Mr. Chairman, I was asked at the termination of the last meeting if we could produce information in regard to cannabis and I presume the members of the Committee have received this information. I do not know whether the amount of information is helpful. Neither do I know if the Members have had an opportunity of reading it.
SECTION 3.
Debate resumed on 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."
—(Charles J. Haughey.)
We would like to thank the Tánaiste and his officials for circulating this information. It may have some value in that the Members may be helped in arriving at their own personal assessments.
I do not know if any comments need to be made on it. We have the World Health Organisation's observations. There are varying views, not alone in this Committee here, but in these various documents that have been circulated to Members. I think the over-riding factor in all these is, despite the comments on the danger or otherwise of cannabis, the laws in most countries have not been changed with regard to the possession of the drug. We should proceed, therefore, on the basis of the possession itself being an offence and then consider what type of penalties might be proposed or agreed upon in this Committee. I may not be able to answer any technical questions that might be directed to me with regard to these various reports but, if anybody wants to make any comments on them, they can do so.
I would make a particular procedural point before we discuss particular amendments. As you know, at our last meeting, Deputy Haughey moved amendment No. 12. In addition, we agreed to take related amendments Nos. 60, 80, 117a, 122a and 125a. Members are also aware that since our last meeting we have received further additional amendments to section 27 and to the Schedule. Amendment No. 115a proposes to substitute a new Schedule for the existing one. I draw that to the Members' attention first of all because the existing Schedule classifies the controlled drugs for the purposes of the penalties section, namely section 27. As Deputies will see amendment No. 115a proposes to remove this classification; and amendments Nos. 78a, 86a and 89a propose to amend section 27 accordingly. Amendment No. 90a is related to amendment No. 78a. With the permission of the Committee I would suggest we take these amendments together with the amendments already under discussion.
In addition, I suggest that Deputy O'Connell's and Deputy Byrne's amendments to section 27 be discussed at the same time, namely, amendments Nos. 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89. Members may recall that—I just want to draw attention to this here—amendments from No. 116 to 126 on the principal list of amendments relate to the Schedule. We now have an entirely new Schedule and, therefore, all these amendments will fall if amendment No. 115a is accepted.
Are we going to have just one Schedule?
One Schedule.
Would that not necessarily mean that the whole of section 2 must go on as well because section 2 deals with transferring drugs from one category to another?
Yes. It will have to be amended on Report Stage.
This Bill is beginning to look very like Johnny Forty Coats.
I would not disagree with Deputy Haughey on this. It is somewhat confusing to be trying to inter-relate the various amendments and the various sections and deletions and additions, but the Bill was adopted by me; it was circulated prior to my becoming Minister for Health. It was circulated for some time before that. I took the Bill and I think the only substantial change I made was in respect of the now section 28. I am not saying that as a criticism of Deputy Haughey's comment. It is the format of the Bill. I do not know whether one could call it a draftsman's dream or nightmare.
I am beginning to think the draftsman might have been on drugs himself.
I think we can sort out the draftsman, and we will have to sort him out in a very peculiar way.
Yes.
I suggest that what we should be concentrating on at this stage is the proposed grouping. I would suggest that the following amendments be discussed together, namely Nos. 12, 60, 78a, 79 to 89, 89a, 90a, 115a and 116 to 126. Would Members be agreeable to this? We have gone through it very carefully and, with your agreement, I propose to circulate a list of the proposed grouping of amendments.
I would like to say, as far as these amendments are concerned, that acceptance of my amendments Nos. 78a, 86a, 89a, 90a and 115a would mean that amendments Nos. 79 to 83, 87, and 116 to 126 would fall. These arise out of the proposal that there would be one category and one punishment. It looks a bit complicated but, if we clear amendments Nos. 115a and 78a, the bulk of them would fall. I do not think we should have much more difficulty after that.
I just want to say we could wax very eloquent in this Committee about this whole procedure and I think that it is, to say the least of it, undesirable. However, I do not think there is much point in doing that. We have this type of Bill before us and I suppose the only thing we can do at this stage is to make the best fist we can of it. But it is becoming a totally radical document compared with what was put before us originally. I want to ask for views on this question. This Bill is now going to be so fundamentally changed both in its form and in its effects, is it possible and will you consider, and will the Minister consider, recommitting the Bill—there is a procedure, I believe, where a Bill like this can be recommitted—so that, when we make all these amendments, we can look at it again in a committee sort of procedure? It is becoming a tattered Bill.
I think it would have to go through the House again.
I mean recommitted in the House.
I do not think it is right for Deputy Haughey to talk about this as a tattered Bill. Wisely, or unwisely, I accepted the Bill that I had and it is the same one that Deputy O'Malley had on the Order Paper. If it appears to be tattered, it is tattered by reason of the amendments I proposed in order to make it a more acceptable Bill to the Committee.
As I said, I could wax very eloquent here on the way in which our procedure is going. I refrain from doing so and, I hope, in a co-operative spirit. I think we should leave it at that but, however it has come about, this Bill is going to be a very different document by the time it leaves the Committee Stage in this Committee. For instance, a very significant thing is that section 2 in this Bill is now going to have to completely go as a result of one of the amendments the Minister is making, but it cannot go until we get to the Report Stage because we have already passed section 2. Is it acceptable that we would recommit it somewhere, either here or to the House?
I think in many respects we are being premature because we have not decided on some fundamental aspects relating to the Bill, for example, the problems in relation to cannabis and cannabis resin. If we solve these issues we can then proceed with the Bill. If the Bill is to be recommitted it will be necessary for the Minister to move formally in the Dáil for the recommittal of the Bill. I would suggest, however, that on our first attempt we should try to resolve some of the fundamental issues at this stage and then we can consider recommittal.
