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.
PHARMACISTS HAVE WARNED that the prescription levy introduced in the last Budget is making medical card holders less likely to buy their prescription drugs.
In a survey, a large number of medical card patients said they would think twice about filling a prescription because of the charge.
The controversial €2.50 levy was deeply unpopular when it was introduced by the Fianna Fáil led-government in 2010, and was increased by the current government last December.
Speaking at the start of the national conference of the Irish Pharmacy Union today, incoming president Kathy Maher said the government should introduce an exemption for patients who are homeless, in palliative care, or in residential care settings.
“As pharmacists, we are very concerned that the hike in the levy is having a significant impact on medicine usage,” said Maher.
“We need to make sure that vulnerable patients are encouraged to take prescribed medicines, not discouraged from doing so”.
The poll by Behaviour & Attitudes for IPU found that 38 per cent of medical card patients would have second thoughts about filling a prescription because of the levy,.
Since the last Budget, people with a medical card have to pay a charge of €2.50 per item, up to a maximum of €25 per family.
The charge was originally introduced in 2010 as a 50 cent levy, but has increase in subsequent Budgets.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If drug users are to be allowed small quantities then there should be a legal mechanism for the supply of these small quantities through a recognised system. The illegal drug suppliers have to be stopped. That is the kernel of the problem. To legalise the use means having to legalise the supply.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: let’s be clear, this is not about legalising small quantities
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: this would free up time for the Gardai and paperwork. But they should not get off Scott free and should have to attend and finish drug counselling as in Portugal but let’s be real here the government will never go for this holistic approach!
@Deborah Behan: why should the not get off scot free. They are filling consenting individuals. I notice your repeal logo. Their bodies their choice, no?
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: they are not legalising small quantities of drugs, drug use is a health problem not a crime that you should be punished for
@Deborah Behan: Drug counselling?? Do you seriously think some student caught with a little bit of cannabis needs to be shipped off to some drug counselling course?
A complete waste of money, time and resources for all involved.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: ridiculous argument! This is not about giving them free reign. It’s about keeping people out of the revolving doors of prison knowing that it’s not a deterrant!
@Deborah Behan: so what you’re actually saying is treat the symptom not the decease
@Deborah Behan: so you want to punish people for smoking a bit of weed, meanwhile people getting blotto on alcohol are ok. Why exactly do you want to punish these people ?
@Barry Davidson: Deborah is more like the pro life advocates than she realises as in, you can do what you like with your body once I agree with it.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: nanny state mentality…what makes you better than anyone else?
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair:
Totally agree, the entire issue needs to be treated as a medical, not a criminal one, for whatever problems arise from drug use.
Interesting piece I came across today is relevant to this..
“Addiction doc says: It’s not the drugs. It’s the ACEs – adverse childhood experiences.”
That question is asked very strangely; “Do you think drug users should escape criminal conviction?”
Do I think people with a small quantity of cannabis obviously for personal use should be let off? Most definitely.
Do I think addicts who make peoples lives miserable and intimidate people in the city centre in busy areas and at those soup kitchens springing up on every corner should escape conviction for their crimes? Absolutely not.
If I was Varadkar I’d legalise the whole lot – and make sure criminality gets nothing and the control and supply of all the drugs would be done by the state.
@Darren Bates: So the government would be supplying cocaine too? That would be an interesting development
@Darren Bates: I agree something should be done about those people but what really is the point of a criminal conviction? Their addiction is so consuming they don’t care about the rules, or convictions or jail. Wouldn’t it be better to treat those people as a health issue and save the criminal side for the suppliers?
Did you ever see that program called Darndale (I think), it followed a few people trying to make a better life for themselves. They filmed one going to a methadone clinic and there were dealers standing outside the clinic offering drugs to people that were really trying hard to get clean. Those guys and their bosses are the real criminals!
@ Darren
You mentioned in your first comment that heroin addicts shouldn’t get away with hassling and robbing people.
Nobody is suggesting that. What is being discussed is whether or not they should be prosecuted for possession of small amounts of drugs.
Of course they shouldn’t. They are addicts and will have drugs until that is solved so dragging them through the courts regularly is not going to help them get out of their terrible situation.
