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

Elevator · 12-05-2010 5:56pm #1

I realise this could be posted in ah but seeing as the whole motivation behind the ban and the ultra sneaky rushing in of the same was 100% political I chose to put it here

two people I got to know the past 2 years and ended up owning one of the head shops we have in town told me exactly what was said to them when three ds officers entered their store yesterday

they actually admitted "there's been a marked decrease in their work load since head shops opened 4/5 years ago" and they also admitted that "the head store drugs even with their faults were a safer option all round for those who chose to use psychotropic drugs for many reasons...not funding criminals opperations being the most important"

now we must admit that there will always be a demand for all the drugs we have now and more than likely any drug that comes out til the end of time

humans have been getting high since we came out of the caves. if we were to actually look at all the popular illegal drugs out at present there are quite a few that would be safer to introduce them to society than many freely available substances/medication.

for crying out loud this is going to put a monumental amount of cash/power into the hands of greedy/totally unregulated drug dealers within a month!!

seeing as our government since 1970 have given away our natural resources and we stand to make nothing from them as a state sitting on the oil deposits we used to own it is hardly surprising they would give into the dealers and
give them back their profits also!!

shocked.com that we have once again been ****ed over and a lot of decent people have been criminalised!!

nanny state.

yoshytoshy · 12-05-2010 6:26pm

The news of how the two polish lads were killed ,didn't help the headshops one bit.
The chap curran had done around twenty benzo tabs and then stabbed two lads with a screwdriver.

MagicSean · 12-05-2010 6:29pm

yoshytoshy wrote: »

The news of how the two polish lads were killed ,didn't help the headshops one bit.
The chap curran had done around twenty benzo tabs and then stabbed two lads with a screwdriver.

And don't forget that mad fella in drogheda who stabbed all those people.

DublinWriter · 12-05-2010 6:32pm

And of course the dozens of alcohol-related incidents that happen around the country each weekend go unreported because we are so conditioned.

yoshytoshy · 12-05-2010 6:44pm

One bloke with a load of chemicals can bang off thousands of tablets.
It's takes a lot more work to manufacture alcohol and ship it around ,more people getting payed to work.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 12-05-2010 7:19pm

Maybe the drug squad had less to do, but perhaps the health service had more.

Thoguh I don't know for sure. All I do is mephadrone is far too much fun to not get addicted!

Sulmac · 12-05-2010 7:44pm

I think the drug policy in this country, and most other countries, is a complete joke. Banning something just makes some people want it more.

Head shops are/were crippling the drug gangs in this country, moreso than any CAB-type operation could do.

What I would do is overhaul the entire way that drugs are treated in this country. Softer drugs, in particular cannabis (which is safer than tobacco and alcohol, and nowhere near as addictive), should be legalised, regulated and taxed.

Legalising drugs has several benefits; including, taking them out of the hands of gangs; making them safer; the ability to tax them; removing the taboo of them so people are less likely to do it; and not treating the population like children.

The money saved from going after "softer" drugs can be used to go after the serious drugs, such as heroin. "Legal highs", such as those found in head shops, should only be allowed to be sold after a certain testing period, as we do with any form of medication. Certain restrictions would also be placed on head shops, such as location (e.g., not allowing them near schools), prices and hours (some in Dublin were open 24/7 and offered deliveries).

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. Of course, such an act would need to coincide with a major public information campaign, and proper drugs/alcohol education in schools even at primary level.

However, try getting the Irish government to have any sense of forward-thinking.

Ash.J.Williams · 12-05-2010 7:48pm

I'm on the fence on this, i prefer to keep things underground, however it really does look like the criminals have been handed an easy victory here.

Pride Fighter · 12-05-2010 7:49pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

And of course the dozens of alcohol-related incidents that happen around the country each weekend go unreported because we are so conditioned.

True. Also the two incidents you were implicitly replying to above were a combination of head-shop drugs and alcohol.

