# Why is open drug dealing in Dublin tolerated by the gardai?



## roland (19 Jul 2009)

I'm used to think I wasn't easily shocked, but having moved work recently down near grand canal dock area, I was shocked by the daily open drug dealing by the strung-out people that hang around Tara street DART station, the Custom House and generally around that whole area.  Clearly-visible drug dealing taking place by people clearly out of their heads.  How is this tolerated by law enforcement?  I've tried to convince myself that they present no threat, but my impression is that someone out of their heads can react randomly and irrationally.  Always a worry as I walk past.  At the very best it's depressing.  I'm struggling to understand how our gardai do nothing on this, but I'm also struggling to understand how it has received such little comment in the press?


----------



## lightswitch (19 Jul 2009)

You're right Roland its does seem to be at an all time high.
At this point I can understand why the Gardai would appear to be doing very little though I am sure a lot of their time is taken up with dealing with incidents related to this problem.  

There is quite simply nothing much they can do, there is a flood of drugs coming into this county and nothing of any real consequence being done to stop it.  There is in the region of 12 detox places in Ireland and 15,000 registered heroin users.  This does not include cocaine addicts and people addicted to other drugs.  


If the Gardai move them on where will they go?  Our prisons are already full of drugs and drug addicts (a whole other topic), so that is not much of an option either.

We were able to stop foot and mouth coming in a number of years ago by pulling out all the stops, one would have to wonder why there is no political will to do this with regard to drugs.


----------



## DublinTexas (19 Jul 2009)

Maybe the gardai have better things to do than to waist hours of paperwork on the “war on drugs”? Like sending 4 officers to patrol the Luas? Or try to protect our ministers when they go somewhere because otherwise some of them might get lynched? 

But putting the resource problem beside, why are we still talking about the “war on drugs”? Why are we not going down the more sensible road by decriminalizing drug possession including marijuana, cocaine and heroin and building up a rehab system that works, not the 12 detox places we have?

It is perfectly legal to buy drugs that are as addictive as some of them that we currently outlaw. Cigarettes are a drug that has catastrophic consequences to the wellbeing of a person and his life expectancy, but we not only sanction the sale, we even rely on it for large income to the state.

Portugal went down the road of legalizing the possession and their user rate has gone down, so has the rate of petty crime and law enforcement is able to deal with more serious crime while at the same time users have the opportunity to get the help they need.


----------



## MandaC (19 Jul 2009)

roland said:


> I'm used to think I wasn't easily shocked, but having moved work recently down near grand canal dock area, I was shocked by the daily open drug dealing by the strung-out people that hang around Tara street DART station, the Custom House and generally around that whole area.  Clearly-visible drug dealing taking place by people clearly out of their heads.  How is this tolerated by law enforcement?  I've tried to convince myself that they present no threat, but my impression is that someone out of their heads can react randomly and irrationally.  Always a worry as I walk past.  At the very best it's depressing.  I'm struggling to understand how our gardai do nothing on this, but I'm also struggling to understand how it has received such little comment in the press?




I worked for a while last year on near Connolly Station. Same kind of thing.  In the Winter evenings when I was walking for the bus, it was scary enough because, as you say, these people are not acting rationally.  I saw a druggie attack a student type person and the poor student had to run.  He got away because the drug addict was so strung out, there was no speed in him.  The area put years on me and to be honest I lasted less than six months and had to get out of it.


----------



## mathepac (19 Jul 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> ... Why are we not going down the more sensible road by decriminalizing drug possession including marijuana, cocaine and heroin ... Cigarettes are a drug that has catastrophic consequences to the wellbeing of a person and his life expectancy ...


I think you'll need to decide which side of the decriminalisation argument you are on, and whether you propose decriminalising use as well as possession.

Is it your argument that you regard certain drugs as being less harmful than tobacco products, and that these other drugs do not have "catastrophic consequences to the wellbeing of a person and his life expectancy"? If that is your argument then I would certainly like to see references to supportive evidence.

