Head Shop in Roscommon

yessam

Is the protest outside the Head Shop on Castle Street a waste of time. The protestors are doing well but I have heard the head shops are doing a delivery service and going to open 24 hours a day.
What do you think should happen. Are we better off with the shop open or closed.

donna1000

yessam wrote: »

Is the protest outside the Head Shop on Castle Street a waste of time. The protestors are doing well but I have heard the head shops are doing a delivery service and going to open 24 hours a day.
What do you think should happen. Are we better off with the shop open or closed.

I myself have protested outside this shop, as a mother of two children i would like this shop closed, you say they are doing a delivery service is this rumour or fact?
:mad:

g5fd6ow0hseima

The short sightness evident in all this commotion over the headshop is laughable, and really begs the question of whether rural Irish people are up to the pace of 21st century life...

Firstly, parenting starts at home, and not as members of lynch-mobs.

Head The Wall

Ye should be at the real source of health problems. Picket outside every pub and shop selling beer and cigarettes

Beez Neez

I think that they are well-intentioned but misguided - this is not the way to go in removing these head shops from our streets.

It's not 1960's Alabama after all.

Interesting though - same people involved in most other "campaigns" are involved in this - makes you wonder if they have such dull lives that they have to protest to liven things up !!

donna1000

Roland Whining Quartet wrote: »

The short sightness evident in all this commotion over the headshop is laughable, and really begs the question of whether rural Irish people are up to the pace of 21st century life...

Firstly, parenting starts at home, and not as members of lynch-mobs.

Yes you are correct there parenting does start in the home but also outside the home.
1. No substance for human consumption should be sold across any counter unless it has been approved by the Food safety Authority of Ireland.
2. Do you think it is right to sell a product under the nme of one thing (plant fooD) when really the common practice is for young adults to misuse it by consuming it.

drunkmonkey

donna1000 wrote: »

Yes you are correct there parenting does start in the home but also outside the home.
1. No substance for human consumption should be sold across any counter unless it has been approved by the Food safety Authority of Ireland.
2. Do you think it is right to sell a product under the nme of one thing (plant fooD) when really the common practice is for young adults to misuse it by consuming it.

What do you suggest Donna, do we close down all the shops?, regulate them more? The alternative is everyone goes back to street dealers which creates a bigger problem for society than we already have.
There's no right or wrong answer but people will always want to experiment. How do we keep everyone happy?

yessam

Donna,

I applaude all the work you are doing in roscommon to highlight the dangers of the products being sold in the Head Shops. I also have young children and I do often wonder what will be ahead of then when they are teenagers.

I am not sure that the closing of these Head Shops will do anything to curb the use of drugs in our villages and towns, after all drugs and different substances are around for a long number of years.

Would you consider going down the road of licencing these shops and try and get some control on some of the drugs that are around.

By licencing the shops you could;

1. control who runs or manages the shop
2. have licencing hours
3. have all products to a standard
4. ensure trading is only done in the shop
5. strictly only over 18s or even 21s
6. product liability

Donna, as for delivery service, I heard it mentioned on the Joe Duffy radio programme.

Actually, by these shops doing a delivery service, is,nt that the same as the drug pusher on the corner..

Pique

donna1000 wrote: »

Yes you are correct there parenting does start in the home but also outside the home.
1. No substance for human consumption should be sold across any counter unless it has been approved by the Food safety Authority of Ireland.
2. Do you think it is right to sell a product under the nme of one thing (plant fooD) when really the common practice is for young adults to misuse it by consuming it.

1) Have cigarettes been approved by the FSAI ?
2) So is it OK to sell aerosols & glue ?