PCPhoto · 12-05-2010 7:52pm

yoshytoshy wrote: »

The news of how the two polish lads were killed ,didn't help the headshops one bit.
The chap curran had done around twenty benzo tabs and then stabbed two lads with a screwdriver.

thats b0llox !!! ..... curran was drunk and high on weed at 17yrs of age .... and is a scumbag, he wanted the polish lads to goto the off licence to buy him and mates drink, the polish lads refused.... so he went off - got a screwdriver and tried threatening/bullying them into doing it .... and we all know what happened next (he went overboard)

(this info is from two sources one of the witnesses and also one of the neighbours in the area at the time)

PCPhoto · 12-05-2010 7:57pm

Sulmac wrote: »

I think the drug policy in this country, and most other countries, is a complete joke. Banning something just makes some people want it more.

Head shops are/were crippling the drug gangs in this country, moreso than any CAB-type operation could do.

What I would do is overhaul the entire way that drugs are treated in this country. Softer drugs, in particular cannabis (which is safer than tobacco and alcohol, and nowhere near as addictive), should be legalised, regulated and taxed.

Legalising drugs has several benefits; including, taking them out of the hands of gangs; making them safer; the ability to tax them; removing the taboo of them so people are less likely to do it; and not treating the population like children.

The money saved from going after "softer" drugs can be used to go after the serious drugs, such as heroin. "Legal highs", such as those found in head shops, should only be allowed to be sold after a certain testing period, as we do with any form of medication. Certain restrictions would also be placed on head shops, such as location (e.g., not allowing them near schools), prices and hours (some in Dublin were open 24/7 and offered deliveries).

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. Of course, such an act would need to coincide with a major public information campaign, and proper drugs/alcohol education in schools even at primary level.

However, try getting the Irish government to have any sense of forward-thinking.

its funny that in a recession the government do whatever they can to stop new "legal" business from opening and expanding !!!

its amazing how they can rush these kind of changes in a couple of months and yet cant produce proper systems to monitor sex offenders after they leave prison.....or even keep track of kids in care of the state !!

alastair · 12-05-2010 8:06pm

yoshytoshy wrote: »

The news of how the two polish lads were killed ,didn't help the headshops one bit.
The chap curran had done around twenty benzo tabs and then stabbed two lads with a screwdriver.

What head shop would have sold benzo? It's a prescription drug.

Einhard · 12-05-2010 8:16pm

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? Not exactly a great basis on which to form legislation. 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. Doesn't seem particularly sensible, nor responsible.

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. 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.

My brother actually works in a headshop, and is an enthusiastic imbiber of the wares he sells. He at least acknowledges the downside. He used to smoke every now and then, maybe a few times a month. He also attended college and was generally getting on well in life. But with the advent of the headshops, he started smoking every night. The smell from his room permeated the whole house. it was, as he said, just so easy to get. He rarely left his room, was often moody and irritable, and has since dropped out of college.

It's pretty obvious then to the neutral observer, that the substances sold in headshops can, and do have a significantly negative impact on the user. Moreso I would argue, than alcohol at least, and even tobacco. A

Despite all this, and what some might think, I'm not some Joe Duffy calling reactionary. Headshops don't particularly bother me, and I greeted the news of the new legislation with only mild interest. But I do get annoyed when people make comparisons with alcohol and tobacco, claim that the substances sold are not harmful, and condemn moves against their sale as actions of a nanny state.

prinz · 12-05-2010 8:19pm

Sulmac wrote: »

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.

Could you tell us what countries you are referring to here?

Horse_box · 12-05-2010 8:26pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I guess they don't want the taxpayers complaining when these little arseholes arrive in A&E and block up the place.

I would have no problem with headshops if they looked after the little goons they screw up and not cost me any tax money.

Bolloxed if I am going to watch some cunt driving around in Beemer while I clean up after him/her with my tax money.

No way Jose:D

Eh the headshops have to pay tax. The amount of tax they pay would most definitely cover the medical bills of the very few people that have to go to the hospital.

Would you rather drug consumers getting messed up on illegal substances, pay no tax, fill up the A&E, waste police time and feed criminal gangs, rather than just going to the headshop? People buying fom the headshop instead of the drug dealer, saves the taxpayer vast sums of money

IrishTonyO · 12-05-2010 8:30pm

Einhard wrote: »

. My group of friends have all been drinking for at least ten years, and none of us suffer drink related ailments.

