Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1973 debate -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1975

SECTION 3.

Amendment No. 11 is out of order because it would involve a potential charge upon the revenue.

Would Deputy Byrne have any other way of ventilating his idea?

I have gone into this very carefully and there is no doubt that the setting up of a special court would be a revenue charge.

In order to facilitate discussion, I suggest we discuss section 3, section 27 and the Schedules together. I am putting this forward for consideration. Section 3 deals with possession, section 27 deals with penalties and the Schedule sets out the various products concerned and these three separate things form the mechanism of the Bill.

I would suggest another method of dealing with it to avoid the duplication in debate. It is a very difficult section and we must take the Schedules one way or another, but I suggest there is one outstanding item, and that is the amendments relating to cannabis and cannabis resin. If we could concentrate on that single issue in relation to the amendments here, we would be doing a useful afternoon's work. I suggest with the permission of the Committee that with amendment No. 12 which, in effect, is Deputy Haughey's amendment relating to cannabis and cannabis resin, the categorisation of it and so on, related amendments Nos. 60, 80 and such parts of amendments Nos. 117, 122 and 125 as relate to cannabis and cannabis resin be taken together as they appear to me to form a composite proposal.

I propose to circulate in stencil form revised drafts of amendments Nos. 117, 122 and 125 to facilitate everybody. The suggested grouping for debate is therefore Nos. 12, 60, 80, 117a, 122a and 125a.

In amendment No. 12 there is no mention specifically, of cannabis resin.

It is rather contorted. Deputy Haughey will explain the effect of this amendment which specifically does relate to it.

I think there will be confusion.

Will we not be having a kind of splintered discussion on amendment No. 12?

Amendment No. 12, and others, by Deputy Haughey are interrelated.

May I point out at this stage the difficulty that arises in reference to the amendment proposed by Deputy Haughey where the second line of his amendment uses the words " or apparatus commonly used for its injection in his possession ". The word " and " is not used and that means that a person might be in difficulty, if he happens to have a hypodermic syringe in the house for the purpose, say, of injecting insulin.

This argument is on a particular part of Deputy Haughey's amendment, but, as the chairman suggested, it would be better to get all those amendments dealing with cannabis, for example, discussed together.

I am anxious to do that.

With due respect to my colleague, Deputy Esmonde, without commenting on the content of Deputy Haughey's amendment No. 12, one will see the general intent behind Deputy Haughey's amendment.

I will try to cooperate.

Great emphasis is being laid on Deputy Haughey's amendment but we are bringing in with that what I would consider an important amendment, No. 117 (a) which would be the direct opposite.

This does not defeat the Deputy's intention because his amendment is directly related to cannabis and the category in which it should go, the penalty that should be imposed and so on.

Can we discuss the penalty?

It can be discussed.

Is it agreed that we can discuss amendments Nos. 12, 60, 80, 117a which is Deputy Byrne's, 122a and 125a? Would Deputy Haughey move amendment No. 12?

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5 to insert the following new section before section 3.

" 3.—(1) Subject to section 4 (3) of this Act a person shall not have a Category I or Category II controlled drug or apparatus commonly used for its injection in his possession.

(2) Subject to section 4 (3) of this Act a person shall not administer to himself or any other person a Category I or Category II controlled drug.

(3) A person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence."

I am very appreciative of the procedure the Chairman has proposed because all these amendments in my name in relation to cannabis and cannabis resin are designed to achieve the one purpose. In fact, they must all go together if I am to succeed in my purpose. Without elaborating too much about that I should like to say that I am very conscious of the fact that in this area I and the Committee are dealing with a very deliberate, finely balanced, difficult and complex question—the question of cannabis. A great deal of the merits of this piece of legislation is bound up with the way we tackle this question. Incidentally, in a lot of quarters, particularly among the young people, the Bill is either going to be taken seriously as a piece of humane and humanitarian legislation or not, on the basis of what we decide in regard to cannabis.

I am fully conscious of the fact that I am not an expert or an authority in any way in this area. I have studied it as carefully and assiduously as I can; I have studied as much about it as I can and I tried to familiarise myself as much as possible with the various authorities in an endeavour to put some proposal to the Committee as to what we should do. I want to emphasise that I am not going to push these amendments or these proposals in any sort of assertive way. I am putting them forward for serious and careful consideration by the Committee and if they do not appeal to the combined wisdom of this Committee I should be satisfied.

It is terribly important that we try, between us, in our combined wisdom and experience, to evolve some sort of solution to this problem of cannabis. I do not think what is proposed in the Bill is satisfactory. It will be widely resented by a lot of people and will also throw up some doubts on our bona fides in proposing this legislation if we proceed as the Bill is at present.

Cannabis is one great question mark in the modern situation. I should like to mention that our Working Party on Drug Abuse, which reported in 1971, in its recommendation dealt with cannabis, and I quote from the report of that working party, page 65, paragraph B :

(1) Existing controls over cannabis should be maintained. Its position should be kept under review in the light of experience on research.