A quick Google search will list how to blow up your kitchen using easily accessible products. Should we ban them too ?
Another Google search will list a bunch of stuff to get high on...like smoking Nutmeg. Should we ban that too ?

yessam

In this battle against harmfull drugs we need to be able to cut out the drug dealer on the street while at the same time take some control on the situation where they are being used.
Donna is right when she mentions that a product being sold for human consumption and was only intended as plant food is wrong.
This is why we need to get some regulation into this situation. We all know that people who want to use drugs will get drugs, so if we could control the so called legal high shops, have less street dealers, maybe we could end up in a situation where less harmfull drugs are being taken by less people.
I am seriously worried for the next bunch of youngsters coming up where drugs seem to be the norm.

Head The Wall

yessam wrote: »

In this battle against harmfull drugs we need to be able to cut out the drug dealer on the street while at the same time take some control on the situation where they are being used.
Donna is right when she mentions that a product being sold for human consumption and was only intended as plant food is wrong.
This is why we need to get some regulation into this situation. We all know that people who want to use drugs will get drugs, so if we could control the so called legal high shops, have less street dealers, maybe we could end up in a situation where less harmfull drugs are being taken by less people.
I am seriously worried for the next bunch of youngsters coming up where drugs seem to be the norm.

Your missing Pique's point above, people also take many legal substances to get high. Wino's drink perfiume and spirits, people sniff glue, Drink and cigs kill the most people every year. There's alcohol in most mouthwash products.

Aerosols and glue are not for human consumption either, doesn't stop people
Just think of the concept of smoking, light something and then inhale the smoke into your body, does that seem like a smart thing to do. What do most people die from in a fire - smoke inhalation. You have just been conditioned to think it's an okay thing to do

Are you saying that all these items are okay because you are a hyporcrite if you are

def

Health is no reason to deny freedom of choice , the only valid reason to prohibit a substance or activity is if it inflicts harm on others by its consumption , if it causes mass puplic immorality or disorder .Would banning these products or shops reduce or increase immorality and disorder ?

The sale of "legal highs" in these head shops is reducing immorality and disorder as it stands, by taking money out of the black market for illicit/prohibited drugs.The effect is minimal because the market is so huge .
Why do you think there poping up like mushrooms over night ,in every town and city?The market already exists ,shutting the shops down will not reduce demand , just switch it back to street dealers ,who have no age limit , collect debts with guns and who activly seek out new customers .

They would undoubtably be safer if there was no stigma attached to research and development of "legal highs".Also if any politition had the gusto to draw up a proper system for regulation that would greatly help .

Im not sure but the 18s only in these shops seems to be completely volentary , most if not all do implement this , the pickits should be outside the Dail....for an offical age limit and so on .

Pique

Fair play Def.
Another subscriber to the John Stuart Mill school of thought "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign".

def

Pique wrote: »

Fair play Def.
Another subscriber to the John Stuart Mill school of thought "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign".

yes but not only this , the current policy creates far more problems than it solves ,its a choice gangs or shops , age limits or not ,quality control or not

currently we have it both ways

outlawing "legal highs" will only give more money to gangs ,and then most of this money will leave the country

regulating the illegal ,better researched drugs ,will crush the gangs completey
and keep the money currently lost to the blackmarket "on the books"

the only reason its not done is tabloid papers and spineless polititions who are incapable of baring bad news for fear of their popularity ratings dropping

rosser44

donna1000 wrote: »

I myself have protested outside this shop, as a mother of two children i would like this shop closed
:mad:

While I respect your democratic right to protest donna, I have a question for you and your fellow protesters. Firstly, I am not speaking out in favor of the products which are sold in these head shops, but the fact of the matter is what they are doing is perfectly legal at the moment.

My question is simply this;

I wonder if you or any of your fellow protesters have had children, or know of people with children who have ended up in casualty as a result of underage illegal drinking?( Something you and I both know has been perfectly socially acceptable in this country, and especially in this town of ours for many years) And if so where were the pickets outside the premises which illegally sold drugs (in the form of alcohol) to these children?

I find there to be a level of hipocracy to this whole head shop debate. Personally i think that they should be regulated and have an age limit of 18 or even 21 years applied for purchasing intoxicating products from them, but unfortunately I feel a typical kneejerk reaction coming.

