new laws for drugs

kopparberg

do you think that the goverment will bring in new drug laws or amend the current ones in light of the high profile "drugs crisis"

is there enough powers for the gardai, do they use all the powers, its a social issue i know but would like your opinions on the law as it stands

Victor

I suspect there is enough law already in place.

With the suggestions that tainted drugs have caused death, I suspect existing law is sufficient, not just the Drugs Acts, but also acts covering medical and pharmaceutical practice.

dermot_sheehan

The DPP and courts could start enforcing the drug laws that already exist. The DPP could chose to prosecute possession cases (for drugs other then cannabis) on indictment where the maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment. The Courts could also chose not to exercise their discretion, which is supposed to be reserved for exception cases, to impose a sentence of less then 10 years for those found trafficking more then €13,000 worth of drugs. As more and more repeat drug traffickers come before the courts however this discretion wont exist any more as it only applies for a first time conviction.

johnnyskeleton

kopparberg wrote: »

do you think that the goverment will bring in new drug laws or amend the current ones in light of the high profile "drugs crisis"

If it aint broke dont fix it. Is there any particular aspect of the law that you think requires amendment? It seems to me that there is a growing trend in government that whenever a "crisis" like this comes to public attention, they simply pass more and more laws without a thought as to how they would work in practice. The reality is that we need more gardai, more judges more prison places and more rehabilitation centres, but this would cost too much money. Instead, they focus on things like new legislation or drug awareness campeigns which are great political fodder, but don't actually have any significant impact (in my view)

kopparberg wrote:

is there enough powers for the gardai, do they use all the powers, its a social issue i know but would like your opinions on the law as it stands

More than enough powers, they don't even use a lot of them. Some of their powers as regards drugs are significant infractions of the accused's rights (right to silence, oppressive detention, etc). We need more enforcement not more law.

johnnyskeleton

gabhain7 wrote: »

The DPP and courts could start enforcing the drug laws that already exist. The DPP could chose to prosecute possession cases (for drugs other then cannabis) on indictment where the maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment.

That, in my view, would be a complete waste of the circuit court's time. Very few cases of simple possession would receive a custodial sentence of more than 1 year, and that can be dealt with in the district court.

gabhain7 wrote:

The Courts could also chose not to exercise their discretion, which is supposed to be reserved for exception cases, to impose a sentence of less then 10 years for those found trafficking more then €13,000 worth of drugs.

By my reading of it, it is not supposed to be reserved for exceptional cases, s27(3b) should not be applied where the court considers it unjust to do so, with particular emphasis on a guilty plea and assitance with garda investigations. The logic of this, which appears to be lost on governments and evening herald readers, is that if it were uniformly applied, most 15A cases would be contested, with at least some offenders being acquitted where they would happily have pleaded and done 5 years.

It is also important to remember that a substantial number of people convicted of s.15A possession are stool pigeons for the big dealers. Therefore, a lot of cases, if not most cases, could be considered exceptional.

Tzetze

gabhain7 wrote: »

The DPP and courts could start enforcing the drug laws that already exist. The DPP could chose to prosecute possession cases (for drugs other then cannabis) on indictment where the maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment.

It's the Draconian laws that are in place already that have led to recent events. Tougher enforcement of the existing laws will lead to a greater occurence of these events.

We need to look at guaranteed safe drug use for those who wish to use them.

johnnyskeleton

Tzetze wrote: »

It's the Draconian laws that are in place already that have led to recent events. Tougher enforcement of the existing laws will lead to a greater occurence of these events.

We need to look at guaranteed safe drug use for those who wish to use them.

Is there such a thing as guaranteed safe drug use? Apart from the fact that some people can be killed by drugs that are too pure, can you really say that it would be possible to have drugs with no harmful side effects from a health point of view? Moreover, can you really say that there is a way of stopping drug users committing other offences to feed their habit?

Tzetze

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is there such a thing as guaranteed safe drug use?

Responsible (adult) use of drugs (of a consistent purity) within strict guidelines is surely a better choice than allowing (tens of?) 1000's of people weekly to possibly either OD on a higher purity than they're used to or, on the flip side, ingest who-knows-what kind of contaminants (as we've seen lately with Gritweed and Soapbar).

johnnskeleton wrote:

Apart from the fact that some people can be killed by drugs that are too pure, can you really say that it would be possible to have drugs with no harmful side effects from a health point of view?

I think a regulated, controlled, taxed solution would have far far fewer harmful side effects. I speak mainly of the health risks involved with gritweed and soapbar, but this holds true for other drugs also.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Moreover, can you really say that there is a way of stopping drug users committing other offences to feed their habit?

I don't know of any people addicted to legal drugs who commit other offences to feed their habits. It's those who are addicted to hugely expensive (and impure) illegal drugs who are forced to crime to feed their habits.

johnnyskeleton

Tzetze wrote: »

Responsible (adult) use of drugs (of a consistent purity) within strict guidelines is surely a better choice than allowing (tens of?) 1000's of people weekly to possibly either OD on a higher purity than they're used to or, on the flip side, ingest who-knows-what kind of contaminants (as we've seen lately with Gritweed and Soapbar).

I tend to agree with you that it is a better choice, but that's far from saying it would be guaranteed safe. In fact, I think that there is the other danger that the legalisation of drugs could lead to the false perception that they are in fact safe.