(2) Possession of a small quantity of cannabis for one's own use should not normally be regarded as a crime to be punished by imprisonment.

It is that second paragraph which I now direct to the Committee's attention, that the

possession of a small quantity of cannabis for one's own use should not normally be regarded as a crime to be punished by imprisonment.

That very same conclusion was arrived at by the Wootton Sub-Committee of the British Parliament and it stated that in their view:

the possession of a small amount of cannabis should not normally be regarded as a serious crime to be punished by imprisonment.

I understand that Canadian and US committees have also suggested that there should be a different approach to cannabis from the other drugs.

The Bill, as framed at present, would have the effect that the simple possession of a small amount of cannabis for one's own use would be a criminal offence and punishable by any of the penalties which are set out at paragraph 27. I have sought to put some sort of compromise before the Committee and if you study the combined effect of my amendments, it would first of all be to take cannabis out of the general ambit of the Schedules, categories 1, 2 and 3, and put them in a new category of their own which, because of other changes that are made, will be category 3. Cannabis and cannabis resin would be set aside in category 3 by themselves. My aim in doing that was to try to bring about a situation where all the other provisions of the Bill would apply to cannabis except the making of simple possession of cannabis for one's own personal use an offence. I sought by a combination of different amendments to bring about that situation—that if one has cannabis in one's possession for one's own use, that is not per se a criminal offence meriting criminal punishment. I have endeavoured to make sure that my amendments have the effect of applying all the other controls and restrictions to cannabis.

In particular, I have endeavoured to ensure that all the provisions of section 5, which I have already said is an excellent general section controlling the use of drugs in all their aspects, will apply to cannabis. The provisions of the Bill in regard to the growing and cultivation of cannabis will still apply. The provisions of the Bill in regard to pushing drugs, having quantities of drugs for sale, will still apply. All the ways that the Bill attempts to control drugs will still apply to cannabis under my combined proposal. The only difference I am seeking to make is that the simple possession of cannabis for one's own use should not, in effect, be a criminal offence.

I hope that the Committee will consider this concept of mine seriously. It is one to which I have given a great deal of thought. I am putting it before the Committee with a great deal of hesitation, because I cannot claim in all sincerity and honesty to be totally sure of my ground, but I think that, in all I have read and listened to, there is, perhaps, a way to be found out of the cannabis dilemma along these lines. I know there is a great deal of research still to be done on cannabis.

I do not think I would accept the school of thought which says that cannabis is no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol and, therefore, that it is quite ridiculous to have any control over it whatsoever.

On the other hand, there is the Bill's approach which just lumps cannabis into the same category as other drugs and all the restrictions and criminal provisions are applied to it. I sought to try to find some way that would not involve people who use it socially, without any criminal intent from being involved in the criminal provisions of the Bill while at the same time having the safeguard of applying all the other restrictions of the Bill to it. I repeat that I am very much prepared to listen to the Committee and would greatly appreciate it if they would consider my approach to this very difficult and complex matter.

It was inevitable, of course, that the question of cannabis would come up in a very big way and it is indicated in the various contributions that were made on the Second Stage of the Bill. I certainly would be trying to adopt the attitude of Deputy Haughey. He said in the beginning that his intention in tabling the various amendments was so that we would talk the problem out within this Committee and try to come to some consensus of opinion as to what our attitude towards cannabis would be.

The Bill is a complex one but as far as cannabis is concerned the solutions that are being put forward by Deputy Haughey appear to be pretty simple. Again, I make the reservation that what he wants is a discussion. He said he has done certain research and so on but still has not, I presume, completely made up his mind. We are all concerned about the abuse of controlled drugs, drugs that are scheduled, and it is in that spirit that we should approach this particular question and the question of other drugs as well. It is, indeed, a complex question. There is a difference of opinion not alone, we gather, from the amendments but there is a difference of opinion in the country as a whole. I suppose I can speak for the other people on the Committee and say that because none of us has had any experience of it—it is more difficult and complex for us to resolve this question, especially since some of us are of a different generation to those with whom cannabis is usually associated.

Deputy Haughey's proposal is, in effect, to legalise the possession of cannabis. I, too, have before me the report of the working party which was published some years ago—in 1971—and the quotation Deputy Haughey read from page 21, which is a repetition of the Wootton Committee Report, shows the attitudes of those on both committees. They came more or less to the same conclusion and that is that the possession of a small amount of cannabis other than for selling or pushing should not always be regarded as a crime to be punished by imprisonment.

Many people argue that the drug is harmless. As Deputy Haughey mentioned on Second Stage, it is with a certain amount of cynicism that young people would regard us deliberating on certain of these drugs when we are tolerant towards the use of tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol. I am not convinced that it is a harmless drug any more than I am convinced of the contrary, or that tobacco is a harmful drug. In any case, it has not been proved, as far as I can gather, to the satisfaction of all experts that it is or is not a harmless drug. Equally it can be shown that the use of cannabis in the form of a cigarette can build up a psychological dependence among some young people and this may lead to the use of more dangerous drugs. This has been refuted by those who would defend the consumption of cannabis and, I suppose, its possession for one's personal use.