That you aware of, binge drinking is defined by more than 3/4 drinks, and is considered to have serious health implications. So having 2 double vodkas you are classified as a binge drinker. Also the alcohol related symptoms are long term and pretty much irreversible,

Gazzydee · 12-05-2010 8:31pm

PCPhoto wrote: »

its funny that in a recession the government do whatever they can to stop new "legal" business from opening and expanding !!!

its amazing how they can rush these kind of changes in a couple of months and yet cant produce proper systems to monitor sex offenders after they leave prison.....or even keep track of kids in care of the state !!

Well said I think the greeks were right, "PEOPLES OF EUROPE RISE UP!!"

FlutterinBantam · 12-05-2010 8:33pm

Horse_box wrote: »

Eh the headshops have to pay tax. The amount of tax they pay would most definitely cover the medical bills of the very few people that have to go to the hospital.

Would you rather drud consumers getting messed up on illegal substances, pay no tax, fill up the A&E, waste police time and feed criminal gangs, rather than just going to the headshop? People buying fom the headshop rather than the drug dealer saves the taxpayer vast sums of money

Buddy, I'd rather drug consumers paid for their own problems.

get your head fcuked up by some head shop **** shit, pay the doctor yourself and pay the hospital yourself, on your own pal.

Don't expect me to clean up after you or pay for Dr. Feelgood's Beemer.

That's the way I roll buddy....ingest all you like but you are on your own.

Einhard · 12-05-2010 8:33pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

That you aware of, binge drinking is defined by more than 3/4 drinks, and is considered to have serious health implications. So having 2 double vodkas you are classified as a binge drinker. Also the alcohol related symptoms are long term and pretty much irreversible,

I'm aware that alcohol can have serious health implications, but clearly they are not so profound, nor so immediate as using legal highs. Also, I put myself at risk by binge drinking, drinking to excess, as you point out. But someone who uses these legal highs, puts themselves at risk with one single experience of them. That's a massive difference, and as such the comparison between the two is disingenuous.

Horse_box · 12-05-2010 8:44pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Buddy, I'd rather drug consumers paid for their own problems.

get your head fcuked up by some head shop **** shit, pay the doctor yourself and pay the hospital yourself, on your own pal.

Don't expect me to clean up after you or pay for Dr. Feelgood's Beemer.

That's the way I roll buddy....ingest all you like but you are on your own.

The drug users would be paying for their own treatment though! That's the point. The government makes millions through the taxation of the legal drugs, which in turn should be used to pay for any medical bills brought on by the users. Simple

Horse_box · 12-05-2010 8:52pm

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? Not exactly a great basis on which to form legislation. 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. Doesn't seem particularly sensible, nor responsible.

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. 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.

My brother actually works in a headshop, and is an enthusiastic imbiber of the wares he sells. He at least acknowledges the downside. He used to smoke every now and then, maybe a few times a month. He also attended college and was generally getting on well in life. But with the advent of the headshops, he started smoking every night. The smell from his room permeated the whole house. it was, as he said, just so easy to get. He rarely left his room, was often moody and irritable, and has since dropped out of college.

It's pretty obvious then to the neutral observer, that the substances sold in headshops can, and do have a significantly negative impact on the user. Moreso I would argue, than alcohol at least, and even tobacco. A

Despite all this, and what some might think, I'm not some Joe Duffy calling reactionary. Headshops don't particularly bother me, and I greeted the news of the new legislation with only mild interest. But I do get annoyed when people make comparisons with alcohol and tobacco, claim that the substances sold are not harmful, and condemn moves against their sale as actions of a nanny state.

There is no denying drugs can have bad effects on certain people. The thing is though, people are always going to do drugs, regardless if they are legal or illegal. We need to take our head out of the sand and realise that.

Why not legalise the safest non-addictive drugs(not what the headshops were selling) and use this money being generated in tax to create medical facillities in order to help the adversely effected minority, as well as wipe out gang crime and greatly reduce police spending on prohibition enforcement

TheCelticWizard · 12-05-2010 9:03pm

Sulmac wrote: »

I think the drug policy in this country, and most other countries, is a complete joke. Banning something just makes some people want it more.

