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.
WHAT WILL IT take to bring insurance costs down?
That depends on who you ask. The man put in charge of just that task – Minister of State Michael D’Arcy – has been talking to all stakeholders in recent months.
Documents released to TheJournal.ie through the Freedom of Information Act have shown that D’Arcy sought a meeting with Insurance Ireland to try to get a guarantee that the industry would reduce premiums to coincide with progress being made to reduce the value of personal injury awards.
At the same time, the Law Society was telling the minister that the main area of reform should be the premiums themselves, rather than the level of damages paid.
Furthermore, correspondence was flooding in from business groups saying that the high cost of insurance was crippling companies and forcing many out of operation.
The Cost of Insurance Working Group (CIWG) was set up by the government exactly three years ago to try to tackle the high cost of insurance in this country.
While CSO stats have said motor insurance is falling, for example, it has been claimed that data from industry could be knowingly misrepresenting “the full picture”.
Similarly, many are finding their insurance premiums consistently rising.
Consistently cited by industry as a cause of high premiums are the high cost of payouts following personal injury claims. And international comparison stats do bear out that payouts here are high – a report last year found personal injury payouts in Ireland are on average four times higher than in the UK.
The most recent statistics from the Personal Injuries Board, published just this week, found that there was a slight increase in the number of applications for compensation from insurers last year, with the total value of awards at €298.55 million.
However, TheJournal.ie‘s FactCheck found that a claim from three of the largest insurance companies that 20% of personal injury claims they receive are fraudulent or exaggerated was unproven.
In a now-viral video, Sinn Féin’s Pearse Doherty grilled industry officials over this claim, while court figures this month show that there’s been a drop in the number of personal injury cases and the value of awards in the High Court have fallen almost 20%.
And, when the government was pressed on “skyrocketing” profits in insurance companies, the reply was that the government has been “as aggressive as it can be”.
On Friday, Minister D’Arcy said that “much progress” had been made, and cited the recent passing through the Oireachtas of the Judicial Control Bill as an “important moment”.
So, with the issue of insurance continuing to pose a problem for many, what have the lobby groups been saying to the government? And what has the government been saying back?
The government has been trying to tackle the problem of high insurance costs for years.
Its working group set up in July 2016 came up with a number of recommendations, a number of which have been implemented. This included a Personal Injuries Commission which provided benchmark figures to compare Ireland with our counterparts.
There are two main things the government now wants to tackle – the high cost of premiums and the level of payouts.
Minister D’Arcy recently told an Oireachtas committee: “The cost of insurance working group has made it clear from the outset that there is no single policy or legislative silver bullet to stem or reverse immediately premium price rises and that some of the necessary reforms will take time to implement.
The major constraints faced by any Government are twofold. Award levels are the prerogative of the courts and therefore, for constitutional reasons, the Judiciary cannot be directed as to the levels that should be applied.
Second, pricing levels are a commercial matter for insurance companies and are determined based on the risks that they are willing to accept.
The government now hopes that through legislation – such as the Judicial Control Bill – and getting all sides – insurance industry, legal profession and businesses – on board, it can begin to see wholesale drops in premiums.
The case made by businesses is that high insurance costs are crippling them across a variety of industries. The Alliance for Insurance Reform wrote to the minister in March, expressing “disappointment” that there’d been no progress on the issue on so-called claims harvesters (CMCs).
These are when people are pursued to file insurance injury claims after an incident. Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan admitted last month that they are “increasingly complex to govern”.
The alliance also expresses concern about the Section 8 amendment, claiming it had been made clear to them that it will be “ignored or side-stepped wherever possible by those who would prefer it didn’t exist”.
Section 8 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 has been recently amended by the government. It states that an individual attempting to bring a personal injuries case must notify who they’re attempting to sue within two months of the event occurring, e.g. fall, accident etc.
“As you are well aware, minister, we have reached the endgame with many of our members,” the alliance spokesperson Peter Boland said. “Play centres, convenience stores, marts, pubs, hotels, circuses, festivals and street entertainers for example, are closing down operations or considering doing so.
What positive updates can we provide them?
Boland said later that month that there was very little awareness of the amendment to Section 8, and said members had said they’d been told by brokers that the amendment is “unenforceable” or that it “only applies to pubs”.
In April, the Alliance for Insurance Reform against pushed for reform and said the minister should produce a “schedule of forecast insurance premium reductions”, arguing that it would prevent stalling of key reforms required.
In a meeting with Retail Excellence Ireland that same month, D’Arcy was told they were seeking increased investigative capacity from the gardaí with regard to fraud. It also highlighted “the role of solicitors in bringing such cases forward,” according to minutes from that meeting.
The minister replied that he needed businesses represented by Retail Excellence to continue lobbying on the need for lower awards “to ensure that there continued to be political pressure on the necessary reform to happen with regard to the Judicial Control Bill”.
In a meeting with Minister D’Arcy, his officials, and members of the Law Society in April, the legal profession put the responsibility for high premiums firmly with the insurers.