We have to legislate for our conditions in our country. We must endeavour, as far as we can, to be independent of other countries who take decisions. With all due respect to the Wootton Committee and the various other committees that have been established on this particular subject, even though they have the qualifications, I do not know of any other western European country that has legalised possession and use of cannabis. If we were to legalise it we would be the only country in western Europe to do so. In view of the fact that we do not know sufficient about it, I am of the firm opinion that we should not attempt to legalise it in this Bill.

As I said, no other Western European country has taken this step. We must have regard to the consequences of making possession legal, even in small quantities for one's own use, as it could lead to other things. None of us can talk for the younger generation or for those people who engage in pop festivals—they all seem to have a good time and whether they are on cannabis or not I do not know but I am informed that cannabis is an element in the whole proceedings. Apart from any restrictions there may be at the docks and at the airports, we must visualise a situation where we would have a big influx of people coming here from abroad, to a country where the possession of cannabis for personal use would be permissible. I do not think, to say the least of it, it would do our society any good.

That is one of the reasons why it might be unwise for us to make any move in regard to the legalisation of cannabis at the present time. As I said, it would be the only Western country which would have legalised the use of cannabis. We could become a centre for an international sub-culture and I do not think anyone would want that to happen. It would indent very deeply into the quality of life for our children in this country. We would be foolish to do so in present circumstances.

Therefore, I believe that possession should still remain an offence, but I would be inclined to think in the same terms as Deputy Haughey and other people that the possession for one's own use should not carry a jail sentence. As it is, simple possession could mean a fine of £1,000 and also five years' imprisonment. It is not purely a legal matter but it is a moral matter as well. It is a personal matter as far as the people are concerned. There are young people in various parts of the country who smoke reefers periodically, some who experiment, some who are tricked into using them. A district justice might respond to a defence that the accused person was tricked or that he took it for the first time to see what sort of effect it would have, but the same young person could be caught in the same situation where somebody would switch cigarettes and he could find himself caught for the second time. The justice may decide not to fine him or to imprison him on the first count, but even on the second where he was again tricked or fooled or cajoled into taking a few puffs, the probability is that the district justice would impose a very substantial fine and would have the young chap imprisoned for a period.

We cannot regard all who smoke reefers as the degenerates of society. I do not think they are. But any of our own children could get into a situation—and it is one we are always conscious of, particularly in certain parts of the country and in the big cities where, as I said before, not because of addiction or anything like that but by reason of being tricked or fooled. We would not want that. We do not believe that our children should be subjected to this and we certainly do not believe that it should be recorded against them—not necessarily in the sentence that might be imposed but the stigma there would be in after life. Therefore, as far as simple possession is concerned, I would be against jail punishment. I would undertake to consider an amendment dealing with penalties—I am not suggesting they would not be as heavy as they are for cannabis only in category 2.

I find Deputy Haughey somewhat contradictory, if I understand him correctly, when he says that there would still be the ban and the penalty for importation, the manufacture and the sale. It means that if somebody can get it in illegally or somebody sells it, as soon as it is in possession of any particular boy or girl, man or woman, then it become an offence.

I look forward to the discussion on this particular drug. After consideration and the discussion on Second Stage for simple possession I would put forward an amendment dealing with penalties on section 27.

For the benefit of our colleagues who have just joined us, we are discussing a situation where it is proposed that all drugs in category 3 go into category 2, with cannabis in 3 standing on its own. The effect of Deputy Haughey's amendments would be that possession of cannabis for one's own personal use would not be a criminal offence. It is amendment No. 12.

I had a direct opposite amendment to that.

I should like to mention one point. I do not think the Minister is being fair to me in the use of the words " legalising cannabis ". They have connotations which I do not wish to have attached to my proposal. If we could discuss it simply in the terms of not making it a criminal and, particularly, a gaoling offence to have simple possession of a small amount of cannabis for one's own use. The Minister recognises that my proposal has all the other inhibitions and limitations to cannabis as a drug.

Legal or illegal?

My proposal is to the effect that the possession of a small quantity for one's personal use is not a crime. I do not equate that with legalising cannabis and not punishable by any means. I wanted to resist that slightly emotive terminology.

The committee have the gist of Deputy Haughey's amendment and the Minister's reply. We must, in addition, take Deputy Byrne's amendment which is an entirely different amendment. It is amendment No. 117 (a) which is, in effect, to add to the list of category (1) cannabis and cannabis resin, the reverse situation.