@michael: How about legalising cocaine but only in certain licensed bars which could all be in small towns where there are ghost estates? It would bring loads of money into deprived areas while also keeping coke-heads in one place where they don’t annoy the rest of us.
@Darren Bates: just like the supply of cigarettes is?
@michael: If someone is an addict – they should not be convicted for small amounts for personal use.
If someone who is not an addict is caught with a personal amount of “recreational” drugs, they should be fined without conviction, unless they are caught a few times.
@Matt Connolly: how do you decide who is an addict?
@michael: the same why you decide who gets access to an injection centre. It’s not difficult to identify a habitual user.
@Darren Bates: Would you allow me off with the crime of mugging if I only stole for my own use? The drug pushers are hiding behind the personal use guise, they have enough for a fix on them but nearby is a substantial stash that is making the likes of drug lords very rich.
@Matt Connolly: why exactly do you want to punish “recreational” drug users ? I don’t understand your logic at all
@Michael farrelly: Recreational drug users ? People who want to mask or lose sight of reality is still financing the drug lords, there is no excuse for hobbyist drug users as long as the practice remains illegal and if and when “soft drugs” become legal they will continue to skew people’s thoughts as much as alcohol does, if you have never been in the company of anyone who has taken to much drink while you were sober you no doubt will understand my point.
@Jho Harris: I don’t really understand your point at all. Are you therefore saying that you would punish people who in your opinion have had too much alcohol then ? And what in your mind is the skewed thinking that you talk about ? Many artists and indeed business people have come up with very creative thinking while under the influence. Do you just want people to think the way your obviously narrow mind works ?
@Matt Connolly: yes but you said that drug addicts should be let off while habitual users are arrested. How would a guard decide which is which on the spot? It makes no sense, that’s my point
@michael: Why not? The Government already supplies me with prescription drugs to keep me alive. I know these drugs are safe because they come from controlled sources. Why not treat Cocaine the same way?
The results of this pointless poll show just what a backwards, regressive small minded little country we are. Christ, even the US has admitted its lost the war on drugs by legislating instead of treating. But not to worry, big bag of cans and 20 smokes is just what the doctor ordered. A country of sheep…..
@Nigel Mcatamney: Surely we should legalise drugs, drinking driving, speeding, dog fights, littering etc. Ireland should be island of liberalism where anyone can come and be oneself doing whatever he / she / they / zir / hir / xe wants.
@cortisola: why not add Jay walking, slouching, excessive use of gender terms and common sense to that edgy little list of yours
@Nigel Mcatamney: well said Nigel!
@Luke: you mean nice piece of “look over there”
@Boganity: you don’t think we can learn from other countries experience ?
‘Depends on the drug they have on them’ would be a handy option here.
@Paul Cunningham: why?
@Barry Davidson: I think he means quantity
Completely legalise and take the violence and profit out of it. American soldiers were prescribed heroin (A form of it) after World War Two, never robbed an aol lady to get more)
@Alan Moore: really? No vets have ever turned to crime to fund drug habits?
@Pharmyco: not sure the point of your comment, do you have evidence that they did or not?
@Pharmyco: @Alan Moore: Opiates opiates are not addictive while pain exists anywhere in the body. They’re only additive when taken if there’s no pain.
@Boganity: since when did lack of pain make opiates more addictive ?
@Michael farrelly: It seems that Boganity is correct, oddly enough. There were practically no opiate addicts when they were legal. I have no idea why, but that’s what the data says
@Boganity: I’m on your side but that is a sort of ridiculous thing to say. It depends on which type of addiction I suppose. Many addicts are mostly psychologically addicted. They use their whatever to escape pain/life. So in this case it would be easier psychologically for someone to stop using if they were only using for pain rather than someone using as an escape. However opiates create physical dependencies. This is a matter of chemistry and biology and has nothing to do with intention of usage
Yes, qualified: If someone uses drugs, fine. If their use causes harm to others, then that harm should entail consequences. It should also involve counselling, advice and harm reduction.
@George Salter: That’s alcohol out the window so.
@Rob Cahill: I agree fully.