Is it your argument that the importation, sale, supply and use of drugs such as "marijuana, cocaine and heroin" be licenced or regulated in some way by the state, such that they only end up in the hands of "appropriate people", however you might want to define "appropriate people"?

If that is your argument then I can only conclude that you believe the regulations and restrictions governing the importation, sale, supply and use of drugs such as prescription medications, alcohol and tobacco work sufficiently well  such that these substances :


Are never used by minors
Are never smuggled or traded illicitly
Never cause social problems, assaults or criminality
Never cause acute or chronic health problems or death.
If that is your argument again I would like to see references to supporting evidence. 

Incidentally some of the commonest drugs smuggled into Ireland are tobacco products and it would appear that this is as lucrative a venture as smuggling other drugs. Possessing smuggled tobacco products has not been decriminalised and I don't hear any calls for such decriminalisation at the moment.

I'm afraid I see as much merit and insight in arguments for decriminalising the sale, possession and use of  drugs currently classified as illicit as I do in arguments for the rescinding the current drink-driving legislation.


----------



## DublinTexas (19 Jul 2009)

mathepac said:


> I think you'll need to decide which side of the decriminalisation argument you are on, and whether you propose decriminalising use as well as possession. .



I am for a sensible approach that helps the affected individual. 

I did not call for the legalization of drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroin, I called for the decriminalizing of drug possession AND the building up of a rehab system.

Why do we treat people that have an addiction as criminals instead of offering them adequate support for the difficult process of managing their addiction? 

There is a very good report of the CATO institute here that looks in depth into the Portuguese solution: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

I don’t see why we can’t help drug addicts by offering a rehab system and decriminalise the possession they might have for their own use (like in Portugal where they are allowed a quantity “not exceeding the quantity required for an average individual consumption during a period of 10 days.”.




mathepac said:


> Is it your argument that the importation, sale, supply and use of drugs such as "marijuana, cocaine and heroin" be licenced or regulated in some way by the state, such that they only end up in the hands of "appropriate people", however you might want to define "appropriate people"?



Again I think you have not understood the difference between decriminalising personal possession and legalization. The above CATO institute document gives you a good explanation.




mathepac said:


> Is it your argument that you regard certain drugs as being less harmful than tobacco products, and that these other drugs do not have "catastrophic consequences to the wellbeing of a person and his life expectancy"? If that is your argument then I would certainly like to see references to supportive evidence.



Are you arguing with me that nicotine or alcohol is not having "catastrophic consequences to the wellbeing of a person and his life expectancy" while at the same time the government is reaping in money from its sale?

I think a while ago a guy called Jack E. Henningfield came up with a simple table that showed that Alcohol and Nicotine are more addictive than Marijuana. http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1492

Now that does not mean that I advocate the usage of nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine or heroin. I’m of the opinion that all of these are bad for an individual but what I am finding incredible is that we have different standards of dealing with addicts. Just because nicotine is commonly accepted drug does make it less harmful. 


What I advocate is that we help drug addicts (be it nicotine, alcohol, marijuana or else) and stop criminalizing when a drug addict is trying to get his daily fix. We instead should help him with treatment options which you completely ignored. Why can’t we provide treatment?




mathepac said:


> If that is your argument then I can only conclude that you believe the regulations and restrictions governing the importation, sale, supply and use of drugs such as prescription medications, alcohol and tobacco work sufficiently well such that these substances :


 
I don’t think that our current rules for alcohol or nicotine are working and I have no idea where you get the drift that I think they are. Just because I suggest decriminalizing personal possession I must automatically think our government is doing a good job in controlling more addictive substances? 