I am not asking you to decide on recommittal but I want to put down a mark at this stage that here we have a Bill which began with a fundamental approach of three separate categories of drugs. It is now going to be amended to where we have only one category of drugs. That is a major change. I just want to say that we would be entitled to ask and, when the time comes, to have favourably considered—in the light of these fundamental changes that have been made in the Bill—to have it recommitted. I am not asking you to give a firm assurance. I just wanted to ascertain whether that would be possible and that, if it appears that it would be desirable, that it would be favourably considered.
We have to have regard to the discussion we had here this day last week. I promised I would try to bring in an amendment to suit the views expressed here. As far as the categories are concerned, nobody knows whether this drug, that drug or the other drug is the most dangerous. The categories were defined here originally merely to determine the penalty that might be imposed. I tried to meet the wishes of the Committee in just having one category, with the exception of cannabis. If that is cleared, I do not think we will have much difficulty with the rest of the Bill. I do not think it is as dramatic a change as Deputy Haughey claims.
One way or another—I would not regard it as a conflict—we have the issue to resolve, namely, the amendment of Deputy Haughey and the entirely new approach of the Minister both in relation to categorisation and penalties and we should proceed to discuss that now. I think we are being a bit coy. Could I ask Deputy Haughey to deal with his amendment No. 12 and perhaps give us an indication of his reactions?
I do not think it is being coy for those of us on this side of the table to express some doubts about a procedure which involves discussing 20 or 30 amendments all together. I will leave it at that. I am not criticising the Minister's approach. I accept that the Minister is helpful. He has listened to us all and now has put forward proposals which he hopes will perhaps meet a lot of our objections. We accept and appreciate that. It means, however, that we are going to have a very different sort of Bill at the end of our proceedings, when all these amendments are made, than the one we started out with.
Deputy, there may be confusion caused in people's minds by reason of the fact that all these other amendments have been mentioned. Dealing with Deputy Haughey's own amendment, No. 12, that can be disposed of for or against. Perhaps we could concentrate on Deputy Haughey's amendment No. 12 and my amendment No. 115 (a) for the moment.
I presume Deputy Haughey is withdrawing amendment No. 12?
I am not withdrawing amendment No. 12 simply on the basis that I want our discussion on the whole question of cannabis to continue. I think it is generally accepted that it should. The Minister has submitted a fair amount of literature to us. We should now resume our general discussion on the principle of our approach to cannabis. I want to begin by saying that the literature which the Minister has presented to us does not really help me a great deal. I have since had an opportunity of coming across some other American documentation on the subject. I still find a very great conflict of evidence with regard to cannabis. At this stage I am certainly being moved away from the position which my amendment would give effect to, namely, that simple possession of cannabis, in itself, would not constitute an offence. I have now recognised that that might be, in the present state of the evidence, in the state of our knowledge, going too far. Some in-between situation is what we have got to aim at. It is still very difficult to get away from these two Parliamentary Reports, our own Working Party and the Wootton Committee which said that simple possession of a small amount for one's own personal use should not be an offence. It is also difficult to get away from the situation where those persons—and there is a lot of evidence to indicate that they are perfectly entitled to do so—regard the right to cannabis as a personal freedom, and that we are being unfair to them by having any penal conditions in regard to its simple possession. However, I am prepared to bow to the weight of opinion which obviously has influenced the Minister. I withdraw from my position that simple possession of a small amount for one's own personal use should not be a criminal offence at all.
Then we come to the Minister's amendments. The Minister now proposes certain specific penalties for the possession of cannabis. What we must face up to here is : are the Minister's new proposals too severe? Is there a case to be made for having no penalty at all for simple possession for a first offence and thereafter, perhaps, some specially graduated penalties? Without wanting to agonise the Committee too much that is the way my mind would be working at this stage. Again, I would like to hear the views of other members of the Committee.
I would be against Deputy Haughey's line of thinking. We heard the doctors on either side of the House speaking about it. As a non-medical person, purely as a parent, I would be against any reduction of penalties. I would be very stiff. A lot of drugs, particularly amongst the very young, start by the use of cannabis, and go on from there to hard drugs. To say that there should be no penalty for a first offence—obviously the first time a person would be caught would not be the first offence, I would imagine. I would be as firm about that as anything else. I see the Minister graduates it, but he does have a penalty.
Yes, but he has considerably mitigated the penalties.
Nevertheless, it would be a deterrent of some kind.
How can one prove a first offence unless there is a penalty,—the registration, the trial, consideration of it? If there is no penalty the matter would never be before a court. This is a point which occurs to me.
It can be an offence but with practically no penalty.
That is something completely new to our law here.
I thought there were Probation Act provisions. I am not a lawyer but I do know of many instances where people are brought before the courts where an offence is established and no penalty is inflicted.
But there is, by law, a penalty there, and the court——
The judge then would have power to apply the Probation Act.
That is a different matter.
As far as the actual possession and some of the reports which have been circulated are concerned, even the Irish Working Party's Report of 1971 did say specifically that possession for personal use of cannabis should not normally be regarded as a crime to be punished by imprisonment. The Wootton Report says more or less the same thing. Implicit in that is that there be a punishment, but not necessarily imprisonment.
I do not want to be argumentative about that because it is an accepted fact that if you impose a penalty, a fine of £50—as the Minister's amendment proposes—that is in effect equivalent to imprisonment or will be equivalent to imprisonment in many cases. A lot of these people will not be able to pay the fine and the ultimate deterrent is imprisonment.
But if you do not have a light on your bicycle and you are fined £5 which you refuse to pay, you end up in Mountjoy just the same.
