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.
IT MAY SEEM obvious, but the first challenge for all of us trying to tackle drug use and criminality is to care. As George Bernard Shaw said: indifference is the essence of inhumanity.
Firstly I want to plant a thought into your heads before returning to it later. Writing in the Guardian newspaper last year, the author Neil Gaiman told how he once attended a lecture organised by private prison operators in the United States. In planning for the future capacity needs in this service 15 years into the future, the prison industry employed a very simple test – the percentage of 10 and 11 year old children in any given district with acute literacy problems.
The link between educational underachievement, social empowerment and a drugs and crime culture is real and also extremely complex. There are no simple ways to describe the problem, to address it or to solve it. It is my contention that it is only a society ill at ease with itself – rife with inequalities visible and invisible, refusing to challenge or to re-invent itself – that is destined to produce a culture that is so vicious and so deadly and causes so much human hurt and suffering.
Using simplistic, evocative, exploitative or sensationalist language does not inform the discussion. In my view, it turns what is a public policy emergency into comicbook-style pseudo-entertainment.
It is easier to paint this struggle as a battle of good versus evil, of decent citizens versus so-called ‘scumbags’. When we engage in that type of simplistic characterisation we are destined never to properly address the complexities at hand.
However middle-class Ireland needs to hear that is a simple case of bad people doing bad things. It makes them feel safer and more secure – and that they are not in any way culpable for living in a society where such violent acts occur and such a cancerous vice like the drugs trade exists.
They are told that there are bad areas where bad people do bad things to each other. And as long as they are fed that line, then the status quo will remain. It doesn’t really matter as long as they are shooting each other. This rhetoric suits many vested interests, including journalists and conservative politicians. Poorer people are not politically or commercially advantageous and so can be easily disregarded.
What is more challenging is to ask what has happened in our country to create a parallel economy of a drugs trade which attracts, empowers and effectively employs so many.
Why is it that, if you spend time observing proceedings in the district court, you will be presented with case after case of recidivist criminals caught in a hopeless spiral of drug-related crime, which they were sucked into at such a young age and which will continue to blight their lives for the years to come?
Why do most of Irish society pretend that it has nothing to do with them?
It is important to sketch out the type of society that we live in before we discuss the nature of drug crime and what an organised response might look like.
If these statistics surprise you, or if they cause you little upset, then unfortunately you are part of the problem.
What we have constructed in Ireland is a society where we work as hard as we can to keep ourselves separated from each other. This is the antithesis of what a Republic should stand for. Surely we should strive to live in a society that works to fulfil the needs of all our people, that believes in solidarity and justice, and that an injury to one is the concern of all.
Our fascination with separation permeates through every area of Irish public policy. Think education, think housing, think healthcare. What we strive for as individuals is an individualistic approach that separates: we want schools that separate, hospitals that separate and housing policy that separates.
If you are on the right side of that separation or that division, you can be sure that life may work out fine for you. However if you’re not, life will be more difficult, you may be presented with choices that others never encounter, your frustration may grow, your inability to access the other side of the line may fester within you, your crimes are more public and more obvious because you are poorer, and eventually you will be called a ‘scumbag’ to simplify the issue. Your actions overtake you, some which may have been handed down to you, many which you will hand down yourself to others. But you’re just a scumbag.
It’s simpler for those on the right side of the line to blame others for their own disadvantage, their own poverty and for slipping into their own despair.
Our post-colonial hang up on home ownership, which is unmatched anywhere in a European context, ensures that social housing units are clustered, often not integrated resulting in social isolation and marganisation. Once an individual get a mortgage, they will protect that investment with all their might, against anything that may affect it, be that council housing units, or localised medical treatment for people with a clear identifiable medical need.
The housing policy of constructing flat complexes with poor or virtually no social infrastructure in the 40s, 50s and 60s was compounded in the bubble economy of recent times, when their potential rejuvenation was left to the jungle-law of market forces under Public-Private Partnerships. And what happened to the much heralded new dawns for O’Devaney Gardens, Croke Villas, St Michael’s House, Dominic Street flats, St Michin’s House? Stalled, abandoned or shelved.
