Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

2»

Comments

  • #52
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    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


  • #53
    Horse_box
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Horse_box


    pooch90 wrote: »
    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.

    Not trying to cause offence but that is a ridiculous idea!

    It shouldn't and never will happen


  • #54
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    pooch90 wrote: »
    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.
    So you would be okay with minors going into these head shops?


  • #55
    Sid_Justice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,720 ✭✭✭Sid_Justice


    If their parents are happy with them doing that then what's your problem?


  • #56
    dkin
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭dkin


    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.


  • #57
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    Who says their parents have no problem with it.
    I dont get your argument.
    I have heard instances of residents in both Clontarf and Malahide objecting to these head shops.


  • #58
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    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).


  • #59
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    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.
    Do you have a similar attitude towards skateboarders, or people who engage in activities with a high risk of costly injury?


  • #60
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    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.
    It's completely absurd to assert that alcohol is unique amongst the 1000s of psychoactives in that it can be enjoyed responsibly.

    Head shops were not selling any hallucinogens at the time the bill was passed, by the way.
    Einhard wrote: »
    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...
    You can still drink. You can still drive your car. You can still smoke tobacco. Please tell me how I can legally imbibe cannabis, MDMA, or mephedrone in this country without being part of a clinical trial.

    With the proposed legislation, the government is effectively attempting to ban getting high. How are these not the actions of a nanny state?
    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.
    The status quo can and should be challenged.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Elevator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 844 ✭✭✭Elevator


    Einhard wrote: »
    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 3 instances you refer to above would have a direct impact on others due to my personal choices to which I would not refer to as nanny state

    if I want to and I will partake in some substance use the odd time throughout a year then it's my choice. it is the choice of a lot of people worldwide mate. I usually refer to things stinking of nanny state when it is something i know for a fact that my nanny wouldn't even tell me not to do.

    and what does she know only the dribble the media and totally out of touch politicians. what experience do any of them have in their fields?

    minister for health? minster for finance? education? the actual drugs tzar?

    they don't have a clue and I tend to trust tried and tested advice over anyhing my government tries to tell me is bad for me for my own good.


  • #62
    pooch90
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭pooch90


    Horse_box wrote: »
    Not trying to cause offence but that is a ridiculous idea!

    It shouldn't and never will happen
    Thats the point! We cannot do what it takes to stop people taking drugs, so we will never get rid of drugs.
    All we can do is manage the problem but the way its done today means even my kids (primary school teacher) have access to drugs if they want them.

    There has to be a better way - find a way to stop kids getting drugs or something but banning them the way they are banned today is failing.


  • #63
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Do you have a similar attitude towards skateboarders, or people who engage in activities with a high risk of costly injury?


    With all due respect Dumbbell, you can hardly compare skateboarding to the taking of hallucinatory substances.

    Testing sssssssone sstwo:rolleyes:


  • #64
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    With all due respect Dumbbell, you can hardly compare skateboarding to the taking of hallucinatory substances.

    Testing sssssssone sstwo:rolleyes:
    Why? They're both activities in which people engage in their leisure time, and they both carry health risks that could end up costing the taxpayer.

    And again, head shops were not selling hallucinogens.


  • #65
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Why? They're both activities in which people engage in their leisure time, and they both carry health risks that could end up costing the taxpayer.

    And again, head shops were not selling hallucinogens.


    If you believe that load of bulldust fair play to you.;)

    You are not in my league buddy.


  • #66
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    If you believe that load of bulldust fair play to you.;)

    You are not in my league buddy.
    You misunderstand me man. I'm well aware the head shops were selling psychoactives for human consumption, but they were stimulants like mephedrone or cannabinoids like JWH-018. Hallucinogens would be the likes of LSD and mushrooms; the drugs sold in the establishments were certainly mind-altering but not really hallucinogenic.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Horse_box
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Horse_box


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    If you believe that load of bulldust fair play to you.;)

    You are not in my league buddy.


    LOL

    This guy has to be a troll


  • #68
    Horse_box
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Horse_box


    FlutterinBantam

    You never got back to me in relation to my points put forward in post 38. Maybe have a look and get back to me, buddy


  • #69
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Horse_box wrote: »
    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)

    Drug trade!!! what has that to do with legitimate business?

    Let me get my head around this, guns are illegal, by opening shops to sell guns legally you would appease the problem??

    USA !!

    Just because you pay taxes on something doesn't make it right!!

    Tax cocaine to the nth degree and it's all hunky dory.:confused:

    Back to the drawing board buddy:cool:


  • #70
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Drug trade!!! what has that to do with legitimate business?

    Let me get my head around this, guns are illegal, by opening shops to sell guns legally you would appease the problem??

    USA !!

    Just because you pay taxes on something doesn't make it right!!