@George Salter: rather than consequences I’d say treatment. Addicts are sick. They need help. The current system dehumanises them which only digs the hole deeper. Its a ridiculous system that has failed miserably. Legalise the supply and possession of all drugs and educate the public with accurate and up to date information. What people put in their own body is their business and no one else’s. As for crime as a result of addiction, I would go for a 3 strike rule. Strike 1 and 2 you get treatment for addiction. Strike 3 you clearly don’t want it so its time to punish. Can’t let people totally get away with crime either. That’s another way to reinforce bad habits
Non violent drug offenders should not be convicted in possession of an amount for personal use.For recreational drugs like Ecstasy and MDMA,there should have test kits available. There must be injection centres and plenty of councillors available to offer advice and help to addicts.
Anybody that says “This will only encourage people to take drugs.” are idiots and should not be listened to.The drugs are here, the War on Drugs has been a complete failure and that genie is not going back into the bottle.
@Dante Marquinhos: even better than test kits, there should be medical-quality labs creating drugs with exact doses.
@Barry Davidson: Absolutely Barry, that’s exactly what we should aiming towards.
@Barry Davidson: they have them in Holland and its been an amazing success. The Portuguese model with the Dutch attitude I think it a good direction
Awfully worded and inflammatory poll options, under the laws they wont be “escaping” conviction, drug use will simply be decriminalised its worked in other countries as all the stats and evidence has pointed to the continuing “war on drugs” being a complete and utter abject failure wasting time and money for everyone
Decriminalise all drugs, make them available through pharmacies, collect taxes on them, take the money out of the hands of criminal gangs, save police time, reduce prison costs.
There is no good reason for it to be illegal to consume drugs /possess small ammounts for possession.
Who is it supposed to be protected by having such a law?
It is not helping those caught in possession, it does not keep consumption rates any lower, peoples lives are being ruined by the convictions far more so than from their drug use.
What harm to society (or themselves) is someone with a bit of weed or some mdma in their pocket?
None!
A bag of cans is far more dangerous.
Decriminalization is the first step in the right direction.
Cannabis is one thing but
There is a coke epidemic in the country that isnt being discussed.
Its more widely used than cannabis.
@Stephen Maher: Any evidence for that assertion?
@Jim Dolan: yes – get once in a while. Very easy to spot in any pub or club.
@Stephen Maher: there is not a chance that is true
@Dayvid McWalliams: I doubt it’s used more than weed myself but It’s seldom I use a pub toilet at the weekend and don’t here sniffing in the cubicles.
@Stephen Maher: in order to have a coke epidemic first you need to have real coke and not that mephedrone-lidocaine-caffeine cocktail that is being sold as coke on the streets ;)
@Stephen Maher: you mean lots of people in the country use cocaine socially. its hardly an epidemic. Addiction is the enemy not drugs
The drug users are the biggest victims
@Eoin:
How many middle class people smoke a bit of grass? Do you really think these are the victims in the full supply chain?
@Nick Allen: careful not to make this about class.
If you consider drug taking an illness then yes they should escape. The actions resulting from taking drugs, no matter what type of drug being used is a totally separate matter.
@Jimmy McCarthy: the question is about “possession” of drugs not behavior in drugs
Our current approach is the biggest waste of time, money and policing power, not to mention it’s totally ineffective.
All for a progressive approach to drug policy but decriminalisation needs to be accompanied by an increase in addiction services and other measures to reduce the money made on the black market. Just changing one thing would be a missed opportunity and could make some problems worse.
The rubbish way the question is phrased, implies that drug users should not be convicted if they commit crimes.
@Conor Byrne: The context for the question is in the few paragraphs before the poll – it’s talking about people found with small quantities for personal use.
@meatyslaps: not when viewed in a browser on the side-bar on the right. I didn’t click the article – I read the question & voted (incorrectly):
“So in today’s poll we’re asking, do you think drug users should escape criminal conviction? ”
“Yes, I killed & raped that woman – but I have a coke problem. ”
“Okay, you’re free to go.”
@Conor Byrne: the first sentence of the article clearly states its about possession. You wouldn’t just read the subject line of an email and reply would you ?
@Boganity: I already said “I read the question & voted”.
The question should stand alone – this one doesn’t.