As a society, we do not want to allow people to live together. We prefer to create areas of social disadvantage because it benefits the property owners and the market. We refuse to invest in them over generations, we refuse to improve their living conditions as a matter of public policy from the public purse and then we are somehow bemused that out of such areas comes a sense of disillusionment and disconnection, and within that a small minority of people who will engage in a parallel economy to seek empowerment and to fulfil their personal ambitions.They don’t vote so we don’t care. They don’t spend so the market economy doesn’t care. And markets, as we know, have no conscience.
Everyone seeks significance. From the face of a loved one. From colleagues. From family, From friends. It is our most basic need to feel valued. If you feel in your core that you are not valued by the education system, by the judicial system, by media or politicians – are you expected to work hard to gain respect? Or do you become the best of the worst of what society expects of you? And when role-models in business, banking, politics, church and police show time and again to have elements of corruption that goes unpunished, why are you expected to behave yourself? To get on the other side of the line? To lie, to cheat, to kill but merely with a nicer suit and a more polished accent and within the realm of respectability?
I have said many times that the greatest policy failure in Ireland is our failure to invest in pre-school education. It makes no economic sense, it makes no educational sense in terms of developmental impact. The greatest return on resources is on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life. It is the opposite of where we spend money in Ireland.
The Hart and Risley report of 1995 showed that a three year old from a welfare dependent family has one third the oral language capability of a three year old from a professional family. If we know this, how are we supporting that child? How are we supporting its parents? Or are we waiting for it to inevitably become part of the research data for those who plan prison spaces?
We must challenge the contention that educational underachievement is a schooling concern. All of us will know that the supportive parent has the biggest influence on the educational attainment of a young person. The cultural divide between the aspiration of the classroom and the reality of the home can be extremely wide. That is why we need to think differently about the way we approach educational empowerment. It cannot be merely about what we want middle class teachers to do with working class children from the age of 4 onwards from 9 in the morning till the early afternoon.
We discredit ourselves by claiming to be land of saints and scholars; to laud out literary heritage; to celebrate Joyce, Beckett, Yeats and Wilde but fail to address intergenerational illiteracy. Why don’t we commit ourselves completely as others have, to the total eradication of illiteracy.
My Right to Read campaign which I launched in 2006 attempts to bridge this gulf. By making the scourge of illiteracy the responsibility of every state agency, most especially local authorities who house our more disadvantaged children, who manage their social infrastructure and who crucially deliver the public library service.
Caitlin Moran, the British feminist writer calls public libraries the Cathedrals of Our Souls. She writes:
A library in the middle of a community is a cross between an emergency exit, a life raft and a festival. They are cathedrals of the mind; hospitals of the soul; theme parks of the imagination.On a cold, rainy island, they are the only sheltered public spaces where you are not a consumer, but a citizen, instead. A human with a brain and a heart and a desire to be uplifted, rather than a customer with a credit card and an inchoate “need” for “stuff.” A mall–the shops–are places where your money makes the wealthy wealthier.
But a library is where the wealthy’s taxes pay for you to become a little more extraordinary, instead. A satisfying reversal. A balancing of the power.
Our attempts at treating crime and drug dependency regularly fall at the wayside of political expediency. The National Drugs Strategy demands that addicts are treated within their own community, and recognises their challenge as a medical condition that demands treatment. Yet how often have local representatives lobbied against any drug treatment centre or facility being located in their community. They know that those with addictions are politically week, have no voting power and don’t have access to main-stream media to plead their case.
I do not and will not excuse the actions of those who kill, maim or intimidate in the interest of greed, financial gain or for a perverse lust for power. The grip of drug gangs is poisonous, their influence menacing. The mental trauma caused in a community after a shooting is enormous. I have worked it, I have lived it, I work everyday to change it. To condemn however is not enough.
But before such individuals became classified as a sub-species, they were babies and then children with choices ahead of them that others would never be presented with.
