It was not my intention to deny Deputies to speak on this Bill but we had a very limited number of speakers. I wish we had more from both sides of the House. The discussion we had from those who contributed was very informative and constructive. I should like to acknowledge the offer of assistance that was given by Deputy Haughey, Deputy O'Connell, Deputy Byrne and Deputy Esmonde in making this Bill as effective as possible.
I am sure the House will recognise, as I do, that it is a very complex Bill but that is because the misuse of drugs and the treatment for it is a complex problem. I have endeavoured to approach this Bill in two ways. The first is to adopt a tough approach, so to speak, to criminality and unethical behaviour. The consensus of opinion in the House was that this was the approach that should be made in respect of criminality and unethical behaviour. This Bill not only adopts a tough approach to such people as pedlars and pushers, but also adopts a humane approach in the treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers.
The emphasis which I insisted on when I became Minister for Health and saw the original Bill was that there would be sanctions but, above all, that there would be care for those who were hooked on a particular drug or drugs. I will certainly consider any suggestions made to me if it is believed that the Bill can be improved to combat this awful problem.
I should like to reply to some of the main points but not all of the points. This Bill, like many Bills that go through the House, is essentially a Committee Stage Bill. There are many legal complications involved and for that reason we could do a far better job if we were to leave the detail to Committee Stage. I hope, in view of the fact that the House is more or less unanimous in its approach, although some Deputies have certain reservations, that this might be put through a special committee of the House. I should also like to leave the Schedules to Committee Stage because most of us, with the exception of Deputy O'Connell who specialises in drugs and medicines generally, would admit that it would be much more efficient and and workmanlike to deal with the Schedules on Committee Stage.
The emphasis in many of the speeches has been on the drug cannabis and I will refer to that later on. The debate prompted approaches from the medical profession since the beginning of the Second Stage. As far as the main provisions of the Bill are concerned, particularly in respect of the medical and other professions, approaches were made to me with suggested amendments. I will, of course, consider these and will, undoubtedly, have some amendments of my own.
Pretty long speeches were made during the course of the debate, particularly by Deputy O'Connell. We had many and varied accounts of drug addiction and how the drugs were obtained, how they were peddled and pushed. Also, some pretty strong words were said about the medical profession in regard to prescribing. That is something on which I do not care to comment now because as far as I am concerned a prescription from a doctor is a prescription from a doctor. It is a matter entirely for the medical profession whether or not a doctor disagrees there should be prescribing of this, that or the other drug. I do not think we have irresponsible members of the medical, dental or veterinary professions in this country, at least not to any great extent, although there may be a small number.
There was also reference to the fact that these drugs were readily available in the streets. Deputy Haughey informed the House that his own children could tell him that in some of the principal thoroughfares in Dublin some of these drugs were readily available. I do not disagree with that and I certainly do not disagree with him when he says he got this information from his children whom, I assume, are teenagers and would have knowledge of the various practices and some idea of the drug scene in Dublin. It is difficult to assess or reckon the number of drug addicts here. The only real evidence we have is compiled from court cases. These are no real indications of the problem although there has been some increase in the number of charges brought in regard to drug abuse in recent years. In 1972 the figure was 201; in 1973, 270 and for 1974 the estimated figure was 294.
While the numbers are not big there has been a growth in the number of charges against those found in possession of or taking drugs. I am bound to say that the majority of these charges were in connection with cannabis. I am informed that as far as the charges in connection with cannabis are concerned they are in respect of the taking of the drug once. Nobody knows the real extent of the problem and the figures I quoted are no consolation to anybody. We must be prepared to deal with the possible growth of drug abuse. Other countries have been affected in a bad way by extensive drug taking. It is the job of the Minister for Health, the Government and this House to ensure that the growth does not continue. They have to endeavour to bring about a diminution in the use of the drugs referred to in the Schedules.
We must also see that the number of hard core drug takers, the opiate or poly abusers who number about 100, does not increase. These are the most deadly of all drugs.
Deputy Haughey pointed out that drug taking was not confined to Dublin City. I do not think there was any necessity to say that, but some people are under the impression that the drug problem is confined to Dublin. A number of other places have been identified, through court cases, as places where drugs are taken, particularly seaside resorts during the summer months. At those resorts the practice of drug taking and drug peddling takes place. That is not any consolation to us but if we are to know the magnitude of the problem research is necessary. Frankly, I do not know what type of research is likely to yield such information in the present circumstances. There is the possibility that the medical profession could give information as to the numbers suspected of being drug addicts.