Tzetze wrote:

I think a regulated, controlled, taxed solution would have far far fewer harmful side effects. I speak mainly of the health risks involved with gritweed and soapbar, but this holds true for other drugs also.

There would be many benfits, but also much that is detrimental. It's all a matter of degree

Tzetze wrote:

I don't know of any people addicted to legal drugs who commit other offences to feed their habits. It's those who are addicted to hugely expensive (and impure) illegal drugs who are forced to crime to feed their habits.

I would suggest that there are lots of people who commit offences to get money for drink. I think the reason why people turn to crime to feed their habits is not the actual price of the drug, but the fact that the drug takes over their lives and they cannot earn money legitimately. If, for example, heroin was made legal, I don't think you would have people working a nice 9-5 job which gives them sufficient funds to shoot up on the weekends. It doesn't work like that.

I think the main problem is that while there is a world of difference between hash, which has comparatively few negative aspects, and crack, which destroys everyone who touchs it, they are all lumped together in people's minds. Legalisation should be strictly controlled, and in my view that would mean only legalising drugs which have a minimal impact on people.

Tzetze

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would suggest that there are lots of people who commit offences to get money for drink. I think the reason why people turn to crime to feed their habits is not the actual price of the drug, but the fact that the drug takes over their lives and they cannot earn money legitimately. If, for example, heroin was made legal, I don't think you would have people working a nice 9-5 job which gives them sufficient funds to shoot up on the weekends. It doesn't work like that.

I agree there are people addicted to alcohol and hard drugs, with destroyed lives, who are opportunistic in their methods to get it. I would suggest that we need to look closer at the separation of these addictions, and provide non-penal treatment for all addicts (this would cover own-use posession).

I think the main problem is that while there is a world of difference between hash, which has comparatively few negative aspects, and crack, which destroys everyone who touchs it, they are all lumped together in people's minds. Legalisation should be strictly controlled, and in my view that would mean only legalising drugs which have a minimal impact on people.

There is a huge difference of course. I'm not saying all drugs have to be available over the counter to everyone, but the war on drugs doesn't work - it's a bottomless pit of resources and money.

johnnyskeleton

Tzetze wrote: »

I agree there are people addicted to alcohol and hard drugs, with destroyed lives, who are opportunistic in their methods to get it. I would suggest that we need to look closer at the separation of these addictions, and provide non-penal treatment for all addicts (this would cover own-use posession).

There is a huge difference of course. I'm not saying all drugs have to be available over the counter to everyone, but the war on drugs doesn't work - it's a bottomless pit of resources and money.

Well said. Now if only the government spent more money on residential treatment centres instead of baning them up in chokey for 10 years we might make a bit of progress.

BendiBus

My main fear for any form of legalised drug use would be if it was a unilateral decision on the part of the Irish Government. Depending of course on exactly what was legislated for, I would fear an influx of drug users from all over Europe. A pan-European approach would be better (but probably not achievable due individual countries domestic political reasons)

I believe users should have a right to immediate admission to an appropriate drug treatment programme on request.

johnnyskeleton

BendiBus wrote: »

My main fear for any form of legalised drug use would be if it was a unilateral decision on the part of the Irish Government. Depending of course on exactly what was legislated for, I would fear an influx of drug users from all over Europe. A pan-European approach would be better (but probably not achievable due individual countries domestic political reasons)

Like what happened to Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and, in the case of cannabis, the UK.

BendiBus wrote:

I believe users should have a right to immediate admission to an appropriate drug treatment programme on request.

They do have that right, but the funding isn't there. Coolmine has 38 residential places for 1000s of drug users in that area.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

drug awareness campeigns which are great political fodder

Actually, a meaningful drug awareness campaign would be very cheap compared to enforcement.

Tzetze wrote: »

I think a regulated, controlled, taxed solution would have far far fewer harmful side effects.

So legalise cocaine and heorin and have 50% of the population wasted? At that point there would be huge, safety, medical, legal and social costs.

I don't know of any people addicted to legal drugs who commit other offences to feed their habits. It's those who are addicted to hugely expensive (and impure) illegal drugs who are forced to crime to feed their habits.

Drunks don't commit crime? I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of people stealing alcohol.

BendiBus wrote: »

I believe users should have a right to immediate admission to an appropriate drug treatment programme on request.

"Immediate admission" has its problems. An addict, whatever their poison, needs to be able to prove to themselves and others that what they are doing is harmful. Immediate admission would mean addicts going for treatment in the morning, relapsing in the afternoon, going for treatment in the morning, relapsing in the afternoon ...

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Actually, a meaningful drug awareness campaign would be very cheap compared to enforcement.

But would it work?

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But would it work?

A meaningful one would.

I imagine no awareness campaign would reach everyone, not would everyone heed it. However, most health promotion campaigns have a 20:1 return in savings on cost.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

A meaningful one would.

I imagine no awareness campaign would reach everyone, not would everyone heed it. However, most health promotion campaigns have a 20:1 return in savings on cost.

A meaningful campaign would, in my view, need a lot of money to provide alternatives to drugs. You can't really say don't do drugs, they're bad for you when kids have no other alternatives. More money in schools, more youth/sport/extra curricular centres would all be a benefit, but the campaigns I am talking about are the advertising campaigns which I don't see as having any significant effect.