Head Shop Fire

Pace2008

penguin88 wrote: »

You're arguing over semantics here. All drugs (and I don't mean drugs of abuse, I'm inlcuding all prescription drugs etc too) can be poisonous. They were defined in legislation as much up until very recently.

It may be a case of semantics but it helps to have everyone on the same wavelength. The claims that 'all drugs are poisons' and 'all drugs can be poisonous' are not the same. I think it's misleading to suggest that all drugs are poisons since it implies that their consumption is inherently physically harmful, which is not the case. Non-drugs like water and vitamin C can be toxic if consumed in sufficiently high doses but are perfectly safe (well, essential) when taken in appropriate amounts. In my opinion, for a drug to be classed as a poison it would have to be capable of causing physical harm when taken in an effective non-lethal dose.

You stated very cleary earlier: "There are no negative long-term physiological effects associated with mescaline". Not having read anywhere that it does cause phyiological complications is not evidence.

I suppose I should have said "There are no known negative long-term physiological effects associated with mescaline," or, to be really specific, "To the best of my knowledge, there are no known negative long-term physiological effects associated with mescaline." I've had a decent search and have not found anything to contradict this assertion so I'm going to stick by it.

But this can't be done effectively if they do continue to be sold in these forms. What are they meant to put on the label? "Do not use if your plant is taking MAOIs or TCAs" or "Do not place in the water if you bath is on medications for its depression"?

They're already telling me to keep my bath well-watered (tautology much?) and to avoid using heavy machinery around it, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch. Ideally, I'd like to see the market properly regulated, with products sold like the original party pills: quantities of active ingredients listed and appropriate health warnings on the packaging. Unfortunately, drug laws are very black and white in this country so it'll probably be an all-out ban or nothing.

caseyann

Sounds so weird head shop fire

rubadub

penguin88 wrote: »

Another erroneous example. You're comparing food to psychoactive substances, health and safety isn't the concern, it's what's in the product you're taking, how much of it and what else is there as well.

I am comparing 2 unregulated substances which are really intended to be ingested, and you are not sure what effect either might have. I would call them both a health & safety concern-and you say the other lad is arguing about semantics....

penguin88 wrote: »

They have things in common. They both sell products that contain substances that will give a psychotropic effect. They both sell things that are open to abuse. You're the one who refutes any difference between them that I suggest.

I accepted your differences and I regarded them as very moot & pedantic points, especially after your comment "pubs and headshops are very different entities" - they sound quite similar to me from your very own description. Your idea of "very different" is very different to mine.

penguin88 wrote: »

No, they will not be the same. One will be a licensed public house that sells alcohol and also plant food (which happens to contain mephedrone), the other will just be a shop that sells plant food, bath salts etc. What legal regulated drugs do headshops sell?

Caffeine tablets, Taurine (if you regard it as a drug) and various slimming tablets I am not sure what particular drug was in them but I have seen them in chemists & health shops too.

penguin88 wrote: »

I have experience working in pharmacy.

You might well have sold me some dextromethorphan or diphenhydramine, I have bought more legal highs in chemists than headshops.

penguin88 wrote: »

I was just going on what you had said previously, I might not be following what you're saying. I'm not taking the p so please explain away.

The other poster explained the difference between withdrawl/comedown. Any drug which is highly addictive has a high potential for abuse, I doubt cigarettes would be legal if discovered today even though nicotine is not particularly harmful (when orally ingested) and only a few people use it for its powerful psychoactive effects. I would expect riots if they banned tobacco overnight like they did psilocybian mushrooms.

If a drug has no hangover/comedown a user is more likely to use/abuse it more frequently-as I said I would have been abusing alcohol the next day if not for the comedown making me so sick. You hear of clubbers anecdotally able to use E a lot more frequently than BZP due to comedowns.

The alcohol industry is huge and any new alternative legal high is seen as a huge threat, this is why I cannot imagine regulation of these drugs, except if they do have pretty poor highs and strong comedown effects. People use this excuse, "we already have a drug, booze, why do you need more" -this sort of infers that people will continue to abuse alcohol just as much, but in reality people would decrease, you only have to see a bunch of lads in amsterdam or out on E to see their alcohol intake will usually drop considerably.

In an old thread I said you would not go out and drink your usual 8 pints, 500mcg LSD, 5g mushrooms, 2g cannabis, 200mg mdma etc, just because you can.

It is equivalent to saying mcdonalds should not be allowed introduce a lower fat burger, because what is on the menu is already bad enough, and instead of opting for the lower fat option people will simply eat their usual big mac meal AND the new low fat burger on top of it.

Kurtosis

Pace2008 wrote: »

It may be a case of semantics but it helps to have everyone on the same wavelength. The claims that 'all drugs are poisons' and 'all drugs can be poisonous' are not the same. I think it's misleading to suggest that all drugs are poisons since it implies that their consumption is inherently physically harmful, which is not the case. Non-drugs like water and vitamin C can be toxic if consumed in sufficiently high doses but are perfectly safe (well, essential) when taken in appropriate amounts. In my opinion, for a drug to be classed as a poison it would have to be capable of causing physical harm when taken in an effective non-lethal dose.

You're welcome to your opinion but it is still just semantics. As I said, drugs were legally classed as poisons until a recent change in legislation.

I suppose I should have said "There are no known negative long-term physiological effects associated with mescaline," or, to be really specific, "To the best of my knowledge, there are no known negative long-term physiological effects associated with mescaline." I've had a decent search and have not found anything to contradict this assertion so I'm going to stick by it.