Head shops are/were crippling the drug gangs in this country, moreso than any CAB-type operation could do.

What I would do is overhaul the entire way that drugs are treated in this country. Softer drugs, in particular cannabis (which is safer than tobacco and alcohol, and nowhere near as addictive), should be legalised, regulated and taxed.

Legalising drugs has several benefits; including, taking them out of the hands of gangs; making them safer; the ability to tax them; removing the taboo of them so people are less likely to do it; and not treating the population like children.

The money saved from going after "softer" drugs can be used to go after the serious drugs, such as heroin. "Legal highs", such as those found in head shops, should only be allowed to be sold after a certain testing period, as we do with any form of medication. Certain restrictions would also be placed on head shops, such as location (e.g., not allowing them near schools), prices and hours (some in Dublin were open 24/7 and offered deliveries).

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. Of course, such an act would need to coincide with a major public information campaign, and proper drugs/alcohol education in schools even at primary level.

However, try getting the Irish government to have any sense of forward-thinking.

This hits the nail squarely on the head in my opinion. Drugs are here to stay, banned or not. Drug dealers do not pay tax, head shops do. If the drugs sold in the head shops were regulated along with the opening hours, just like pubs, the only effects it would have is to make drugs safer for those who take them, and generate large amounts of revenue which will now go instead to the criminals.

Stky10 · 12-05-2010 9:09pm

prinz wrote: »

Could you tell us what countries you are referring to here?

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

FlutterinBantam · 12-05-2010 9:13pm

Horse_box wrote: »

The drug users would be paying for their own treatment though! That's the point. The government makes millions through the taxation of the legal drugs, which in turn should be used to pay for any medical bills brought on by the users. Simple

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;)

Einhard · 12-05-2010 9:16pm

Horse_box wrote: »

There is no denying drugs can have bad effects on certain people. The thing is though, people are always going to do drugs, regardless if they are legal or illegal. We need to take our head out of the sand and realise that.

Some people will use drugs regardless of whether they're legal or not. It's obvious though that literally selling them on the street corner, and legally, entices people who would not have encountered them otherwise. This really can't be denied. Otherwise, why set up the shops in the first place?

Why not legalise the safest non-addictive drugs(not what the headshops were selling) and use this money being generated in tax to create medical facillities in order to help the adversely effected minority, as well as wipe out gang crime and greatly reduce police spending on prohibition enforcement

These are good points, but I'd stilla argue that no drug is safe. It's ridiculous the way some supporters of legal highs point out that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous but legal, and then state that their substance of choice should be legalised on that basis. Surely if the drugs are dangerous, then there's a case to be made for their prohibition, regardless of what else is legally available?

Manic Moran · 12-05-2010 9:20pm

I think the drug policy in this country, and most other countries, is a complete joke. Banning something just makes some people want it more.

What sort of daft logic is that? Have you had a sudden desire to paint up your house in lead-based paint or to enter your dog into a dogfight just because they're banned?

The same amount of people will want it, legal or otherwise. What does change is the extent to which some of those people go in order to obtain it. They'll pay more, they'll jump through more hoops, they'll take greater risks. They want it, and damnit, they're going to get it. Some others will think it's just not worth the hassle and leave it alone, even if they still want it, but not that much.

NTM

Elevator · 12-05-2010 9:29pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I guess they don't want the taxpayers complaining when these little arseholes arrive in A&E and block up the place.

I would have no problem with headshops if they looked after the little goons they screw up and not cost me any tax money.

Bolloxed if I am going to watch some cunt driving around in Beemer while I clean up after him/her with my tax money.