The reason I want to see cannabis, and its associated terminology for different substances related to it, is that I believe that cannabis is not the innocent drug that has been portrayed to date. I will be as brief and as definitive as possible. It is interesting to note that the report on cannabis of the British Standing Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, called the Wootton Report after Baroness Wootton, was issued in 1968, at a stage when this House had little or no knowledge of any drug problem or the emergence of a drug problem here. Only on two occasions prior to that, one in 1966 and the other in 1967 had it been referred to in any debate. The Deputies who brought it up were Deputy Gerry L'Estrange and Deputy Mark Clinton. Since the Wootton Report was printed we had the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, brought out by the British Parliament and this Act contains penalties for the possession of cannabis so that the British Parliament did not pay much attention to the Wootton Report. Secondly, regarding our own Drugs Advisory Committee, the members of which deserve great recognition for their work, I contend that the research and the literature available to them would, by and large, have been that which was available to the members of the Wootton Committee. Unfortunately, in dealing with cannabis in this report of the Drugs Advisory Committee we can detect the poverty of any definite research of any significant proportions having been carried out on cannabis.

I will also refer to the first report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1972. It was only in 1971 that the President of the United States declared the drug problem to be public enemy number one. With regard to the first report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse I should like to quote from Gabriel G. Nahas, Professor of Anesthesiology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Albert Greenwood, M.D., Resident in Neuropathology, Presbyterian Hospital in the city of New York :

The media, prominent politicians, educators, and religious leaders have interpreted this report as conveying the sense that marijuana is harmless.

These recommendations of the commission have been largely interpreted as the first step towards elimination of all marijuana laws and the establishment throughout the United States of the licensing of sales.

We believe, on the contrary, that the untoward social and medical effects of marijuana reported by the marijuana commission and in the past and present medical literature do not justify the legalisation of cannabis anywhere in the world. We believe that the recommendations of the 1961 Geneva Single Convention outlawing stupefying drugs should not be unilaterally denounced by the United States.

I contend that we shall not unilaterally denounce the 1961 Geneva Single Convention. Marijuana is a stupifying drug, is a depressive drug, from reports on medical researches.

The World Health Organisation established a subcommittee in 1973 on youth and drugs. I should like to quote from a report of a WHO Study Group on the definitions of cannabis:

Cannabis type—preparations of Cannabis sativa L., such as marijuana (bhang, dagga, kif, maconha), ganja, and hashish (charas).

There is no reference in this US report of the marijuana commission to attempt to even define the difference between hashish and marijuana. No doubt, the majority of these reports all referred to marijuana in carte blanche. There is a very definite need for a subdivision when one is attempting to discuss my amendment and the amendment of Deputy Haughey. Were the full details of the toxicity and potency of the different types of cannabis available, one could conceivably see an argument along the lines of Deputy Haughey’s amendment. However, we are not speaking in those terms; we are speaking about the potency whether it would be one ounce of hashish, one ounce of cannabis, sativa or one ounce of the leaf of the plant, marijuana. How much roughage there would be and how much waste? For instance, one or two component parts of the THC active part or whether there would be millions of the active parts in it.

I suggest that at present, while one has tremendous sympathy with legislators in attempting to be fair to all and not to victimise any, sufficient is not known, there is no quantitative or qualitative definitions of varieties of this drug available whereby one can legislate in part and divide it in itself into different categories. It has been suggested that it should have a category on its own. The drug itself can vary in its potency and as such could be subcategorised if the different types were standardised. I should like to refer to marijuana being termed a narcotic. We know that marijuana now is not a narcotic and this derived from the Hague Convention, 1912, and was included in the Harrison Narcotic Act, 1920. Since then recommendations to redefine it as a non narcotic have been generally accepted but I should like to refer to the study of Irish rural post-primary school-children, 1970—71, carried out by a group of five Irish medicals, which states:

In both studies, marijuana was the drug most commonly used. In this study, noticeable differences were found between those who had taken drugs and the total sample with regard to smoking and drinking habits,

To further quote from the same report:

Exposure to drugs increased with age and was more marked in the case of boys.

That was 1971, the most modern research done here on marijuana. We know it is available, more available in Dublin to schoolchildren than it is outside the city. I should like to quote, in support of my amendment that marijuana be treated as a dangerous drug along the same lines as those most dangerous drugs which can be abused in our society, from an article in the Medical Journal of Australia, commenting on research done by Dr. Cohen, T. Persaud and Mr. Ellington. It was research on animals. They have shown species—specific to teratogenic properties in mice and rats. We all remember on thalidomide that everybody was concerned regarding the teratogenic effects of thalidomide and how it had escaped detection when tested upon rats and other animals normally used for testing drugs. I quote :

The former animals, when injected with cannabis resin while pregnant, carried stunted foetuses and had a high incidence of foetal resorption. The rats also revealed similar changes, but in addition, 57 per cent of the foetuses were malformed. Both these papers were preliminary communications issued as pleas for caution and further research—they rated little comment.