Our task in the short term is to reduce recidivist drug crime. It is achievable, and it will benefit all in society but does society believe this issue to be serious enough for us to care. Let us challenge our humanity, and not surrender to our indifference.
This article has been adapted from a speech given by Aodhán Ó Ríordáin during a seminar on crime in the Seanad last week.
Aodhán Ó Ríordáin is a Labor TD in Dublin Bay North.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If I work hard and save all my life to buy a nice house in a nice area why should someone that has never worked be put in a similar home beside me? Where’s the incentive to get up off your arse and work?
I would see direct provision as a plausible incentive to stop this. I don’t know what the leases are like on social housing but they should be of rolling three or five year terms. If you don’t work and pay rent for a minimum period over that term, you are put under direct provision until you have worked for three months straight. See how many people you have taking advantage then.
That is exactly the kind of them and us attitude the author is condemning. Working hard is no guarantee of success. A middle I person who works hard is presented with far more opportunities to succeed throughout life than a working class person. That working class person could have worked just as hard if not harder and still failed. So why is that person less deserving of a nice home than you? Why should they be condemned to poverty just because they weren’t born into wealth?
Totally agree. However a lot of people work hard yet still can not afford to live in a ‘nice’ area.
Equality is not about treating everyone the same in a one fits all model. It’s about ensuring everyone has equal opportunities and equal access to resources.
My best friend works twice as hard as me – yet earns a 3rd less.
And that’s life. Your little mystical land were everyone has the same will never happen.
I come from a working class family and went to school in the CBS in Summerhill. I got to go to college for free because my parents weren’t earning enough so in what way does someone from a less well off background not have the same opportunities? It’s what you make of them that really matters.
I remember in college seeing all the obviously more well off people saying “yeah Ill go out tonight and just repeat my test in September”. Crap like that used to make my blood boil!
Well said Shane!!!
Who ever mentioned about a mystical land where everyone has the same? I worked par-time to put myself through college as they lowered the threshhold for grants. However for many people the opportunity of going to college is lost long before they come to apply through the CAO.
Well when you have HSBC laundering drug money and only getting a very small slap on the wrist when caught , what do you expect . The drug dollar is huge .
HSBC were fined $1.9 Billion.
What ? And you think that is a lot of money to them . Please jack , get real !
They got caught laundering 5-6 billion so I’d say the 1.9 fine suits as they wouldn’t receive all the profits for themselves
It will never be tackled head on as long as road traffic compliance is the main issue for Garda.
Hedley it is well known worldwide that police crackdowns do not curb drug supply. Look at mexico, they went from their police to using their military and still the cartels grow in power across latin America. Even the US government have conceded they cannot fight the cartels along the border.
We are happy to acknowledge traveller feuds and gang wars but not the drug war?
The casualties of the drug war are the police wasting police hours, resources and motivation.
Politicians who spend years debating an issue that has had a clear solution since the problem was brought in.
Responsible drug users who are otherwise law abiding citizens who want to produce their own or buy from a legitimate premises to pay tax on it.
The addict who needs it legalised so society can drop the stigma and offer better treatment methods and social inclusion.
Finally the family and friends of all these people who can finally get their stress levels lowered for a healthier and just society.
Yea but they made at least 13 billion profit from laundering drugs money, plus I hear they are now dealing with a serious liquidity problem, any customer trying to withdraw over €3000 has to give proof of what the money is for, not a good sign
Never heard of the 13 billion but most profits banks make on the drug war will not be documented. You are right and they are also telling Davos to hold on the interest rate which is another worrying sign.
The war on drugs is proven to be futile. Traffic compliance – now that’s an issue that an garda need to to give more strict attention too. If you choose to take drugs you may be endangering your own health, but if you choose to drive dangerously, you endanger everyone around you.
Excellent documentary, might be on netflix, I saw it elsewhere.
@Benny Flamingo Faser
Speechless, just Speechless.
Looks like HSBC might need a bailout again soon
Matthew, HSBC didn’t get a bailout. HBOS did.
I will ask the banks to prove what the money is for when I make a deposit from now on.
Watch The Wire if you haven’t already.