No way Jose:D

but you're happy that your local drug dealer is making major profits, letting debts build up, has been cutting his product with previously banned head substances since they were banned!!

using the head shops as a guide you can begin to see the demand for what it is and maybe even more so for the illegals, out of all the people I know that used head shops I knew slightly more who refused to step inside one due to not wanting to be seen going in and out,

I think in light of real evidence that a **** load of people can take mushrooms, bzp, salvia, smoke related products, etc etc with no real advice coming from the government other than propaganda and hearsay. fair enough some people had a bad turn but personal responcibility doesn't even get a look in, they showed not one piece of medical evidence to back up their claims afaik (correct me if I'm wrong...)

dealers are in the money now and every single person who chooses to use drugs are very much in real danger once again. end of and a Fact with a capital Fact

NANNY STATE

Elevator · 12-05-2010 9:36pm

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;)

not really tho as a LOT of people used the shops and didn't have bad turns so the profits were only going to increase as the customer base continued to rise and flourish,

new stock on the way in 2 days time so a big FU to the government, yer playin with peoples lives here and don't give a ****

ChocolateSauce · 12-05-2010 9:41pm

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? Not exactly a great basis on which to form legislation. 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. Doesn't seem particularly sensible, nor responsible.

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. 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.

My brother actually works in a headshop, and is an enthusiastic imbiber of the wares he sells. He at least acknowledges the downside. He used to smoke every now and then, maybe a few times a month. He also attended college and was generally getting on well in life. But with the advent of the headshops, he started smoking every night. The smell from his room permeated the whole house. it was, as he said, just so easy to get. He rarely left his room, was often moody and irritable, and has since dropped out of college.

It's pretty obvious then to the neutral observer, that the substances sold in headshops can, and do have a significantly negative impact on the user. Moreso I would argue, than alcohol at least, and even tobacco. A

Despite all this, and what some might think, I'm not some Joe Duffy calling reactionary. Headshops don't particularly bother me, and I greeted the news of the new legislation with only mild interest. But I do get annoyed when people make comparisons with alcohol and tobacco, claim that the substances sold are not harmful, and condemn moves against their sale as actions of a nanny state.

Well I'm going to compare drugs and alcohol again. Your brother was a fool to smoke too much, but you can't blame the drugs and say they should be banned- people who drink too much are fools too, and we call them alcoholics, but we don't ban alcohol.

Are you suggesting that we maintain the double standard of allowing one but not the other? And we allow the one which is known to be the more harmful? Seriously? It's barefaced hypocrisy.

Einhard · 12-05-2010 9:54pm

Elevator wrote: »

NANNY STATE

Ok, this is the nonsense that annoys me. Anytime the government does something that someone doesn't agree with, we're living in a nanny state.

The government lowers drink drive limits....

The government makes wearing of seat belts compulsory...

The government prohibits smoking indoors in public places...

Nanny state, nanny state, nanny state...

The thing people don't seem to realise is that any government has a vested interest in the proper working of society, and the health of its citizens. Not merely because it invariably has to pick up the tab when things go wrong for the individual, but also because the health of the individual has a direct impact on the health of society. I don't think it entirely unreasonable that a government take some steps to safeguard the former for the benefit of the latter.

Einhard · 12-05-2010 10:05pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well I'm going to compare drugs and alcohol again. Your brother was a fool to smoke too much, but you can't blame the drugs and say they should be banned- people who drink too much are fools too, and we call them alcoholics, but we don't ban alcohol.

Are you suggesting that we maintain the double standard of allowing one but not the other? And we allow the one which is known to be the more harmful? Seriously? It's barefaced hypocrisy.

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.

eamon234 · 12-05-2010 10:06pm

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.

Herbal Deity · 12-05-2010 10:22pm

Einhard wrote: »

I'm aware that alcohol can have serious health implications, but clearly they are not so profound, nor so immediate as using legal highs. Also, I put myself at risk by binge drinking, drinking to excess, as you point out. But someone who uses these legal highs, puts themselves at risk with one single experience of them. That's a massive difference, and as such the comparison between the two is disingenuous.

I think your thoughts on this, while not invalid, are a little flawed.

For a start, what do you mean by "legal highs"? If you're going to compare them to alcohol, you have to do a drug by drug comparison. You can't just state that the negative effects of legal highs are more immediate and profound

I take particular issue with the following statement:

Einhard wrote: »

But someone who uses these legal highs, puts themselves at risk with one single experience of them.