I know, but——
I am not trying to be smart.
: Nor am I. I want just to make the point that it is fallacious to think that, just because you express penalty in monetary terms, that does not necessarily involve imprisonment. I just want to make the point that very often it will.
Did I understand the Minister to say that, even in spite of those penalties, the presiding justice is in a position to apply the Probation Act?
I am not a lawyer but I would assume that he would have that power in most cases, if not all, of the law. Perhaps Deputy Esmonde would like to clarify it.
It is not precluded by statute; he exercises his discretion just as in any other case.
Section 28 will still apply in any event?
We have seen a slow coming together of minds on this. I see the situation where Deputy Haughey indicates £50; here I think one must bear in mind that it is a fine not exceeding £50; it could be £1; it can be zero at the discretion of the judge. I was wondering perhaps if Deputy Haughey was thinking in terms of——
That is dependent on whether you have a reefer or an anti-reefer judge, I suppose.
Some judges I have no doubt will hammer everybody with £50. At least we see a change in attitude of the Committee. I wonder is Deputy Dr. Byrne changing his attitude.
I am very pleased to see the Minister make a brave attempt to rationalise this Bill which we severely criticised at our second session as being rather vague, and a peculiarly drafted Bill. I was delighted to see these amendments today. I cannot support Deputy Haughey's amendment or the Minister's amendment on this. I have an amendment down also but it would have a different effect. The penalties would be harsher than those contained in Deputy Haughey's amendment, or implied in the Minister's amendment. I am disappointed to see in the Minister's amendment that " cannabis " and " cannabis resin " are contained in the same section. I am not considering it but if one were to consider it, the potency of the amount which a person would have would be the operative thing rather than the volume, as has been suggested in many international reports to date. The only other thing I wanted to say at this stage was that, in regard to the Wootton Report—recommending that it not be an offence for mere possession for personal use—it is vitally important that we note that the British Parliament did not pay any attention to that recommendation in their 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act and that their penalty on conviction is 6 months, or £200, or both.
If the British Parliament is not going to pay attention to the recommendations of its Committee under Baroness Wootton, I do not see why we should pay too much attention to it either.
Lastly, I would just like to refer to the extract from the Report of the Irish Working Party on Drug Abuse of 1971, which the Minister very kindly circulated to us and for which I am very grateful. I should like to quote from this:
There is a dearth of adequate modern studies on the physical, psychological and social effects of the long-term use of cannabis. Much research is needed before it can be stated that cannabis is harmless.
That is from our own Irish Working Party. This Working Party also refers to the Wootton Report of 1968 but it does not take an awful lot from that Wootton Report. As stated there, cannabis has not been proved to be safe. In fact, since then, there is evidence to show that cannabis has other effects than being a stupifier. a sedative or a semi-hallucinogenic drug. What I would like to see is a full discussion along the lines we are having, but to see more of this material made available to members and updated. It is a pity that we are attempting to discuss and frame a Bill at Committee Stage on material produced five years ago. Much of the material available to the Irish Working Party on Drug Abuse was produced in the decade before that. Research—opionionated documents produced—had, in turn, had a dearth of research on which to draw. I contend that it is in the past five years only that the evidence is coming in showing the dangerous side effects of maijuana, in certain animal experiments.
I would have thought the reverse.
The last thing I want to say is that the medical evidence in regard to marijuana and cannabis is such at present that, if it were to come before our Drugs Advisory Board, it would not be allowed in, it would not be marketed by any drug company in the world and passed by any State. It is completely wrong for us to continue to even discuss the possibilities of liberalising its use here. One cannot discuss liberalising the use of marijuana, by implication—as would be the case with this amendment—until such time as a full qualitative analysis has been carried out in the pharmacological industry to show the actual pharmacological effects and defects of the active constituent in cannabis. It is very irresponsible of us to attempt to imply safety of this drug at this point in the life of this Parliament.
To my knowledge nobody on this Committee has pharmacological expertise, including those of the medical profession here, and we have three or four doctors on the Committee. But we can at least, in the context of contemporary research available to the Committee—and that is rather limited too in the Republic because by and large we have not bothered our heads to obtain this information. We are not talking as legislators here. But, even in the context of that, if we err at all and I do not think we do, we err in favour of the amendments proposed by the Minister.
I do not think one can say that.
Well, it is a layman's assessment of the situation.
I am just thinking of cannabis, which is what we are speaking about now.
I think there is a general view around the table that cannabis is harmful. It has been argued by some in the medical profession in this Committee that it is not very harmful, and argued on the other side that it is extremely harmful. As far as up-to-date information is concerned, we have the four opinions that have been expressed in the documentation circulated. They support Deputy Byrne to some extent in the general conclusion to which they come. The most recent opinion we have is the World Health Organisation manual on drug dependence in 1975. But let us go back and start with the Wootton Report and that report states :
We recommend that in the interests of public health it is necessary for the time being to maintain restrictions on the availability of cannabis.
Our own report three years later by the Irish Working Party states:
Much research is needed before it can be stated that cannabis is harmless.
That was in 1971. In October, 1974, the United Nations Information Letter stated :
To many scientists working in the field it would seem that there is a general consensus that cannabis is dangerous, opinions differing on the degree of danger to the individual or to society.
The most up-to-date one is the World Health Organisation manual which, referring to cannabis, describes the effect as:
Mild to moderate psychic dependence effect and little, if any, physical dependence effect, but emphasises that further research is necessary.