I do not say it is only the young people who use drugs or try to avail of drugs that are controlled. The emphasis appears to be on drug taking amongst young people in various places. There was a suggestion that drugs were freely available at a certain teaching establishment here; that they were manufactured at little cost and with the minimum of trouble. Enquiries at second level education might give us information with regard to the abuse of drugs and an indication of the attitude of those attending such schools towards drugs, particularly cannabis. The point was made, and rightly so, that as legislators we are suspect as far as our credibility is concerned in tackling this problem. When one talks about drug taking, as Deputy O'Connell said, one excludes the abuse of alcohol and tobacco which are drugs. He pointed to the fact that these are tolerated and accepted in society, but this dilemma is not peculiar to Ireland; it is facing the whole of western society.
It is only in recent years that it has been recognised and accepted that alcohol and tobacco are drugs. One can become addicted very quickly to tobacco and have that addiction for a long time to the detriment of one's health. Some years ago tobacco was accepted as a social practice. In the last 30 years the only criticism that was ever made about cigarettes was that it would stunt one's growth. Unfortunately, we know that it is a drug, addiction to which causes serious ailments, including the dreaded one of lung cancer. While alcohol is in the same bracket I do not think anyone would advocate total abstinence from drink. Members must confess that it would be difficult to put back the clock and impose a ban on alcohol and tobacco. There would be many implications if these drugs were abolished or declared illegal.
The only way to combat them is by education and propaganda. As far as educational propaganda is concerned the House will agree that the Department of Health contributed in a big way towards trying to induce people, particularly young people, not to take up the tobacco or alcohol habit. Acceptance of alcohol and tobacco is no argument for adding to society's misery by being equally liberal with drugs. Alcohol was introduced thousands of years ago, and we are told that Sir Walter Raleigh introduced the smoking habit to Britain and Ireland. If people at that time recognised the ill effects they can have it is possible they would have been banned.
However, there is a distinction between addiction to drugs included in the Schedules to this Bill and addiction to alcohol and tobacco. We are aware that addicts to the drugs included in the Schedules are prepared to and have stolen them in order to satisfy their needs. They would be prepared to kill in order to obtain a cure; I am aware this has not happened here. Deputy O'Connell mentioned the behaviour of people addicted to LSD. He told us that some of them want to jump out of windows in five-storey houses, and believe they are supermen and can do all sorts of things. Therefore, in regard to drugs there is a fair big margin between them and the two I mentioned, alcohol and tobacco, but it is still no defence for the abuse of alcohol and tobacco.
Deputy Dr. O'Connell and Deputy Dr. Byrne talked about cannabis. They are both in the medical profession and both of them had different ideas on it. Therefore it is necessary for us to consider very carefully the three Schedules which define the three categories of drugs proposed to be controlled. Deputy Dr. Byrne was absolutely against the use of cannabis, and Deputy Dr. O'Connell appeared to be in favour of allowing cannabis or at least putting it into a schedule other than Schedule 2; I think he wanted to put it into Schedule 3. However, as he said himself, it is a very emotive question, and it has been a very controversial question not only here but in various parts of the western world.
There has been a lobby in a loose kind of way for the legalisation of cannabis, but I must say that western societies appear to be caught on the wrong foot here. The lobby to which I refer points to the widespread tolerance of tobacco and alcohol and the apparent failure to answer scientifically and properly the claim that cannabis is harmless. On the first point, may I say the use of alcohol as a beverage has been accepted for generations, especially since the failure of the famous prohibition laws in the United States of America. However, the important thing is that no western country has permitted the use of cannabis.
Deputy Dr. O'Connell quoted various reports suggesting that the possession and use of small quantities of cannabis was not of any significance, and that a person should not be regarded as a criminal for using that drug or weed, as it is called. This is a matter of history. The younger generation may feel that it is incongruous that we should allow one drug to be freely used and are not prepared to legalise another drug. This does not mean that we want to talk down to or rebuke young people who regard our attitude on drugs and alcohol as not credible. The vast majority of young people in this and most other countries are sincere people who look for truth and good leadership, and their values are basically sound. There is a minority who do not wish to conform with established traditions and values. I want to say that this Bill is not an attempt to repress or rebuke that minority. We are not trying to give a glib answer to revolutionary or drop-out philosophies or social values. What we are trying to do in this Bill is to set a course for our children and their children which we hope they will thank us for, even though, as I said, they may question our credibility when we speak about drugs and still allow alcohol and cigarettes.