Watch the corner to get an even more realistic view.
The use of drugs must be de-criminalised, regulated, and taxed,
Politicians have given criminal gangs a monopoly on the import and distribution of drugs, creating enormous wealth for them, and allowing them to branch out into many other aspects of society
So basically it’s, our fault there are so many junkies around.
All of us make bad choices in our lives. The majority of us are lucky that those choice didn’t ruin our lives. Most addicts make those bad choices when they are young and frankly stupid ( just like most of us were, when we were young). Some of us were just a little better educated, a little bit smarter or a little more mature. There is no quick solution to the drug problem but one thing is certain it is a demand problem – not a supply issue. We will never solve the drug problem by attempting to end supply. The only hope is improved education – not just drug education but improvements in literacy, numeracy and the general level of education in society. Education gives people choices in life and a stake in society.
@Henry well said! You seem to be the only person to comment with abit of common sense
As a society, yes. If we as a country don’t deal with problems in our country then they will continue. No one else is going to come in and sort out all of our problems for us.
Really good comment Henry, summed it up in a nutshell.
Methadone maintenance are a major part of the problem. Society are prepared to sacrifice individuals to long term state sponsored addiction to a drug even more addictive than heroin. Methadone is used as an agent of social control. If you provide methadone long term it will reduce crime etc but condemn the user to a life time of addiction unable to live a productive life. Detox and real long term programmes to help people address their addiction though counselling and providing community supports for education training etc is seen as too expensive by the state so they just place people on methadone maintenance knowing that with additional supports 80 % will never be clean
Should read without additional supports 80% will be condemned to a lifetime of addiction
Prohibition on it’s own doesn’t work.The American experiment of the 20′s and 30′s prove that, in fact it led to the rise of massive gangs that are still with us to this day. Those gangs provided a service that people wanted (alcohol, and a place to consume it) and so were looked on favourably by the public. That situation is paralleled today by the drugs trade. Ok, the demand isn’t as widespread but it’s still common enough that enough people have a certain amount of sympathy with them to turn a blind eye to their activities. Imo, there are three options; 1, prohibition, which ain’t working. 2, Stopping demand for drugs and 3, legalisation of some substances e.g. cannabis.
Jason I asked Kevin Higgins (probably the most vocal about if drugs were legalised the criminal gangs would stop money from them) this yesterday but he didn’t answer, so I can only assume he didn’t want to tell the truth. If weed was legalised tomorrow but cost a lot more than what illegal dealers would sell it for, would you pay more and be a good boy or save a few pound a fund criminal enterprise?
Why would they charge more for it?
I answer upthepylons (nice name) and ill copy and paste so you can read it here too :
Mexico is the drug corridor from south to North America. Legalising will undercut the criminals and end their supply. It was estimated cartels lost 1 billion from Colorado legalising cannabis so don’t give me the alcohol argument. If alcohol was illegal in Mexico the problem would be worse as you would go to your local cartel instead of off license.
1, prohibition, which ain’t working. 2, Stopping demand for drugs and 3, legalisation of some substances e.g. cannabis.
1. Correct : prohibition has proved an utter failure and an expensive one at that, both financially and socially.
2. Stop demand for drugs : Any bright ideas? People have historically used and enjoyed drugs so good luck thinking tomorrow everyone will go sober worldwide. It is also nobodies business what I put in my body as long as I am of no danger to anyone else.
3. Legalise: Some drugs require legalisation ie. Cannabis, mushrooms. Some require decriminalisation ie. Heroin, crack.
Either way upthepylons has no idea how he/she can make option 1 or 2 work and I believe most people worldwide have no idea how prohibition nor ending demand is a viable solution. He/she can spend his/her time criticising option 3 while science, statistics and public option continue to lean towards option 3.
Didn’t see your reply when I checked a few times today.
So basically you’ve totally dodged my question and gone on to say that it’s people like yourself that are the reason for all the criminal drug violence by creating the demand in the first place.
Next time you hear of someone in town murdered over drugs or a prostitute killed (I’ll assume you like them as well), take a good look in the mirror because you and people like you have caused that.