According to minutes from that meeting from a department official, the Law Society said that insurers were mainly to blame with regard to the level of premiums charged.
It also said fraudulent claimants should go to jail and that knowingly representing fraudulent claimants should be a career-ending offence for solicitors.
“Its main issue today was that it believed that the focus of reform should be on insurance premiums and not on the level of damages paid,” the department official said of the Law Society.
The minister disagreed that the focus should not be on award levels, and signalled he was actually intending to focus on that. D’Arcy did, however, agree with the Law Society that there was a need for a commitment from the insurance industry on decreases in premiums.
In a meeting with the Bar Council in late May, D’Arcy was told it was the council did not agree that lower level personal injuries necessarily needed to be reduced in order to make insurance cheaper.
The Bar Council also “disagreed that the legal profession had played a role in bringing forward spurious claims”.
It also noted a need for businesses to ensure health and safety standards were “actually complied with”.
“They had seen “nonsense” cases succeed on points where there was a level of carelessness by businesses in how they implemented health and safety rules,” the minutes say.
D’Arcy and his officials then “challenged” a number of points raised by the Bar Council and it was put to them that recalibrating award levels was necessary as part of an overall reform agenda.
In a letter to Insurance Ireland CEO Kevin Thompson in May, Minister D’Arcy outlined what was being done by the government and what he expected from insurance companies as a result.
Referencing the enactment of the new Judicial Council Bill, D’Arcy said: “The government is of the view that with the implementation of this recommendation, the level of damages awarded in this country for soft tissue injuries can be brought more in line with those awarded in other jurisdictions, and that there can be a corresponding significant impact on premium levels.
As you know, both I and Minister Donohoe have stated publicly that we expect the insurers’ pricing of premiums in general will take account of the measures which have been, and are being, implemented as a result of the CIWG recommendations more broadly and I believe you recognise this.
The minister goes on to say that he is seeking a strong commitment from the insurance industry that cost savings from lower awards in cases will be reflected in lower premiums for businesses and individuals.
He also seeks a meeting to “get a sense of the timeline for the delivery of such a commitment from the insurance industry”.
That meeting took place on 5 June.
According to minutes of that meeting, this guarantee wasn’t given.
The department official wrote in the minutes: “[Insurance Ireland] noted the contents of the minister’s letter and stated that it was in the process of consulting its members on the minister’s request for a commitment on price reductions.
With regard to cover levels, it stated that a number of the lines where cover was not being provided were still considered to be loss making and therefore it was a commercial matter for the insurers themselves.
Insurance Ireland stated that it would be difficult to persuade insurers to expand their risk appetite to what they consider to be loss making areas in advance of any tangible change in award levels as they have to constantly conscious of underlying prudential rules etc.
D’Arcy responded with his “strong view” that a commitment as well as reflecting any present and future savings needed to be provided “sooner rather than later as a gesture of goodwill from the industry”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Not having the same heroin issue as other cities….this man and his ilk have been hiding their heads in the sand for years on the drug issue and now with an election coming he makes these statements
Most sellers are just trying to survive themselves….. Statements from this turd are disgraceful…. No family is immune from this disease. Maybe he should go on TV and say bad things about the real barons of this nasty business….. Show pictures…. Be a man, rather than go after those truly affected by it.
His father was another windbag, useless and in it for himself.
Alcohol kills 3 people a day in Ireland!!! Why don’t we hear their stories? Alcohol kills more people here than all illegal drugs put together!! But that’s grand??!!
Don’t forget cigarettes either and smoking related deaths. 5,500 die every year from that drug that can be bought everywhere.
They don’t die from the drug. The die from the tar and smoke inhalation. People who choose to get their nicotine from cigarettes when they could be getting it from patches or vaping are fools.
The way I see it:
1) There will always be a demand for synthetic highs
2) There will always be a supplier of synthetic highs
The only real questions that any government has to ask is:
A) Who will be the supplier?
B) How will lead education? (Dosage etc)
C) What quality control measures will be put in place?
D) How will it be marketed? (obviously capital advertising techniques is not a good idea)
If they decide the black market is to be the supplier then they have to appreciate they have virtually no control over items A) and C) and limited control over items B) and D), instead of having good control over all four.
This seems to be their preferred option. I find it hard to understand why.
Hundreds of thousands of people drink every single day in Ireland. If hundreds of thousands took 25I-NBOMe every day I think we’d have worse problems.
Alcohol is quite a natural substance. It’s found in over ripe fruit. The problem is that people drink too much too often. It’s been a part of our culture for centuries. No way should it be illegal like in most Muslim countries. I wish people would stop asking it to be banned on the journal. Go move to Saudi Arabia if you like to live in an alcohol free society.
No-one is saying alcohol should be banned. We’re using it as an example when people slate illegal drugs as they don’t do as much harm as the legal ones like alcohol, tobacco, pharma drugs etc..
How many overly-ripe wine apples and such would one have to binge on ‘responsibly’, in order to become an overly ‘fond’ yet harmless menace to familial society at large!?!