There have been reported cases of wide variations of behavioural abnormalities amongst troops who served with the United States Army in Vietnam. I should like to quote from research done in the British Medical Journal, 17th February, 1973 which refers to an article by A. M. G. Campbell and his colleagues which was printed in The Lancet, 1971, 2,1219 :

They reported on a series of 10 cannabis smokers whose air encephalograms were interpreted as showing ventricular atrophy.

Ventricular atrophy means degeneration of the higher centres of the brain and in all these cases, where the subject had been a habitual cannabis smoker, the brain had, in fact, shrunk.

Many other research projects have been carried out since the publication of the Wootton report and I do not blame Deputy Haughey for quoting the Wootton report in support of his amendment. I contend that, if his suggestion had been taken up earlier, many different sections could have been dealt with at the one time. We could have had a broad look on this with regard to the courts and to the sentencing. Section 27 has provision in relation to a person found in possession; that where it is a criminal offence it must remain a criminal offence. The judge and the courts, under this section, have the authority to discharge the person or to hear the case in camera, to send the person for treatment or to get intermittent reports from social workers or others whom the court may select.

In concluding my initial contribution to this section I should like to point out that marijuana itself has been well tabulated as a drug that has all the characteristics of addiction. The definition of addiction can vary from time to time as much as the definition of alcoholism, but it is a different type of drug from alcohol in its pharmacological properties. It is solvent in fat as distinct from alcohol which is excreted by the body within eight hours. It remains in the body for an undeterminable length of time. Its initial action is to cause euphoria, followed by depression followed by a dependence and then a tolerance. These are the four hallmarks of any drug of addiction. It may be that in the future we will see marijuana in the light that we would like to see it now, either as a perfectly safe drug taken on a proper qualitative basis legalised by states, or else we can turn and say we were right not to liberalise its use, not to encourage its use by liberal legislation. Even if we make the mistake in this legislation of having harsher legislation it would be preferable in the future; at least we would have erred on the correct side. By depriving a person of the liberty to smoke marijuana it is not going to do him any harm whereas by permitting by virtue of omission in this Bill, or appearing to liberalise the use of marijuana, it could give the nation the impression that we think it is a very safe drug.

There are many research papers that will show the percentage of marijuana users who will go on to other drugs so that they do not have to go to the trouble of finding marijuana to smoke in order to retain and re-obtain the euphoric effect they initially get from marijuana. Quite a large percentage of those that go on to other drugs go on to heroin.

Let us be attentive to this for two seconds. Heroin was introduced in 1898 as a non-addictive substitute for morphine. One enthusiast hailed it as the miracle drug of the day and soon afterwards it was found that the same thing was happening as in the case of morphine. I would not like to think that this Committee would take a flippant view of the potential danger of marijuana, knowing as they do its actions, its effect on limiting a person's ability to initiate activities, the associated drop-out rate, the associated psycho-social relationship between the dropping out from universities, from work, from society and the vague sub-culture that is generated and exists from the use of marijuana.

I would finish by appealing to the Committee to consider deeply my amendment to have marijuana for the present time elevated to the highest level so that the Act may be a total deterrent on the use of marijuana in our society at the present time until such time as it has been proved harmless.

We are in a very sensitive area here. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Minister for Health but I also appreciate Deputy Haughey's view on the fines or the prosecution that would apply as the deterrent. Cannabis is widely and commonly abused, in cinemas, dance halls and lounge-bars. There is mention here of cannabis for one's own use. Here we provide for lawful use and I will be questioning on the amendments who prescribes for one's own use the amount for one's own use? We are getting into a very dangerous field.

I am in favour of prosecution where cannabis is concerned. We know the ill effects. We have been told by the professional people here—we will probably hear more from them later on—the ill effects of it on people later in life. I would have to be convinced before I would change my mind on the provision in this Bill where the use of cannabis is concerned. It is used widely even in youth clubs and national schools. I have seen it being used outside the doors of national schools.

Are you going to send them all to jail?

No, I am not talking about sending anyone to jail but we are trying to prevent abuse in this field. I was listening to Deputy Haughey, the Minister for Health and many other people as far as cannabis is concerned, but I am very much in favour of trying to prevent this abuse among our young people.

I can never understand the anxiety of Deputies about cannabis, the emotive phrases which have been used in regard to this drug. The fact is that it has been used from time immemorial. It is not just some new drug like thalidomide. They must be very conscious in their minds of this. It has been used for thousands and thousands of years. Certainly it was used by doctors and prescribed by doctors up to the 1930s. It was in the US Pharmacopolia Act in 1936. It was excluded from that because of the fact that it was not strong enough. It was used for rheumatism, arthritis, menstrual pain, everything like that. It simply was not strong enough. It was not of much use. It was a very mild analgetic and it was thrown out because they had more effective, stronger, more potent preparations to be used for conditions such as these. That is the first thing.