@Conor Byrne: the stupid attitude that you embrace reinforces and out of date and broken system. Get real
Anything which grows naturally should never be illegal and to place a made up price on the cost of a marijuana plant is criminal. Oh! he was caught with a plant with 8 ounces of ‘weed’ on it so it is a criminal offence and a figure of 10k is applied as its ‘value’. This means we can apply section 15a of the misuse of drugs act 1977 and send people away for a minimum of 10 years (thanks to michael McDowell). This is nonsense and making the gardai out to be great when all they did was a bit of gardening and made it out to be something important when all it is is a cheap shot with made up prices. There is no price to marijuana as it costs nothing to grow and a waste of garda resources and a policy which creates crime and is detrimental to society. Stupid backward nanny state mentality, which is encouraged by rural publicans and politicians and damaging society. Legalise drugs and reduce crime and in addition by taxing drugs for sale we can create profits which can be benefical to society rather than waste money on the current failed ‘strategy’ . Regardless anyone who wants to grow a plant for their own use should be allowed to do so and it would also reduce alcohol consumption (which is the real government fear) and release more money to be spent into the community.
We have drug mules walking free and being prised by popular media so average users should have no offence at all for using drugs in Ireland.
Ridiculous way to phrase the question.
@Karl Patchell: I agree, the article was clearly about possession but it descended in typical Journalese English at the actual poll question.
Let’s be honest here, marijuana should not even be in the discussion. Using it harms no one.
As for other drugs… Do you lock up an alcoholic? Do you lock up someone with a gambling addiction? Do you lock up someone with an eating disorder? No. So why are we locking up people with drug addictions?
@Seth Cheffetz: very well said Seth
I voted no as my consciemce would not allow me to imprison the sick people who use drugs for pain relief, whether prescribed drugs or not.
Yes but on two conditions, one that drug users selling drugs are still convicted and two that all drug users are kept somewhere safe away from the rest of us.
@Austin Rock: Does that include people who use alcohol, one of the most dangerous drugs there is?
@Austin Rock: do you drink alcohol Austin ?
Should be asking the reasons why people feel the need to take drugs, what is causing those insecurities, what is lacking in their life, love, money, family, happiness? …and address those issues too.
@Scundered: why do you assume they have insecurities scundered ? Maybe they find, for example weed, a lot less harmful than alcohol !
@Michael farrelly: well it must surely be to give them a high or some kind of escapism in life. If they were to address the source of their emotion that may help.
@Scundered: While I accept that some people use drugs including alcohol to escape reality because of emotional problems, you are missing the point that the majority of people use them, including alcohol,to enhance their social experiences or otherwise.
@Michael farrelly: and what benefit do you think you gain from it? Please define that enhanced social experience.
@Scundered: Two weeks of intensive counselling would help many. However, the price of about €3k would scare government, as the benefit is in the future, and definitely after the term of a government…
@Scundered: you are thinking of addicts. People use drugs for all kinds of reasons. To explore their minds, to unwind, to party etc. All drugs can be used responsibly. It depends on the intentions of the user
We have a definite cocaine problem .by the time it reaches our shores having gone through all the middle men who adulterate it to maximise profit .it is hardly fit to put up anyone’s nose ,
@Brian O Reilly: great if the baby is teething though.
They shouldn’t be arrested for possession but definitely should be for making a nuisance of themselves, pestering tourists and robbing.
If the drug user has done no harm to others, their property or their Rights, then their own RIGHTS AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE RECOGNISED – if they have done harm then they can be arrested under existing relevant laws, not drug laws. No Victim No Crime. Call a doctor not a cop.
Imagine small quantities means the equivalent of a six pack of beer. You’d hardly force someone to go through counselling for a six pack, even if alcohol were classified as a Class A drug.
More Customs X-Ray machines at each port on the Island-if necessary put 3 in Belfast. Stop the majority of hard drugs coming on to the Island.
Assist addicts with their addiction via drug rehab centers.
People who use knowingly use dangerous drugs should be sent to jail. I’d start with the nicotine addicts. Lock them up. That will teach them a lesson. Then go for anyone who drinks alcohol, similarly because it’s such a dangerous drug that everybody knows causes widespread harm to individuals and to society. Prison for alcohol users will act as a deterrent, so that young people are not tempted to try it. Finally all the coffee addicts can be put in jail for long periods until they see the error of their ways. This would be a great first step towards the goal of creating a drug free society for future generations.
