The argument that control under the auspices of the Ministry of Health is safer than a ban and facing an underground - and criminal - activity has not held up to scrutiny.
Yes, there is now the risk of a very lucrative industry falling into criminal hands but that threat was always there. That is no reason to give an official stamp of approval to something so dangerous.
The basis for Mr Dunne's bill was that manufacturers would have to prove their products were safe, but it was made law before such a testing regime was in place. It would be 2015 before the next phase of the act - forcing manufacturers to prove a product was "low harm" - would come into effect. A classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
The clear evidence from the medical profession is that those products are not "low harm".
Credit to local campaigners such as Philippa Baker-Hogan and Ken Mair for sticking to their guns, and let's hope Mr Dunne has got one thing right when he says proving the products are safe could be too expensive and too exacting for manufacturers to carry on.