It appears to me from that kind of information that we must regard it as an offence that would be punishable but not severely. I tried to meet—I will not say " tried to compromise "—the wishes of this Committee. Last week we had a pretty good discussion on cannabis and the difficulty everybody found was how to deal with it. Deputy Haughey's amendment suggested that possession of cannabis for one's own use should not be an offence. He qualified that, and the committee accepted his qualification, when he said he put down this amendment to provoke discussion and he had, if I interpret him properly, a pretty open mind but that was the main purpose of his amendment. He also qualified it by saying that, as far as punishment for a pusher and a peddler was concerned, he was not in disagreement with what was contained in the Bill. Deputy Byrne spoke about the dangerous effects of cannabis and quoted from documentation. A great deal of documentation is, of course, contradictory of other documentation, but he called for harsher penalties. Deputy John O'Connell spoke mainly about the effect or, should I say, the non-effect of cannabis. I said I would consider the views and bring forward amendments for broad agreement. It was emphasised again here last week, and rightly so, that this was not a political question and that we should try to reach general agreement. The general agreement appears to me to suggest that possession should be regarded as an offence. What we have to discuss then are the penalties. I said that if the majority view was to the effect that further amendments should be made I would consider them. My impression of last week's meeting was that a significant majority believe that penalties for possession for one's own use were too severe, even though they had their qualifications, reservations or objections to cannabis, but the consensus of opinion was that the punishment proposed was too severe. I agreed with the majority opinion expressed here and, as promised, I brought in this amendment, No. 115a. I do not think we yet know the long-term dependency effects of the habitual use of cannabis. It has been suggested that it leads on to the use of far more dangerous and lethal drugs. It is felt, therefore, that we should make possession, even for one's own use, an offence. But we should not go away from that stance because we would be the only country in western Europe that had done so. I do not suggest that we should follow western European countries in every single thing they do.
People have expressed concern about the position that might obtain in this country if the possession and use of cannabis were to be ignored completely. It would certainly attract here a lot of people who would be in the habit of taking drugs, some perhaps confirmed drug addicts, because there is evidence that in other countries where cannabis is freely used and not regarded as an offence a lot of confirmed addicts make for these countries, countries such as Nepal, and Afghanistan, and really live it up. I do not think we want that sort of a country here. My proposals would be to reduce the penalties provided in the Bill for possession for one's own use and, secondly, to overcome criticism of the categorisation of drugs in the Schedule by making one single category. It was argued that the drugs scheduled in Part III were much more dangerous than those in Part II or Part I and we had counter arguments as to where these particular drugs should be. In all the circumstances, I thought we should provide that the Schedule would in itself provide for just one category. I would like to outline the changes envisaged in my proposal in three stages—that is, in respect of the amendment No. 115a. I propose, first of all, that the division of this Schedule of controlled drugs into three separate categories should be abolished. On reflection, it is clear that the categorisation proposed in the Bill serves no useful purpose since the degree and type of control to be exercised in relation to each drug can be determined subsequently by regulations.
Could we hear that again?
I will give you that again. On reflection, it is clear that the categorisation proposed in the Bill serves no useful purpose since the degree and type of control to be exercised in relation to each drug can be determined subsequently by regulations. For example, under section 5, heroin and codeine—heroin, which is regarded as one of the most dangerous, and codeine, which is not, will be in one single Schedule of controlled drugs. It is obvious that the regulations made to control heroin will be more stringent than those which would be made in respect of something like codeine. There would be stricter control of the dangerous drugs; for example, in regard to LSD, which is regarded as a pretty dangerous one, the restriction might be to the effect that it would be available for possession by those who would be engaged in research. There would be different controls for possession and distribution with regard to the different drugs and that would be done by regulation. I believe the creation of one single Schedule also has the advantage of overcoming the difficulty of deciding at this time whether one drug should be in a higher category than another. This was referred to a few moments ago. They will all be in a common Schedule but subject to greater or lesser controls by regulation in the light of prevailing knowledge and needs.
Secondly, I propose in my amendments that, with the exception of possession, which I will come to in a minute, the penalties for offences created by the Bill will be the same in respect of all controlled drugs. For example, the penalties for pushing, growing, manufacturing, illegally importing and exporting will be the same in respect of all the drugs listed in the Schedule. The penalties provided for all offences, except possession, will be the same as those provided in the Bill in respect of the present Category I drugs, except where the Bill already provides for a common penalty regardless of present categorisation. Thirdly, I propose that the penalties for possession of a controlled drug will be the same as for the present Category I drugs in all cases except that of possession of cannabis for one's own use. For the purpose of penalties for possession, I am proposing that a clear distinction be made between cannabis and all other controlled drugs. As far as possession of cannabis for one's own use is concerned, I am proposing that while it still will be an offence, the penalties for first and second offences will be limited to fines not exceeding £50 and £100 respectively. For third and subsequent offences the option of imprisonment, that is, the 12 months maximum, will be offered to the courts subject to section 28 of the Bill which makes it mandatory for the courts to obtain medical and social inquiry reports on convicted persons which will provide the courts with a wide range of rehabilitation options in the case of convicted persons. Cannabis would be treated uniquely therefore in that courts will not be empowered to imprison an offender on his first and second offences for simple possession. I believe that, in proposing these amendments in relation to the possession of cannabis, I am going a considerable distance towards meeting the views of, I think, Deputy Haughey, and Deputy O'Connell and, I hope, Deputy Byrne. They are the main amendments proposed. There are some other drugs I propose to give different names to, so that we may be able to pronounce them and, maybe, recognise them, and to substitute for other names. Therefore, as well as abolishing the present categorisation of drugs contained in Schedule I, I have had the opportunity of updating it as well. I have added difepoxine. That is an amendment included in the new proposed Schedule, together with substituting two new names—codoxine and acetylmethadol for drugs already in the Schedule. They are described there as dihydrocodeinone O carboxymethyloxime and methadyl acetate.
First of all, I think we should bear in mind that the principle of this Bill is to prevent the abuse of drugs. I think that is the most important thing in this discussion. I am grateful to the Minister for circulating the opinions of quite a lot of people on drug taking, especially cannabis, and I would base my opinion on the World Health Organisation and I quote:
What page is it?
Pages 4 and 5.
It is the Information Letter of October, 1974.
It should nevertheless be recalled that the World Health Organisation dealing with Drug Dependence at its 16th session strongly reaffirmed the opinions expressed in the previous reports in 1969 that cannabis is a drug of dependency producing public health and social problems and its control must be maintained. At its 23rd and 24th sessions the Commission was in full agreement that a strict international control of cannabis must be maintained. From there we have no definite information as to the ill-effects of cannabis, and yet we are being advised by the World Health Organisation to maintain strict control of cannabis until such time as more qualified information is available to us. I personally would base my opinion on this and, until such time as qualified information is available, I would consider cannabis a drug, and a dangerous drug, until somebody convinces me to the contrary. I am a little worried about the whole discussion on this Bill because I was prepared to support the Minister here the last day but the Minister may be weakening now on this. At the meeting last week the majority of the members, even though two doctors we had differed, who expressed their views on cannabis were of the opinion that it was a dangerous drug. I was amazed when I heard the Minister had brought in a number of amendments. Personally, I would like to study them before I would even consider supporting them. We must remember the whole principle of the Bill which is to prevent the misuse of drugs. To my mind, the World Health Organisation are the people who should be directing us at this very moment and until such time as they bring in more qualified information, I do not think we should be talking about trying to reduce the degree of commitment where this is concerned.
If I may say, whereas I am very pleased that the Minister has put all the drugs into the one category, it prevents the obvious confusion and recategorising of the regulations occurring from time to time. I am not happy with the severity of the penalties that he has for, say, possession of heroin. We are talking about two different drugs. We are talking about heroin and cannabis. I have stated my views on cannabis from the very limited knowledge that I have on it. The severity of the law here is not acceptable to me and I have amendments down which are being discussed here with these. It is a very important amendment, in that we do away with summary offences, as such. I have studied the District Court rules on this and this can be done, that all offences be indictable offences. For an offence coming before a district court—which would be a summary offence—he generally has power to impose a fine of £50 or a year's imprisonment and that is it. Therefore if a drug pusher appears before a district court that is the maximum penalty that can be imposed there. By making them indictable offences, but not mandatory penalties, we can then move forward immediately into the real deterrent legislation necessary to control and, if we are lucky, help to eradicate any drug abuse that exists in this country. What we are discussing here is the control of the drug situation, of deterring it from spreading further. The Minister's penalties for " cannabis " possession and " cannabis resin ", which can be a hundred times more potent, would not control the situation but would do the opposite, it would help to spread and facilitate the spread of cannabis.
That is a rather sweeping statement, if I may say so.
I think so. In fact our present legislation is more severe regarding cannabis. Present legislation is more severe than what the Minister proposes here; the fines are heavier than those proposed in this Bill.
The section Deputy Wyse spoke of is of vital importance to this Committee. It does not matter what way it will look, Draconian legislation, or what they might do. The simple facts as I see them are that, if something is not safe, one has no right to condone its use, by diminishing the penalties, thereby implying—and the implication of this proposal is—that cannabis could be safe. I gave quotations here the last day. I will admit that one has been contradicted. That was the one regarding the sociological aspect. That has been contradicted by other medical sources. That was the only one which was contradicted regarding the adverse effects on a foetus. They have not been contradicted. There are quotations I could cite here regarding the adverse effects of marijuana which have been noted by medical observers and medical researchers. The World Health Organisation supports that research. All the documentation on marijuana states that it is dangerous. Yet we are placing it in a separate category altogether. I would like to see something developing along these lines, that is: keep all the drugs in the one Schedule; let possession of marijuana, as distinct now from " cannabis resin " for personal use, be tried in a special court where the person is not open to publicity and that they be also subject to section 28 of this Bill and that section 28 be mandatory—if a person is caught with marijuana in his possession, I feel it obligatory on the State to have his background and health researched as provided for in section 28. When one knows that documentation is directed at socio-medical problems what is the point in letting a person go who is found to be in possession of cannabis for the first time? That is the time when he should be helped and one can help him most, not the third time when, under section 28, he can be compulsorily penalised.
Section 28 applies to the whole thing, on the Minister's amendment.
Only to the third time.
Only to the third time.
One would not go through all that procedure if one young fellow was caught being taken to a pub; that would be ludicrous. The point Deputy Dr. Byrne appears to me to be making is that, for the first offence in respect of cannabis, I go through section 28.
The point is—and I think Deputy Hogan O'Higgins brought this out quite clearly—that it is na�ve to suppose that the first time a person is caught with marijuana is the first time they have smoked it.
We are making very wild assumptions at this stage of our discussions.
Could we get the facts straight here? It seems to me reading the Minister's new amendment, that section 28 will apply to a first, second or third offender in regard to cannabis. The Minister's amendment No. 78a says:
Subject to section 28 of this Act, every person guilty of an offence under section 3 of this Act shall be liable . . .
Does that not mean that, even for a first offence, under cannabis, if a person is found guilty, section 28 applies?
Other than——
Amendment No. 90a provides on section 28, that it is for the third offence only that the person be dealt with under section 28.
I am looking at amendment No. 78a and amendment 78a is the new provision in regard to cannabis.
Amendment 90a is clearly related to amendment No. 78a.
