us get a certain amount of enjoyment out of in the ordinary course of our lives, for example alcohol and tobacco, do have very serious long-term effects. There is no question about that. I am sure the Minister would agree. His Department have been taking an active interest; they have been campaigning to warn people about the long-term effects of alcohol and tobacco. It is a question of how much you take and can you control yourself? It is clear that there are certain people who cannot control their alcohol intake if they once start and they have a very serious medical problem. There are also people for whom smoking means death 10 years earlier than perhaps otherwise.
I wonder if, on balance, there is any evidence that the long-term effects of cannabis are anything worse than the long-term effects of alcohol or tobacco. That is not to say that we should not be very much aware, that we should open the floodgates but I would like the Minister, over a period, to reconsider this. Certainly the Drug Squad have an enlightened view of this. They do not hound cannabis people, they do not allow it to increase. They know, as the situation stands at present the taking of cannabis—and this is where I would like to make the break —leads to the taking of hard drugs. That is precisely because cannabis is illegal. When one is 18 to 22 one gets a great kick out of doing things that are illegal just because they are illegal. I wonder if it would not help in the long term.
I should like to pay tribute to the drug squad. They do an excellent job. They have their fingers on the pulse. But, as I said yesterday evening, I have read some very disturbing articles in the international press that the instance of heroin smuggling in places like Paris, Amsterdam, Marseilles and Brussels is on the upsurge again and that Interpol—there is a special international drug squad which I am sure our people have got their lines hooked into—are having great trouble. They have special training courses. I think it is carried out either in the Netherlands or Germany for policemen who are dealing with the drug traffic which impinges on so many areas, not just the sociological/medical problems but there is the problem of customs surveillance. I wonder are our customs authorities alive to these possibilities?
On one occasion I got a rude shock when I flew into Kennedy Airport, New York, about the beginning of September when all the American students were returning home from Europe. So many people had sleeping bags; every sleeping bag was slit right up. The customs authorities had lines, hundreds of yards long. It took about two and a half hours to get through the customs because they were so careful, and I certainly do not blame them. They were catching the stuff in quite large quantities, so their surveillance was certainly justified. I wonder what links there are between our Drug Squad and the customs authorities. I am sure there are some. Certainly it is something to think about. The authorities should consider, if they have not done so already, sending some of our policemen, or excise men, to learn about the European problem. It is only by being aware of these problems and seeing the special courses that are being given for policemen on the Continent who are dealing especially with drug problems that we can take the corrective measures in advance and that we can be alert to stop a flood of this stuff coming into the country. If it comes in it will ruin so many lives. I would like the Minister to say something about this and perhaps pass on this message to his colleagues.
My final point concerns the pharmacists and the storage of drugs. There was a spate of robberies some years ago of chemists' shops, when people were obviously after drugs. I have retained an article from The Cork Examiner of 9th October, 1972. The headline says “Drugs moved secretly to central depots”. I will quote the first paragraph:
Members of the Irish Pharmaceutical Society have secretly brought off a coup in the fight against drug abuse by moving all hard drugs out of their shops and into central depots...
The drug problem is something in which a large group of people are involved. The pharmacists, the police, the customs, the Minister for Health and his Department, the medical profession, the people who are in charge of student discipline in the universities are all involved. It is the sort of thing about which we have all got to cooperate and work together. I am glad to see that the pharmacists did this five years ago. Perhaps, in his reply, the Minister would refer to the problem of storage of hard drugs throughout the country.