@Bryan Duggan: best comment
For anyone here saying we have a cocaine epidemic in the country, here is a report from January 2017 with the current statistics for cocaine use in the country. It doesn’t mention crime but there is a total figure for people who sought help for addiction to cocaine in 2016. Assuming that anyone arrested for offenses related to cocaine addiction are sent for treatment, we can also assume that this report accounts for cocaine related crime. Roughly 750 people out of the 4.6 million we have in the country. That is around 0.02% of the population. Just because it is a popular party drug does not mean we have an epidemic on our hands. Simmer down. The problem I have with cocaine use is that 1) it is highly profitable for violent gangs on the black market and 2) there is 0 control over quality of product and it is often cut with very harmful substances. Obvious answer? Legislation and regulation. Drugs are unbiased. They don’t have opinions and are neither good or bad. Not only that, if a people want something they are going to get it. Demonizing chemicals to promote prohibition is counter productive to the end goal. Which should be harm reduction across the board. http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/17308/1/Cocaine%20Factsheet%20January%20%202017.pdf
Drug use is a vice at most, and vices are not crimes!
“Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
In vices, the very essence of crime — that is, the design to injure the person or property of another — is wanting.
It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.
For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.”
At most Government has a right to legislate over problematic *public* drug use, but not *private.* In British law, so termed ‘private sobriety’, whether performed or not, is actually an absolute right & duty, and the Courts & human tribunals can never know of it! At least, that’s how it ought to be, but of course it isn’t right now!
http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-101/
“Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like) they then become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them. Here the circumstance of publication is what alters the nature of the case.
Public sobriety is a relative duty, and therefore enjoined by our laws: ***private sobriety is an absolute duty, which, whether it be performed or not, human tribunals can never know; and therefore they can never enforce it by any civil sanction.***”
Surely these principles of having private & public rights are global ones in all civil Societies?
@Tom Speed: Tom… great info. Too long for this ephemeral generation though, I think
Drug dealers should be gaoled for life or face the death penalty. They inflict significant misery on individuals, families and society in general. Whack ‘em! Lets the punishment fit the crime!
@Tomasz Irlandczik Krótki: back to the war on drugs then. Yeah, we should learn from that failed policy, alright.
Are you proposing the death penalty foe a kid that sells his mates some weed then ?
Define drug use . Then define which group . Then see about a law i suppose. Not talking about Crystal meth or crack cocaine here but let’s see what exactly the government has in mind now
Legalisation will put a lot of people out of a job. How Will the criminals survive
If you treat it like alcohol, if your off your box, your arrested, you drive on drugs your in court and banned. But who is going to insure they are safe? Unlike alcohol you get a bad bottle, you have a bad following day, with drugs a bad one could mean your in a coffin.
@Dáithí Ó Raghallaigh: ridiculous comment. You do know that many people die from over consumption of alcohol but as yet nobody has died from over consumption of weed ?
@Dáithí Ó Raghallaigh: nobody has died from smoking marijuana unlike alcohol which is regulated.
@Michael farrelly: alcohol last I heard is responsible for more crime and deaths than all drugs put together
I would like to know if a person is passed out on the street off their head on drugs and brought to the hospital are they charged with drug taken. I am unemployed and I have a medical card I was charged a lot of money to have blood test and what was a free regular checkup at a young age is now 90 euros and the 50 euros for blood test I am trying to look after my health and this is what the charge is, if I wanted to I could develop a dependency, for example a person with a disability allowance because they are asthmatic and spends the day smoking wacky tobacco, where do you draw the line. To many excuses, also for people who are jailed I wonder if they had to repay what it cost the taxpayer to maintain them whilst in jail I wonder would it deter them. Just a thought. There are genuine cases and then there are the dependency cases. They need to be separated.
@Noreen Waters: “a person with a disability allowance because they are asthmatic and spends the day smoking wacky tobacco, where do you draw the line.”
Cannabis has been patented to treat asthma, C.O.P.D. and other lung/breathing disorders, ignorant comments only add confusion to the debate. https://www.google.com/patents/WO2007042811A1?cl=en
“The invention relates to the use of a combination of cannabinoids for the treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).”
Cannabis is not what you think it is > http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/assignee/gw-pharma-limited/
What a loaded poll question
have your say