    Tax cocaine to the nth degree and it's all hunky dory.:confused:

    Back to the drawing board buddy:cool:

    Bad analogy, guns are not illegal and there are already gun shops :)


  • #71
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    Bad analogy, guns are not illegal and there are already gun shops :)


    So you can walk in off the street and load up with an over and under?;)


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Horse_box
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Horse_box


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Drug trade!!! what has that to do with legitimate business?

    Let me get my head around this, guns are illegal, by opening shops to sell guns legally you would appease the problem??

    USA !!

    Just because you pay taxes on something doesn't make it right!!

    Tax cocaine to the nth degree and it's all hunky dory.:confused:

    Back to the drawing board buddy:cool:

    Sure you were the one saying ''I'd rather drug consumers paid for their own problems'' This is the way for this to happen

    Also I never mentioned cocaine. I'd never be in support of legalising a proven physically addictive drug, especially one that turns people into arrogant dickheads like coke does


  • #73
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Horse_box wrote: »
    I'd never be in support of legalising a proven physically addictive drug
    So, by your argument we should make the sale of Nicotine, Alcohol, Caffeine and Codeine illegal?


  • #74
    kleefarr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,744 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    An interesting documentary on the 20 most dangerous drugs...

    Horizon 20 Most dangerous Drugs

    Has probably been seen by a few of you already, but worth a repost in my opinion.


  • #75
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    I'm starting to have doubts about that list watching the film. Just got to solvent abuse, kills 50-60 people a year, yet cannabis higher up on the chart


  • #76
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    prinz wrote: »
    From your own referenced article..



    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

    What is the % for the Irish. I can imagine it being higher than Holland.


  • #77
    Sulmac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    Pretty well known-graph on the issue of drug use:

    Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg


  • #78
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,167 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Drug trade!!! what has that to do with legitimate business?

    Let me get my head around this, guns are illegal, by opening shops to sell guns legally you would appease the problem??

    USA !!

    Just because you pay taxes on something doesn't make it right!!

    Tax cocaine to the nth degree and it's all hunky dory.:confused:

    Back to the drawing board buddy:cool:
    Did you not hear about the Rocket Launchers found in Kildare?

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055910597

    To my understanding, Guns sold legally in the United States are registered items and each unit has a unique ballistic fingerprint which during any forensic investigation can be checked against the registry. Theres also been a drive in recent years to individually serialize bullets and shell casings but this is meeting resistance due to the cost of implementation and destruction of existing ammunition stockpiles.

    Anyway, moot point.

    Yes, there is a market for weapons. Always will be. From the rocket launcher to the rock, humans have always desired to have them.

    Lets face it though, its not like THC would even be nearly as volatile a decision as re-legalizing personal defense weapons. How many lethalities can we honestly expect? Would these be at numbers remotely that of alcohol? If it was even 5% of all consumers of THC (which would actually be more like 0% and even -5% with medicinal use) and you taxed it @ 21% (or likely, much higher) you're still realizing a huge boost in revenue which can be injected straight into the Medical Budget.

    Instead what you have is the example you shat on above: THC is directly costing the state money in regards to Law and Order. That and the money is probably winding up overseas where, currently, most of these drugs are being cultivated; instead of right at home in Legal Greenhouses.


  • #79
    Horse_box
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Horse_box


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    So, by your argument we should make the sale of Nicotine, Alcohol, Caffeine and Codeine illegal?


    No, but legalising more physically addictive drugs, especially cocaine would not be wise imo

    I'm all for legalising non addictive relativly safe drugs. Coke is extremely bad for ones health though and is physically addictive so I wouldn't be of favour of legalising it, especially in a society where drug knowledge, or lack there of, is gained from tabloid newspapers


  • #80
    rubensni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭rubensni


    Horse_box wrote: »
    No, but legalising more physically addictive drugs, especially cocaine would not be wise imo

    I'm all for legalising non addictive relativly safe drugs. Coke is extremely bad for ones health though and is physically addictive so I wouldn't be of favour of legalising it, especially in a society where drug knowledge, or lack there of, is gained from tabloid newspapers

    No it isn't.
    Overdosing, addiction, neglect of one's own body: that's where the drug gets it's bad name, but that's not the drug's fault, instead it's the user's ignorance that causes the negative effects. Exception is unscrupulous dealers who cut the drug with poisons.


  • #81
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    rubensni wrote: »
    No it isn't.
    Overdosing, addiction, neglect of one's own body: that's where the drug gets it's bad name, but that's not the drug's fault, instead it's the user's ignorance that causes the negative effects. Exception is unscrupulous dealers who cut the drug with poisons.

    It's also bad for everyone elses health. A person on coke gets a feeling of invulnerability and self importance. Sounds great. Unfortunately the kind of person who needs to feel all powerful is the same kind of person who will beat the head off a stranger to demonstrate this power. Because not only does coke make you feel this way it also reduces your impulse control and concept of reality. If a person mixes it with alcohol a taser would have trouble taking them down.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement