drug squad officers views on clearing out one head shop in Galway yesterday

Well maybe the State needs a nanny....no-one seems to want to do what they're bloody well told! I think we need a State Naughty Step as well instead of prisons so all those bold people can have a three minute time out and think about what they did, say sorry and off to play again.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Uh huh no no no no


Let the headshops open all they want, but let the punters who USE THEM and inevitably get into trouble, fund their own rehab.

No hiding behind general taxes.

Soon put a stop to this wankery;)

You do understand that by putting the drug trade back into the hands of non-tax paying dealers it costs YOU the taxpayer more money right?

Heres a little list of what you are currently paying your taxes towards because of phohibition:

- Large amount of garda drug units
- Petty drug crime administration staff
- Judges salarys
- The people in jail due to drug related offences
- Hospital bills


A chunk of your tax is going directly towards these government costs.

If these drugs were regulated, made legal and sold with high taxes, the government would not have to pay anything towards the problems listed above as the users pay for themselves by the tax generated

By legalising and regulating certain drugs, it means YOUR tax is going to worthwile services (and bailouts!:D)

Einhard wrote: »

See, you don't get my point. If alcohol was a recent discovery, and imbibed by only a small section of society, we would ban it. But it's neither. It's millenia old and used by approx 95% of the adult population. It would be impossible to prohibit its consumption. The same isn't true of legal highs, or drugs in general. e can prohibit them with a degree of success. It's not perfect obviously, but it's an objective that's far more achievable than outlawing alcohol.

Anyway, I don't really think anyone can seriously compare the risks inherent with alcohol, and those involved with a chemical composite invented in a Far Eastern lab. Also, many people drink responsibly; they don't risk their health by doing so- indeed, it has been shown to have positive health implications. On the other hand, there is no such thing as the responsible popping of a mild altering hallucinogen. That's a pretty major difference.

I think your post is well thought out but I would like to point out a few things.

First of all I think comparisons with alcohol made by cognitive libertarians are a bit old hat and constantly brought up in drug arguments; however pointing out that its legality is because its use is socially acceptable is too. Substances other than alcohol are used by the same fraction of society that they always have, and for thousands of years as well. Sure, that doesn't apply to mephedrone and the other ****e that has come to be sold in head shops, but the popularity of mephedrone is only due to the prohibition of other substances.

A society with a sane approach to substances would never see the sort of industrial chemistry that produces the beta-ketones and synthetic cannabinoids that are neurotoxic and possibly carcinogenic as are/were sold in head shops. Since mephedrone et al are banned now anyway, I think this discussion of headshops is now theoretical; headshops in a free society would probably sell cannabis, DMT and ergolines which are definitely safer and have seen millenia of use in one form or another.

Secondly, I disagree that there is no such thing as responsible use of hallucinogens. Hallucinogens have been used in rites of passage, religious rituals and recreationally by civilisations stretching as far back as the invention of writing. I can provide links if you are interested, it's a fascinating subject.

Absolutely there is no responsible use of unresearched chemicals such as mephedrone and JWH-018 (while they remain so), but a society that allowed research of cannabis and other substances, as well as research into the safest analogues of MDMA (for instance, MDAI shows promise as an empathogen and SERT but is not as neurotoxic as MDMA) could definitely allow the responsible use of hallucinogens. You cite research that mentions the health benefits of drinking; there have been many scholarly studies showing the positive health effects of responsible psychedelic use, particularly in a clinical settings.

Certainly what we don't need is muddying of the waters by the irresponsible sale of novel chemicals to the public and people like Helen Stone and other headshop apologists have not got a leg to stand on. If the amount of effort these greedy entepreneurs spent on importing vast quantities of filth, lying about its purpose and selling it to people was spent on trying to stop the ridiculous practice of putting drug users in jail, we'd be in a better society.

If someone been laid off with little prospect of work and the government seemed to be indirectly supporting illegal drugs markets I would say becoming a dealer/mover etc would be high on the list of options.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh he... you're the one not thinking this through.

You are going on to the ridiculous.

Should Ford pay for those involved in car accidents....


Start again buddy;)

You're just adding to my argument. It's the same thing.

Ford, or any other car manufacturer, shouldn't pay for people involved in car accidents.
McDonalds shouldn't pay for any gym memberships.
LVA shouldn't pay for rehab.
And Head-Shops shouldn't pay for rehab.

Any reason why head-shops should, if they were legal, be treated any differently than the other bodies?

cowen4life wrote: »

I think some people are saying that we should legalise drugs like cannabis, tax it, and the government will gain and the illegal drug dealers will suffer.

If it were legalised would it not make Ireland one of the biggest exporters of drugs to other countries thus making drug dealers millions?

Well first of all i'd doubt irish dealers are smart enough to setup export infrastructures!

Also, why would international dealers import to Ireland just for Irish ones to export again losing time, money, and quality of product?

So if irish dealers were to start exporting, then they'd need to get home grown stuff which A) can be easily monitored and controlled in such a small country as Ireland so they can't just start making their own fields, and would be pretty rubbish compared to available stuff elsewhere and have little international demand.

The last option for them would be to buy legally here, and sell illegally abroad, thus making their millions......which of course comes back to Ireland as 42% tax when they're buying it to export in the first place!

Stky10 wrote: »

Here's some examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal --- Check out the Results section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands --- Check out the 'Results of the drug policy' section

From your own referenced article..