How did you come to this conclusion? Earlier, you gave anecdotes about people you know who have been smoking weed for ten years, and about your brother, who began smoking legal smoking blends every night. Neither of these anecdotes indicate that a single experience of any of these drugs could put oneself at risk any more than a single drink might. And what I've said above about lumping all "legal highs" together applies here. What drugs are you talking about when you say "these legal highs"?

When you binge drink, there's no reason to suggest that you put yourself at any less risk than anyone else indulging in any other drug.

A valid point to make, however, is that there is not the same culture or attitude surrounding using drugs as there is surrounding alcohol. Drinking every day, getting drunk alone or drinking during the day is not socially acceptable (in other countries it's not socially acceptable to get plastered when going out either). However, the daily smoking of weed is not perceived to be problematic by many who support its use. While not addictive, I personally believe that daily smoking can be a very bad idea for many people (of course, there are many others for whom it is not a problem also). But there're no sensible guidelines in society for what is an advisable or acceptable frequency to be indulging in something like weed. There's just "Drugs 'r bad, mmk?" vs. "weed is harmless, go for it!". There's no middle ground, no source of non judgmental, non loaded information on what is a sensible frequency of indulgence.

Banning drugs is a harm elimination approach. Needless to say, it doesn't work and it tramples all over people's personal freedom.

What's better is a harm reduction approach. Some headshops claimed to be this. They weren't. But the idea of a regulated drugs market where information on sensible (not necessarily harmless) usage is freely available and promoted.

Seeking to eliminate the uneliminatable doesn't work. The best approach is a compromise.

(This post has been longer and more tangential than intended, apologies

)

Herbal Deity · 12-05-2010 10:29pm

Einhard wrote: »

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.

You honestly think that alcohol is the only drug with recreational potential, of all the recreational drugs which exist, that can be used responsibly and which can have positive health effects?

Ad why does the method or location of the production of a chemical have anything to do with whether it's possible to use responsibly or has positive health effects?

Funkfield · 12-05-2010 10:39pm

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're not thinking this through.

Should McDonalds pay people's gym memberships?

Should the LVA pay for people to go to rehab?

yoshytoshy · 12-05-2010 10:48pm

Personally ,I've never had trouble with headshops ,as is the same with a lot of people.

But ,peoples concerns were completely ignored and rational thought when out the window. Thats the problem and thats why the government banned the stuff.
It's not the drugs that were the sole problem ,it was the way people were being treated in small towns around ireland.

It's crazy to expect this stuff to be sold on every street corner ,thats never what it was all about.

FlutterinBantam · 12-05-2010 11:43pm

Funkfield wrote: »

You're not thinking this through.

Should McDonalds pay people's gym memberships?

Should the LVA pay for people to go to rehab?

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;)

Horse_box · 13-05-2010 1:06am

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)

Horse_box · 13-05-2010 1:27am

Einhard wrote: »

Some people will use drugs regardless of whether they're legal or not. It's obvious though that literally selling them on the street corner, and legally, entices people who would not have encountered them otherwise. This really can't be denied. Otherwise, why set up the shops in the first place?

I agree with you there. The way the headshops opened 24hrs was really cheeky as they knew people with a few drinks in them would be more likely to want their products. This is where strict regulations should have been brought in to keep opening times to normal business hours

Einhard wrote: »

These are good points, but I'd stilla argue that no drug is safe. It's ridiculous the way some supporters of legal highs point out that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous but legal, and then state that their substance of choice should be legalised on that basis. Surely if the drugs are dangerous, then there's a case to be made for their prohibition, regardless of what else is legally available?

No drug is completely safe, fair enough. There are however certain drugs eg MDMA that have extensive and prolonged research on them and have been found to be very safe as long as it's not abused over a long period of time. It's moreso about education and damage limitation at this stage, as we know people are going to go out and consume drugs

The alcohol vs drugs argument has been done to death alright and it can be misleading when used in defense of illegal drugs so I wont get into that

generalmiaow · 13-05-2010 3:33am

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.