If you look at other countries for example (like Sweden or Finland) you will find that they have a much stricter approach to the selling of alcohol for consumption both in establishments and at home because you can only buy certain types of alcohol in state controlled shops. That way the supply is restricted and it’s controlled that under age persons (and they also have a higher drinking age) do not get access.




mathepac said:


> Incidentally some of the commonest drugs smuggled into Ireland are tobacco products and it would appear that this is as lucrative a venture as smuggling other drugs. Possessing smuggled tobacco products has not been decriminalised and I don't hear any calls for such decriminalisation at the moment.



And you won’t hear them from me either. But if customs would stop a person who has one pack of Latvian taxed cigarettes they would not arrest him because it’s for his personal use and a limit of 200 has been set by revenue to be allowed.

So why can’t we set a limit of 10 days personal usage for possession of the other drugs?


----------



## Complainer (20 Jul 2009)

roland said:


> I'm used to think I wasn't easily shocked, but having moved work recently down near grand canal dock area, I was shocked by the daily open drug dealing by the strung-out people that hang around Tara street DART station, the Custom House and generally around that whole area.  Clearly-visible drug dealing taking place by people clearly out of their heads.  How is this tolerated by law enforcement?  I've tried to convince myself that they present no threat, but my impression is that someone out of their heads can react randomly and irrationally.  Always a worry as I walk past.  At the very best it's depressing.  I'm struggling to understand how our gardai do nothing on this, but I'm also struggling to understand how it has received such little comment in the press?


Would it be such a big improvement if the drug dealing was going on behind the scenes, instead of out in the open?


----------



## roland (20 Jul 2009)

Complainer said:


> Would it be such a big improvement if the drug dealing was going on behind the scenes, instead of out in the open?


 
There are probably two issues here, but they are related.  The first issue is the presence of strung-out people falling about our streets in broad daylight and the accompanying threat to my personal safety, and frankly public decency.  If they want to be strung-out but do it away from the public, then yes that would be an improvement.  

Of course, the reason they are strung-out in public areas is that they they seem to be allowed to openly flout the law in relation to their open drug-dealing and drug-taking.  The fact that they are allowed do this unchecked is a fairly public affront to me and every other law-abiding citizen.  I fully accept these people probably need help and if that's the case they should get it.  But allowing them to act as they wish in public, and openly break laws, is not acceptable in a decent society.


----------



## Complainer (20 Jul 2009)

roland said:


> There are probably two issues here, but they are related.  The first issue is the presence of strung-out people falling about our streets in broad daylight and the accompanying threat to my personal safety, and frankly public decency.  If they want to be strung-out but do it away from the public, then yes that would be an improvement.
> 
> Of course, the reason they are strung-out in public areas is that they they seem to be allowed to openly flout the law in relation to their open drug-dealing and drug-taking.  The fact that they are allowed do this unchecked is a fairly public affront to me and every other law-abiding citizen.  I fully accept these people probably need help and if that's the case they should get it.  But allowing them to act as they wish in public, and openly break laws, is not acceptable in a decent society.


I don't understand the emphasis on the problem being things happening out in the open. The problem isn't that people are taking drugs out in the open. The problem is that people are taking drugs.


----------



## MOB (22 Jul 2009)

The bigger problem here is, of course, that many people are addicted to heroin and other narcotics.  But the 'in public' aspect of the thing is, to be fair, relevant.  When drug taking becomes open and public like this, it not only breaks the law but it also offends public decency.  Although it is hard to see how something like shame\embarrasment matters to the addicts, one cannot help feeling that being allowed to deal and consume in public may also help to normalise their drug habit.  A fear among drug users of getting caught can surely only be a good thing for society.


----------



## csirl (22 Jul 2009)

There are hygene and public order issues with this. I pass by the area the OP mentioned regularly and you often see unsavoury things happening. You get dirty needles left on busy streets, addicts hastling passers by for money and a lot of public order stuff - ranging from addicts fighting with themselves to addicts randomly attacking members of the public. What's worse is the number of young children with the group of addicts - how can any State allow kids to be brought up in such an environment?