In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15–24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%),[20] but higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece

Care to check out the policies of Sweden, Finland or Greece, I mean they must be way more liberal when it comes to drugs then the Netherlands.. we heard on page one..

There's a reason countries with more liberal drugs policies have a much lower rate of drug use than those with stricter policies, the "thrill" of doing them is taken away


http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html

Einhard wrote: »

I think the constant comparisons with alcohol is lazy reasoning. Are people really suggesting that we allow the one because the other is also legal?

Everyone is pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing one drug to be legal and massively available while banning other more benign substances. See for instance these graphs.

Not exactly a great basis on which to form legislation.

I think most of the arguments are based on the simple fact that prohibition doesn't work and has never worked. Civil liberties and a whole load of other arguments also enter in (controlling criminal gangs etc.). It is lazy reasoning to simply assume that because one person makes the alcohol/tobacco argument they don't have many other good reasons.

The reality is that alcohol is too ingrained in human culture to be prohibited now. It just wouldn't be possible to ban pubs and off licences. It's the same with tobacco. The situation is different with these legal highs. Relative to the other two, a small proportion of the population use them. I don't see the merit in keeping them legal because alcohol is, when even those who propose this, acknowledge the harm that alcohol can cause.

I completely disagree with prohibition as I think it inevitably leads to the substance taking on an illicit, counter cultural aura thereby massively increasing the attraction for many people especially the most vulnerable.

Based on your argument maybe marijuana should be legalised? It's is a drug with a huge circulation and deeply ingrained in youth culture.

My opinion of the issue is that these substances should be sold but in a strictly regulated manor, the problem with the head shops at the moment is that it is too easy for people to get their hands on the drugs. The problem is identical with alcohol and tobacco. Having off licences on every street corner and cigarettes in every shop where the drugs are highly accessible is no good.

I would require everyone to first go to the doctor and after being briefed on the effects of the drug he would like to take the person is given a card that he can use in a small number of government run centres. Maybe 1/2 in every large city. The person is not allowed to buy more than enough for a single person for one day and the buying frequency is recorded.
Heroin addicts and other heavy drug users should also use the same clinic so that the buyer can talk to and witness some of the effects of more harmful drugs. Nothing about this clinic should be cool or trendy instead a white sterile environment similar to a hospital.
If a person buys with a very high frequency he should be given a mandatory meeting with a doctor/specialist to highlight the danger he is causing to his body but at no time should anyone be prohibited. Upon entry to a hospital if you are known to be a high frequency drug user you should not get priority over heath conscious people (this should apply to alcohol and tobacco users as well).
I also think alcohol and tobacco should slowly move towards this form of regulation, due to the cultural ingraining this cannot happen quickly but if approached slowly over a period of several years during which time licences were not renewed and off licences were closed down we could eventually reach that stage although maybe not to the same extent.

Also, I think it's pretty plain to all but the most partisan supporters of head shops, that their wares are far more potent, and potentially damaging than alcohol, and even tobacco.

Although no long term studies of mephedrone have been conducted it is in the amhetamine class of drugs then (assuming the long term effects are similar) according to the lancet graph posted, it is slighlt more harmful than alcohol but also less addictive. The addictive nature is very important however as if a drug is only moderately harmful in small doses like tobacco but very addictive then overtime the effect is far worse than the more harmful drug taken with lesser frequency. However it is important to note no long term studies have been conducted.

My group of friends have all been drinking for at least ten years, and none of us suffer drink related ailments. I do know several people however, who've been smoking weed for the same period, and a sizeable proportion have been seriously and adversely affected by this. It's as plain as day. It's so bad that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between their stoned state and their natural state.

I think if you've been drinking for ten years you will likely have suffered long term harmful effects. In particular areas of your brain are likely to be impaired and you probably don't have the cognitive reasoning and ability you would have had you not drank. See here for links to articles. Also remember that in Ireland our idea of an occasional drinker is different from the scientific literature where a binge is considered to be be four or more pints. Tobacco due to its highly addictive nature is worse again as its harmful effects are constanly reinforced until death.

Final note is that people need to take responsibility for their actions, if someone decides to take drugs with their eyes open and knows all the harmful effects that who am I or you to decide what they can put into their bodies? However they also must accept personal responsibility for their actions.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Are head shops licensed premises?

Is there any control on who sets them up.

There was some very brief talk of creating a licence that would cost 200 grand. However, this would obviously legitimise them too much and would harm attempts to legislate them out of existence.

Funkfield wrote: »

No, in the brief time they existed here ANYONE could set one up.

They should have been licensed, heavily regulated and heavily taxed.

The problem is that most of the arguments in favour of head shops in some form or another centre around them being an alternative to drug dealers. There were headshops before, going all the way back to 2001 (when I remember there being "super skunk" and various mixes of parsley and oregano in a certain shop that catered to goth/minirocker types). Only when they were able to offer a cheaper and effective (but extremely unsafe) alternative to illegal drugs did they become popular.

It's not unreasonable to doubt that extremely regulated and taxed headshops which would pass expenses on to a consumer would be able to undercut drug dealers. For instance, some medical marijuana patients still go to drug dealers for their medicine because it is cheaper. On the other hand, quality control of chemicals, proper work with health authorities and strict age control are absolutely necessary in future drug dispensaries and must be the financial burden of the dispensaries themselves (and their consumers), so I agree with the above caveat (and also what I stated before about their choice of products).