Debate contribution: Ketamine: Reclassification
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Ketamine: Reclassification
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4855773
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Ketamine can no longer be dismissed as just a party drug: it is a serious public health risk. We have already heard about its severe health impacts and its role in spiking incidents. Access to the drug, along with others such as pregabalin, is often just a click or a direct message (DM) away. Both are frequently and wrongly seen as low-risk substances, possibly or probably due to their current classification. We would like to see the reclassification not only of ketamine but of pregabalin and gabapentin. Let me be clear: there is no such thing as a low-risk drug. Taking those tablets is playing Russian roulette. Those substances are often combined with other drugs, such as cocaine and alcohol, creating a lethal cocktail. That misuse contributes directly to the increasing number of drug-related deaths in the North, which, in 2022, stood at 154. I have questioned that statistic and the accuracy of current reporting mechanisms, as I believe the real number to be even higher. Certainly now, in 2025, in my constituency, it feels as though not a week goes by without us mourning the loss of at least one more young life. That worrying trend is often highlighted more deftly and harrowingly on social media by devastated family members and friends. Recent data shows that Northern Ireland's rate of drug-related deaths is alarmingly high — more than five times the EU average. What are the Executive doing about it? Not much, going by the Programme for Government. Addiction was not mentioned once, and drug-related deaths do not even make it on to the list of priorities. How can Executive parties stand here today with the audacity to tell grieving families that addressing the drugs crisis is a priority for them? This epidemic has left hundreds of parents mourning the unnatural loss of a child; young people grieving the loss of their peers; and children left to navigate the life-altering reality of life without a parent. Sadly, I am sure that we have all witnessed too many times how loved ones of the deceased begin to follow the same perilous path, sinking more deeply into their own grief, darkness and addiction. In many cases, it is a chain reaction that sets off one tragedy after another. The slow-motion collapse of a life often played out online; the excessive party lifestyle; the vulnerable people crying out for help but turning to support systems that simply are not there or take months or even years to access — all of those things are unacceptable. I join others in commending parents such as Sandra Larmour or, more recently, Pauline Duddy from my constituency for their determination and unwavering commitment to campaigning for change and for channelling their grief into action, trying to spare other families the same suffering. Reclassification is one part of the jigsaw. We need to see tougher penalties for supply not just being available but being used. For example, has ketamine's reclassification from class C to class B seen a reduction in its use? No. Instead, there appears to be a revolving door in our courthouses that leaves communities feeling powerless. Danny Donnelly mentioned the war on drugs. That is a war that, sadly, we cannot win until we fight and win a war against the reasons that lead to drug dependency: adverse childhood experiences, trauma and poverty. We need to invest in better education and mental health and addiction services. If we tackle the root causes of substance misuse, we can stop the tragic and entirely preventable deaths.
590 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: 0.04 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.78 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:15 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.