We are not talking about thalidomide that came out in 1950. Deputy Byrne has put up a very good argument saying we may have genetic effects, deformed bodies. Please do not associate these two in your mind. Thalidomide has been only out 20 years and the side effects were discovered in the first six years. Marijuana has been out thousands and thousands of years and it has not done any harm yet. It has been equated with drinking in public houses. Do we close public houses? They are all drinking but are they all alcoholics? I see them every day in the public houses. Go in on a Saturday night and you will see them drinking beer, whiskey, everything, but it does not necessarily mean you must close them down or go into the public houses and prosecute every one of these people because they are drinking. Alcohol, to my way of thinking, is a much stronger more potent drug and it is addictive whereas cannabis is not addictive. Deputy Byrne has quoted from very good forceful arguments. I quote from the report of a WHO Scientific Group, Geneva, 1975 :

. . . there is no evidence. . . to suggest that the withdrawal of cannabis even from an extremely " heavy " user produces an abstinence syndrome that begins to approach in severity those produced by drugs of the alcohol, barbiturate, and morphine types.

Therefore the WHO report says it is not as potent as alcohol. I think we must be clear in our minds about that. When we are talking in terms of making cannabis a drug the use of which is an offence punishable by imprisonment, we must then start saying we had better draft a new Bill and introduce penalties for drinking beer. It is no simpler and no more complicated than that.

Americans are very emotive over cannabis and they have been for years because they have a proselytiser among them who went around America preaching the gospel and preaching that cannabis was a drug of sin and everything. He even influenced the WHO for many years.

One of the best books those who have any doubts on the matter could read is The Strange Case of Pot, a most enlightening and informative book and well worth while reading. I think Deputy Byrne would benefit enormously from reading it and reading from his biased views the way the man went to extremes in trying to force upon people the fear of cannabis—and there is a fear. Cannabis and marijuana are very emotive words. I was afraid of my life of cannabis until I delved a little deeper into the literature. I was up preaching and saying that you would go to hell almost if you touched it. I was preaching to youth clubs. I was preaching grave heresy, if I may say so. We should be clear in our minds about this: firstly, it is not a drug of addiction; secondly, there is no evidence of any ill effects from it.

There are people on alcohol who have deformed babies. People on so many drugs have deformed babies. We are prescribing very potent drugs and there are thousands and thousands of people on drugs today and we have no qualms of conscience about prescribing the valliums and the libriums and all the other tranquillisers and antidepressants. All these psycho-tropic drugs we prescribe with impunity, but we are afraid of cannabis and we say it is a dangerous drug. I think it is a hypocritical approach and I would be very much afraid that those of you who do not know the real effects of this, or both sides of it, might be influenced by this fear that is inclined to be engendered among us all about cannabis. Going back to the Wootton Report in 1964, the La Guardia Report in 1934 and the Indian Health's Commission Report in 1894, consistently right along the line dating back to 1894, the scientific evidence has been that it is not a drug of addiction. It has been proved over and over again that it does not lead to addiction or to the use of the more addictive drugs.

In the report of Jervis Street Drugs Centre, the problem there is not cannabis. Far from it. The problem is the morphine, heroin and opium derivative groups. This is where there is real addiction. There is no addiction from cannabis. As a result, I would oppose vigorously Deputy Byrne's amendment.

I would have possibly listened to Deputy O'Connell with more favour if he had dealt with the past history of those people in the Jervis Street Clinic to find out which drugs they started on. Information which I have had to date—I am only a layman—is that many people start on cannabis and then go into the other heavier and more dangerous drugs. It seems to be a key to a person becoming hung on drugs.

I would have expected that, if Deputy O'Connell was disagreeing with Deputy Byrne, he would have dealt with the matter of ventricular atrophy—there appears to be some evidence, I do not know how strong—and also with the question of the different potencies of cannabis. As I understand Deputy O'Connell, he has no fears whatever about cannabis and he is virtually advocating that there should be no control. I may be wrong.

Regarding Deputy Haughey's submission, I do not think as a public representative that I could support Deputy Haughey because his amendments are virtually preparing the ground for a black market. If it is not going to be sold, imported or grown, how is it to get into the country and how is it to be dealt with? That is a serious matter.

The Minister may make regulations.

Maybe, but the point is this is not in the amendment and it is not being put that way to the Committee.

It is in the Bill.

As I see the matter, it is obviously pointing to building up a black market. There has been much talk about children obtaining this drug. That is always a worrying matter—why children should want to use this drug and why they use it. It must have some effect. I have witnessed the use of cannabis publicly in a Dublin restaurant, without shame. Certain people get on to a drug like this for the purpose of kicks. I have a feeling, and I have heard it said by certain medical people in ordinary practices, that very often people start on cannabis and end up on something else. I cannot certainly support Deputy Haughey's amendments on the grounds I have stated and I certainly do not agree with Deputy O'Connell on what he has said.

I have no experience of this—there is no problem in the area I represent. From the statements already made we are aware of the confusion that exists from the literature. I have discussed this from time to time with people and the argument put forward by Deputy O'Connell is the argument most recently offered to me—if we allow the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes why not allow the consumption of this? This is not the real argument though. The real argument is whether the thing is good or bad in itself. We find it very difficult to decide. We have no experience of dealing with the people and we must depend on the literature.