I also pass a HSE drug clinic most mornings on the way to work. Two comments on it - firstly - why put such an establishment on a main thoroughfare in Dublin adjacent to places tourists frequent - great for the image of the country. Secondly, you see dealing outside this clinic every day. Same characters and same regular customers. I may be wrong, but it appears that people are going into the clinic, getting methadone and then selling it to dealers who are selling it onto other addicts. All in full view of the public.


----------



## The_Banker (22 Jul 2009)

I work for a company in Cork and from time to time I have to go to our Dublin office which is based in D1. The downstairs kitchen/canteen area backs onto a lane and up to a few months back the canteen area had one way tinted windows. This basically meant that the window were darkened but you could see out. The passers by could not see in.
This all had to change a few months back as the lane became a congregation point for addicts. Addicts used to urinate against the outside of the windows enabling those eating the ham and cheese sandwich a pretty unpleasant view. The urinating addicts were not always male!!

Anyway, as numerous complaints to Gardai was useless the windows had to be changed so now staff (thankfully) can’t see out anymore. We can still hear them though and it is pitiful listening to the conversations they have with children in tow.


----------



## truthseeker (22 Jul 2009)

The_Banker said:


> Anyway, as numerous complaints to Gardai was useless the windows had to be changed so now staff (thankfully) can’t see out anymore. We can still hear them though and it is pitiful listening to the conversations they have with children in tow.


 
Would they have not have changed the windows so the addicts could see in, realise they were in plain view, then they may have moved on altogether?

Its a disgrace to see junkies shambling about strung out on public streets, and if they have children in tow those children should be removed by social services.


----------



## Kine (22 Jul 2009)

this conversation reminds me of The Wire Season 3


----------



## lightswitch (22 Jul 2009)

I have to agree that it is absolutely horrific seeing addicts with buggys and kids in tow when they are clearly out of their heads, and even when they are not.   

Banker, I can only imagine the conversations these children have to listen to, lets face it there is little posibility of them growing up to be "normal" adults.

Maybe there will be something like the institutional abuse situation in twenty years time with regard to these children, in that we all know whats going on yet the Govenment are doing nothing about it.  
Does the state not have a duty both to the addicts and their children??  Maybe not, just asking.


----------



## terrontress (22 Jul 2009)

Booze is as big an issue, to be honest. There is no difference to the care a child gets from a mother strung out on a 2l of cider than on junk. It is just that is more socially acceptable to drink than to inject.

But I think that the drinking culture in Ireland has led to people slipping in to the drug culture much more easily.

If people are getting intoxicated on drink, drugs or anything else and causing an nuisance then they should be at the very least moved on from where they are sitting.


----------



## wavejumper (22 Jul 2009)

wasn't there just a month ago some item in the news just about a new garda unit set up to clean up the quays area of all the drug dealing...nothing happened hey?  They announced the same last year and maybe they skangers were gone for 4 days before there was nothing else done.  

Problem there is there is no will to enforce the law in this city, regardless of wether there are enough rehab clinics for these human wrecks or not they are breaking the law and repeat offenders should be locked away.


----------



## Complainer (22 Jul 2009)

It is disappointing to see that most of the clamour is about sweeping this problem under the carpet and keeping it out of sight, rather than fixing the problem.


----------



## mathepac (23 Jul 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> I am for a sensible approach that helps the affected individual...


I have no argument with that sentiment.


DublinTexas said:


> ... I did not call for the legalization of drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroin, ...


I never mentioned legalisation in my post.


DublinTexas said:


> ... Why do we treat people that have an addiction as criminals ... ? ...


Presumably because they have broken the criminal law and the criminal law is there to protect society and to punish law-breakers; any discrimination in an addict's favour against criminal prosecution  is protecting them from the consequences of their behaviour.


DublinTexas said:


> ...  instead of offering them adequate support for the difficult process of managing their addiction? ...


