We have apologies from Deputy Devine. I am delighted to open the 18th public meeting of the joint committee and the second in our module legal issues. Today we will explore European perspectives on legal, policy and operational responses to drug use. I welcome our witnesses. Dr. Marta Pinto is an assistant professor and researcher in the faculty of psychology and education sciences at the University of Porto and a researcher specialising in drug use, social vulnerability and public policy. Mr. Brendan Hughes is principal scientist on drug legislation at the European Union Drugs Agency and has been working in the field of national drug legislation since 2001. You are both very welcome.

Before I begin I must read out a note on privilege. I remind witnesses and members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that, in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. Members of the committee attending remotely must do so from within the precincts of Leinster House. This is due to the constitutional requirement that, in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams to make it known that they are on the Leinster House campus.

As agreed, witnesses will each have five minutes to deliver their open statements to allow plenty of time for questions and answers. If necessary, further and more detailed information can be sent to the clerk to the committee for distribution to members. I invite Dr. Pinto to make her opening statement. You are very welcome.

Good morning. I thank the Chair, Deputy Gannon, and the committee members for their time and attention. I am very happy to be here. As the Chair said, I work for the University of Porto and for nearly three decades I have combined research, clinical practice, outreach intervention and scientific consultancy for policymakers in several countries. I have been closely involved in the development and evaluation of harm-reduction and treatment responses in Portugal. I have been following the recent developments of Ireland’s drug policy model and would like to acknowledge its strengths. It is evidence-informed, whole-of-government and health-led rather than punitive, is grounded in harm reduction and, importantly, it goes beyond legislative reform alone and seeks to build an integrated network of care, with meaningful participation of civil society and a strong data-driven orientation. This approach places Ireland in alignment with best international practice. I will focus on three issues currently at the centre of debate, namely, decriminalisation, mandatory treatment and imprisonment following failed compliance with diversion strategies.

Regarding decriminalisation, in our 2020 review of the available scientific literature on decriminalisation models worldwide, we found no evidence that decriminalisation leads to significant increases in drug use prevalence. It does not appear to expand markets or reduce prices. It tends to reduce arrests for use and possession, lower drug-related crime, reduce infectious disease transmission, increase treatment uptake, decrease stigma and tends to raise public acceptance of that legal framework. We updated these findings in 2024 and the newest studies continue to point in the same direction: comprehensive, human rights-oriented reforms improve public health and reduce incarceration without worsening harmful use indicators.

On implementation, legal reform alone is not enough; how policies are interpreted and applied in practice is crucial. In Portugal, although the law allows for punitive administrative measures, the commissions for the dissuasion of drug addiction operate in practice as early intervention and referral mechanisms. Around 70% of decisions are suspensive, non-pecuniary sanctions predominate and imprisonment is never applied for non-compliance. The focus is on behavioural modulation, risk assessment and referral into care, not punishment. The system acts primarily on non-dependent users, many of them socially integrated, functioning as a gateway to support services.

On mandatory treatment and imprisonment, the available evidence remains limited but relatively consistent. Deprivation of liberty does not show advantages over treatment and may cause harm. Mandatory treatment, including community or outpatient formats, does not demonstrate clear superiority over voluntary treatment, and any reductions in drug use tend to be modest. Programmes that direct individuals into treatment rather than prison may reduce social costs associated with crime but outcomes depend mainly on the quality, accessibility and continuity of care, not on coercion itself. Science suggests that systems are most effective when they place individuals within supportive, comprehensive, psychosocial care networks. One of the persistent weaknesses of many systems is that, despite recognising the importance of social determinants, these are often insufficiently addressed in practice. Housing, employment, social networks, stigma and community integration strongly influence recovery trajectories. Without investment in these contextual dimensions, purely clinical or coercive responses are unlikely to succeed even after repeated non-compliance.

If I were to summarise the core principle learned over decades of work, it would be this: in drug policy, the protagonist should never be the behaviour, but the person and her or his context of life. When we shift our focus from the substance to the individual’s well-being, we create the conditions for trust, engagement and meaningful change.

I look forward to discussing these matters further. I am also available to identify and synthesise the best available research to address any specific questions that the committee or its members may wish to explore scientifically in the next few months.

I thank Dr. Pinto very much. The next witness is Mr. Brendan Hughes. He is very welcome.

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak today. I have been an analyst of national drug legislation around the EU and further afield for 25 years. I do not have all the answers, and, indeed, over that time the questions, the drugs and the context often change, sometimes irrespective of what those laws say.

We discuss and compare these laws according to the maximum penalty available, which usually means prison sentences, but in about one third of countries in the EU there is no detention in the law for a first minor, use-related offence, like I believe it is for cannabis in Ireland.

There has been decreasing support over that time for the threat of severe punishment to dissuade people from using drugs. This has been for different reasons in different countries whether it is to build trust with those using drugs to encourage them to treatment, to reduce the number of young people with criminal records, or to reduce police or judicial workload. A clear common objective should help direct policy choices and implementation, as Dr. Pinto just referred to. The responses can be punitive such as a fine, warning, detention, rehabilitative, like counselling or treatment, or a combination. For best effect, these need to be targeted to each offender’s own circumstances; one size does not fit all.