On the other hand, may I refer to what Deputy Dr. O'Connell said in a very long speech. He talked about scientific evidence, and he said that he was bewildered at the number of reports from various sources on different aspects of the drug problem. He referred to the Wootton Report which got such wide publicity at the time of its publication. He also referred to the report of our own working party on drug abuse which was established some few years ago and which issued its report shortly after it was established. It is true that the working party, like the Wootton Committee, recommended that possession of a small amount of cannabis, other than for peddling or pushing, should not normally be regarded as a crime to be punished by imprisonment. I think the Deputy will agree, however, that this point is counterbalanced by the other specific recommendations made by the working party on drug abuse at that time. I should like to quote from their report in relation to cannabis:
In the light of present knowledge it cannot be said that cannabis is harmless, especially in regard to long-term and frequent use. Therefore, it should remain subject to control.
He also talked about various reports, recommendations and observations that had been made by other organisations. He referred to a paper published by the Division of Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations in October, 1974, in which there was this comment, and again I quote:
Among scientists working in the field it would seem that there is a general consensus that cannabis is dangerous—opinions differing, however, on the degree of the danger to the individual and to society. It seems that, as progressively more scientific facts are discovered about cannabis, the more one becomes aware of its potential dangers.
It goes on to give a summary of all the evidence elicited from a lengthy series of research projects and concludes with the statement:
it should nevertheless be recalled that the World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, at its sixteenth session, strongly reaffirmed the opinions expressed in its previous reports that cannabis is a drug of dependence, producing public health and social problems, and that its control must be maintained.
The main point I am trying to make is that in the light of present knowledge we have little option but to maintain control of cannabis. There may be room for argument as to the degree and nature of this control, but this Bill makes a significant change from the present situation by providing for a lower penalty for simple possession of cannabis as compared with "hard" drugs. This is as far as any sensible Government can be expected to go at this stage. It does not take full recognition of the case for "decriminalisation" of personal use which was so strongly advocated in the First Report of the US National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. But, as that report points out, account had to be taken of the extent to which the use of cannabis had then become ingrained in American society. It should also be remembered that the United States Government did not act on any suggestion that cannabis for personal use should be "decriminalised". As I have said before, to my knowledge and that of my Department, there is no country in the western world which has allowed the use of cannabis.
Deputy Haughey said the Bill did not contain any clause which stated specifically that drug-taking was not an offence. It would not be practicable to define this, and it would be very difficult to enforce such a provision in practice; there is the question of blood sample tests and so on. But in any case all the controls are aimed at preventing the misuse of drugs and this, in itself, means drug-taking. The Bill goes further than suggested by the Deputy. All that is necessary now is to prove the possession of drugs and to determine for what purpose. Section 3 makes provision for the illegal possession of a scheduled drug and drugs that would be used for self or supply.
He also said that the Bill did not distinguish between hard and soft drugs. May I say that this distinction is broadly made in the Schedules which contain three items of various drugs? As far as the classification of drugs is concerned, this would be a matter for a committee. I am a layman and not a doctor, and to be quite honest, apart from not knowing what the bases of these drugs are, I could not pronounce half their names and therefore it would be something which should be debated in a committee, for example, as to whether a particular drug should be classified as category 1, category 2 or category 3, or whether there should be a change.
Deputy O'Connell was very tough on those who prescribed barbiturates and suggested that they were much more dangerous and should be regarded as such. In the Schedules there are various types of barbiturates and I am afraid that I could not give any judgment as to how potent they are, what side effects they have, whether they are addictive or not, and these matters certainly would be matters for argument in committee. The classification is purely for the scale of penalties for offences when the Schedules are finally determined.
Under section 5 regulations would be made to provide for sharper and more concrete distinctions between hard and soft drugs. It will also control by regulation the availability of various drugs according to the needs of medical practice and dangers associated with their use as medicine, so I think we have sufficient safeguards in that section by bringing in proper amendments to the Schedule to show the distinction between hard and soft drugs and also, as I said, regulations with regard to availability of various drugs for the professions, doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons.