IMO personal freedom is something which has been taken away from the population of this country by a nanny state. As a responsible mature adult I believe I should be more than capable of making choices for myself which affect me and only me.

But of course why would i want to go near these head shops when I could just go to tescos and buy 3 bottles of vodka for 30 quid.........:rolleyes:

g5fd6ow0hseima

The (il)logic of these protesters would go something like this:

If the headshops are closed, Roscommon will be free of drugs.... young people will not be tempted to try out drugs, those 'scummy' headshop owners will be out on their arses, and all the kids will be busy swimming / playing hide & seek / soccer as opposed to getting 'high'!

yeah....... right.......

asomeday

I would like to point out that i have never been involved in gettin high from any kind of drug, i have no interest in doing so but ....
I've been interested in this particular discussion for a while & agree that the idea of protecting children from taking these substances is ridiculous... do parents not know how to educate their children about the effects of drugs(legal or illegal) on their health ??? maybe if these parents stopped parading up and down outside this shop all the time and spent time with their offspring they would be more in touch with what drugs are available to them easily (through headshops or not) ???

Can these protesters not realise that if the head shops were regulated and the substances be taxed, the government would be in the position to allocate funds towards drug prevention & rehabilitation, adults would then be able to make their own decisions regarding their choice of high.

With regard to drug dealers and crime rates, there are ridulous numbers of people affected by suicide,murder & crime as a result of drug debts & suchlike in this country, a regulation of these shops has a huge chance of lowering the crime & murder rates in this country, something not to be ignored!

g5fd6ow0hseima

This is Ireland.

No government in this country, regardless of what parties they are, will ever implement progressive or precocious policies when it comes to social issues, and do you know why? Not because of their impotency, but simply due to the sheer amount of narrow minded idiots which reside on this island. Ask your typical tommy-joe about the headshops or drug gangs etc and youll see what I mean. Irish people, however clueless, will always give you an opinion on something they really arent well acquainted with.

Worse if your own opinion differs....

The headshops represented the first realistic chance for this country to emerge from a now decade old filthy drug war but sadly, we're back to square one. Not just the big dealers will be smiling, but even the young 18yr old tramp selling soapbar will be cracking open a celebratory beer to this idiotic and media driven move by the government.

Its funny how educated drug policy advisors have less of a say than tabloids....

sigh!

thirdmantackle

I'd be more worried about these kids getting their hands on drugs and not being able to read the packaging which clearly says:

Not for human consumption

are parents not helping their kids with reading because they are protesting all the time?? Get the priorities right people!

Parents should spend time talking to their kids. And getting to know their kids. making sure their friends are reliable and knowing where they spend their spare time. that is more likely to keep kids away from drugs than protesting outside a shop

evolutionqy7

Keep it open! close it and UR CHILDREN will go back to dealers. choose which one u prefer ? legal drugs that havent been mixed with various substances or coce weed or hash block that has been mixed with all sort of ****e to make a bigger profit and to cause some one to drop dead? i think in the start you as a parent should do you job and educate kids about drugs!

saying drugs is bad wont do...

my mum never said a thing about drugs. my grandma kept warning me not to take anything...

tried weed and hash...never got addicted or anything...much more prefer a lovely cold pint of bulmers than weed or hash...

Offy

Protest all you like Donna, drug protesters have had great results to date. If the head shops are closed down then the dealers WILL come back.
Why can some people in this world not understand that prohibition will never work? Donna I use recreational drugs and have done so for over 20 years. I dont care who I buy them from, I would prefer to buy them in a shop but if thats not possible then I will buy from a dealer. I dont care how much you protest. The IRA with their kneecapping and punishment beatings couldnt stop the drug trade, why do you think that if you stand outside a shop complaining I and people like me will stop using drugs? Do you really believe that you cant stop us Donna? Only death can stop us!

evolutionqy7

Offy wrote: »