The broad trend is to reduce the size of the maximum punishments and-or to increase options, or access to them, for treatment or counselling. In Croatia, the offender receives a fine to avoid receiving a criminal record, which would hinder social reintegration. In Austria, they used to send the offender to the judiciary, who might refer them to a health service. A few years later, they changed the law and now send the offender directly to the health service. In Norway, police are authorised to refer individuals to a municipal advisory unit outside criminal proceedings.

There are exceptions to that trend. France reduced the size of the likely punishment but increased the speed and certainty of it by introducing spot fines rather than a court trial. Spain doubled the size of the fine to €600 for a first offence.

I have seen countries reducing options for treatment, concerned that it looks like a soft option, but they were later changed to broaden treatment access again. Pathways can be customised according to different aims. If we consider the classic policy cycle, we have the designing or wording of the policy - I limit myself to the laws - the implementing of the policy and ideally the outcome and impact of the policy.

Discussions of impact seem to assume that the law is implemented as it is written, but we see little evidence of imprisonment for drug use in Europe. Often, the most common response is a fine. Does any impact of the law derive from the wording or from the implementation?

Our simple comparison exercise between penalty changes in the law and cannabis use rates across several countries did not show that the change in penalties influences the behaviour of young adults in the way that many assume. Perhaps people who use drugs do not read the wording of the laws and they learn about the changes from the media or friends, both often inaccurate. Perhaps offenders were never deterred by the prison sentence that hardly ever came. The fines were common already, and the new law just aligned closer with prior practice. On that point, it is interesting that some European countries’ legal responses to new psychoactive substances, introduced since 2009, had no penalty for users at all.

A few European countries are implementing frameworks to allow residents very limited access to cannabis for recreational purposes, usually by home cultivation or membership of a non-profit growing club. Again, this is for different reasons, and the frameworks vary accordingly. We are working with those countries to ensure these are scientifically monitored, ideally using common indicators, to understand the outcomes.

I believe the biggest implementation challenges are for all stakeholders involved - health, law enforcement, the judiciary and the public - to maintain a clear and common understanding of the law and its purpose, yet to allow flexibility in its application. The challenge is to run appropriate data collection systems for constant monitoring and possible adjustment, as well as resource the increase in health and social responses that are often required.

I thank Mr. Hughes for his contribution. A rota was circulated in advance of the meeting. The first member is Senator Ruane.

I thank the Chair and both of the witnesses. I have a couple of questions, the first of which is for Mr. Hughes. It relates to the data and statistics that are collected at a domestic level and fed into the wider picture at the European Union Drugs Agency, EUDA.

I wonder about what I think are the current data and methodology used by the Health Research Board in Ireland in capturing the situation for drugs use. I wonder how the survey which captures the data impacts policy, decision-making and the real picture for Ireland. It is an in-home survey and the person has to be in a private residence to do the survey and thereby capture the type of drug use, etc., in Ireland, and its prevalence. That means it completely excludes anybody who is homeless. It does not include a translation from English and, therefore, it excludes migrants and other ethnic minorities. It also excludes the Traveller population. It states clearly that these populations are excluded. My concern is that the survey does not capture the relevant rates and percentages. The response rate in urban areas was less than 50% compared with the 80% response rate in rural areas. The type of rural area matters in the context of the concentration of people in any particular space. What input does the EUDA have? Are the witnesses satisfied with the data that comes from Ireland to the EUDA considering those who are excluded?

I thank the Senator. Those statistics are managed by a colleague of mine rather than me. I would not dare to presume to give expertise on that, but I am fully aware that every country which reports to us has its own limitations and specialties in its surveys. The surveys are by no means identical. Every year, there are expert meetings to discuss the differences between them and how comparable they are or are not. They are supposed to give a broad indication but are also intended to give a trend-over-time indication. Provided the survey is carried out in the same way each year, it should give an indication to the country as to how things are changing.

I am not looking for Mr. Hughes to comment but I note for the record that when we look at where harm is most concentrated and where more targeted responses are needed, and we have a massive exclusionary process in terms of how we receive that data, it is concerning in relation to how we then set national policy. That is probably a matter for me to tease out with others in the future.

I am sure that Dr. Pinto and Mr. Hughes are aware of the proposed adult caution scheme in Ireland. It is police-led and means the admission of an offence, in a sense, before you are referred for a potential health appointment. I would love to hear the thoughts of Dr. Pinto and Mr. Hughes on that. Do they see that as a justice-led response to drug use or do they feel it is health-led? Do either of the witnesses have any insights or comments?

I would prefer if Mr. Hughes would start. I thank the Senator for the question. I could start. I would rather another approach that is more comprehensive and is not taking a punitive approach since it makes people who use drugs back off from the response in general. The best approach would be a comprehensive one, to be honest, and in general.