There was also raised the importance of distinguishing between the pusher or pedlar on the one hand, and the pusher addict on the other, and I certainly agree with the Deputy on this point, which was made by several Deputies: the pedlar, no mercy; the pusher addict, maybe some mercy because he is addicted and he needs to be treated and cared for and if possible, rehabilitated, but one of the big differences in this Bill is shown in section 28. The Bill in itself is a good Bill but when I read it, I believed that we should help certain of these people rather than just put them into jail because they have taken cannabis or some other drug for the first time. This section is designed to enable the court to distinguish between the pusher who sells drugs for criminal gain and the addict who pushes to finance his own drug habit, his own need for drugs. The section was welcomed by those who spoke because it makes it mandatory on the court to secure comprehensive medical reports, educational reports, reports on the social circumstances of a convicted person, and it must consider these before deciding how it will dispose of the individual by way of sentence or the treatment option afforded to it by the section.
If Deputies will look at section 28, they will see that such a person who is an addict but not a pusher will have the law stretched to the utmost to ensure that within a particular period after receipt of a report on his general health, his social background and educational background the court will decide whether or not that person should be helped to the extent of being allowed out on parole, so to speak, and to report at a drug centre or to opt to go to some residential treatment centre. I believe we must be humane as far as these people are concerned. I do not think that anybody in the House or outside it will have the slightest sympathy for the pedlar. Therefore that procedure defined in section 28 is to ensure that the court does distinguish between the two types to which Deputy O'Connell referred.
Deputy Esmonde queried section 15 with regard to the offence of possession of drugs for unlawful supply or sale. I suppose that doubt about the quantity of drugs reasonably to be assumed not to be for a person's own immediate use was what he had in mind, but I would like to point out that in section 17, again as distinct from the first Bill, there is a clause which says that "other relevant circumstances" must be taken account of and therefore it may not be necessary at all to rely on quantity. As I have said, the original Bill did not include this and a person in possession of a controlled drug was practically automatically convicted under the Bill. Therefore it may not be necessary to rely on quantity alone. The reference to "quantity and other relevant circumstances" was inserted to meet certain criticisms that without these words the original section placed too heavy a burden on the defendant or the accused, that unless he could prove innocence, there was absolute presumption of guilt, and I do not think that anybody in the House intended that that should be so.
Concern was expressed by Deputy Haughey and various other Deputies about the powers to be given to the Garda. I personally believe that if the law is to be properly enforced, powers of search are necessary. This is not the only piece of legislation in which the Garda have power of search. I remember a Local Government measure which is now in operation wherein a garda has power to stop a car where he suspects that, for instance, a car has no lights, has bald tyres or this or that defect. If a garda has that power in respect of a motor car, he should surely have the same power to search, if he is reasonably satisfied that a person has offended against this piece of legislation. In any case, as far as drug offences are concerned, detection is very difficult. I do not know anything about drugs myself but I am informed that there can be very powerful lethal doses in very small containers.
There is also the difficulty for the Garda that the peddling of drugs and passing them on to other people takes place between two willing parties as distinct from the situation in which somebody is assaulted or a house is broken into and there is a complainant, and there is the other side to the story, but as far as drug abuse is concerned we have people who are willing parties to the offence and if we do not give the Garda the fullest power we can within our Constitution and our ordinary laws, I do not think we will ever come near to preventing drug abuses and minimising them particularly in respect of certain drugs. I certainly would deprecate police procedures associated with a totalitarian state, and I do not think anybody here would tolerate any extra powers being given to the Garda to that extent, but, if our society wishes to combat drug addiction and pushing we must allow the gardaí to do the job properly.
Knowing the Garda as we do, I do not think they will abuse the powers they are being given in this Bill. As I have said, they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed and this is provided in section 23. I have sufficient trust in the Garda to know that they will not act in an unreasonable or irresponsible way. The Garda Drug Squad were praised by Deputy O'Connell and I should like to add my voice to what he said and particularly in relation to the person in charge, Sergeant Mullins.
