Citizens' Assembly recommends change in laws criminalising drug possession for personal use

They are now starting the process of deliberating and voting on what legal alternatives to recommend.

A significant majority — some 85% — voted against keeping the status quo, with 11 voting to agree to retain the status quo. 

It is not clear yet if the assembly is in favour of completely removing the laws, as the first option to the status quo that they are examining is a limited health-diversion approach.

Under this, the law remains as is, but those caught in possession are referred to a health intervention for one, possibly two times

The assembly, which has 99 members, was set up by the Government to examine drug legislation, policies, and services.

At its sixth and final meeting this weekend, the assembly began voting on what assembly chair Paul Reid said were the “biggest and most complex” issues first — the laws around drug possession.

The recommendation to move away from criminalising drug possession is a landmark in the area of drug policy in Ireland, although it carries no immediate practical weight.

The assembly’s recommendations will form part of a report that will be submitted to the Government and the Oireachtas in December for further consideration and examination.

Before voting began, assembly secretary Cathal O’Regan said members were being presented with five legal options:

• Status quo (retaining the current criminal legislation);
• Health diversion; 
• Comprehensive health-led approach; 
• Tolerance (decriminalisation); 
• Legalisation.

He said if there was no clear agreement on any one option, members could also recommend a hybrid model, where, as he said has been suggested, cannabis could be treated differently to other drugs.

After voting not to keep the status quo, members are now going through the other options individually and voting is continuing.

Before the voting, there were a number of questions from members about the process as well as whether or not they could recommend options for further non-criminal measures even if they voted to keep the status quo.

Mr O’Regan said they could, including expanding:

• Current pilots such as the Cork Court Referral Scheme;
• The Drug Court in Dublin;
• The Garda adult caution scheme beyond cannabis possession to all drugs;
• Adult caution scheme beyond first-time offenders to repeat offenders.

Also earlier, Mr Reid said the assembly members would have to decide if they wanted “evolution or revolution” in relation to drug laws, or if they wanted to keep the “status quo”, which is criminalisation of drug possession.

He told members the “decisions were entirely in your hands” and said a matter for consideration for them was how to make the “best recommendations that can get traction in government and can be implemented”.

He accepted there could be many challenging calls they will have to make.

Two members of the assembly stood up and issued concerns, one regarding the assembly process and a second about comments in the media from the assembly that some form of decriminalisation would be recommended.

One member said she had seen media reports saying the assembly would vote for decriminalisation, and added that she had no problem with whatever decision the assembly would arrive at — as long as it was done in a “transparent and democratic manner”.

Given the media reports, she said she was “very concerned” at the real purpose of them being there and wondered if they were “wasting time and energy” and the taxpayers’ money.

Mr Reid said her concerns were “reasonable” and that various people were trying to influence proceedings, but stressed the votes were in their hands.

A second member claimed it was a “managed assembly” with a pre-determined outcome, which she said did not reflect the members but the Government’s plan.

She said she could not support “such an undemocratic and non-transparent process”.

Mr Reid said he disagreed with her comments and described them as “unsubstantiated claims”.

He disputed any suggestions that the “integrity of myself or the secretariat were in question” and said he had no discussions with ministers about the process.

“I’ve never taken on a role as a ‘yes person’ for anyone and I can assure everybody of the integrity of the process,” he said.