Would Mr. Hughes like to come in?

I have not seen the details of the scheme. Is this the one that has been proposed for the past two or three years? I was at the citizens' assembly and remember that the chair was emphatic on this point. Adult caution by its very name does not necessarily sound like the health-led approach that the citizens' assembly was pushing for. That will all depend on how exactly it is implemented. A caution itself could be considered some form of warning. That is the case in several countries, including Portugal. We would have to consider who is the caution given by, what are the implications for the person who receives it, is there a clear record and is that record consulted by future employers or social services. The issues are in the details.

We are aware of discussing things like treatment. I know it has been put forward by many people that many people who use drugs do not really need any form of treatment or counselling, so that is sometimes considered a blunt instrument. To me, it is one of the different options available. We must consider if the options are suited to each particular person who receives them. You need a wide range of options. Here I hear one option, which is adult caution. I have not looked under the bonnet to see if that term offers several different forms of response.

Last week when representatives of An Garda Síochána were before the committee, they said that on the first occasion everybody will be sent to a health referral. That means a large portion of people who do not need a health intervention will be sent for one, which is obviously concerning. It is concerning to force anybody into a health intervention regardless of the scale of his or her substance use. Many people who definitely do not need any sort of support would be entering the system.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. They have both studied other jurisdictions. Looking at other European jurisdictions where change has occurred, where do they think the change that has occurred has been of the most benefit in helping people who are using drugs and, in particular, people who may be addicted? Where has a legal change occurred that has been helpful in real terms? What country should we be looking at?

Should I speak?

Dr. Pinto may wish to come in first.

I will start. I thank the Deputy for the question. I do not know if he is referring to the modification of the law at the beginning of this century or to the newest change in 2023.

I am talking about recently. What changes have occurred over, say, the past ten years that have been helpful? We are considering what changes we need to make. Where have the best results been achieved by a change of the law in a particular country?

I thank the Deputy for the clarification. Decriminalisation was a very important dimension of the political reform. It is very important because it sends a different perspective for addressing drugs use to the population. It also creates the conditions for people to seek help without fear of the sanctions associated with it. Nevertheless, decriminalisation was only a part of the solution. I call it "the solution" because the country has changed dramatically for the better since the beginning of the century. Portugal is not recognisable in respect of the indicators regarding drug use. Of course, the commissions for the dissuasion of drug dependence were a very important introduction. They are, as I said, able to work as a referral to the care system.

There was also a major investment in the creation of an integrated system of care and the introduction of a harm reduction philosophy that was interpreted as not only focused on the health of people using drugs but on their well-being and the well-being of their families. Another very important aspect is that there was an investment in the research related to drug use. We learned as we put things into practice.

Mr. Hughes mentioned the change in Spain. Spain doubled the size of the fine to €600. Does that actually provide a solution to a problem? For instance, if the person does not pay the fine, what are the consequences?

I do not know if we have seen the consequences, but how much to assume that a change took place and assume that changes in the number of drug users are due to that-----

Mr. Hughes outlined the different changes in different countries over the last ten years. Some changes have worked and some have not. If he were looking from an Irish point of view, what changes would he like to see happening as regards giving support to people and making sure that there is adequate protection there?

Usually, what I try to say in my opening speech is that changes take place for a reason and different countries have changed for different reasons. If you want to unblock the police and courts system, which is what happened in a couple of countries, they moved to cannabis warnings. Portugal did it because it had a horrific heroin problem and a consequent HIV problem. Croatia did it because it found it was giving too many young people criminal records, which then does not help their reintegration afterward. What is the problem and how is it to be solved? Ten, 15 or 20 years ago, Ireland had a very serious heroin problem. Then it went through a period of NPS - problems with all the shops available. Currently we see cocaine as well. It is a different problem each time. The question is if the system is flexible enough to respond to that.

Does Mr. Hughes think the system in Ireland is flexible enough? For instance, we opened a supervised injection facility in Ireland, even though there has been no substantial change in law. That has proven to be extremely successful. What other changes, having looked at it, would Mr. Hughes think would be preferable for Ireland to go down?

Right now, the discussion here is on health-led responses. As I have mentioned, that is a general trend through Europe. I do not see many countries reversing this. There is always a nervousness or even fear of not moving away from that.

I think Mr. Hughes would also accept that it requires substantial investment to provide those supports.

Yes, but then all countries would choose that as opposed to the alternative, which is continuing with the status quo. They find that there is a lot of the investment in activities of the police, for example, and, as mentioned, the issue of the effects on the young people of convictions. It is always a choice or balance. It is not like there is a perfect solution out there waiting.

Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe go léir. As Mr. Hughes said, everybody has come up with whatever general health-led harm reduction policies from the point of view of whatever was the issue, namely, backlogged courts or too many young people getting criminal records. He also stated that, in many cases, laws are not necessarily enacted as we foresee them and probably not always enforced. He spoke about needing a bespoke set of solutions because it needs to be tailored to every individual. That is not always possible. What would that look like? I am looking for the perfect solution, even if it is only from a legislative point of view.