Concern was expressed about the application of sections 7 to 12. They are long and appear to be complicated but if they read them two or three times Deputies will understand their logic and the necessity for having them in the Bill. They are designed to cater for irresponsible over-prescribing of controlled drugs. As I said earlier, I do not know, nor do my Department know, of any widespread irresponsible over-prescribing of drugs by the medical profession. These sections were framed in consultation with the medical profession who had no objection to them generally. They may suggest some amendments in respect of some sections, subsections or words here and there but, generally, they have agreed that the sections are acceptable to them and, I presume, to the other two professions who will be engaged in prescribing drugs. The sections provide the mechanics for investigation and appeal for a doctor or a dentist who might become involved. If there are reservations about any of these sections, I would be willing to hear the views of any Deputies.
Questions were asked about section 24 which deals with the inspection of records of legitimate commercial dealings in drugs. It was raised by Deputy O'Connell. All that is required here is to have covering authority for enforcing officers to have access to such records. I have a reservation about it—the section may be too elaborate —and on Committee Stage if there are Deputies who believe the section is too elaborate, I would be prepared to consider amendments.
Deputies referred to section 36 which makes provision for obtaining search warrants by gardaí. There is nothing new about this. This type of section was included in the Dangerous Drugs Act but section 26 makes it less cumbersome to obtain warrants to search premises. Under the Bill a search warrant can be granted by a district justice or peace commissioner on the application of any member of the Garda Síochána. Search warrants are needed, sometimes at very short notice. There could be a tip off about a consignment of drugs, there could be a tip off that a certain person is in possession of drugs and is at a certain place trying to peddle them and it is only fair and right that the Garda should be facilitated to obtain warrants with the greatest speed possible. The present position is that a search warrant can be obtained only by a chief superintendent through a district justice. This can be very difficult and frustrating because in the meantime a garda may suspect that there are drugs at a certain place or in a certain house and they may have been moved by the time the search warrant has been granted and the culprits would have flown.
I referred to section 28 which provides options for treatment and rehabilitation. These options are open to the courts. The emphasis is on cure if possible. This has been welcomed by every Deputy who has contributed. The section is long and may appear to be complicated and slightly cumbersome but the general idea behind it has been applauded by all Deputies who spoke. There were difficulties in drafting and I am open to suggestions for amendments.
Deputies emphasised the need for educating the public. I am keenly aware of the need to acquaint teachers, parents, youth clubs and others of the existence of drug abuse and I think we can expect much more help than in the past from the Health Education Bureau. With the assistance of voluntary organisations and through discussions with teachers, parents and youth clubs, we can in a better way indicate to young people the evils of drug taking and the awful effects it can have. Seminars are being held for teachers and they have been advised about how to recognise the problem. We need the co-operation of all concerned to deal with youth in particular. The Health Education Bureau will take a very active part as far as that is concerned.
Reference was made to treatment and to the facilities provided by section 28. I do not know of any country in the world that has evolved a single method of treatment that can be claimed to have been fully successful. There have been different methods used not alone in different countries but by different medical practitioners and psychiatrists. The main objective is that drug abusers would be cared for and treated with a view to resumption of normal life. If this can be achieved it will be all to the good but, unfortunately, in many cases this cannot be achieved. At least it can be said that the person will be rehabilitated and can live with the problem. No preconceived facilities can be guaranteed to give absolute success.
Anyway, it may be misleading to talk about facilities being adequate or inadequate. So far, I have no reason to believe that the facilities provided with the assistance and co-operation of the Department and the health boards have not measured up to requirements. Some would say that the treatment facilities available are not sufficient. Such facilities are available in the psychiatric services and generally in the hospitals but particularly in the drug unit of the Central Mental Hospital at Dundrum. As far as that hospital is concerned, new facilities are being planned for reception and treatment of addicts or abusers. There will be a new centre, which I understand will be completed in June, in Jervis Street Hospital. There will be a nine-bed detoxification unit which should be in service towards the beginning of the autumn. I am also informed, and I commend them for their efforts, that premises are being made available by the Eastern Health Board for the setting up by voluntary workers of a free therapeutic environment. This will be a residential centre and will try to tackle the problem of drug abuse from the therapeutic point of view.
As I said, I am disappointed that there were not more contributions to this debate. It is possible that people were caught on the wrong foot. I would have liked to hear from Dr. Gibbons and other Deputies who have an interest in this problem. There is still the Committee Stage and, so far as I can, I will be receptive to amendments. This is a complicated and complex Bill but I hope that together, the Opposition and the Government can make this the Bill we all desire to ensure that drug abuse will be lessened and those who unfortunately become drug addicts will get the care and treatment they deserve.
