Joe Duffy and Mob Rule

Duck's hoop

Just listening to Liveline and have been for a few days since last week. He's leading a concerted campaign against the 'Headshop' industry.

I have no doubt that he will succeed in closing these shops.

My question to you is; Leaving aside your own opinions on what these places sell, do you think it's right that a reactionary and hugely biased radio show, fuelled by a mob mentality, should be the arbiter of legislative matters in this country?

Or do you find this situation just a little undemocratic and frightening?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Think it's fair to say that those questions are fairly "hugely biased" themselves.

dr.bollocko

There's probably 100+ headshops in the country now. That's a lot of jobs lost to the "I'm a mother and..." parade of Joe-worshipping morons he usually gets to fill the show.

Bonito

Tis a load of BS IMO. They're creating some sort of employment, the ones I know of are pretty heavy with the whole I.D. business unless it's a regular customer entering. I don't have an interest in them myself and they don't bother me so I'm not gonna whinge and pull a tantrum to have them closed. The one in my town has been relocated 3 times, it's now on a back street and off the view of the main street. Everyone knows where it is and you only need to know about it now if you want to buy something from it.

Duck's hoop

Augustine Rough Chess wrote: »

Think it's fair to say that those questions are fairly "hugely biased" themselves.

The questions are a fair reflection of how I see this situation. They are not meant as leading questions. You are free to disagree and enlighten me, at your leisure.

The way I see it Joe uses his platform to pursue personal agendas. On a State radio station. I don't think this is 'right'.

yoshytoshy

There wouldn't be a problem with these shops ,if they opened up in suitable areas.
Some of them are open in front of schools ffs.

SV

yoshytoshy wrote: »

There wouldn't be a problem with these shops ,if they opened up in suitable areas.
Some of them are open in front of schools ffs.

What's a suitable area?

dr.bollocko

yoshytoshy wrote: »

There wouldn't be a problem with these shops ,if they opened up in suitable areas.
Some of them are open in front of schools ffs.

Next to off licences and tobacconists are they?

AnonoBoy

Personally I think they won't succeed in closing them down. But they might prompt the government to regulate them which would probably be a good thing.

AnonoBoy

yoshytoshy wrote: »

There wouldn't be a problem with these shops ,if they opened up in suitable areas.
Some of them are open in front of schools ffs.

Hey man teachers have a right to get high too you know. :mad:

yoshytoshy

SV wrote: »

What's a suitable area?

In city areas that are generally busy at night. At the moment they're opening up anywhere they can.
Maybe have strict opening hours aswell.

Buford T Justice

Headshop? WTF?

dr.bollocko

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Headshop? WTF?

Shops which sell drug paraphernalia such as bongs, papers, and also numerous legal highs, wizard masks and other hippie BS.

Nike_Dude

It's the same thing as with the stringfellows place :rolleyes: if they are such a serious concern then people should start lobbying their TDs. Some clown of a radio presenter shouldnt be able to mobilise an army of whingers to start closing down things he personally doesnt like.

Duck's hoop

Nike_Dude wrote: »

It's the same thing as with the stringfellows place :rolleyes: if they are such a serious concern then people should start lobbying their TDs. Some clown of a radio presenter shouldnt be able to mobilise an army of whingers to start closing down things he personally doesnt like.

Precisely.

Pat Sheen

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Personally I think they won't succeed in closing them down. But they might prompt the government to regulate them which would probably be a good thing.

It's more likely they will ban the synthetic cannabinoids using a catch-all and then they'll ban the party pill and bath salt ingredients soon after. Meph is raising eyebrows Europe wide..it's dead in the water. Synthetic cannabinoids have already been banned in the largest countries in europe

BraziliaNZ

the way things are going all the products will be banned, because of whining idiots on Joe Duffy

syklops

Nike_Dude wrote: »

It's the same thing as with the stringfellows place :rolleyes: if they are such a serious concern then people should start lobbying their TDs. Some clown of a radio presenter shouldnt be able to mobilise an army of whingers to start closing down things he personally doesnt like.

Decisions are made by those who show up. If enugh people rang liveline up in defence of Headshops then nothing would happen. When the topic came up, a few headshop fans rang up but to be honest they did not really give a good case of defence. Many of them spoke about what effects they experenced which was not the tack to go.