Those who keep drugs illegal do not give a damn about human life.
I’d like to just point out, that the people red tbhumbing here can’t – thus are not – making a counter argument to the controled legalization argument other than emotional, illogical fact free fear mongering and the simple reason is they can’t.
The drug war has failed. Not only does it directly cause MORE deaths because it means whats in drugs are not regulated and dosage is not controlled, but the fight against the criminals who now have the drugs in their hands results in hundreds of thousands (yes, hundreds of thousands) of deaths every year when SWAT teams burst into the wrong apartment and shoot dead the wrong person. In one recent drug raid a flash-bang landed in a babys crib when they busted into the wrong place and gave a newborn baby third degree burns on the face and arms. Nobody seems to mind all these deaths, maybe because they can’t be exploited?
Looking at your argument from the other side for a moment. If the makers of these illegal drugs didn’t make them, then the SWAT teams would have no need to storm into the wrong apartment. So the innocent people would not get hurt if there were not people making the drugs. The fight against drugs is often an information based war, and information is not always correct – which means that you have to wonder who is leaking the information in the first place.
By the way, do you have any evidence that “hundreds of thousands (yes, hundreds of thousands) of deaths every year” are caused by SWAT teams? You talk about “illogical fact free fear mongering” but it looks like you have just pulled figures out of nowhere.
“If the makers of these illegal drugs didn’t make them”…right but the thing is when you are making social policy you have to deal with the world as it is not as we would love it to be. This is where harm reduction came from as a strategy. We can set up a joint needle exchange/safe injection site with medics on site OR we can just tell heroin users they are very bold and not to be bold. In the real world, which one is going to reduce the number of deaths and needles on the streets? in the world we live in NOW? The former. We deal with the world as it is.
As to the SWAT thing I mis-wordded that, I didn’t mean thousands get killed in specifically the SWAT raids (thats 100s) I meant in the tactical aspects of the drug war, the drug war isn’t just SWAT raids and whatnot it’s a LITERAL war in south America and afghantsistan with jets dropping bombs on suspected (suspected…) coke labs etc
Hundreds of thousands? How did you come up with that mad figure!?!
The drug war is a combination of local police raids, military strikes and the fighting between gangs, all of which are things that would not be happening if the drugs were produced by say, a state licensed company and sold in a special pharmacy.
The combined death toll of all this is enormous, just in the Mexican theater of the drug war alone “Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide”….that’s just gangland feuding, not including any of the police raids, airstrikes, DEA/special forces raids, chemical weapons used on farms. 100,000 are dead from the Mexican area in total alone. The drug war is fought militarily in Africa, Asia and parts of eastern europe as well.
*100,000+ Now if US Special Forces, DEA, SWAT teams, the combined police forces and armed forces of the entire planet engaging in a massive global war for 40 years, can’t stop the flow of drugs what the hell else is there to try other than some kind of regulated legalization?
Is this guy for real? Heroin hasn’t effected cork as much as other parts of the country? That just shows how out of touch these tools are. Walk down north main Street and you’ll see. Place is destroyed and the dogs on the street know where it’s coming from.
It is a very hidden problem and is more widespread than people know.
In our street last year 1 dead and another on detox
A death from drugs is nothing new. Multiple deaths as a result of drugs is happening every day of the week. Has Mr K Flynn just copped on whats happening on Cork Streeers for years. Oh, I 4got – there’s an election on the way.
Kenneth O’Flynn might be more credible if he said that needs to be done now not soon. Another politician saying what he thinks we want to hear but in reality putting it on the long finger again #allthesame
How many people die every day from the “legal” drugs that keep the government coffers full that the greedy politicians feed from? Who are the real drug pushers!!
More die from alcohol every year than all illegal drugs combined.
http://www.rte.ie/documents/news/ndrdi-web-update-2004-2011-220114.pdf
Not to mention the amount of people abusing oxycontin, codeine, Valium… but they’re not illegal. Nor should they be.
Abuse is abuse either way though, Ryan. At least valium, oxy, etc, are regulated & we know what’s in them. The same can’t be said for what killed this poor kid. Some people will abuse drugs regardless – but at least let’s know what’s in them!
Exactly, what happens if the pharmacist sees me buying the box of solphadene every second day. He’s going to say you realize this stuffs dangerous if overused? Educate me on it, advise me on ways to lessen use of it by using alternatives, advise on dosage, ask you what the core problem is that you are using it for.
So when I’m overusing a legal drug I have a healthcare professional with literally a degree in drugs to converse with me and stop be over-using the drug. Now if I go to Makkar de mad Yoke in derelect building C on Parnell St is he going to do any of that? Nope.