Protest all you like Donna, drug protesters have had great results to date. If the head shops are closed down then the dealers WILL come back.
Why can some people in this world not understand that prohibition will never work? Donna I use recreational drugs and have done so for over 20 years. I dont care who I buy them from, I would prefer to buy them in a shop but if thats not possible then I will buy from a dealer. I dont care how much you protest. The IRA with their kneecapping and punishment beatings couldnt stop the drug trade, why do you think that if you stand outside a shop complaining I and people like me will stop using drugs? Do you really believe that you cant stop us Donna? Only death can stop us!

haha nice speech...i agree with this 100% would you rather take clean drugs or dirty dealer drugs? i hope you know what your starting with this...and stop ****ing thinking about yourself only...if you dont want your kids to use them put a camera on top of their head and have 24h surveilance on them...some ppl are happy with them so let them be happy LEGALLY!

evolutionqy7

thirdmantackle wrote: »

I'd be more worried about these kids getting their hands on drugs and not being able to read the packaging which clearly says:

Not for human consumption

are parents not helping their kids with reading because they are protesting all the time?? Get the priorities right people!

Parents should spend time talking to their kids. And getting to know their kids. making sure their friends are reliable and knowing where they spend their spare time. that is more likely to keep kids away from drugs than protesting outside a shop

they were probably too bussy in the pub or talking to their neighbour to notice

Theponylady

I think the people who are up in arms about the head shops are very mis-guided. The head shops are not the problem. They are a symptom of the problem. They exist because there is a demand for them, plain and simple.

People who are blaming head shops for their problems are simply in denial, same as an alcoholic who blames his problem on friends or family or other problems.

If people can't buy stuff to get high at a head shop, they'll buy it from Joe Blow on the street, or little Timmy at school. They'll go to the hardware store and buy glue or whatever they are currently sniffing to get high. They'll go out in the woods and pick mushrooms to get high. They'll go to the off license and buy legal drugs(alcohol).

I personally think the efforts people are putting into picketing head shops etc, should instead be put into their parenting efforts, into education into the dangers of using drugs, etc. Getting head shops closed will hide the problem, and give people a false sense of security.

I personally can't understand why people are so stupid as to think that if something can alter their state of mind, that it's safe! I don't understand why people drink to get drunk, or smoke to get high, or take other drugs-then blame the drugs when something happens to them. No one forced them to take the stuff, they did it of their own free will. And if they think stuff is safe, well, I just don't understand that. Don't they watch tv? Don't they listen to the radio? Look at the internet? How can they miss the fact that nothing is safe?

This picketing head shops is another symptom of a society full of people who refuse to take responsibility and place blame where it lies.

Theponylady

thirdmantackle wrote: »

I'd be more worried about these kids getting their hands on drugs and not being able to read the packaging which clearly says:

Not for human consumption

are parents not helping their kids with reading because they are protesting all the time?? Get the priorities right people!

Parents should spend time talking to their kids. And getting to know their kids. making sure their friends are reliable and knowing where they spend their spare time. that is more likely to keep kids away from drugs than protesting outside a shop

I would agree with you 100%
Who in their right mind takes something that it CLEARLY states should not be ingested? Either they can't read, or they are just stupid, or have been kept so naieve...

Those who say people will just buy stuff from street corner dealers if the head shops close, they are 100% right too. Making this sort of thing illegal doesn't make it go away. Has making prostitution illegal stopped it? Nope, it's just filled up the jails with desperate women and stupid men. Did prohibition in the states work? Nope, just made a WHOLE lot of money for a whole lot of bad guys. Same as the current "war on drugs" has done-it has supported some exceedingly awful people in grand style.

I don't drink or do drugs, never have, never will. But I am under no illusions that if people feel a need to find something to alter their state of mind, they are going to find it SOMEWHERE, be it legally or illegally. And if it's illegal the dangers are even greater than if it were legal.

asomeday

noticed absence of the protesters recently ... anyone any ideas why?

actually seen sense perhaps?
gone to teach their kids (who btw shouldnt just be out roaming around to get their hands on whatever they want) not to use drugs?

thirdmantackle

maybe at home, making sure their kids aren't out doing stuff they shouldn't be?

