I move amendment No. 65:
In page 14, between lines 47 and 48, to insert the following subsection:
" Any person who supplies any plant, material or any aid to the cultivation of a controlled drug or who knowingly assists in the cultivation, harvesting or distribution of a controlled drug shall be guilty of an offence ".
This would, as far as I know, relate only to the cultivation of opium and cannabis. The amendment is covered by section 17:
(1) A person shall not cultivate opium poppy or any plant of the genus Cannabis except under and in accordance with a licence issued on that behalf by the Minister.
(2) Every person who cultivates opium poppy or a plant of the genus Cannabis in contravention of subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
Section 21 also covers it:
(1) A person who attempts to commit an offence under this Act, or who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence under this Act, or who solicits or incites any other person to commit an offence under this Act shall be guilty of an offence.
I think the two sections cover the Deputy's amendment unless he has any other point to make.
The two subsections read together cover the amendment.
I do not want anyone to get into trouble. I do not know how a person would go about cultivating cannabis or opium, but some unfortunate person supplying fertiliser might be in trouble.
I was under the impression that section 17 covered the person who was growing it, section 19 covered the person who owned the land, and I wanted section 21 to be a little stronger by having it spelled out that any person who supplied the plant, material, or aid of any kind would commit an offence.
You would have to aid.
Subsection (1) of section 21 is very comprehensive.
A person would have to knowingly supply any aid or material, because any form of merchant might supply various commodities, such as fertiliser.
Is the Minister happy with subsection (1)?
It certainly says a person shall not cultivate these things and section 21 states that anyone who aids or abets, counsels or procures commits an offence. It is even more detailed than the Deputy's amendment.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 15, after line 27, to insert a new subsection as follows:
" (8) Any person who, except under and in accordance with a licence, permit or authorisation under this Act, prints, sells or distributes literature containing drug formulae or details of preparation of any controlled drug shall be guilty of an offence ".
The reason I put this amendment down is that some drugs can be manufactured quite simply, in particular the drug LSD. Some time ago, about 1970, leaflets detailing the manufacture of LSD were available in the centre of Dublin, outside—I will not say which centre of learning——
The Deputy said the centre——
Dublin centre is a very big place when it comes to motorways. In proposing this amendment I do not feel that section 21 is strong enough to deal with this possibility. In fact there is a slight omission.
Would the Deputy regard it as aiding and abetting and could be construed——
No. Section 21, subsection (1) puts forward——
Would it not be covered under the general power the Minister has under section 5 for making regulations connected with the control of drugs generally, the sale, and so on?
Could the Deputy pinpoint the one? There is a difficulty here.
Yes.
That is where the drug is already in existence. Deputy Byrne said this is information being furnished as to how a person can make up his own drugs, and that does not seem to be provided for under section 5.
This is literature containing drug formulae detailing the preparation of any controlled drug. The generality of powers which the Minister has under section 5 of making regulations would enable him to make any necessary regulations under this Act as well.
I am interested in which subsection of section 5 would catch the person who sells a drug formula. I do not see that situation covered in section 5.
Subsection (1), section 21.
Section 21 (1) does not cover it because it is not stated to be an offence in any previous section.
How does the Minister feel about it?
I have sympathy with what Deputy Byrne wants to do. However, section 5 gives the Minister for Health power to make regulations for all these situations. Section 5 (1) is specific regarding manufacture, importation and so on, along with other requirements in the rest of the section. There is nothing specific as far as the amendment is concerned which prohibits the authorisation to dispense, sell, or disseminate information as to the make up of certain drugs.
Every student with a textbook in his possession passing it to another or selling it, is in danger here. It is a very serious matter. If a student passes or sells a book to another student in the medical school he can go to jail under this provision. He would have to have authorisation to sell a book.
I take the Deputy's point and they would have to be exempt.
What does the Minister exempt? Is every piece of literature on drugs exempt? Everything could not possibly be exempted.
Anything that contains a drug formula, under Deputy Byrne's amendment, would have to be licensed.
Almost everyone in the country would have to be licensed.
Does this fit in with EEC regulations regarding packaging and labelling of goods?
That is provided for in section 5.
I see this as very vague, it is giving the State unlimited powers. To what end?
I do not think Deputy O'Connell has read the Bill. It says: " in accordance with licence or form of authorisation ".
Does everything have to have an authorisation? If a student has a medical book containing formulations in respect of controlled drugs—a book on pharmacology or therapeutics—has the book to be licensed?
That comes within the provisions in the Bill.
So every medical student who sells his books to fellow students must get authorisation? It is crazy.
And every man who prints the books must be licensed.
Every bookseller or chemist will have to be licensed.
The Deputy disregards section 5 which includes regulations dealing with this.
That is the making of regulations by the Minister.
What I am aiming at in the amendment is to catch the person who illegally prints literature for distribution or gain.
But the Deputy has not said that.
It does not have to be specifically mentioned in the amendment. The principle of it would be there.
It is not.
It shall be an offence to print, sell or distribute literature containing drug formulae. I suggest that brings us to the borders of lunacy.