Ryan the attitude you and the likes of you have is the problem with drugs people need to take some personal responsibility and only take legal drugs such as solpadeine only when needed and drink a responsible amount and DON’T take illegal drugs or so called legal highs that say not for human consumption on the packaging don’t be always looking for someone else to blame
Ryan it’s your attitude and the likes of you that is the problem with drugs take some personal responsibility, solpadeine will state on the box only take max 8 a day and will specify the reasons you should take them, don’t always look for someone to blame because your not spoon fed information like a baby, Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason DON’T take them and legal should be taken in necessary amounts only when needed or in the case of the likes of alcohol drink a responsible amount if the finger pointing turned round from pointing at every one else to ourselves we would have less of a problem
I suffer from an autoimmune type of disease, before I was fully diagnosed I was prescribed a medication by a consultant after a 10min conversation. I had a terrible reaction to it and it made my condition worse by damaging my internal organs. Im not going to say which drug I was prescribed as its successful for millions of people.
So what Im saying is with the ‘best’ medical care people can still have bad reactions to medication. Education is key.
On another note Dep. Lord Mayor Kenneth O’Flynn, is a disgusting excuse for a human trying to make political capital from the death of a young man, especially as his parents asked for privacy. If the mayor wants to talk about this issue after the election then fine…
“On another note Dep. Lord Mayor Kenneth O’Flynn, is a disgusting excuse for a human trying to make political capital from the death of a young man, especially as his parents asked for privacy. If the mayor wants to talk about this issue after the election then fine”
F**kin’ A.
Then legalise & regulate it. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have something be illegal, and at the same time expect it to adhere to certain safety standards.
Those who keep them illegal and unregulated don’t give a damn about human life, we need to grow up as a society if we want to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening in the future.
We need to take our heads out of the sand and realise that drugs like extacy play a massive role in the lives of young adults and have done for years. Mostly it’s a largely positive experimental relationship with a substance which in its proper form is relatively safely consumed for recreational purposes, but by putting it in the hands of criminals who care more for profit than safety leads to a game of Russian roulette that results in the kind of tragedies that we have seen hear.
A mature attitude is needed we can’t naively keep telling kids to just say no, blindly hoping that it will work, when it never has and never will.
Politicians have ended up being the problem here. Statistics tell us time and time again the approach of decriminalsation and regulation has worked in every country it’s been tried yet politicians care more for looking more empathetic than the other. They see a clampdown as the best short term option yet this has never reduced use or availability. The youth will continue to take drugs and the odd one will continue to kill until we change our 1970s drug laws.
See the problem is once you are talking about the death of a young life people loose their minds, they start to think with their emotions instead of their logic. What more could we try with the drug war before we conclude it’s not working? They’re already illegal? What about the death penalty for selling them? we can’t do that, but even in countries that do that – it still hasn’t worked..if the threat of death won’t stop it nothing will. We have to try something new, if that does not work try something else – but constantly doing the same sh-t over and over …
You can’t keep drugs out of a prison, what on earth makes people think you can keep them out of a free society is beyond me.
There is enough information out there now regarding the issue of drugs that anyone who is against decriminalisation or even regulation, has to be seen as nothing more than part of the problem that has killed this young man and countless more.
He was just 18, it wasn’t only his wits that failed him when he took that drug, society did too, the longer that people keep their heads in the sand more and more damage is done.
Ryan. Today is a bad day to be putting up the argument for legalising drugs because a lot of people get emotional after the death of a person . I can see where your arguments are coming from . It brings me back to my childhood when the sneaky fag at the back of the school shed was all the rage. You hated the taste but everyone was at it. Parents blamed a lack of education on that too. We were told they were dangerous but it made no difference. We thought we were cool and everyone was at it . Some got hooked some didn’t. The bit of grass was around then too but I don’t remember too many even trying it. Why? We were too busy doing other adrenaline based activities. My opinion is that there is no excitement in a young persons life anymore because they are allowed to stew in front of TVs because it’s handy for the parents to keep them quiet and their brains are dormant from a very young age so where else are they going to turn for kicks only to some handy chemical based drug for kicks?When did anyone last see a child climbing a tree for instance? Or floating across a lake on a home made raft.?Today’s parents would have heart attack if that happened. Let them loose and free their minds when they are young. It will harden them up for real life and we won’t have soft adults.I will probably be slated for my rant but it’s only my personal opinion.
“See the problem is once you are talking about the death of a young life people loose their minds, they start to think with their emotions instead of their logic. ”
There were several other people who had taken the drug, they didn’t die Ryan, however, when one witness entered the house, he found them naked, cutting themselves with glass, covered in blood and dancing around this young man while he was on the ground dying.
You can control the way drugs are manufactured, you can make them safe – but you cannot control how a person/people will behave when they take them.
Will they drive, will the fall of a roof, out a window?
This can happen when you are drunk and yes alcohol is illegal – but is the solution to make drugs legal?
I’m sorry but society did not fail this lad. At the risk of sounding heartless: he was an adult. He was not forced to take it.
An 18 year old is an adult and is responsible for their own behaviour. His wits did not fail him: he made a choice to take a substance he knew virtually nothing about. Not even enough to tell that he wasn’t even taking what he thought he was taking.
Your own comment makes this painfully clear: there is enough information out there that anyone who decides to use recreational drugs is aware of the risk involved, and aware that they have no way of knowing what exactly they are taking.