Its crazy that parents often do not know where their children are. or just don't care.

PogMoThoin

Yay, the stuff is banned, there'll be nobody taking substances anymore

Theponylady

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Yay, the stuff is banned, there'll be nobody taking substances anymore

I can hear the sarcasm dripping there lol
Shame it isn't that easy.
It will be just as easy to get the stuff, except it's likely to be even more dangerous than what the head shops were selling:(

Wonder who they will be blaming when their kids do drugs, now they can't blame it on the head shops?

asomeday

on tv two weeks ago:

if this shop is closed down then they will have to go to athlone or longford to buy drugs and these kids cant afford to be putting diesel in their cars all the time to buy the drugs ..... laughable

sure you cant find a dirty drug dealer in the town of roscommon dontcha know....

Head The Wall

The irony is that you can't get a a good E tab in Ireland these days. Most of them just contain BZP.

If you ask me I think the TD's are really pulling the wool over the voters eyes with this legislation, the old fogey voters think they have achieved a victory. The reality is they have just wasted the governments time and lost a couple million more expenditure for them.

This will do nothing to solve people wanting or getting drugs

thirdmantackle

and so its a victory for the drug dealers and pushers.

hurrah!!

Theponylady

thirdmantackle wrote: »

and so its a victory for the drug dealers and pushers.

hurrah!!

Exactly:( These do gooders that pushed for the anti-head shop laws are running around thinking they did good. They don't realize that they just took millions in taxable revenue that the government could have used for drug awareness and rehab programs, and put it in the pockets of drug dealers. They may as well have given the bad guys the green light. Now the money is non-taxable, there are going to be people killing each other on the street in turf wars(and killing any innocent bystanders who accidentally get in the way), the drugs will have no quality control (their kids may be taking rat poisen without knowing it), it's all bad:(

Never in the history of mankind has there been a time when a large segment of the population didn't use mind altering drugs. Even when faced with death for using drugs, many people still make the choice to use drugs.

It's time to stop banning them, which has never EVER worked, and make them legal, and use the money generated to attempt to educate the next generation.

thirdmantackle

Theponylady wrote: »

Exactly:( These do gooders that pushed for the anti-head shop laws are running around thinking they did good. They don't realize that they just took millions in taxable revenue that the government could have used for drug awareness and rehab programs, and put it in the pockets of drug dealers. They may as well have given the bad guys the green light. Now the money is non-taxable, there are going to be people killing each other on the street in turf wars(and killing any innocent bystanders who accidentally get in the way), the drugs will have no quality control (their kids may be taking rat poisen without knowing it), it's all bad:(

Never in the history of mankind has there been a time when a large segment of the population didn't use mind altering drugs. Even when faced with death for using drugs, many people still make the choice to use drugs.

It's time to stop banning them, which has never EVER worked, and make them legal, and use the money generated to attempt to educate the next generation.

I don't quite agree with all that.

There is room to sell safe and certifiable products in a controlled environment. the dutch looked at ways that this could be done and decided the cafe route was the best idea. i'd probably have to agree

but some of the stuff in headshops were clearly not meant for human comsumption or use at all

Head The Wall

The "Not for HUman Consumption" was only to circumvent the law. These things were designed to be ingested, you don't surely think that someone actually decided to snort a particular type of Bath Salts and discovered they could get high.

The problem with anybody taking any type of alcohol or substance is people take too much. People will take drugs regardless of where they get them. It reminds me of all these cases you see in the papers where people assault other people, acting the asshole etc.

Previously these people would be saying "I don't drink too often" or "I was upset after a break up" and thats why I was like that. The dog on the street would know that this was not the case with these people, they were drunk or off their faces when it happened. They couldn't exactly tell the judge they were taking illegal drugs so lately they have been saying they are taking legal drugs as it is a more palatable excuse.