I’ll answer, if you like.
If weed was legalised and regulated, it would be cheaper. The idea that it would be more expensive has no basis in reality, which is why I’m sure no-one has responded to it.
My thoughts exactly but thanks white fang!
I’m not avoiding the question upthepylons your avoiding the drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine etc .. Prescription drugs kill more than illegal drugs aswell. Shall we eradicate all these substances off the planet aswell? You remind me of Nixon who ignored his own advisors of a board he himself set up and then went on to begin the war on drugs. It’s outdated, failed and slowing down society as a whole
well said, Jason.
As it stands users have to take very little responsibility for their drug use, and if decriminalised will be forced to do so, which may in fact decrease drug use. Because it’s illegal, drug use isn’t admitted the same way alcohol use is, and declared on insurance applications, etc. Just as smoking has become less common because of the increased costs of smoking, both health-wise and financial, the same should happen with drug use. You pay more for health insurance if you smoke, so you will pay more if you use drugs too.
There is also the more abstract, libertarian side of the argument; if you want to poison yourself and make yourself slow and stupid, you have a right to do so.
as it goes. upthepylons, I don’t use it myself so the situation doesn’t apply. anyway, why would it be more expensive? Given that the main expense is the importation and this would not apply to a legal product n all
“All of us know that the supportive parent has the biggest influence on a young person’s educational achievement”.
This is the crux of the matter. In many cased parents need to be financially incentivised to support their children instead of resenting them if they show promise. Sad but true.
Do you honestly think they will spend it on their kids though. The children’s allowance should be replaced with food / clothing vouchers and book rental schemes instigated through all schools. We don’t want to give people like this more money. We want to give them less disposable income while ensuring their children are provided for.
@michael o Connor ,
Indeed, parenting skills should be obligatory in post primary schools.
Shut up Harford!
Drug crime is just that, crime. The state, not just ours, hands the criminals the opportunity on silver plates, by prohibiting the drug trade. We all know what happened when the USA prohibited alcohol. It basically transfers the trade from regulated white market economics to black market, unregulated criminal consortia. Supply and demand, first rule of economics. I’m not suggesting a solution, merely stating the facts.
I don’t believe any of that. i believe that the ruling institututon sees a manageable level of crime as an instrument to keep people in line. I also believe drugs could be eradicated in a few months if the authorities wanted it. The huge amount of money from mexican drug cartels actually props up the american economy. Obama at one stage tried to take a stance on them and they thereatened to cause a run on the bank so he backed down,
You are talking through the fork of your trousers.
You sir are a fool. Mexico needs to decriminalise but America will lose a lot of money if they do.
Ye need to stop believing in conspiracy theories.
Decriminalise all drugs but unfortunately our political elite are in the pockets of the pharmaceuticals. Portugal is a good example of forward thinking. The ‘war’ on drugs is unwinnable. Research and read instead of being a good little sheep.
Exactly treat addiction like public health issue and not a crime it doesn’t work and costs the taxpayer a fn fortune!
You don’t know me. I am sure I could whip your so called egotistical arrogant ass physically and intellectually,.
Aggressive much?
Nothing in the article about the folly of prohibition or the permanent welfare state where in a multi generational setting people dont need to make any connection between the food on their table and the fact that someone must work for it, just not them.
we need SCHOOLS not prisons
We need both, it’s not an either or scenario
Its a figure of speak @YouNeek . It means to take a more educational approach to drug policy rather than a criminal one.
In reality that’s being done, possession won’t give you a custodial sentence. Dealing will.
That all depends on how many times you’ve been caught before, the drug and the quantity (also pharaphenalia and how compliant you are with the guards effects the sentence. Its intend to supply not dealing.
In reality schools still lack modern methods of educating school children on drugs. I for one was told terrible things about cannabis. When I first tried cannabis I thought my school lied to me and funny enough they did. If schools want their pupils to listen and accept their teaching they must not be finding out the contrary on the streets of Ireland.