The current trend of refusing to portion at least some responsibility for any drug related death to the deceased person is a problem. Society needs to stop the infantilisation of young adults: 18 is not twelve. 18 is old enough to know better and to decide on the risks, and as you say, people are very well informed of those risks, as this lad was. It’s sad that he is dead, but he failed himself, society didn’t.
“I’m sorry but society did not fail this lad. At the risk of sounding heartless: he was an adult. He was not forced to take it.”
I didn’t say society failed him.
“An 18 year old is an adult and is responsible for their own behaviour. His wits did not fail him: he made a choice to take a substance he knew virtually nothing about. Not even enough to tell that he wasn’t even taking what he thought he was taking.”
Which brings me back to my point – we sanitise “recreational” drug use – look at some of the posts here – it’s ok, they are not junkies, it’s for fun.
“Your own comment makes this painfully clear: there is enough information out there that anyone who decides to use recreational drugs is aware of the risk involved, and aware that they have no way of knowing what exactly they are taking.”
I am not sure which post you are referring to – but the opinion from some here relates to “death” , not to behaviour.
“The current trend of refusing to portion at least some responsibility for any drug related death to the deceased person is a problem. ”
No, if we have a society that rejects and looks down on junkies in O’Connell street while saying at the same time “ah, sure they’re only recreational users”, then this is the message we are giving to our youth.
“It’s sad that he is dead, but he failed himself, society didn’t.”
I disagree.,
Well, first of all, I wasn’t replying to you.
Secondly, I said “The current trend of refusing to portion at least some responsibility for any drug related death to the deceased person is a problem. ”
To which you offered “No, if we have a society that rejects and looks down on junkies in O’Connell street while saying at the same time “ah, sure they’re only recreational users”, then this is the message we are giving to our youth.”
I have no idea where you’re getting the idea that I think we should look down on junkies and excuse “recreational” users, or that I’m not aware that that goes on. I am not of that opinion in the slightest.
Anyway, I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying, since you essentially agreed with it in part: excusing “recreational” drug abuse on the grounds that it’s only a bit of fun is an aspect of what I’m getting at: the infantilisation of young adults and refusing to portion responsibility to them when something happens to them as a result of using substances which they know to be dangerous. That’s a problem.
I’m not following your differentiation between death and behaviour either. One is the possible result of the other.
Ultimately what I’m trying to say is that this lad was a victim of his own risky behaviour, as are his friends and family. Sad as his death is, he is responsible for it, and “ah sure he was only 18″ just doesn’t wash. We are all told from a very young age about the dangers of substance abuse, habitual or “recreational”. Therefore it is not society’s fault if he decided to disregard that and unfortunately died as a result.
Personally I would have a little more understanding in that regard for someone who suffered from a long term drug addiction that eventually killed them (ie, the junkies you referred to) than someone who threw caution to the wind for the sake of a session at a gaff party.
He was 18. Of course he did not deserve to die, but I’m sorry, he should’ve known better.
These new sythetix drugs exist to circumvent the existing laws. If LSD was legal no one would make money pedaling this crap. The same with the synthetic weed that has been killing people off. The problem is glaringly obvious. Prohibition has failed. Its not working and never will. Its a terrible tragedy that this young man list his life. Would he have had access to this untested, Chinese lab chemical if he could have bought safe, regulated drugs instead?
*synthetic
This young man believed he bought 2c-b and was sold a different drug. This is a failure of prohibition. Testing facilities and advise of dosage quantities of all drugs need to be rolled out ASAP.
This is not a time for opportunistic politicians to reiterate their ‘hard on drugs’ nonsense that only makes drugs far more dangerous and profitable for criminals. Rest in peace Alex
Mary, 54, picture of dog as Facebook profile pic loves the hard on drugs approach though. Idiots like that politician know this and hope to gain politically from it. It’s horrible.
It’s a good thing they are illegal isn’t it? …oh wait…no…that’s not making THE SLIGHTEST F____G DIFFERENCE so the deaths. Maybe because when they are illegal they are unregulated and we’ve no idea what kind of poison people are taking?
Even the fear of that needs to be put in context, something that never happens, mostly because politicians find this a very easy topic to scare monger on. If they say they’ll be tough on drugs, that sounds good to worried parents, and they think tough approaches = their kids being safe, when in reality it = the total opposite. Sure, with legal regulated, even restricted drugs there would still be deaths, the odd person with have a heart defect, take ecstasy and die, but with dosage and content control the number of deaths would plummet. 90% of drug use is recreational, and in nearly all of those cases nothing happens to the person..that’s the reality when they are illegal, imagine if we regulated the contents? More people die because of the drug war than are saved by it
If drugs were legal, regulated, and taxed, they wouldn’t be “cut” with all kinds of garbage, and dosages would be standardised, and the people selling them wouldn’t be outlaw cowboys.
When something like this happens everybody just keeps saying make them legal , regulate them. It’s never going to happen , we all know that . the only way is to educate and make test kits available for those who want to use them .
a sad waste of life.
