Debate contribution: Cannabis Possession
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Cannabis Possession
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4738216
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The policy and legal frameworks for the misuse of drugs, including the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, are reserved to the UK Government. It is therefore a matter for the Home Office to determine and bring forward any proposals on the benefits of decriminalising drugs. I have not been made aware of any plans in the Home Office to decriminalise or review the classification of drugs. Any change to the status quo would require the engagement of all four jurisdictions. The organised crime task force drug subgroup provides a forum for engagement between the PSNI and other stakeholders in response to the challenges that the misuse of drugs and related threats pose and to identify solutions to effectively deal with the enforcement and supply of drugs. A key focus of my Department is the promotion and support of preventative approaches to substance abuse and misuse and of the harm and vulnerabilities that are associated with addiction. We will succeed in improving outcomes only if we see substance misuse in the broader context. Policing and community safety partnerships, which are funded by the DOJ and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, also deliver local interventions in each council area to address harm and vulnerability. That includes awareness-raising and education projects and initiatives on substance misuse, including drug awareness.
222 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.94 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:42 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.