There seems to be some justification for the argument that taking the stuff and using it brings one into the atmosphere of the sub-culture of those who take it. This is something we should think on. We may draw an analogy and say that allowing a person into a bar to drink minerals may eventually turn them into alcoholics. This is true and if I were in a position to do something about this, if it were at my sole discretion, I certainly would outlaw alcohol and cigarettes if this possibly could be done, even though the experience in the United States is different. The question of ventricular atrophy from cannabis we do not know much about, but one must be conscious that some morning one may have ventricular atrophy passed through alcohol.

As a layman, I think we are all running into the problem that we do not really know the effects of cannabis. We have had medical men speaking, two of whom made strong cases for and against and this certainly makes it difficult for the layman to come up with a decision. But I would be slow to accept cannabis for personal use because once one consumes it, as other speakers have said, one tends to want to go for the harder drugs; one will want to experiment. If one had the facts and figures one would come up with this reality—that if one started on this drug the effects would wear off after some time and one would go on to look for a stronger drug.

Some members spoke of alcohol. Alcohol is a great problem today. If we had been aware of the problem then, years ago we may have taken other actions against it to try to contain its use, but the fact now that it has become a part of one's life it is not an easy thing to restrict. Deputy Gibbons said that in America prohibition was a complete failure.

Therefore, alcohol is a problem; it is also an addictive drug and is, certainly in this town, becoming a very serious problem; and to open up another area of drugs—whether addictive or not is debatable—is a very grey area to go into. It has been suggested that people who use this drug should not be penalised severely. I am completely against this kind of negative attitude that persists within our legal system, that because people go for one thing or another for kicks or for something else, or are induced into it one way or another, they may find themselves behind bars. Surely that is an uncivilised way of treating people who may be running into problems. If it is a problem it must be treated in a proper fashion. We must look at it in another way, from the point of view of treatment. This Bill is being pushed through by the Department of Health and the Minister for Health. This is the type of thing I would want to see : how we can make society more attractive so that we do not have to depend on this type of drug or any other drug. I would not go along with the idea of cannabis for personal use. It cannot be controlled. It is an impossible situation and the gates are being opened to a complete new area which I believe is open to abuse.

I am surprised to hear it being said that it is being used here, there and everywhere. I move around quite a bit and, honestly I do not see it being used at all. I am not saying that it is not used but I do move around. I am surprised at Cork city. I work in a centre city constituency where it could be seen. I do not see it being used at all. That, to me, is not a reason for opening it up. Let us keep it under control. We can always look at it again in the light of further experiment. This is a Misuse of Drugs Bill and we should not be making it easier for people to abuse drugs.

It is hard for laymen to reach a decision on this after listening to medical opinions—doctors differed on this subject, cannabis. I am completely in the dark as to the potency or the detrimental effects of this drug. Perhaps I am leading a sheltered life, but I have never come across anybody using cannabis. I move around quite a bit but I have never come across anybody using it. I have no experience and I have never talked to people who have used it. The only way I can approach this as a public representative is to respond to the wishes and convictions of the people who sent me here and I have no doubt that the people from my area would be against the use of cannabis. I do not mean to be against all liberal measures. I certainly would not agree with sending them to jail, but this aspect of the penalty is being overplayed. If a man steals an apple from an orchard simple larceny can carry a jail sentence.

They used hang them for stealing turnips.

There is a maximum penalty specified in the Bill but district justices would use discretion in dealing with these cases. The maximum penalty would only be prescribed for the persistent offender. I am convinced, like Deputy Hugh Gibbons, that if we were to allow this drug pass and not prescribe any penalties against it, it would be the thin end of the wedge and God knows where the abuse would lead to in the end. For that reason, despite the difference of medical opinion, as a layman and a public representative I would be against opening the flood-gates even for what Deputy Haughey calls a harmless drug, cannabis.

I am very much opposed to the particular maximum penalties contained in the Bill.

One should have, even in 1963, drafted maximum penalties at the time of possession of £1,000 or five years' imprisonment, in the context of enlightened modern legislation, I consider to be outrageous. I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to substantially modify what I would regard as the more draconian provisions of the original Bill. I think it should not be in Category II; I agree it should be in Category III; These are personal views, I can assure the Committee that they will in no way inhibit me ensuring that we will have an impartial discussion. I share the view of my colleague of the importance of what drug they started on. It reminds me of the argument to a barrister of what exactly did she steal first in the supermarket and are we going to give her a £1,000 fine and five years in jail if she is brought before the courts. We have to debate this further. We have had a most enlightened discussion. Perhaps, at this stage we have all had our say and it may well be that the Minister, having listened to the debate, might wish to come in. I know that he had some possible amendments in mind and, perhaps, we could then give Deputy Haughey and Deputy O'Connell an opportunity of replying. I regret having to restrict members at this stage but we want to reach an ordered adjournment at 6 o'clock.