Drivers and passengers know the risks of travelling in cars the must have no consideration for their own lives. Ban cars.
And what about mountain climbers and horse riders?? All more dangerous activities than taking drugs (except for tobacco perhaps).
Point is you can’t just ban everything that is dangerous. But we should make everyone aware of the dangers. The only way to do this properly is in a legal context not a black market one.
If these kids had been able to buy this substance in a place where they could have been advised of the dangers, appropriate dosage and made sign a disclaimer form to reinforce the danger to them this tragedy wouldn’t have happened.
RIP to this poor young man and condolences to his family.
The journal deleting comments again. Not much point having a comment section if there’s no freedom of speech.
I feel sorry for the lad and my heart goes out to his family but I’m sorry, he took drugs. And when you take drugs, you accept the risk of something like this. Recreational use with no history of problems does not protect people from the risk nor does it justify it.
Jimmy I have been trying to think of a way to say exactly that without coming across as cold. You are 200% right and unfortunately nobody forces anyone to try drugs , legal , illegal or otherwise . It is their decision and even with all the coverage of this poor chaps death I’d like to think it would deter some people but it more than likely won’t .
Why has it not been said what form this drug came in? What colour it was? etc etc.. be nice to warn people as it is obviously a lethal drug. I can only guess from what I’ve read it was either a pill crushed up or came as a powder.
So warnings shouldn’t be issued on a lethal drug that might prevent the loss of another life?
the simple fact to me is because they are illegal you shouldn’t be buying them so there for I hate to see the don’t take drugs watered down by saying to people but if you do don’t take this in all the talk about drug problems I am disappointed that I have not seen one person say this is why you shouldn’t take drugs
Genuine question here, Can someone link me to the last time someone died from taking actual 2cb, MDMA, LSD etc ..?
This death might not be that recent but I think it gained more exposure due to the fact it was the daughter of a gard. I don’t know what you’re looking to prove by asking that question, although I assume you mean to say that those substances have bad reputations they might not deserve, though I’d like to think that that’s not the case.
Don’t know what you’re trying to prove by asking that question, although I could assume that you’re trying to say that those substances have a bad reputation that they might not deserve. I hope that isn’t the case though.
“Most people who use drugs are occasional recreational users, who have no problems – inc many of the models, sportspeople and yes politicians you worship on a daily basis most of whom not only care about their lives but have high ambitions for them.”
Sorry, but I completely disagree – there is no difference between a “recreational” drug user and a junkie on O’Connell street.
Their drugs come from the same place and their money supports criminality, prostitution, murder, violence, trafficking – don’t kid yourself.
We like to sanitise some drug users, because they work or wear nice clothes But if people choose to take drugs as “fun” – then they are part of the problem.
Pat that doesn’t make sense.
Are you trying to say someone who enjoys a few pints once a week or likes to smoke a joint before watching a movie has similar problems to a heroin addict?
A heroin addict has far bigger problems and needs more help than a coffee addict or someone who takes extasy two or three times a year, but maybe no worse than a severe alcoholic
“Are you trying to say someone who enjoys a few pints once a week or likes to smoke a joint before watching a movie has similar problems to a heroin addict?”
No, this is what I said:
“Sorry, but I completely disagree – there is no difference between a “recreational” drug user and a junkie on O’Connell street.”
Alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.
When a person in a suit, with a job and “no problems” buys his illegal drug of choice, his money goes in the same direction as the junkies’s money – this is my point.
The money goes to the drug dealer, the drugs come in the same way, the money supports crime, prostitution, violence and all the other things that come with illegal drugs.
We sanitise this fact and think – it’s ok, I only “use it for recreational purposes” – it is supporting crime.
Pat,
Your heart is in the right place and You are making a very good case for legalisation.
1. If the illegal drugs were legal that money would not go to criminal enterprises.
2. If people could grow their own cannabis money would not go to criminals.
If your distinction as to whether a drug is bad or good is based in its legality you are not really giving our drug problem proper consideration.
You have to ask yourself why are particular drugs illegal?
The intention was a good one, to reduce harm. But what has been discovered by their illegality is that it actually increases harm to users and to society. And bizarrely increases prevalence if these drugs in our society. There is plenty of evidence to back this up.
While I argue for legalisation of all drugs it is not because I wish for increased drug use. I want to see less harm to those unfortunate enough to get caught up in drug use and the criminalisation just makes the problem worse.
We need brave politicians to admit this and do something about it.
“Pat,
Your heart is in the right place and You are making a very good case for legalisation.”
Thanks Joe, but I would disagree.
“1. If the illegal drugs were legal that money would not go to criminal enterprises.”
Hmm, place it in the hands of a state agency? And do you mean all drugs?
“2. If people could grow their own cannabis money would not go to criminals.”
Let’s remove cannabis from the discussion for a moment, considering that this chap did not die from that substance.
“If your distinction as to whether a drug is bad or good is based in its legality you are not really giving our drug problem proper consideration.”
No, I think I have been very clear, I have refused to make a distinction between a junkie and a recreational drug user.
“You have to ask yourself why are particular drugs illegal?”
Very good question.
“The intention was a good one, to reduce harm. But what has been discovered by their illegality is that it actually increases harm to users and to society. ”
I would disagree and refer you to prohibition in the US.
“While I argue for legalisation of all drugs it is not because I wish for increased drug use. I want to see less harm to those unfortunate enough to get caught up in drug use and the criminalisation just makes the problem worse.”
It makes it worse for the cost to the taxpayer in regards to courts, prisons etc. But you are missing the bigger point,.
If we legalise all drugs (and I would make some exception for cannabis on medical grounds), then we have to take a look at addiction, crime and the social costs of making these drugs legal.
If alcohol was invented today – then this too would be deemed illegal – not for what it is, but for what it does, the harm it causes, the social damage, the criminal damage – to justify the legalising of substances that may be safer, but still result in such behaviour is insane – in my opinion.
“The intention was a good one, to reduce harm. But what has been discovered by their illegality is that it actually increases harm to users and to society. ”
I would disagree and refer you to prohibition in the US.
I should clarify this. Prohibition led to a rise in the production of illegal alcohol, crime and all that jazz – we already have this with illegal drugs – so making this legal will not stop this – many think it will, but it won’t – they will adapt as they did with tobacco.
pat. Again you are using examples which argue FOR legalisation.
Alcohol during prohibition was more dangerous (due to poor manufacturing) and created a crime wave which they are still feeling the effects of today.
Once legal dangerously distilled hooch was largely removed from the market. Same would happen with other drugs if legalised.
Play with fire and you run the risk of getting burnt,this young man rolled the dice and paid the ultimate price which is sad.Whether he was a recreational user or not doesn’t matter in the slightest he knew before he took them the Potential risks and therefore it’s hard to have much sympathy for him.
It’s his family I would have sympathy for who not only have to deal with their tragic and avoidable loss but also have to read and hear about it in the news.
That’s an incredibly hard stance Terry, I wonder do you have children, not to pry, but kids think that it’s ok because it’s “recreational”, this is a point that I tried to make earlier – society sanitises the use of recreational use of drugs – we like to think that these users are not like the junkie on O’Connell street killing himself and risking death every time he shoots up.
They’ll never become addicted, recreational use will ever cause them any problems – it’s acceptable, trying drugs is seen as a right of passage, something we all did.
He was not a kid. He was an adult. His family now have to live with the pain of his death and that is his fault.
Sorry but I don’t see how that’s a hard stance to take.
The intelligence of the Cork deputy Mayor is astounding. To say that “those who sell drugs don’t give a damn about human life” is just so profound. May I be equally profound and suggest that those who take illegal drugs without having a clue of what’s in them obviously don’t give a damn about their own lives either.
You could say those who take drugs have very little regard for their own life…
It seems the concept personal responsibility is dead.
People who argue for legalization of drugs don’t give a damn about human life.
Completely the polar opposite. I argue for the legalisation of drugs so avoidable deaths like this young man can be avoided.
That’s just a nasty comment Oran. You are vile
Oran is not vile, he is colour blind to the full spectrum of emotional intelligence. Like a cat he sees the world in specific colours. Can’t be helped. God bless.
This is the “just say no” school of thought.
“Just say no” has never worked and it never will.
Those who sell drugs don’t give a damn about human life. Correct statement. However… Those who take drugs also do not give a damn about human life. Sorry if it’s cold hearted. But these drugs are illegal and illegal for a reason. He a kid people say. No he’s not he’s am adult. I knew not to take drugs because they were bad for you and illegal. And I don’t want to hear about disadvantaged kids and blah blah blah. At that age you know right from wrong the same as hot from cold.
Not to take away from the pain his family are going through but,
It seems that if these people were not middle class this would not be news worthy.
Similar to the ‘homelessness crisis’, now that it affects middle class families, it is launched into the public eye.
Tragic
So not true. He’s only 18 we all done irresponsible and risky things at that age. It’s the age of it will never happen to me…
…..and those that buy and use (so called recreational drugs) obviously don’t give a damn about their own lives and welfare! Responsibility is begets everybody!
Never mind this aggressive education bull crap, how long have we been educating about drink driving, speed and seatbelt use?
Aggressive enforcement.
Then comes the dail headed paper, saying, “he comes from a good family, please don’t convict him”
He SNORTED a drug that is so strong it really needs to be taken on blotter form. Even if he googled the drug before he took it he could have read that….. or maybe thought it was cocaine?
Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal and we still have customs, government etc. warning people to not buy cheap alcohol or cigarettes as they could contain anything an look like the genuine article, so how would legalizing and regulating help dangerous knock off’s will always exist
Your right people probably will continue to take knock offs. Idiots I’d call them though. If this young man that lost his life had taken the legit substance he thought it was(assuming it was 2cb) then I’d be willing to bet we wouldn’t be having this conversation and he would be alive still.
