We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A BILL THAT would legalise the personal use of cannabis is set to go before the Dáil in around two weeks.
The Bill was due to be introduced during the summer but was delayed, Gino Kenny of People Before Profit said.
The Dublin Mid-West TD told The Journal it is a relatively short bill, and will amend the current legislation on possession of cannabis, which is the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The amendment doesn’t reference the cultivation of cannabis. It’s anticipated that if the bill is approved by the Dáil – which means it requires the approval of the government parties – then changes regarding cultivation of cannabis could be added at committee stage.
“The Bill will end the criminalisation of cannabis for personal use,” said Kenny. “People Before Profit is for complete regulation but this is a stepping stone to that. This bill will make it legal for someone to possess up to 7g of cannabis.” He said this is on par with legislation in Malta and Luxembourg.
Kenny said that the amendment will bring no financial burden on the State. “It is legally permissible to put this bill forward under European law we’ve been told [by legal advisors],” he said. “The only impediment is the government could try to block it going forward, but we hope to have a good discussion around the issue. I think it’s time to have a discussion around drug reform in Ireland, particularly around personal use.”
Kenny said that the Bill will test the government, in terms of it having a health-led approach to harm reduction.
While the Bill is focused on cannabis, PBP is supportive of decriminalising drugs in Ireland.
Asked how he thinks the Bill will go, Kenny said: “Some parties don’t have a position on decriminalisation so it will be interesting to see how they go for it.”
He called on members of the Green Party to support the bill.
“I think there’s an appetite in this country to have a different debate on drug use,” added Kenny. “There is a groundswell of opinion in Ireland that we need to do something different than what we are doing. I think there is a majority of people that believe we should be doing something different. Criminalising people doesn’t work – it’s counter-productive in my eyes.”
He said that the focus should be on harm reduction, and looking at ways to stop criminalising the use of drugs.
“The system we have now, it simply doesn’t work and it enriches a tiny amount of people in society. It brings all sorts of people into the criminal justice system and I think the resources of the State would be better spent in relation to taking people away from the criminal justice system.”
In a previous interview with The Journal, Kenny said that once legalised, cannabis should be sold in regulated settings which would limit the sale of it for profit.
The Green Party previously called for the introduction of Dutch-style “coffee shops” to Ireland that would allow the consumption and sale of cannabis for over-18s under certain conditions.
Green Party leader Eamon Ryan told TheJournal.ie four years ago that he thought such coffee shops would work here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Have they found a way to blame Sinn Féin yet?
@Niall Power: Only Monday yet
It’s not surprising Fine Gael, the party of the rich, want to increase house prices for first time buyers.
We allowed banks to self regulate then the taxpayer had to bail them out, we allowed the insurance industry to self-regulate then the taxpayer had to bail them out and we allowed the construction industry to self regulate and now the taxpayer has to bail them out. There was a cosy relationship between construction and recent governments but trust has been permanently damaged. Not just mica but fire safety. Corners cut everywhere and no one accountable. If it adds 4K to the cost of a new house to build it in a manner that means it won’t crack and crumble into the ground within ten years then that is a cost worth paying.
@Sean: how long have you had a house Sean?
@Sean: that 4k figure is an absolute myth, based on figures that nobody thought to check.
This will be a great excuse for FF to pull the rug out from under Lord Veradader before his coronation in December.
The builders will get the maximum price they can for a house. The price they get will be determined by supply and demand. So the builder or developer will be the ones paying for the levy. The suggestion that if you put a levy on concrete the builder will just add it on to the price of the house is just simplistic.
@Mick Hyland: In simple terms this is correct.
But if a developer has input costs that increase by say 1%. Then 99 houses get built instead of 100. So it’ll still affect supply.
@Paolo Fandango: Why would only 99 houses get built if the developer’s input costs increase by 1%? The developer is not operating with a fixed pot of money; as long as he’s making an attractive return on capital he will continue to build more houses.
@Mick Hyland: the 1% is being absorbed by the developer. Fixed pot or not, it’s still less net income which reduces the amount of assets they can build.
The 1% cost doesn’t just disappear
So this is to offset the cost of mica redress scheme (which I believe impacted over 7000 homes). Am I miss understanding something here, but why is the whole Country now being forced to pay and contribute to a concrete levy (which we know will be permanent)? I know they are raising funds to offset, but this seems the complete wrong way to do it! Building material costs are already excessive.
I’m simple terms this is correct.
But if a developer has input costs that increase by say 1%. Then 99 houses get built instead of 100. So it’ll still affect supply.
@Paolo Fandango: this was supposed to be a response to mick above.
have your say