This is only my opinion and I think it explains how these cases have been in the papers a lot and the ensuiing witchhunt. The ban will do nothing for the madness on the streets though

the_syco

Head The Wall wrote: »

The "Not for HUman Consumption" was only to circumvent the law.

Aye, these shops are getting shut down because the stuff they sell usually gets banned after a year, when long term use of them begin to show very bad side effects.

Everyone knows what coke, weed, heroine, etc does to you, but the stuff sold in the shops try to mimic the effects with chemicals, without knowing what long term effects they have.

"Not for Human Consumption" means that they were most likely not properly tested for use on humans, so the amount of time from making a product to selling it gets cut.

The stuff being sold may now get sold by dealers, but it's unlikely, as the dealers would have to buy the stuff off a legit shop. Also, why would anyone buy a substance to mimic the effects of weed, when they can just buy weed? Most people who I knew who smoked it, smoked weed before it came out, and only seemed to use the "legal" stuff, as they could get it easier.

yessam

I heard the shop has reopened again today. Whats the story.

Head The Wall

yessam wrote: »

I heard the shop has reopened again today. Whats the story.

They probably had to go through all the stock double checking what was legit to sell and are now ready for business again.

the_syco

Head The Wall wrote: »

They probably had to go through all the stock double checking what was legit to sell and are now ready for business again.

It'd be interesting to see what is being sold. No doubt the "weed", which is pretty much a tobacco replacement, and doesn't get you stoned. It's green, and this usually is bought by the scumbags who know no better.

thirdmantackle

Hurrah, the place has re-opened

delighted.

if only to show that shops should be allowed exercise their right to open...

ocokev

thirdmantackle wrote: »

Hurrah, the place has re-opened

delighted.

if only to show that shops should be allowed exercise their right to open...

God bless us all. I am ringing that Jacqui Snype one straight away, it wont be open for long and all those poor students spending their lunch money on heroine and the like

Chipboard

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What do you suggest Donna, do we close down all the shops?, regulate them more? The alternative is everyone goes back to street dealers which creates a bigger problem for society than we already have.
There's no right or wrong answer but people will always want to experiment. How do we keep everyone happy?

According to this argument we should legalise paedophilia. we don't want it going on behind closed doors. It would be safer if it was controlled and we could tax it.

Rubbish.

Chipboard

def wrote: »

Health is no reason to deny freedom of choice , the only valid reason to prohibit a substance or activity is if it inflicts harm on others by its consumption , if it causes mass puplic immorality or disorder .Would banning these products or shops reduce or increase immorality and disorder ?.

Google the words "drug, addict, baby, died, convicted". Read all the stories about degenerate drug addicts who have hurt and killed not only strangers but people they would have cherished had they not been out of their minds. There was a case a few weeks ago where a girl left her baby with the father who she knew was an addict and he beat it and it died.

Don't tell me that this is different, that you have it under control. Addiction sneaks up on you. Nobody chooses it.

Theponylady

Chipboard wrote: »

According to this argument we should legalise paedophilia. we don't want it going on behind closed doors. It would be safer if it was controlled and we could tax it.

Rubbish.

Not the same thing, not even remotely close. Paedophilia is something that is done to someone else, generally against the will of that person.

Drugs are something people do to themselves, by their choice.

Laws against driving under the influence of drugs need to be pretty harsh, to get people in the frame of mind that using drugs and driving, where they are endangering others by their driving, simply won't be tolerated. We pretty much have those laws when it comes to alcohol, but they don't seem to be enforced when it comes to other drugs.

Laws against hurting other people already exist, being able to say "it was the alcohol or drugs that caused me to do it", with the exception of if someone was somehow slipped the drugs without their knowledge, should not affect the judges decision of punishment. With the exception of, someone who already KNEW they tended to act in a way that hurt other people while on drugs, in which case, their punishment should in my opinion be more harsh because the person knew how the drugs affected them, and choose to do it and hurt another person anyway.