Deputy Haughey emphasised in the beginning that he tabled these amendments to provoke discussion. To be honest, I do not think we have had full discussion. For the reasons that have been given here, we have a conflict of opinion as to the effects of cannabis—whether or not it is addictive—between members of the medical profession. The medical advisers in the Department of Health will have an opinion. Some of them may agree with Deputy O'Connell and some with Deputy Hugh Byrne. We can quote the Wootton Report and the report of the World Health Organisation and the report and the advice given by the working party established here in 1971. However, the peculiar thing about all these reports and their qualification with regard to possession of cannabis is that none of these countries have made any sort of move to liberalise the use of cannabis. Maybe, they believed the people would not be with us on this.

But 21 states in America have liberalised it. When we are talking we should get facts right.

What does the Deputy mean by " liberalise "?

They have liberalised the laws in individual states in America.

They have eased the laws.

There were draconian measures to use Deputy Desmond's words, for mere possession of cannabis but now they have adopted a more enlightened view and acknowledged that it is not an addictive drug. In a number of states in America they have liberalised the law and not made it a criminal offence.

That is true, but my information is to the effect that, while there may be a different approach in different states, 21 have liberalised it to the extent of easing the penalty and not providing for imprisonment. However, in the newest state of the United States of America, Alaska, its possession and use are allowed and not regarded as an offence at all.

That has gone further. What I am saying is that they liberalised it from what it was originally.

They had to do that because it was wrongly defined at the beginning.

I said I would have a look at it. My view was that it should not in the initial stages be an offence punishable by imprisonment. I gave some reasons why but I promised I would have a look at it and see how that could be eased. I certainly would not be in favour of the possession and use of cannabis even for one's own use being free entirely from penalty.

I am satisfied with the discussion I provoked by my proposal and I agree with the suggestion that we should not attempt to come to any firm conclusion on it today; that we adjourn and resume discussion on it later. I am very impressed with the different arguments put up. I would like to examine more closely one argument put forward by the Minister and that was that we would be the only country in the world that would have taken this unilateral step.

(Interruptions.)

I meant to make it absolutely clear that I do not want a Committee Stage type argument on these amendments. I am just trying to get a reasonable discussion and try to put forward some reasonable solution to the problem. I am terribly concerned about it. I must confess that as a parent it is a nightmare that my children, when they have grown up, might become subject to drug addiction. It is the one real horror I have as a parent. I want to make that perfectly clear. I am not coming into this discussion in any sort of flippant or lighthearted way. On the other hand I think we must, as legislators, try to do the best we can in the circumstances.

One commentator in The Medical Times asked the question: are we getting a glimpse of 16th and 17th century history repeating itself? We will want to be careful not to do that. Deputy Wyse and others spoke of the number of young people who are using cannabis. I quite honestly want to say that I know that it is certainly not confined to young people. There are quite a lot of adults, mature people, who regard this as a perfectly legitimate form of relaxation to indulge in. There are various constricting arguments that we might tease out between us. I am certainly not wedded to any solution in any dogmatic sort of way at this stage.

I am very glad that the discussion has gone along the lines it has. There has been a very sensible discussion. People have spoken very frankly and honestly and as long as we can do that I think my proposals will get a fair hearing. I am grateful to the Chairman for suggesting that we postpone our discussions to another date. I am also very much appreciative of the honesty that has been spoken here and the open-minded approach with regard to the penalties. Indeed I may very well settle for that.

I just want to say how pleased I am with the way in which the Committee and the Minister have approached this with such an open mind and how appreciative I am personally that the Committee appear not to accept that cannabis is a harmless drug. We would all have liked to have admitted that it was a harmless drug. We will have a further detailed discussion on it. I think we should all be aware that what we are legislating for here will carry on for many years in the future. We should accept the responsibility that is placed on us particularly with regard to this drug. The core of the Bill will take us around the definition in this section. What we are really doing is trying to define whether this is harmless or not. There is no evidence to suggest that it is not.

Can the Minister give us any further documentation?

I would propose to have an amendment for Wednesday.

Is it by way of the penalties?

Can the Department supply us with any further documentation or an authoritative Departmental view on cannabis?

I would hope to have an amendment down for next week.

What we might do is ask Dr. Michael Kelly of the Jervis Street Drug Advisory Centre to give us his opinion. It would be an informed one on the effects and uses of cannabis.

If the Department wish to make information available to Members, then that is all right. We do not have the facility whereby we can bring expert evidence before us.

Our interest in this matter is the Department. Anything we want, I suggest, should be channelled to us through the Department. I would ask them, if they can, to provide us with any documentation that they think would be useful to us.

Would it not be a good idea for the Department to get information from the Drug Advisory Centre in Jervis Street on the incidence of cannabis consumption?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Committee adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 7.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 10th December, 1975.
Top
Share