Current modes of 'de-tox' and 'treatment' are inadequate and the model is seriously flawed. I would be interested in understanding what you mean by “ managing their addiction”.


DublinTexas said:


> ...  There is a very good report of the CATO institute here that looks in depth into the Portuguese solution: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
> …


Personally I would have issue with a report issued by the CATO institute.

I don’t agree that what has been done in Portugal is a solution; some of it may have value, but to decriminalise drug possession and then produce statistics that says the initiative is a resounding success because the numbers of prosecutions and convictions for drug possession have gone down is a bit too Irish for me I’m afraid.


DublinTexas said:


> ...  Again I think you have not understood the difference between decriminalising personal possession and legalization…


I never mentioned legalisation.


DublinTexas said:


> ...  Are you arguing with me that nicotine or alcohol is not having "catastrophic consequences to the wellbeing of a person and his life expectancy" while at the same time the government is reaping in money from its sale?…


No, what I did was ask a series of questions.


DublinTexas said:


> ...  I think a while ago a guy called Jack E. Henningfield came up with a simple table that showed that Alcohol and Nicotine are more addictive than Marijuana. [broken link removed] ...


You’re half right - its simple but also very simplistic in that the focus is on the “addiction potential” of a substance, which has a use but my focus is more on the “harm potential” a substance has for the individual, the family and society, medically, psychologically, financially, etc.

Again I think you need to re-read my original post as you seem to overlooked the questions I asked and treated them as statements.


----------



## mathepac (23 Jul 2009)

Complainer said:


> ... The problem is that people are taking drugs.


I agree and part of the problem is that the powers that be see "drug treatment" as administering a legal, prescribed toxic substance (methadone) in place of an illegal one.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Jul 2009)

mathepac said:


> I agree and part of the problem is that the powers that be see "drug treatment" as administering a legal, prescribed toxic substance (methadone) in place of an illegal one.


 
I agree, and would add that administering a legal, prescribed, toxic and ADDICTIVE substance is not only a big part of the problem, but that this in fact creates a black market in the legal substance causing a whole new set of problems.

While I agree that there is not enough being done to tackle the problem I must beg the question - even if the facilities, programs and support structure were there to detox people, provide support through recovery and allow them to get their lives back on track - how many addicts would avail of those facilities. 

Unfortunately until an addict WANTS help, any help offered is of no use to them. 

I believe if we took every addict off the street and put them through a good program and assisted them in every way possible, that we would still end up with a large number of re-offenders who simply could not cope with life and took the same path again. Im basing this generalisation on both personal experience with an addict and the fact that many addicts do not come from a particularly disadvantaged life that would give 'reason' for their addiction.

There was an excellent (but very disturbing) documentary on either bbc or c4 recently where a young heroin addict allowed documentary makers to follow her life for a number of week/months. She was in contact with her mother (who also appeared in the documentary) and came from a very well off family, and had every chance offered to her to get clean and start a new life. She simply could not. She was an intelligent young woman, but was totally held in the grip of this addiction and could not manage, despite every effort made by her mother and others, to get herself clean.


----------



## cleverclogs7 (29 Jul 2009)

why not get onto dial to stop   www.*dialtostop*drugdealing.ie/ -


----------



## terrontress (30 Jul 2009)

truthseeker said:


> There was an excellent (but very disturbing) documentary on either bbc or c4 recently where a young heroin addict allowed documentary makers to follow her life for a number of week/months. She was in contact with her mother (who also appeared in the documentary) and came from a very well off family, and had every chance offered to her to get clean and start a new life. She simply could not. She was an intelligent young woman, but was totally held in the grip of this addiction and could not manage, despite every effort made by her mother and others, to get herself clean.


 
If it is the show I was thinking of, Mum, Heroin and Me, I wouldn't hold her up as an intelligent young woman. I thought she was more of a manipulative spoilt child and her mother indulged her in an attempt to pretend she was having the perfect Martha Stewart life.


----------