And by the way Stringfellows went because it didn't get enough business. Joe duffy did not ban it with his Ban stick.

SEPT 23 1989

Duffy wants a war with the Head Shops

Duck's hoop

Well they ban the products they close the shops.

dsmythy

Undemocratic? If the people want it they will get it. If they don't they won't. Undemocratic? Plenty of other undemocratic things in Ireland but this is not one of them.

SV wrote: »

What's a suitable area?

Well away from schools for one.

nice1franko

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Headshop? WTF?

WindSock

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Headshop? WTF?

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Shops which sell drug paraphernalia such as bongs, papers, and also numerous legal highs, wizard masks and other hippie BS.

Lies!

Duck's hoop

syklops wrote: »

Decisions are made by those who show up. If enugh people rang liveline up in defence of Headshops then nothing would happen.

That's the problem I'm trying to get at. Aside from the fact that I'm sure he briefs his researchers to allow on a majority who share his agenda, and the fact that maybe people who use these places don't switch to Liveline religiously every day, my point is that matters of legislation should not be decided by the mob mentality that is the driver behind this show.

AnonoBoy

Pat Sheen wrote: »

It's more likely they will ban the synthetic cannabinoids using a catch-all and then they'll ban the party pill and bath salt ingredients soon after. Meph is raising eyebrows Europe wide..it's dead in the water. Synthetic cannabinoids have already been banned in the largest countries in europe

They'll ban products sure and more products will be made and they'll be banned etc. etc.

But I don't think they will close the shops down completely, they'll just stop them selling certain products. This is why regulation is the best way forward I think.

Pat Sheen

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Well they ban the products they close the shops.

True. But then everyone can see how it's gone in the uk. I read somewhere half a tonne of meph is ngoing into the UK each week and it's on the street possibly even overtaking coke in some areas. The synthetics make a joke of the cannabis law and now meph especially makes a joke of the coke law. That can't be seen to continue.

Nike_Dude

syklops wrote: »

Decisions are made by those who show up. If enugh people rang liveline up in defence of Headshops then nothing would happen. When the topic came up, a few headshop fans rang up but to be honest they did not really give a good case of defence. Many of them spoke about what effects they experenced which was not the tack to go.

And by the way Stringfellows went because it didn't get enough business. Joe duffy did not ban it with his Ban stick.

Joe didnt ban it but he made sure that there was a constant supply of protesting around it. This was despite the fact that you can find any number of hookers pimping their "services" within a 5 min walk from parnell st.

Also people are not going to ring in to support something once Joe's Mob have taken a different view. Personally I don't like the headshops and I think they need to be regulated, but having Joe drum up his usual gang of complainers is not the way to deal with things.

WindSock

Little do these petty minded fools know that banning known quantities mean many more unknown quantities spring up to take their place.

starbelgrade

dsmythy wrote: »

Undemocratic? If the people want it they will get it. If they don't they won't. Undemocratic? Plenty of other undemocratic things in Ireland but this is not one of them.

The sale of magic mushrooms by headshops was banned by Mary Harney in 2006, following the death of one person after taking them. This, despite any real evidence that the death was as a direct result of taking the mushrooms. There was nothing democratic about it either & if headshops are closed, you can guarantee that it will not be put to a public vote.

Tobacco & alcohol cause substantial deaths in this country every year & cost the health service millions of pounds, compared to one alleged death caused by a headshop product, namely a natural occuring fungi that can be picked from most Irish fields every September. If they are to be closed by knee-jerk, tabloid driven hysteria, it wouldn't surprise me.

Whilst I agree that the products sold by headshops should be regulated, closing them altogether will do nothing but drive people to buy their drugs from dealers who we all know are controlled by criminal gangs. When that happens, the Joe Duffy brigade will really have something to complain about.

The problem is that the mob mentality is far too short sighted & cannot see that every action has consequences & they are far too tunnel visioned to realise that this particular action will have far greater consequences than they imagine.

AnonoBoy

Nike_Dude wrote: »

Joe didnt ban it but he made sure that there was a constant supply of protesting around it. This was despite the fact that you can find any number of hookers pimping their "services" within a 5 min walk from parnell st.