The regulations are quite clear that this is literature which would not be medical magazines.
Is the Minister talking about a rag magazine or something?
Yes.
I am quite certain that in my house there are many books, encyclopaedias and books of general knowledge which contain drug formulae.
But not controlled drugs.
There are two ways of looking at this. One section enables the Minister to make exceptions. This means that the Minister would have to list out many exemptions.
Within the regulations that Deputy Haughey referred to we might be able to make some sort of a change so as not to do any damage to the people who would do this in their professional capacity even as students.
Any of these things would arise in connection with the sale or promotion of drugs and the Minister has complete authority under the Bill.
You can look up LSD in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Would it give the formula?
Yes, of course it would.
It would not give the method of preparation.
It says literature containing drug formulae.
And details of preparation?
That would be twice as bad. It is impractical. It brings the whole Act into disrepute. Prisons could not be built large enough to house all the offenders.
The basic concern of Deputy Byrne is in relation to the sale of drugs, the promotion of literature aimed at promoting drugs sales in an illicit way. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from making regulations under clause (a) (iii).
Would it be part of the training and teaching for medical students to know the composition of LSD?
Of course. The student would have to know it.
What Deputy Byrne is getting at, is somebody who issues a broadsheet telling people how they can make drugs themselves. It is a question of whether the Minister will find a reasonable formula to provide for that case. I know he will do it, if it is at all possible.
Bearing in mind what has been said here. Some of the suggestions are too ridiculous to put into practice.
What I am trying to prevent is something that has happened in this city where people have sold for 50p a sheet, details of how to produce LSD in your home. I can assure the Minister that this has happened.
People were making penicillin.
That occurred here five or six years ago. There was no way in which those people could be prosecuted. They just laughed at the Drug Squad. They handed out literature for the potential use of LSD. There was a wave of acid taking. Any suggestion that the Drug Squad should start confiscating all pharmacological books, children's magazines or the Encyclopaedia Britannica is ridiculous.
If for absolutely illegal purposes a person was handing out these sheets, would not he or she have to be detained?
I think the situation has been grossly exaggerated. We know there are people drawing unemployment money illegally, but we could not close down all the employment exchanges. People are capable of doing anything. There are people who would talk of manufacturing an atom bomb.
Where does Deputy O'Connell stand in relation to the difficulty that Deputy Byrne has raised about people who hand out these drug sheets to assist people——
Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Where does the Deputy stand in relation to this difficulty raised by Deputy Byrne?
I suggest that the Minister can deal with that situation by a properly drawn-up regulation under section 5, paragraph (a).
Yes. We should not appear to be in conflict because what I want to do—there is no point in promising something if I cannot fulfil it—is to frame legislation that is satisfactory and can be implemented.
Will the Minister have a look at it?
There is no reference made under clause (a) (iii).
Could it also apply to prescriptions?
No.
What would you call a prescription?
What the Deputy is suggesting is that this should be allowed to take place so that people can be told by the manufacturers.
When you are attempting to amend any legislation and you put down an amendment it is that amendment which will be incorporated if it is accepted. It is not a variation of that amendment. It is that amendment. If anyone does a photostat copy of a page from an authentic text book just for his own purpose should he go to jail? This is the point we have to look at. Any book on pharmacology will tell you about the manufacture of lysergic acid. A photostat copy could be passed on to someone. Should that person go to jail? If a student does that in Trinity College, which is the place referred to as a den of iniquity——
Quote your source.
I am saying it was referred to as that. I am not naming the person who said it. If a student gets a photostat copy of a page from a recognised book on pharmacology on the manufacture of lysergic acid does he go to jail?
You have to do something about it.
But how do you know what his purpose is?
It is rather like asking a barman to circulate the formula for bottling stout.
I am just showing how difficult it is to incorporate this in legislation.
Impossible.
On another aspect, regulations can be made making the misuse of drugs an offence, and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring.
Aiding and abetting must come under this.
It would.
My contention is that we need very little else in this Bill apart from section 21 (2) because it appears to cover everything.
Great. You see, it is all-embracing.
There is no specific section in this Bill which would cover the eventuality that I have spoken of and it is something that has been known to happen in the past in this city. I want to ensure that it is covered and I want the Minister to give it serious thought to see if he can introduce an amendment on Report Stage to achieve that.
I am sure the Minister will consider it for Report Stage.
Would Deputy Byrne put down an amendment? This amendment is not quite clear.
I will consider it between this and Report Stage.
Have I got an undertaking that the Minister will attempt on Report Stage to introduce an amendment?
He has undertaken——
No. I said I will consider it between now and Report Stage and see what can be done if it is not already covered.
The difficulty is whether the Bill gives the Minister power to make a regulation.
It may already be covered in another section.
This is the point.
The Minister has given an assurance.
Could I ask the Minister to consider inserting any person who, without a licence or authorisation, prints, sells or distributes literature containing details of the preparation of any drug?
I do not think one could do that.
No. I will consider it to see if something can be done.