In reality the prison system is wasted to a certain degree on non violent drug related crimes. Of course we are not incarceration capitol (America) but its a waste of tax payer money all the same.
Supply and dealing are the same thing under Irish law. Being caught with 1-2 plants won’t get you into too much trouble but having say 20 plants in your attic, that’s no longer for personal use. Obviously possession of weed is less serious to having possession of crack. As regards cannabis and it’s health effects, it’s in the same category as alcohol or tobacco. Like those moderation is important.
The 2 drugs that cause real problems are heroin and coke.
Yet dealing and suspicion on intent to supply are not the same thing. 1 plant can get you a criminal record which can effect the rest of your life in terms of employment chance, promotion chance, confidence etc…
Ireland’s most problematic drug in terms of harm is alcohol not Heroin.
Can you link me more info on this category that claims tobacco and alcohol are as harmful as cannabis. Quite clearly cannabis is safer by a long shot.
@ Kevin, sale and supply are treated the same way under Irish law. Plus no one nowadays gets a criminal conviction for simple possession of cannabis unless they have a criminal history. It’s a strawman argument to say someone with out previous convictions will have their life ruined. They will avoid a criminal conviction by getting the benefit of the probation act.
I accept your point regarding alcohol but unlike heroin, if used in moderation it is not a problem. Same with cigarettes except most people don’t with the latter. Smoking a packet or more a day is a problem as that’s serious overuse. Cannabis is linked to mental health problems in a small minority and I would make a comparison with alcohol addiction in this regard. Like alcohol cannabis should be used sparingly
It’s suspicion on intent to sale and supply. You need to get the wording right it’s law.
Heroin needs to be decriminalised to get people away from dealers and off heroine.
Cannabis has a tiny correlation with mental health no causation. It’s also prescribed for PTSD in some countries. It’s comparable to alcohol but much safer and should be legislated for immediately or we will continue to see grow house gangs all over the country.
@ Kevin, it’s not suspicion, the charge is possession with intent to supply/sale. Once you have been brought before the courts it’s the states case that the intent was there. You can be arrested on suspicion of an offence. Slight distinction but important one.
As regards your opinion of cannabis, the cause and affect as opposed to correlation argument is dubious. It’s like saying that alcohol doesn’t cause the gene that makes someone prone to alcohol addiction. That argument doesn’t hold water.
Not convinced of the decriminalisation of actual hard drugs as it’s a potential Pandora’s box. The softer ones can all be regulated to some degree and the likes of heroin and coke have no positive value to give either. Personally I believe weed should not be legalised but decriminalised initially. Then after a few years have an honest debate whether it should be legalised or not
Most property crime is not drug related, it has huge earnings which attract a strata of society that prefer not to work. Barristers and solicitors use “drug use” as an easy excuse for mitigation. The drugs problem is well over stated. Minor offences like simple possession are rarely prosecuted and rarely incur a custodial sentence
The only one on this with a bit of common sense is Kevin Higgins always a pleasure in reading what he has to say.
It is no longer a case of investment in areas of “disadvantage” but a case of changing a culture. Go to many “disadvantages areas” and you will find numerous support projects and programmes for families, children and individuals. But if people have a mindset of “entitlement” and the culture of this, there will be no change. Those who want to improve their lives can do so by grabbing these opportunities within their communities as so few take it up.
A few years ago nearly a substantial amount of money was pumped in to ballymun to increase college participation, the result was just a 3 % increase. Or the likes of youthreach, giving a payment to young people to stay in education?!
Go on Ming the merciless
A Labor TD? Has the Party started using American spelling now?!
Upper Middle class Irish love adopting American quirks and that’s who Labour represent.
The link between being illiterate and ending up as a petty criminal is in the crappy set of values adopted by your surroundings, family and yourself. Criminal behaviour is not caused by illiteracy and more money to local schools and social programmes will do nothing to stop either.
You mean Neil Gaiman the ex-Scientologist is a source of your information?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman
http://tonyortega.org/2013/06/21/in-his-new-book-is-neil-gaiman-exorcising-his-scientology-past/
have your say