There is an amendment to section 28—amendment 90a—which provides that it is only for other than a first or second offence the person would be treated under section 28.
That is a penalty imposed under section 27. Section 27 will be amended by that amendment. That will be section 27, as amended?
Yes.
Amendment 78a will amend the existing section 27. Then amendment No. 90a will amend section 28, by reference back to section 27. Is the combined effect of those two amendments then, to take the provisions of section 28 out of first and second offences in regard to cannabis?
Yes.
Other than first or second offence.
In simple language, it means that it is on the third offence that section 28 is applied.
In relation to cannabis.
Why?
It is the same question as I answered Deputy Dr. Byrne. According to Deputy Byrne's proposal, if a young boy, girl or anybody is caught for the first time with cannabis, section 28 should be applied. I do not believe that, for the reasons I gave at the last meeting, because by accident, trick, or even as an experiment, a young boy or girl might be induced into taking a few puffs; the first offence. In these circumstances, Deputy Dr. Byrne suggests that the whole background and so on of the child be investigated. I do not believe that should be so for the first or second offence; perhaps for the third offence, yes. I do not know whether I have made myself clear in that respect.
I would be prepared to see abolition of the £50 provided the background of a person caught with their first ounce—of marijuana or whatever may be the definition—was investigated. After all, why make a complete criminal out of someone who may have had something pushed into his pocket or who na�vely takes it? Here one is making a criminal out of him by fining him £50, on summary conviction, or the Probation Act, whereas the court, under section 28, can have the power to investigate the background and not impose any fine on him if they find that there is something adrift in the background, or if they find perhaps a bizzarre medical history. This would protect the innocent user, but not on his third time up. On his third time up you know he is an habitual taker because he has been caught three times. It is hard enough to catch a person once. The first time is when they need help so we can help them to the optimum, not on their third time.
Surely we should not make it mandatory on the court to invoke section 28 for first offences. In the normal course of events I am sure the judge would have regard to the background of the offender.
The Minister seems to be looking at section 28 as a penal section. I agree with Deputy Doctor Byrne on this very narrow aspect. Section 28 is a helpful section.
No, not penal in any way. I think it would be through an ongoing exercise that would be unnecessary for the first offence.
Surely that is the time to have the investigation—at the first offence?
That should be left to the discretion of the judge. He should look at any case and say: This is a case which I believe should be referred for examination rather than impose a fine.
But the judge does not necessarily have to fine him.
No, but if he is caught——
If the judge was convinced that the boy or girl was tricked into it, would he not apply the POA?
That is the time section 28 should be brought into play; mandatory. It should be brought into play in a first and second offence. I should have thought the Minister would look on section 28 as a benevolent section, to help people. It seems to me now that the Minister regards it as a penalising section.
I am thinking of an habitual user—a fellow hooked on it, if you like—over a period.
Should we not bring the provisions of section 28 in as soon as possible, get medical reports, get the thing straightened out on the first offence? It is not when he has gone to the dogs and becomes an habitual user.
Yes, closing the stable door when the horse has gone. Can I ask a question which I think is very important? The Minister says in his amendment, in regard to a first offence: " for one's own use." Who certifies that, and the amount?
The court will determine.
Something must be inserted here. Who certifies that a person can have cannabis for their own use, and the amount? Is it a doctor?
It is a matter of evidence not alone in respect of cannabis but in regard to any drug whatsoever.
Yes, all right. But if a person comes up before the court and says: this was certified by a doctor, or I take this for my own use, what evidence must he produce to the court?
A prescription for a medicine.
We are on very delicate ground here.
Two colleagues want to come in before we come back to the section again—it is on the same issue—Mr. Fergus O'Brien and Dr. Hugh Gibbons.
First of all, we had a fairly full discussion on this last week. The general consensus was that we were not too sure about it and that it should be kept under control. We were not happy with the type of penalties being imposed. I welcome the Minister's amendments as being satisfactory. But we did voice concern that where people run into trouble with drugs—and it can be the first time, the second time or the third time—they do require some type of examination, or that their background be examined right away. This is important. I do not think we should wait, as Deputy Dr. Byrne said, for the third time around. Generally speaking, that could be too late. I agree that the principles of the amendment are correct and I support them. I do not think we are liberalising anything; it is still a controlled drug. But we must look at this as a social problem, if such develops, and how we should tackle it.
In general, if we are satisfied that some people require examination after the third time surely again as Deputy Dr. Byrne said, he could have been using this for some considerable time but has been caught only once. He has a major problem first time out. I would like the Minister to comment on that. In my view everybody should be referred from the word " go ". I realise somebody can be caught—a cigarette may be handed to him—or whatever its form—and he uses it first time out. Generally speaking, we all know the consequences of drug-taking; when people are caught, invariably they are people who have been at it for some considerable time. When caught for the first time we should then have an in-depth study into their problems and background and at that stage ensure that we will not be chasing them a second or third time, rather hopefully, the first time we catch them, that we nip the problem in the bud.
The only point I would make is that if we were to get a report on every first offence in relation to cannabis, in relation to the socio-economic background and so on of every individual who appeared before the court, I am afraid Leinster House would not be big enough to hold the records within two years. I sincerely make that point to Deputies—it is rather like compiling a report on every drunken driver convicted in Ireland.
Would you agree that a number of people who are caught on the first time generally speaking have been meddling in it for some considerable time?
How can the Deputy say that? This applies to alcohol as well.
Deputy Dr. Gibbons wants to make a point.
