Debate contribution: Drug-related Deaths: East Antrim
Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Drug-related Deaths: East Antrim
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4972691
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank my East Antrim colleague Danny Donnelly for bringing this important topic to the Assembly. Illegal drugs and the misuse of prescription drugs are serious issues across not just East Antrim but the whole of Northern Ireland. Rising addiction is not just an East Antrim issue. Cannabis, cocaine, synthetic drugs and the misuse of prescription drugs are all in the mix across Northern Ireland, including our constituency of East Antrim. Sadly, we are aware that some schools in East Antrim have to prevent young people going out of school at lunchtime such is the prevalence and proximity of drug dealers at local shops where kids would go for sweets or a bottle of something to drink at lunchtime. That takes me to the serious concerns about the influence of those who peddle and deal in drugs across East Antrim. Of course, much of that is about getting young people addicted so that they become dependent on the drugs that they have been sold. That leads to serious issues with moneylending and young people being used as county lines, effectively, and transporters of drugs across East Antrim and beyond because of our proximity to Belfast. It is a serious issue and one that is extremely difficult to tackle. As others have mentioned, there are good organisations in the community that have been working hard with young people and those across all ages to deal with the issues. I thank organisations such as Carrick Connect, youth groups across East Antrim and, in particular, Christians Against Poverty, an organisation that helps with debt counselling and supporting families. This is nothing short of child abuse at its worst, and, sadly, as we have heard, lives are lost. We need to look at the solutions. Education, health support and multi-agency approaches will and can tackle the problem. We cannot set the problem at the door of the police, the health service or schools. Everybody has to work together to address the problems. Good work is going on across East Antrim, but we need to make sure that it is fully supported on a cross-departmental basis. It is important, therefore, that we deliver better services for young people, and it is necessary that we deliver high levels of support. When someone has been identified as a known drug user, particularly through the health service, their death should not be the inevitable outcome. The outcome should be their life, support and an ability to be taken away from the drugs that have been given to them. That is the challenge that all those agencies, particularly the Department of Health, face when dealing with the people across East Antrim who are addicted to drugs.
447 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.76 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.10 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:37 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.