Whatever we might think about politicians making loud noises on various issues at election time, Kenneth O’Flynn’s point is still very valid. Worth thinking about the next time someone takes chemical highs just for fun is, who benefits from this trade?
Personally, it would be better to decriminalise cannabis and regulate it by allowing licenced growers to produce an organically grown product and not this ‘grow house’ rubbish that’s currently available.
As for chemical drugs such as the ones that caused Alex Ryan’s death and the criminals involved in it’s supply keep them banned and let the Gardai look after the dealers.
I don’t people are saying legalise this poison. Ecstasy for example can be used fairly safely, if these lads knew they could get that would they of taken whatever crap that was? Obviously you shouldn’t be able to walk into a shop and buy haypes of it, but 1 or 2 SAFE doses at a time.
what’s needed is manditory 20 year for selling drugs. There should be no argument about it. If the dealers are locked up the 20 year sentence might. be a good deterrent. Educating people about drugs is pointless as people already know they are bad for you.
Doesn’t work in other countries. Why would it work here?
so what do we do so . prepare a file and grant free legal aid?? while they still peddle their drugs to kill our children. I would like 20 years sentence. No remission for good behaviour and do the 20 years.. I suppose the bleeding hearts will have a problem with that . Ahh never mind ! we built a new hotel here in cork for them so they won’t complain about conditions
And what would that have done to prevent a tragedy like this poor lad. The drugs were bought on the internet.
In the USA many people are serving life in prison for possession of drugs. Hasn’t solved the drug epidemic over there and it would be no different here.
where is it said the drugs were bought on the internet. Dealers were arrested and a more seriour charge now looming .
You will likely find that “dealers arrested” were one of a group of friends who happened to be the one foolish enough to make the purchase for the rest of the group. No one actually manufacturing or importing the stuff will be arrested just some other experimenting teenager whose life will now also be ruined by the associated criminal charges.
Maybe he would maybe he wouldn’t . That’s the thing with drugs , no such thing as a good one . Any one that takes them plays Russian roulette every single time . Regardless of it being the ” real deal” it could still affect different people in different ways . This poor lad did not deserve to die and I just hope to god it might stop it happening again
The Country is a wash with every drug on the market and typical of a politician to give a statement when the horse has bolted. The only way to get these drugs off the streets is with these dogs that can detect drugs and have them on the streets, pubs and clubs24/7 and give the drug squad enough enough of manpower to stay on top of the main dealers .
No country on this planet will ever get drugs off the streets. If it doesn’t work in places where they execute you then it wont work anywhere. You’d have drug units roaming the streets with sniffer dogs and nabbing anyone it picks a scent off? Come off it man. Think outside the box. Legalise & educate. Make it a health issue not a legal one. Then we will see positive results.
Donal it’s impossible to keep drugs out of society. They can’t even keep them out of prisons.
So to think that hundreds of drug squad policemen with dogs stopping and searching people in their homes pubs or on the streets is going to improve society is terribly naive. Just criminalise otherwise good law abiding people.
I give a damn about my life and I occasionally take drugs.
When dealing with these new substances, education is vital. The NBOMes are active in the sub-milligram range, which means that accurate dosing is essential. I read on IT that the people involved had been snorting the pure powder? If so, then that is thousands of times the usual dosage.
Our government obviously can’t or won’t provide the education, so all users need to read carefully over the available resources on Bluelight and Erowid. That knowledge could save your life.
Who does this O’Flynn scümbag think he is. If he really gave a shïtè he’d be promoting decriminalisation and regulation instead of trying to gain votes of the death of this young man…absolute årsęhôlę!!!
*off
Look most people even teens know the dangers of drugs, you’d have to be living on Mars not to be aware that taking them can lead to bad things i.e. death. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. I don’t have much sympathy, only for his family and friends.
Damn drug dealers forcing people to buy their drugs….
Stupid headline those who take drugs don’t care about their own life. Whatever happened to a laugh and a few pints
People who take drugs don’t give a damn about life either..its always very easy to blame the seller. You do have a choice to take them or not. Nobody forces you…
Drugs have been in the world long before me and you and will be here long after simple as you may not like it but that is the truth. Educate people of the dangers will help some people but overall my personal opinion is it won’t be as successful as a lot of people like to think. This country is as backward as it comes when gets to dealing with this kind of stuff. Politicians come out and say this and that blah blah,if it serious about drugs ur gonna have to have testing centres in your town like a booth u can go in and test whatever u bought be it from ur local dealer or on the net, these poor kids took something not having a clue how strong it was but maybe just a maybe if they did know how strong it was they might have took less of it? One young lad is here no more and the rest of them there lives sadly might never be the same. Drugs kill yes but in the other side 1000′s of people have good night’s aswell, there like a lucky bag u never know what your getting. Rip to the young lad that died and I hope his friends will get over this in time and get all the help they need,IMO there is nothing you can do about the war on drugs just look at America, it is time to make it as safe as possible to take these because there not going away.
Stating the obvious.
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say