I often wonder why alcohol is so accepted, and is not considered a recreational drug by most people, when in fact, it is no differant than any other drug. And is in fact much more dangerous than many other recreational drugs. I see the same people picketing the head shops, going out for a pint afterwards, or having a glass of wine when they get home. Highly hippocritical in my opinion.

Hospital ERs are full of people who have hurt themselves or become poisened by alcohol. I can think of a number of my students who have ended up in hospital thanks to alcohol poisening-but I haven't seen a single one of their parents picketing pubs and off licenses and asking for them all to be closed. Yet heaven forbid one of those kids go to a head shop and get some drug. What's the difference?

Society needs to either accept the fact that drug use is a part of human nature, or it needs to not accept ANY drugs, including alcohol. You really can't have it both ways. You can't say "this mind altering drug, despite the fact it kills thousands every year, is okay, yet this mind altering drug, which kills very few each year, is NOT okay".

They are either legal, or they are not.

PogMoThoin

Chipboard wrote: »

Google the words "drug, addict, baby, died, convicted". Read all the stories about degenerate drug addicts who have hurt and killed not only strangers but people they would have cherished had they not been out of their minds. There was a case a few weeks ago where a girl left her baby with the father who she knew was an addict and he beat it and it died.

Don't tell me that this is different, that you have it under control. Addiction sneaks up on you. Nobody chooses it.

Replace the word drug with alcohol in your google search and see how many more stories there are, in fact take a spin to Your local hospital A&E at 2.00am next saturday and see the carnage of alcohol

Theponylady

thirdmantackle wrote: »

I don't quite agree with all that.

There is room to sell safe and certifiable products in a controlled environment. the dutch looked at ways that this could be done and decided the cafe route was the best idea. i'd probably have to agree

but some of the stuff in headshops were clearly not meant for human comsumption or use at all

I actually don't see where our difference of opinion is.

Much of what is sold in headshops, can be bought other places as well, it's just labled differently. Hardware stores, department stores, etc. Heck, people sniff glue-you can buy that pretty much anywhere.

Pretty much YES, someone DID decide to smell or eat bath salts or whatever other weird stuff, got some kind of kick out of it, and decided to sell it to someone else to get high, rather than for its originally intended use. Where did they get the original stuff? From the corner grocery store, hardware store, pet shop...

I remember when I was a kid, the "in" thing was clove cigarettes. Some people smoked them because they thought they would get high, others smoked them as a supposedly healthier alternative to regular tobacco cigarettes. Some smoked them because the smoke didn't stink as much as regular cigarettes, so the kids thought they could get the "cool" look of smoking, without the telltale stink that would cause their parents to catch them. No one made any laws against them, their popularity just sort of seemed to fall. I know they still exist, I've seen them sold in shops, but I personally only know one person who smokes them, and they don't seem to be prevalant in the younger population like they were in my day. Probably because no one got excited about it, so it just didn't seem to be such a rebellious act as it would have been if people had started marching around picketing the things.

Chipboard

Theponylady wrote: »

Not the same thing, not even remotely close. Paedophilia is something that is done to someone else, generally against the will of that person.

No, not the same thing, a similar thing. An analogy doesn't have to be the same for it to be relevant.

If we could ensure that the people who use drugs won't do things which are socially unacceptable to other people, then as far as I'm concerned they can take all the drugs they want. The reality is that other peoples drug taking does affect society. I have been burgled several times. On three occasions the burglar was caught and all three were drug addicts. Everybody knows how drug addicts fund their habit and very few of them them do it lawfully.

To say that you can't legalise one drug and not the other is simply wrong - where did you get this from. It is the case that alcohol does alot of damage but that is not a justification for allowing more damage. Millions of people use alcohol responsibly and do no damage to themselves or others. How many people use drugs responsibly. Alcohol when used responsibly is socially acceptable, drugs are not, simple as. Laws are enacted for the greater good not for one small section of society.