Spiritoftheseventies · 13-05-2010 8:54am

PCPhoto wrote: »

thats b0llox !!! ..... curran was drunk and high on weed at 17yrs of age .... and is a scumbag, he wanted the polish lads to goto the off licence to buy him and mates drink, the polish lads refused.... so he went off - got a screwdriver and tried threatening/bullying them into doing it .... and we all know what happened next (he went overboard)

(this info is from two sources one of the witnesses and also one of the neighbours in the area at the time)

would be good if you could quote the sources all the same

eoin5 · 13-05-2010 9:16am

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.

pooch90 · 13-05-2010 9:51am

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Buddy, I'd rather drug consumers paid for their own problems.

get your head fcuked up by some head shop **** shit, pay the doctor yourself and pay the hospital yourself, on your own pal.

Don't expect me to clean up after you or pay for Dr. Feelgood's Beemer.

That's the way I roll buddy....ingest all you like but you are on your own.

Thats silly. If someone has a car crash, should we determine if he was at fault before deciding whether to cut him out or not?
Should we decide not to bother cutting him out because it's his choice to drive?

Don't care about head shops (never even set foot in one) but I can tell you that illegal drugs are so ingrained that even some primary school kids can get them. Especially in socially disadvantaged areas, where I could swear sometimes that some of my pupils are being bread to be criminals.
These same children will earn a little pocket money selling drugs to their mates at every opportunity and it seems like there is nothing we can do to stop them.

Please get rid of all drugs but if you cannot get rid of them, at least make sure that it's some bit of a challenge for children to get and, in the event that some do get them, make sure that they are not ingesting poisons.
I think that legalising and taxing them is the way to go - maybe each store selling them should have to pay for a guard to be present at all times to make sure that no kids are ever sold any!!

Funkfield · 13-05-2010 9:53am

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 · 13-05-2010 9:58am

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?

FlutterinBantam · 13-05-2010 10:00am

Are head shops licensed premises?

Is there any control on who sets them up.

Ash.J.Williams · 13-05-2010 10:01am

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?

Usual Customs and excise, smuggling laws, and the others countries drug laws would still apply.

Spiritoftheseventies · 13-05-2010 10:17am

pooch90 wrote: »

Thats silly. If someone has a car crash, should we determine if he was at fault before deciding whether to cut him out or not?
Should we decide not to bother cutting him out because it's his choice to drive?

Don't care about head shops (never even set foot in one) but I can tell you that illegal drugs are so ingrained that even some primary school kids can get them. Especially in socially disadvantaged areas, where I could swear sometimes that some of my pupils are being bread [sic] to be criminals.
These same children will earn a little pocket money selling drugs to their mates at every opportunity and it seems like there is nothing we can do to stop them.

Please get rid of all drugs but if you cannot get rid of them, at least make sure that it's some bit of a challenge for children to get and, in the event that some do get them, make sure that they are not ingesting poisons.
I think that legalising and taxing them is the way to go - maybe each store selling them should have to pay for a guard to be present at all times to make sure that no kids are ever sold any!!

No. Just put up an over 21s sign only if head shops are to be tolerated. Agree with on point about the availability of these drugs which we really dont know that much about.
There is to much of a liberal agenda going round about the head shops. They are a relatively new phenemonen here and as such folks shouldn't be expected to welcome these proprietors with open arms.

Funkfield · 13-05-2010 10:18am

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Are head shops licensed premises?

Is there any control on who sets them up.

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

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

thirtythirty · 13-05-2010 10:19am

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!

pooch90 · 13-05-2010 10:31am

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

No. Just put up an over 21s sign only if head shops are to be tolerated. Agree with on point about the availability of these drugs which we really dont know that much about.
There is to much of a liberal agenda going round about the head shops. They are a relatively new phenemonen here and as such folks shouldn't be expected to welcome these proprietors with open arms.

Actually we could impose mandatory blood testing on all children every week or two to catch the ones taking drugs and move against the parents.

Same could be done for all adults I suppose - have them come to the clinic once a week for a few years and jail anyone with drugs in their system or who fails to show.

Not sure if that's an Ireland i want to live in but its the only way to get rid of drugs.

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

Comments