I don't think the protests went on for that long at all. Stringfellow's problem was that it was too expensive was it not?

And if the Joe Duffy brigade were so up in arms about Stringfellow's (which treated staff fairly well I heard) why aren't they bothered about the other lapdancing places in Dublin?

OutlawPete

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Stringfellow's problem was that it was too expensive was it not?

You tell us..

xzanti

AnonoBoy wrote: »

And if the Joe Duffy brigade were so up in arms about Stringfellow's (which treated staff fairly well I heard) why aren't they bothered about the other lapdancing places in Dublin?

It was because it was being opened in the middle of a residential area afaik..

Pat Sheen

starbelgrade wrote: »

The problem is that the mob mentality is far too short sighted & cannot see that every action has consequences & they are far too tunnel visioned to realise that this particular action will have far greater consequences than they imagine.

What do you mean?

starbelgrade

Pat Sheen wrote: »

What do you mean?

If you read the whole post, you'd know what I mean.

AnonoBoy

OutlawPete wrote: »

You tell us..

Hah! Nah, I knew a lad who worked in the bar there and that's it. Honest.

xzanti wrote: »

It was because it was being opened in the middle of a residential area afaik..

That would make a bit of sense alright. It was up near Parnell Street was it?

xzanti

AnonoBoy wrote: »

That would make a bit of sense alright. It was up near Parnell Street was it?

Yep, near a load of inner city flats.. a noody bar would have really ruined the futures of the kids in the area..

OutlawPete

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Hah! Nah, I knew a lad who worked in the bar there and that's it. Honest.

I was p*ssed off when the place opened as they closed down Shooters, I loved that place

Hooters and I'd have been happy though.

Pat Sheen

starbelgrade wrote: »

If you read the whole post, you'd know what I mean.

I read the whole post and clearly I didn't.

geeky

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Just listening to Liveline and have been for a few days since last week. He's leading a concerted campaign against the 'Headshop' industry.

I have no doubt that he will succeed in closing these shops.

My question to you is; Leaving aside your own opinions on what these places sell, do you think it's right that a reactionary and hugely biased radio show, fuelled by a mob mentality, should be the arbiter of legislative matters in this country?

Or do you find this situation just a little undemocratic and frightening?

Jeeeeeesus Joe, you're right, it's bleedin' awful.............

Seriously, though, if politicians get the finger out and ban these places, it'll be because they think there's a public outcry about it. Joe pushes people's buttons, for sure, but he can't snap his fingers and get something banned, or manufacture outrage out of nothing. He's not a respected journalist who can change policy making in his own right - in fact, has he ever managed to get one thing banned in this country.

Joe Duffy and his show wreck the head, but it's almost always a different storm in a different teacup every afternoon - rather like After Hours. You're ascribing way too much power to him.

The_Minister

starbelgrade wrote: »

The sale of magic mushrooms by headshops was banned by Mary Harney in 2006, following the death of one person after taking them. This, despite any real evidence that the death was as a direct result of taking the mushrooms. There was nothing democratic about it either & if headshops are closed, you can guarantee that it will not be put to a public vote.

But at the time shrooms were only allowed to be sold due to a loophole regarding scientific research.
Technically they were already illegal, but there was a loophole which everyone ignored - once attention was called to it by the unfortunate death of a young man, it had to be closed.
The alternative would have been to legalise it, which wasn't a viable option politically at the time (McDowell was bringing in tougher legislation against drug lords etc).

Demeyes

The arguments on the radio kind of annoyed me. Very one sided and it was all fully against the head shops. Most people who would have real first hand experience of the head shops wouldn't listen to Joe Duffy at all so they didn't get much info from them. The people on it sounded like the kind of folk who would campaign against anything they aren't familiar with.
Obviously some more regulation of the headshops wouldn't go astray but the way they were talking on the show was very much for getting rid of them altogether.

OutlawPete

I seen two majestic stick people dancing in harmony Xzanti

Pushtrak

Pat Sheen wrote: »

I read the whole post and clearly I didn't.

To pinpoint the important bit:

Whilst I agree that the products sold by headshops should be regulated, closing them altogether will do nothing but drive people to buy their drugs from dealers who we all know are controlled by criminal gangs. When that happens, the Joe Duffy brigade will really have something to complain about.

xzanti

OutlawPete wrote: »

I seen two majestic stick people dancing in harmony Xzanti

Wow you're gay quick, I deleted that cause I thought the link wasn't working..