I want to go on record as agreeing with Deputy Dr. Byrne and Deputy O'Brien on this question of the first offence. I feel that this is an exercise in preventive medicine and preventive anti-social behaviour. I think it would be a pity if this were not done and if we did not avail of the opportunity to do it irrespective of the amount of records that would be collected, I think it should be done. The person sitting in judgment will be in a position to decide whether this investigation is necessary. He will decide the difficulties posed by the Minister as to whether it is a first offence or whether the person has been fooled into doing so. The probation service would be such as to deal with this. We would be making an awful mistake in trying to prevent the misuse of drugs if we did not avail of the opportunity of having those people examined—as suggested by Deputy Dr. Byrne—on the first offence.
I do not know whether or not the same thing is done with a young fellow who is found drunk on the street.
My answer to that is——
He is not fined £50 just for being drunk.
May I make the point—in reply to the Minister—that if a young boy is found drunk on the street, our services should be such as to deal with him in the same manner; if there is a real social or an economic reason for it, it should be enquired into.
I am very pleased to see such progressive attitudes developing in the Committee. We do have a problem in relation to the Bill.
At least now that the Chairman himself has contradicted certain statements he made in the House over the years it is now appreciated that there is a widespread cannabis problem.
I never said that.
As he said, the whole social service would be tied up by investigation. I am not agreeing to this carte blanche, assuming that the Minister goes with the apparent majority view here. Nor would I accept, and I agree with Deputy Wyse, that the majority view of our last meeting was for liberalising, or making smaller penalties for cannabis. I do not think that was necessarily the majority view.
I do not think that was the majority view but what I think is essential is that we have to have strong deterrent legislation, number one, and then strong supportive preventive medicine. I have an amendment here which not only deals with the person on the first offence but also makes it an offence for people to be present while marijuana is smoked. We must think of the possibility of marijuana smoking being in the nature of a contagious illness which spreads from a higher social level to a lower social level. You are not going to smoke marijuana when an itinerant comes to the door and says: " Look, take this when necessary ". You might consider smoking it if some influential person comes along and says : " Oh, it is harmless ". Considering all these aspects, the general context of another amendment I have here provides that it will be an offence to be present while marijuana is being smoked. That is one way of deterring people from using marijuana. What we are really talking about here is the social effects, not for the dependence, not for the pseudo-addictive urge to be like other people, but just as a disinhibitor where groups are concerned. That is all we are talking about here when we talk about either Deputy Haughey's amendment or the Minister's amendment in relation to cannabis. That is the only type of person we are talking about. I agree with Deputy Wyse that it would be impossible to determine who had possession or what amount we should allow them have in their possession. It should be mandatory that they all come under section 28 of this Bill. There is also the active constituent in the amount of cannabis they have before one can even discuss this in a practical way. You have to determine the potency rather than the amount.
The other thing I would like to see the Minister having here would be a special court in which all the cannabis cases could be heard in camera and the person concerned would not get adverse publicity, as has happened to many students and many teenagers; they get adverse publicity when they are brought to court and not when they are convicted. Then they carry the anti-social tag that they have been before the court on drug charges. I would like to see the Minister making provision for a special court where we could really get into preventive medicine in dealing with this problem. No country has successfully tackled that aspect yet.
I am going to help us to get on with this and I am withdrawing my amendment in order to get some finality to this discussion. Before doing so, however, I want to explain my attitude in this regard. It seems to me that, in favour of my approach, you have two considerations for and two against. The two considerations in favour of my approach are (1) I do not want to alienate young people. I do not want to alienate a substantial section of our community from legislation. I am afraid that if our approach is too keen—I will not use the word " draconian "—this Bill will be looked upon with hostility by a section of young people. Apart from that, I do not want to interfere unnecessarily with people's lives. If we do not stop people smoking and drinking are we right in interfering with their use of cannabis, if it is not harmful to them? They are my two considerations in favour of the non-penal approach with no penalties for simple possession. As against that, the Committee seem to be putting forward two arguments—one, that cannabis definitely is harmful. My colleague, Deputy Wyse quoted the World Health Organisation as saying it is harmful. Another argument put forward by Deputy Hogan O'Higgins is that cannabis of itself might not be a great deal of harm but it leads to addiction to other drugs. These are the two considerations on both sides. I am not sure that Deputies who are against my approach in this regard are really thinking the thing out to the full extent. My approach does not approve of possessing cannabis but it does not want seriously to punish a young person who just happens to have fallen into this situation. If you fine a person or imprison him, you can be seriously damaging a young person's whole life. These are the considerations I have in mind. Having listened to the debate, I am still not convinced that cannabis is harmful. I have here a White Paper on drug abuse in the United States, dated September, 1975. It is a report to the President on the Domestic Council Drug Abuse Task Force. I read it and I am still not satisfied one way or the other. This very latest document and this very special Task Force in the United States, where cannabis is widely used, does not come down on one side or another. That is my dilemma and, in that situation, I am still very reluctant to have any penalties for young people who fall into this particular social trap. I say that in support of my whole approach to the matter. I am going to withdraw my amendment No. 12 to enable us to really get to the Minister, and I want to suggest to the Minister, and to those who are attacking the Minister's proposals on the ground that they are not severe enough, that there is still room for greater compassion and greater consideration for young people. Deputy Wyse is not really being virtuous and is not really protecting young people by insisting on harsh penalties. That does not seem to me to be a legitimate or valid reason. It seems to me that Deputy Wyse and others say: " Let us protect young people by making these penalties very severe ". That is the wrong approach. I am reasonably satisfied with the Minister's amendment and I am reluctantly going along with it. I would still like to see, particularly in the case of the first offence, the penalty greatly mitigated. Here I find myself, strangely enough, on the side of Deputy Dr. Byrne. I would like to see some modification of the section 28 provision. Maybe the Minister feels that section 28 is too elaborate and means too much of an investigation. I would like to see mitigation of the penalty for a first offence; I would like to see some very nominal amount and, at the same time, provisions like those in section 28 brought into operation. Subject to those considerations I am withdrawing my amendment.
Deputy Haughey says I am coming down very hard on young people. I am not. We are talking about preventive medicine. I am prepared to go along with any reasonable suggestion where an offence is concerned and it cannot be quashed, but I must pose my question to the Minister, because I base quite a lot on it. The Minister says " for one 's own use ". Who certifies it is for one's own use?
On the evidence that will be presented to the court the justice will decide whether or not it is for one's own use, in accordance with the amount he or she has in his or her possession.
The judge will have to decide an amount.
I do not want the Committee to get into areas of higher subjectivity.
The court must be satisfied on the facts presented to it.
You say the court must define it?
Yes. I appreciate that what Deputy Haughey has done has served the purpose which he originally had in moving the amendment. I tried to take into consideration all the points arising in the discussion. My idea in not applying section 28 to the first offender was to try to ensure that the young people who got this cannabis accidentally, or otherwise, and had it for the first time would not suffer even to the extent of having their social background and so on investigated, although I know it might be necessary in certain cases, and then they would appear before the court again. I have never been before a court but it must be a terrifying experience, no matter what the offence is. But to have a young chap up—and he is certainly in a bad way if he is up for using cannabis, thinking of what his people must feel and having his name published in the newspapers—when that is all done, the judge announces that his case is going to be referred to the social workers and he will have to come before the court again and the judge will make his decision as to whether he will let him go free, or put him on probation, or order treatment in a certain health institute, if he will take treatment. All this would be in the newspapers. If he has been an habitual user, but has been caught for the first time, he could be referred to some institution in an effort to cure his addiction to cannabis.
Is the Minister labouring that a bit—coming back the second time? When an investigation is carried out under section 28 and the report is made, and so on, he is coming back to the court again interorum, as it were. He is just brought forward for advice or private judgment.
He is on remand.
Would the committee agree if I were to say that the judge would have discretion to invoke Section 28 in respect of the first offence? Deputy Byrne said there is a whole clatter of cannabis used and he wants a special cannabis court set up.
Not a cannabis court. Under subsection (3) of section 28 it is provided:
A court may, if it thinks fit, consider otherwise than in public——
I do not know where the Minister got the idea that I was looking for a special court.
The best solution in all the circumstances would be to give the judge the discretion of invoking section 28 or not invoking it.
Surely, if you were to give judges discretion to invoke section 28 or not, it is much too elaborate even for a first offence. If judges are concerned with people, especially elderly people, and have never moved in circles where cannabis was used—I am sure the vast majority of them have not—they would look upon the use of any drug, even cannabis, as a very serious offence and they would be inclined to view every case, even a first offence, in a heartless way.
If it were mandatory that might happen, but under my proposal it would be at the discretion of the judge.
Even if you give them the exercise of discretion, section 28 is much too elaborate. The thoughts behind it are good, but where are you going to get the personnel to place these people under the supervision of certain bodies, including a health board? Where are you going to get the medical personnel? Where are you going to get the clinics, the educational courses? All of these things sound great; the thoughts and the reasoning behind them are tremendous but the personnel are not there to operate this section. But for the poor unfortunate person who is brought before the court, and who is perhaps brought back before the judge at a later date, it will be a case of going on and on ad infinitum. That is why I think section 28, if it were to be invoked at the discretion of the judge, is far too elaborate as it is drafted at the moment.
Then the Deputy would be supporting my original proposal that it was only on the third offence that that would be applied?
May I make a suggestion? Where the justice is satisfied that this is not the first occasion on which the drug has been obtained, that there may have been an habitual taking of the drug, he may then at his discretion, even though it is a first offence, refer? That would, I think, meet Deputy Toal's problem.
That will all come out in the evidence. In the meantime, surely we should give the judge discretion to refer him for a report.
It would have the effect of " inviting " the person possibly to make a clean breast of the matter instead of holding facts back. Everyone seems to be concerned about treating the person who is partly addicted or using the drug a lot. If you take that approach you are making the person come clean. He may say: " This is not the first time, Justice. I have used the drug several times. I am looking for leniency and, maybe, medical treatment or consideration." On that basis, you are inviting the person to come forward with facts. If we mean what we say this is the sense of my proposal. A person could be brought up and convicted for the first time and it could be a question of the quantity.
On the quantity, the court will determine that.
Mr. O'Brien
If the judge can determine it, why cannot we determine it?
This is irrelevant to what I am getting at. You can have a person before the court for the first time, who would be convicted for a first offence, but it could have been the tenth time he has used the drug; he might be using it regularly. I am trying to say that section 28 would be invoked at the discretion of the court where there is evidence to show that the drug has been used more than once.
Would it not come out in the evidence that such was the case?
No.
Suppose you are up for the first time for drunken driving, but you drove a car while drunk about 20 times previously, what evidence would be produced?
It would be at the behest of the defendant to do this; it would be in his interest to do it, if he wants to get treatment.
Then there is no problem if he wants to get treatment. He says that and then the judge uses his discretion and I presume his discretion would be that he would be referred for treatment. In the circumstances, I think the proposal I made in regard to it being left to the discretion of the judge as to whether or not section 28 would be applied in the case of a first or second offence meets the situation.
We did agree that we would adjourn at 9.15 p.m. We are running over time.
I do not think the Minister has given due attention to the medical documentation available to date. To allow a person to go into court once and not have it mandatory, even with the evidence available——
We will continue this discussion at our next meeting.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Committee adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 4.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 17th December, 1975.