We always talk about the Portuguese model and we all get the idea of decriminalisation. We know there is a pushback from law enforcement sometimes, stating that criminals will try to use and abuse. They use young people. They will limit the amounts they carry and all the rest of it. What Dr. Pinto said is that this has absolutely transformed Portugal. Could she say how and why, what worked and what did not, as well as the things to watch for?

Could the Deputy repeat the question?

I generally create a lot of chaos and confusion anyway. At one stage, Mr. Hughes spoke about having almost a set of solutions to deal with bespoke circumstances that arise from every offender. They are coming from a different place. You are dealing with people who have huge drug addiction issues, who are ensconced within criminal activity, or one-offs who just got unlucky, which is obviously very different, and do not necessarily need the health supports that someone who is a long-term drug user who wants to seek that sort of help.

The broader range of options available to the authorities allows them to tailor in a bespoke way. I sometimes show the statistics of the Portuguese dissuasion commissions because they are some of the best kept statistics around Europe. I am emphasise the fact that most of the people going to the commissions get a provisional suspension of the procedure. You could describe it as a warning. Some of them do get penalties, whether it is financial penalties or non-financial penalties. The commissions have the ability to provide banning from certain areas. I do not know whether that is going to be a nightclub district on Saturday night or a local drug dealing area. They have punitive options available. They have the option to send for treatment or counselling. That does not oblige someone to go through it, and it certainly is not residential, but there are these options. If they do not work, and Dr. Pinto can correct me, I believe the person will then be back again in front of the commission. That is where they say that option did not work and they try again to see if they come up with a different option. The idea is to get them to trust and go to the commission rather than to fear it and run away from it. There are various forms of punishment and rehabilitative solutions.

In other countries, it is very common to say the response to the personal possession of drugs is a fine, a warning or something like that. That is it. Some do not seem to have the ability to send for any kind of counselling. The next concern is whether that kind of counselling will be available. That is a step further on. It is to have this broad range of options. Some countries had such a strict law that they said the second or third time a person appears before them, they could give them a prison sentence. That sounds like a failure of the first or second time apart from anything else. It is to have a wide variety of choice rather than one. I will not name the country, but one person got sent to prison for growing seven cannabis plants for a sick relative when the maximum limit in law was two or something. The judge could not do anything as the law was so limited.

Those are difficult questions to answer. I would only add some of the possibilities that the commissioners for this region have in Portugal. For example, they can ban the exercise of a profession. When people fail to accomplish they can, for example, impose periodic presentations to the health services. We observe, and doctors use that expression, that most countries use various forms of punishment. As a Portuguese professional I have the idea that this is not the logic functioning in Portugal although the law allows for it. People working in the dissuasion commissions are not working through the logic of punishment. They really want to offer a tailored intervention and to personalise it to help people. We are learning that people may fail several times but then at some point of their lives they adhere and they correspond to the social expectations. So, we do not give up on them even if the work with them is not performed by the commissions. The commissions try to send people to treatment and to healthcare. What happens many times, although that is not my job in particular, is that the country tries to understand the levels of satisfaction of people in contact with the commissions. People say that they go there against their will in the first instance, but then they are satisfied with the contact because they can learn how to use drugs with less risks, for example, and how they relate to drugs, and they can prevent that relationship degrading. I would say that this interpretation is comprehensive and is focused on helping people to improve their lives, and is one of our best things, to be honest.

As I said before, people who go to the commission are mostly young people who have been sent many times by the police and by other social agents who are worried about the situation. Usually I would say that, in practice and on a quotidian basis, the police are not absolutely motivated to penalise people with serious addictions to the commissions because they already know that the kind of measures being applied are not the most suitable for that kind of profile. The commissions and the police work together to send those people to treatment centres. We also count a lot on the harm reduction teams that do outreach in the places where people use and buy drugs. Those teams have a comprehensive approach in trying to help them however they can, independently of their drug use. I know this is the principal action of harm reduction but many times it is not interpreted as it should be in the field because people do not really accept the drug use. This happens in Portugal. Sometimes we are with people in the streets for ten years or four years on a quotidian basis and it seems we are not getting anywhere but then suddenly it improves.

It is the support structures.

I thank Mr. Hughes and Dr. Pinto for being here with us today. Dr. Pinto has said that depriving a person of liberty shows no advantages. It does not. It only compounds the problem for the individual and for society. It is largely proven not to work. Unfortunately, we have a situation in Ireland where people are incarcerated, they are locked up and the supports are not in place. We know this. We know it is a real problem and we need to fix it.

