asked the Minister for Health if he is aware of a statement made by the chairman of the World Psychiatric Association regarding the side effects of marijuana; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I have seen a press report of the statement referred to. In view of the very speculative nature of the comments reported I do not feel that any statement on my part is called for.

In any event, cannabis is and will continue to be subject in this country to statutory control as required by the international conventions for the prevention of illicit traffic in drugs.

Would the Minister consider that when a person of the status of chairman of the World Psychiatric Association makes a statement, that statement should receive serious consideration by the Minister? The chairman's statement that those who thought marijuana was harmless were fools and would in future regret they ever tried to pontificate that marijuana was harmless should—would the Minister not agree?—be presented at psychiatric association meetings and cognisance should be taken of statements made by leading people in the profession.

As the Deputy knows, he, myself and other Members of the House went very thoroughly into all these matters when the recent drug legislation was in Special Committee. Differences of opinion were expressed by members of different parties on that committee and as a result of all that discussion we finally came up with the present legislation. It is a bit early in the day to consider changing what we all decided on in that committee to enshrine in that legislation.

Question No. 20.

Would the Minister not agree that, if a man is elected to the World Psychiatric Association, it does not necessarily mean he is the greatest expert in the world on this subject and that there are men of more scientific expertise who have been adjudicating on the problem?

That is a separate question. It does not arise.

Would the Minister agree with that?

As the Deputy and I know, being elected to any organisation does not necessarily mean that one is an expert.

Question No. 20.

In relation to the question of the dangers of marijuana and the dangers of cigarette smoking, which would the Minister put as being the most dangerous in its immediate and long term effects?

The Deputy is a medical doctor and would be in a better position than I to answer that question. In this matter I am a layman and have to take the expert advice, but in our situation at the moment cigarette smoking is a much greater social evil than marijuana.

Question No. 20.

Is the Minister saying that marijuana——

I am not going to be caught between two doctors.

——is less dangerous than nicotine?

I am calling the next question.

It is important that I answer that. The majority of medical opinion would agree with me that cigarette smoking is a greater social, medical and general health menace in our community today than practically any other drug.

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is because it is more widespread.

Question No. 20. We will not have an argument on the merits or demerits of drugs.