PogMoThoin

Chipboard wrote: »

To say that you can't legalise one drug and not the other is simply wrong - where did you get this from. It is the case that alcohol does alot of damage but that is not a justification for allowing more damage. Millions of people use alcohol responsibly and do no damage to themselves or others. How many people use drugs responsibly. Alcohol when used responsibly is socially acceptable, drugs are not, simple as. Laws are enacted for the greater good not for one small section of society.

Lots, ask Councillor Ming Flanagan who is a self admitted cannabis smoker, leads a normal healthy life, runs marathons and does a fine job of being a Councillor

Chipboard

Cllr Luke Flanagan is not typical of drug takers. Whether he does a good job or not is debatable. I personally think that in so much as the role of county councillors is of any benefit, he probably does do an ok job but the role itself is a bad use of money. The only thing councillors have a significant input into is planning and look at the state of that (and Roscommon is a case in point).

You've taken one of the most acceptable of drugs (apart from alcohol) and coupled it with a person who is not representative of society as a whole (as he is obviously more balanced than most people) and you've tried to justify a drugs free for all on that basis. That is an extreme case and laws are not based on extreme cases.

A guy in a high powered car drove up the N4 at 160 mph the other day and he made it to Sligo without crashing so from now on everyone can drive at whatever speed they like ?

PogMoThoin

Its not just Ming, lots of people lead a normal life and are recreational drug takers. My brother is a plumber, lives and works a normal life and smokes a joint most evenings. A few years ago I knew solicitors, accountants, even Gardai who would sometimes take stuff on a night out, they led normal lives and still do.

Theponylady

Chipboard wrote: »

Cllr Luke Flanagan is not typical of drug takers. Whether he does a good job or not is debatable. I personally think that in so much as the role of county councillors is of any benefit, he probably does do an ok job but the role itself is a bad use of money. The only thing councillors have a significant input into is planning and look at the state of that (and Roscommon is a case in point).

You've taken one of the most acceptable of drugs (apart from alcohol) and coupled it with a person who is not representative of society as a whole (as he is obviously more balanced than most people) and you've tried to justify a drugs free for all on that basis. That is an extreme case and laws are not based on extreme cases.

A guy in a high powered car drove up the N4 at 160 mph the other day and he made it to Sligo without crashing so from now on everyone can drive at whatever speed they like ?

I'm afraid I completely disagree. I have MANY friends who are very respected good people. Doctors, solicitors, etc. And a large number use cannabis regularly. You wouldn't know it though, because they don't go out doing stupid things when they are using it. They don't go around throwing up, getting noisy, or acting like complete eejits like most people imbibing in alcohol do on a regular basis.

I belive the councellor is EXTREMELY representative of society. But alcohol, a VERY dangerous drug that kills many people(including those who do not use it but are killed by others who do while they are driving cars, or who do insane things while drunk), and destroys many many lives(I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of severe alcoholics I know personally, who have destroyed their lives and often those of their families thanks to drink), is legal, while cannabis is not. What is the sense in that?

Your thinking is just what I'm talking about. Why is it that alcohol, which is dangerous, very mind altering, dangerous to unborn children if the mother is drinking, dangerous to any person in the vicinity of a drunk person, why is that okay, and many other relatively benign drugs are not? I have met alcoholics who were every bit as much a mess as those on heroin. I know of alcoholics who steal so they can go out on a binge. Where is the difference?

I don't drink at ALL, not even a glass of wine, nor do I do drugs. Not because I think myself so much better than other people, but simply because I can't abide such a loss of control in myself. I like myself, and don't want to be something a drug can make me into, it's just not my thing. I find it terribly hippocritical to say "well, this drug is okay, cause everyone else is doing it, but this one isn't, cause less people are doing it". Either ban everything, or allow everything, and tax the heck out of it and use if for drug/alcohol education and rehab.