Mr. Hughes spoke about the approach taken in each country depending on what the problem is they are trying to solve. I guess the problem we are trying to solve at this point in Ireland is different from the problem we were trying to solve ten, 15 or 20 years ago. Historically it was marginalised groups of people. It is largely opioid users now. We also have a problem of general socialisation and social acceptance of casual drug consumption and abuse. We have both but now we have this newer dimension to it which has a broader general impact. Our problem is not an easy one to solve. I hear the witnesses when they talk about the laws and how restrictive laws can be. While those laws are being written, they are written with good intent but the actual practical implications of implementing them is very different. We are very conscious of that and we need to try and get it right.

Are either of the witnesses familiar with the drug treatment court in Dublin?

No.

I looked at it years ago but I am certainly aware of it.

It is not a trick question. I ask the question because I am trying to work out in my mind how that interacts with, or compares with, the dissuasion commissions in Portugal. We visited the court recently and we have had the drugs treatment court here to the committee. Very briefly, it is a judge-led court but it is not an adversarial court. Those who appear at the court are participating in a voluntary capacity. They have been referred to the court because they had a drug-related crime that was non-violent. I cannot remember if they need to have a second diagnosis of mental illness. We can get the criteria for the witnesses. At the court there is the Probation Service, health services, education services and the Garda - our police and law enforcers - and the local authority is engaged as well. It is that kind of wraparound of psychosocial supports operating. How does that compare with the dissuasion commissions? One of the differences, as Dr. Pinto said, might be that the dissuasion commissions are largely dealing with young people who may be presenting for the first time and not necessarily with a dependency or an addiction but just a use. That may be one of the issues. I am interested in understanding the dissuasion commissions, the qualifications of those who operate them, their remit and, more important, the resources available to them. My question to both of the witnesses is, in trying to achieve a decriminalised health-led model in Ireland, what are the essential changes that we as a society need to make? What are the essential services and supports that need to be put in place? I would like responses from both witnesses to that, please. Perhaps Mr. Hughes would like to go first.

I will try. When I started this work, the Portuguese system was coming on stream, and I immediately saw a parallel with the dissuasion commissions and the drug treatment courts that Ireland had, and a couple in England, and one or two others that are very famous in North America. I was very quickly told that the Portuguese carefully did not call it a court. This is why they are called dissuasion commissions. They wanted to remove any association with the criminal justice system. They did this clearly with the name, with the composition and with the oversight of the dissuasion commissions, which by now are underneath the ministry of health rather than the ministry of justice.

That goes back to what I was saying earlier that the ethos is different. In the Ministry of Justice, there is an automatic belief in the idea that as somebody has done it again and is a recidivist, we have to bring out a stronger punishment whereas in the Ministry of Health, if somebody has got sick a second time, you do not bring out an extra punishment; you try a different cure. That very much runs through the Portuguese system.

I checked and I believe the drug treatment court is similar to others in that it requires a guilty plea first. I found that through a quick search on the web and it is what I remember previously. Once again, when there is a guilty plea, somebody is under the threat of criminal punishment. That is why they get it. That is the same for many people in North America. I know that is quite controversial among those people who have looked at different drug treatment courts. I am fully aware that the drug treatment court has been running for 20 or 25 years. I watched a discussion recently where somebody asked why we still call it a pilot after that length of time.

It is also limited by catchment area as there is still only one. Otherwise, in terms of integrated systems, the law has just changed in Romania to say referral to its integrated assistance is now mandatory, which is judicial and linked with medical and social services. The Norwegians have just changed their system and were quite influenced by the Portuguese. It took Norway a long time but it got there. That involves referral of individuals to the municipal advisory unit outside of criminal proceedings. That is a drug advisory unit so presumably, they are set up with similar systems as well.

It is all about this idea of whether you have the capacity, resources and ethos to move someone towards a solution either to their drug problems or to the effects of their drug problems on society. If you look at some beliefs that if they do this behind closed doors and do not bother anybody else, this is where I stated that some people say treatment may not always be necessary. It is about the idea of support and trying to retain somebody in treatment rather than the idea of us waiting for you to fail after which we then hit you, which from the different versions I have seen over the years sometimes ends up as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there are too many ways to catch somebody, you will catch someone and you have not achieved the initial objective.

As we are over time, I ask Dr. Pinto to be brief in her response.

I will try. I totally agree with what was said. I highlight that we have commissions for the dissuasion of drug addiction. It is not a commission for the dissuasion of drug use. In symbolic terms, it shows how the spirit of the law and the model is to help and prevent problems.

I would like to-----

We will come back at the end and give Dr. Pinto some more time.

Okay. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I welcome both of our witnesses here. It is really useful for us to hear about models in other countries and their experiences. It is very useful to the work we will be doing on the committee when writing our report.

I will start with Dr. Pinto. She says that mandatory treatment has very little positive effect and I am inclined to agree with her. However, when visiting treatment and rehabilitation services I have met people, some of whose clients will say that only for bail conditions, early release from jail, rehabilitation services and so on, they would not have escaped the chaos of their addiction. They have embraced their recovery. I would like to know Dr. Pinto's thoughts on that. Is it a case that in some situations, mandatory treatment works? Would she consider it is never a good thing?