OutlawPete

xzanti wrote: »

Wow you're gay quick, I deleted that cause I thought the link wasn't working..

I made it work - anything for boobies

Pat Sheen

Pushtrak wrote: »

To pinpoint the important bit:Whilst I agree that the products sold by headshops should be regulated, closing them altogether will do nothing but drive people to buy their drugs from dealers who we all know are controlled by criminal gangs. When that happens, the Joe Duffy brigade will really have something to complain about.

And that's what people were doing before the legal highs came along. But quietly and out of sight. Joe Duffy will shrug his shoulders.

starbelgrade

Pat Sheen wrote: »

I read the whole post and clearly I didn't.

OK - my basic point is that people will buy drugs regardless of the fact that they are legal or not. At present, we have headshops which sell legal & much less dangerous alternatives to street drugs. Many people choose to buy them from these shops as they are legal & safer.

Should the headshops be closed down, these people will end up going back to dealers & street dealers to buy stuff that they've no idea what's in them - and what is in a lot of street drugs can be very nasty stuff indeed, ranging from weed sprayed with glass particles to bulk it out, hash made from anything from car tyres, to glue, to dog sh*t, ecstacy laced with heroin, coke laced with cleaning products, etc etc.

Add to this, that almost all illegal drugs are brought into the country by criminal gangs, who have killed & will continue to kill other gang members over turf wars, who have killed & will continue to kill dealers & junkies who owe them money and then you have a much worse situation than you do now.

The headshops at least, can be controlled & regulated and whilst they may be seen by the general public as an "evil", they are a much lesser evil than the other alternative.

Quite simply, prohibition doesn't work - let's say that you ban the sale of alcohol tomorrow as they did in the States in the 1900's. It did little to stop the sale of alcohol - instead "moonshining" became a huge industry, with people brewing & selling alcohol left, right & centre. It also caused huge health problems as alcohol which is not properly distilled can cause all types of illnesses & even death.

Pat Sheen

starbelgrade wrote: »

Quite simply, prohibition doesn't work - let's say that you ban the sale of alcohol tomorrow as they did in the States in the 1900's. It did little to stop the sale of alcohol - instead "moonshining" became a huge industry, with people brewing & selling alcohol left, right & centre. It also caused huge health problems as alcohol which is not properly distilled can cause all types of illnesses & even death.

Quite simply, prohibition doesn't work - let's say that you ban the sale of drugs tomorrow as they did in the States in the 1900's. It did little to stop the sale of drugs - instead "legal highs" became a huge industry, with people importing & selling legal highs left, right & centre. It also caused huge health problems as legal high which are not properly tested can cause all types of illnesses & even death.

That's cheeky I suppose, but the point you made twice, that legal highs are safer and much less dangerous than illegal drugs, cannot be backed up with evidence because it doesn't exist, the tests have not been done. And the anecdotal negative stories are mounting up.

starbelgrade

Pat Sheen wrote: »

That's cheeky I suppose, but the point you made twice, that legal highs are safer and much less dangerous than illegal drugs, cannot be backed up with evidence because it doesn't exist, the tests have not been done. And the anecdotal negative stories are mounting up.

Some tests have been done - which is why the sale of products containing BZP were recently outlawed. I agree though, that testing is the way forward, but I also know for a fact, that the stuff sold in headshops is also not laced with all the nasty stuff you get in street drugs.

major bill

another bit of evidence that the nanny state hasnt gone away.:rolleyes:

RedPlanet

Pat Sheen wrote: »

That's cheeky I suppose, but the point you made twice, that legal highs are safer and much less dangerous than illegal drugs, cannot be backed up with evidence because it doesn't exist, the tests have not been done. And the anecdotal negative stories are mounting up.

Tbh i think the onus is on the Joe Duffy side to backup their claims with stats.
These stories are coming from sensationalized media.

The claims don't make much sense, Joe Duffy constantly tells us that the headshops are doing great business, but if loads of their customers were having bad experiences then they wouldn't be repeat customers. Their reports would also put their friends off so i would expect less business, nor more.