It depends on the quality and accessibility of the treatment and the tailored form of approach to this person. In an ideal world, if those people were enrolled in a mandatory treatment regime that was tailored to those people, I would agree that theoretically, adhesion would happen more easily and it would be useful. We know, however, this is not the case in many situations. Since we cannot guarantee that - we know we have very powerful techniques to carry out the intervention with people who are not intrinsically motivated to adhere to treatment - but if we could make the kind of interventions we should while taking into consideration factors like social isolation to promote one of the most difficult things that we have before us, that is, to promote an informal social support network that is disconnected from the previous drug world and if we could really help people in doing this and in getting a meaningful occupation, as well as helping them solve the problems in the family, deal with trauma and so on and if we could offer these kinds of treatments, maybe the mandatory treatment would open the opportunity for people to engage.

I know, however, that many times and especially in the social research and social dimension of interventions, we fail. I carry out a lot of research that shows this every time. We take a very clinical approach. Although we acknowledge that social determinants are fundamental, we tend to focus on the individual and we do not go anywhere else with that. For example, I remember that one of the people I listened to very recently told me they did not know what was wrong with them but anywhere they went for a job, new friend or activity, people looked at them and knew they have had a past with drugs. They said they did not know how it happened but people knew from just looking at them. Their chances of participating socially are very limited. This has a huge burden on the possibility of people adhering to treatment, as we can all understand.

We understand that one of the central points is that when lives are meaningful, drugs reduce their power and influence over those lives. Ideally, mandatory treatment could eventually open the door to an ideal treatment. It happens many times with the commissions for dissuasion and people have a satisfactory experience and would adhere but I know this is not what happens. The results of the evidence so far tells us that when we have any result regarding drug use with mandatory treatment, it is a very modest one. Alternatively, we should invest in a personalised approach for every person who comes to us and regardless of all the failed attempts over the years, we should try to help them whenever we can and how we can until a moment comes. We feel if we cannot do whatever we have dreamed to do with that person, if we offer methadone programmes, for example, we know we will be improving their well-being. We will be contributing to reduced drug use related crime and so on.

We will prevent many problems for the community. We must therefore invest in that approach.

I agree with Dr. Pinto but I think these people are already in, say, the prison system. They see it as an early release, an easier way, but they do embrace the services once they have access to them. Where I would have said, "No, it is not a good thing", it might work for some people.

I have a quick question for Mr. Hughes about the proposal for adult caution whereby people must admit the offence of possession of drugs for personal use before they receive a health referral. Does he see that as a health-led approach or as a criminal justice approach? I refer to the proposal from the drugs strategy.

It sounds like both. Why should they admit an offence before they go towards a health response?

We had witnesses from the Garda in last week and they said that sometimes they are looking for people who are actually dealing but they will be caught with a small amount of drugs, which would normally be assumed as for personal use, but they need them to admit that they are in possession before they can follow on from it. Either way, they end up being able to charge people, if not for dealing then for possession.

If you are looking for a system whereby in either case you can charge somebody, that is not primarily a health-led response, is it? It is primarily a justice-led response with a diversion to the health system.

I have a couple of questions myself. Dr. Pinto, you say in your testimony that decriminalisation does not lead to significant drug use increases and you cite 69 studies. We have looked at the evidence, and the evidence very clearly captures that sentiment. Oftentimes it is very difficult to convey that to the public, and there are people, even some policy developers, who may not have the same belief system. Could you elaborate on the studies? There was no increase in drug prevalence and no increase in the illegal sale of drugs. Is that all captured in the evidence?

In the general picture of all the studies, sometimes we can observe a small rise in the prevalence of use among adults, but it is temporary. It is after the decriminalisation coming into place. In Portugal, very particularly, since decriminalisation, what we have seen is that among young people drug use has reduced. It is not 69 studies any more; there are more because we refreshed on 2024. It seems to me that what we can find is that it is like an effect that makes the community become more mature in their relationship with illicit substances. We can see that sometimes there is a really modest rise in the prevalence of drug use by adults but it is temporary, and then we tend to see that use over time start to decrease and stabilise. It seems that people come into contact with drugs to experience them but then use stabilises and people do not tend to keep using them in the following periods.

We had a really interesting engagement last week with senior members of our police force, the Garda. There was a belief that if we were to remove section 3, which is the law which criminalises personal drug possession, we would see an increase in the illegal sale of drugs. Does the evidence capture that?

What we saw in the different studies is that prices did not go lower, which is an indicator. We also see that the police service becomes more effective and more efficient, and that might give us the idea that sales are growing. Do you understand what I mean? If the police service does not focus any more on drug users or people who use drugs and it starts to focus on trafficking activities, of course we will find more seizures and higher amounts of drugs being caught by the police because the force becomes more effective. Those data in Portugal are very clear. Since decriminalisation, the police has become more effective in its action against trafficking. Additionally, when I speak to police working in the streets, they always say that they think their role should not be dealing with people using drugs. Policemen say, "They have a health issue. It is not with us. We have to be focused on trafficking. That is our work."

I do not know if I have answered-----

That was really good. Thank you, Dr. Pinto.

Mr. Hughes, in terms of your research, you have captured that in different jurisdictions there will be a lessening of a punitive model and then at times there will also be an increase in the same jurisdictions and then, potentially, a lessening of a punitive model again. Did you track the means by which that was done? Was it through an evidential basis for increasing or renewing sanction or was it more due to other factors that were not captured in evidence but more by perception?

The very simplistic comparison we were working off is national drug use surveys. We would check results before the legal change and after the legal change. They are not done every year in each country, so there might be a few years between them. That is the change in the law, as I tried to mention, that is, the wording of the law. It is not necessarily the change in how the law was enforced. It is not necessarily the actual penalties or other responses given to the different people using drugs. With that, we do not have a lot of information still around Europe about what the average penalty actually received is. I am getting increasing data reports. It seems like in many countries, it is a fine of some sort. In a few countries it might be suspended prison sentences. That is in reference to initial concerns about the change in law. I have seen this discussed so many times in different countries. I have heard people say, "If we change the law, if we reduce the penalty, then, clearly, people will use more drugs." Well, you might think so, but finally, when we track the best evidence we have, that is not the case. I repeat: that is the change in law.

Would there be a difference? There probably would if it were enforcement of the drug laws because I would believe people react to their experiences rather than what is written in the statute books. I think it was the UK that changed cannabis from class B down to class C and back up to class B. In fact, cannabis use just continued to decline throughout that period. It is very tempting to assume automatically there will be a nice policy lever effect on the population, but that is just not what we saw. In the UK, the penalty went down and the use went down. In other countries - I am trying to remember where it was; it might have been in Finland or in Denmark - the penalty went up and then the use went up. We see the others as well. There is just not a clear pattern in terms of reacting to the law itself.

As for the implementation of the law, I cannot comment on that, and I think several countries do not really have the numbers to understand that.

Thank you, Mr. Hughes.

Members, we have time for a second round if people wish. I call Senator Fitzpatrick.

Could Dr. Pinto send us those reports? She said she had done a review of 69 reports and then updated that again in 2024. It would be really helpful to have those.

I thank Dr. Pinto and Mr. Hughes for their commentary on the laws. It is interesting to hear Mr. Hughes say there is not a direct correlation and you do not get the result you think you are going to get. That comes down to the fact you are dealing with humans and the human predicament is very individual, but laws are not; laws are made on paper. I think it reflects that.

With the dissuasion commissions, will Dr. Pinto explain how the individual is referred to the commission if the police are not doing it? The term "dissuasion commission" sounds really sinister. It is Orwellian. It just sends a shiver. How does an individual get referred to the commission? Who does that referral?

I will just finish my answer to the previous question, which is connected to this one. Who works in the commissions? It is social workers, law professionals and psychologists. That is it. Those three discuss the cases and the approach is always to apply some tools we have in psychology to address the risks associated with that relationship, which is always unique, between that person and the substances they use. It is funny because it is one of the things people like the most. They say the commission was an opportunity for them to think about their relationship with drugs. They learn something about themselves in that. Those are the professionals there.

As to who makes the referrals, it is the police. They are not agents of that process, but anyone can do the referral, anonymously for example. It could be a professor in school or a neighbour. I do not work at the commissions but they deal a lot with young people. The referral may be-----

What compels the individual to accept the referral and to act on it?

There is some pressure which is kind of subtle, I would say. I do not know profoundly the way commissions function but people understand the police force is involved and that it is mandatory. They must go to the commission, although in many cases, if they do not go, the approach is again comprehensive. The general idea in the population is that if they are sent to a commission, they must go because that has something to do with the police. Did I make it clear?

Yes. It is very interesting because it is getting to the nub of this issue. When Garda management were here what I heard - and this is not a dispute between Deputy Graves and me as we still do not have the defined guidelines of how it will operate from the Garda - was that it would be a referral and there would not be a charge at the time. I need to go back and listen to it and get that clarified. It is important. What Dr. Pinto is saying is it is a social pressure. It is a social norm and there is acceptance that if you are referred to the dissuasion commission, it is something you have to do.

I never did a study to understand that but I have worked in the field for many years. It is very funny because people are not threatened but everyone has the sense they must go.

It is not public information, though, is it?

Many times the professionals-----

Portugal has a civic sanction model as opposed to a judicial model, which we have.

Is it public information?

It is not public. It may be implied but, as I said, most of the time nothing happens, in a punitive sense. If the Senator wants, this is a very small document and I can send her the law as it is. The law says who may do the referrals. I can send also the ICAD report for 2025 which gives us all the numbers and sets out who made the referrals. There are also maybe six pages of what can be done and how. We will send that already translated. It is easy.

That would be excellent. I thank Dr. Pinto.

Besides that, I can send the study on decriminalisation in English.

That would be really helpful. Thank you.

Turning to Mr. Hughes and tying into exactly what we have just been discussing, in a situation where there is a fine and somebody cannot afford to pay it or does not pay it, does that then become a criminal issue? How is that handled?

Generally not, to my knowledge. This has applied in other countries and not only Portugal. If somebody cannot pay a fine, then you have another issue. Once again, what are you doing? Are you trying to punish them or to encourage them? The Danish have something in their law which says normally the response will be a fine. Twenty years ago, it was often a warning but the government toughened it a bit. It said normally the response will be a fine and used the expression "unless social conditions point towards that being inappropriate". I believe this is available in other laws as well in general criminal codes or criminal procedural codes. You fine those people who can afford to pay the fine. If you fine people, especially people with drug addiction or dependence problems, when they cannot afford to pay the fine, chances are they are going to go out and steal a few more handbags in order to pay the fine, which is completely self-defeating. There needs to be some sort of understanding on that. What other response could we give if they cannot afford the fine? Do we give some form of social work or social service, for example? Do we give some sort of reporting, whether to a police station or a social centre? It would be some other obligation that is not monetary for people who do not have the financial means to pay a fine. Again, consider who is being dealt with and what is the best way of achieving what you want.

To go back to the conversation that was happening, members of our police force, the Garda, were before the committee last week. They spoke about how they do not always enforce, especially when dealing with young people and one-off cases. They also said they wanted the power of section 3, which is the idea that people who had come to Garda attention a considerable number of times and were, let us say, members of criminal gangs or whatever could be arrested and sanctioned for possession. This can be pretty imperfect. That is the Garda's argument.

Dr. Pinto has done a good job of selling the Portuguese model, even down to saying the police force is more effective in dealing with criminal gangs. The fact is none of us are going to put a level of resources into the police force that would mean there are going to be no criminal gangs. That is a reality also. I was very interested in the dissuasion commission and all the various treatment elements of the Portuguese model. It is not about punishment but there are still punitive measures available, although I get that it is a different system in Portugal and there are civic sanctions. How would Dr. Pinto sell this to the police force - the Garda - in the sense of saying, "Here are the improvements we have seen"? It seems Portugal also reviews everything.

In Portugal, what works is kept and what does not work must be changed. Obviously the police must still focus on disrupting criminals and sometimes people will use the rules on possession amounts and whatever else. How can we facilitate the police to police?

That is a difficult question. There are people in Portugal who would be very important in terms of answering those questions because they work in the police but, at the same time, use a friendly style of policing, a very proximate one. In 2023, the law changed in Portugal and made that problem more acute. The law defined the amount and said people could have, for each substance, an amount that lasts ten days of medium personal use. In 2023, we implemented two main changes in the law. One of them was to decriminalise the use of synthetic substances and the other was the removal of the strict definition of the amount that distinguishes personal use from trafficking. This was done for various reasons, one of which was a previous court decision that when somebody had more than the amount established in the law, the judge decided that it was a crime. The law was a bit blurred because it provided that, where a person has an amount for personal use above what is allowed by law, it is considered criminal behaviour and such persons were charged as criminals. The law was changed to avoid these kinds of problems. Since then, using drugs is never a crime. That is one of the complaints of the police, as it became even more difficult to distinguish drug use from trafficking because people selling drugs will always say they have these substances for their personal use. Anyway, it already happened before. I did some ethnographies in the field and I knew some of the strategies that people dealing and selling drugs were using in order to be considered users rather than sellers of drugs. They were using the law in that sense. It has already happened and perhaps it will happen more now. It is too soon for us to understand what really happened in the field. It is a problem the police have to solve. I really do not have a very clear idea on that.

I appreciate the answer. Dr. Pinto mentioned that there were certain sanctions. The idea that somebody would not be allowed to be in a particular place, especially if it was a place they used as a sales pitch for drug dealing, would be useful but then they are already in with the dissuasion commission at that stage.

Yes. The commissions can make such decisions but they are mostly applied to young people. For example, they may issue prohibitions providing that someone is not allowed to be with a certain person or to go to places where drugs are sold. Since the changes in the law in 2023, when an accusation is made, it must provide proof that the person is trafficking or selling drugs, which did not happen before.

It is more difficult for the police to prove that.

The police have to prove it. At the same time, through that measure, we are protecting. I acknowledge that in the Irish model, you are conscious of the different harms that drug use may have in different parts of the country and you are concerned, for example, with drug use in rural areas. That is an advantage. I have done a study that compares the risks involved in using drugs in urban and rural settings. I can forward a copy of my study to the committee. One of the risks in rural settings was the risk of being charged with trafficking. People do not have access to illicit substances, so they get the money together and someone buys the substance for everyone, which is not exactly selling drugs. Those people were more protected with this law. I do not know if that answers the question.

That was really helpful. I thank Professor Pinto for coming here and giving us her expertise, which will benefit the committee. I also thank Mr. Hughes for joining us online. We have had a really interesting discussion.