Thanks for that.

They're already telling me to keep my bath well-watered (tautology much?) and to avoid using heavy machinery around it, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch. Ideally, I'd like to see the market properly regulated, with products sold like the original party pills: quantities of active ingredients listed and appropriate health warnings on the packaging.

We're agreed on this.

Kurtosis

rubadub wrote: »

I am comparing 2 unregulated substances which are really intended to be ingested, and you are not sure what effect either might have. I would call them both a health & safety concern-and you say the other lad is arguing about semantics....

So you think pubs and headshops are the same and fast food restaurants and headshops are the same?

I accepted your differences and I regarded them as very moot & pedantic points, especially after your comment "pubs and headshops are very different entities" - they sound quite similar to me from your very own description. Your idea of "very different" is very different to mine.

I think you've noted the difference I pointed out and discounted them. It's being quite single minded, I did accept your points.

Caffeine tablets, Taurine (if you regard it as a drug) and various slimming tablets I am not sure what particular drug was in them but I have seen them in chemists & health shops too.

They aren't regulated as drugs. Do you mean as foodstuffs?

You might well have sold me some dextromethorphan or diphenhydramine, I have bought more legal highs in chemists than headshops.

Ah but these are not sold as legal highs, they are sold for specified medical indications.

The other poster explained the difference between withdrawl/comedown.

Thanks, I had misunderstood what you meant.

Any drug which is highly addictive has a high potential for abuse, I doubt cigarettes would be legal if discovered today even though nicotine is not particularly harmful (when orally ingested)

What's the basis for saying this? The oral lethal dose for an average adult is estimated at 60mg.

rubadub

penguin88 wrote: »

fast food restaurants and headshops are the same?

Oh dear, yes they are exactly the same :rolleyes: FFS would you ever cop on.

penguin88 wrote: »

I think you've noted the difference I pointed out and discounted them.

I did not discount them, AGAIN -after YOU later pointed out such obvious blatant similarities I was shocked you had first described them as "very different entities". But from the first quote above it seems you are unable to understand the concept of analogies and/or comparisons, or rather you pathetically feign ignorance and hang onto your ridiculous pedantic semantics. Acting unclever is not very clever.

penguin88 wrote: »

They aren't regulated as drugs. Do you mean as foodstuffs?

Here we go AGAIN with the semantics. If you meant regulated as in needing a some sort of licence or only sold by pharmacies then why bother asking? since if I had said a substance which WAS regulated then by YOUR definition I expect it could NOT be a headshop -that is how YOU appear to define them. So WHY ask?

If you want to know what regulated drugs they sell then I will say dextromethorphan, from the inferred definition I see a headshop is any place selling recreational drugs so a chemist would certainly fall under that description.

Point is that what you consider a headshop does sell drugs which are sold for human consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine

Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline xanthine alkaloid that is a psychoactive stimulant drug.

And yes it does also say unregulated.

Caffeine is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive substance, but, unlike many other psychoactive substances, it is legal and unregulated in nearly all jurisdictions.

penguin88 wrote: »

Ah but these are not sold as legal highs, they are sold for specified medical indications.

So what? they are sold for human consumption and under control but are subject to abuse, you could argue they should be banned since some people are not using them for their intended use, just like the "plant foods". Buckfast was originally marketed under a similar guise of being medicinal- while many users abuse it. The "use alcohol responsibly" thing I only hear lately is very vague, no dosage is given on cans, no warnings about operating heavy machinery etc. People find out for themselves if they have any brains -many don't of course.

penguin88 wrote: »

What's the basis for saying this? The oral lethal dose for an average adult is estimated at 60mg.

I am saying that orally, as opposed to smoking, nicotine is not very harmful, obviously I meant in non lethal doses like nicotine gum. I was saying that although few people would use it for its potentially strong psychoactive effects that tobacco marketed to be smoked would probably be banned if out today. I was explaining potential for abuse, being recognised as the most addictive substance known to man would mean it is likely to be abused, and in the normal ingestion method (smoking) it is harmful, so it would be likely to be banned today.

The normal method of ingestion of alcohol is drinking, though some "highly regulated" bars tolerate people snorting vodka which is very dangerous. I have no doubt pharmacists are fully aware they are selling drugs which will be used/abused recreationally too.

Hobo Sapiens

MaybeLogic wrote: »

I wouldn't advise anyone to take LSD without doing a whole lot of research first. I suppose that's why in shamanic traditions there's a lot of schooling before you take substances such as LSD, psylocibin and DMT.

I'd prefer my hypothetical kids didn't.
I'd also prefer them to avoid nicotine, crystal meth, cocaine, amphetamine, barbituates and alcohol.

I would INSIST that *your* children take heroin. At least the other kids would have a chance of surviving the ghetto. (Unless you could be persuaded to give your spawn a post-natal abortion - best thing for them, really.)

Belfast

will Nutmeg be banned under the new law?

"Use as a recreational drug

Use of nutmeg as a recreational drug is unpopular due to its strong taste and its possible negative side effects, including dizziness, flushes, dry mouth, accelerated heartbeat, temporary constipation, difficulty in urination, nausea, and panic. In addition, experiences usually last well over 24 hours and sometimes in excess of 48 hours, making recreational use rather impractical.[citation needed]

In his autobiography, Malcolm X talks of prison inmates consuming nutmeg powder, usually diluted in a glass of water, in order to become inebriated. The prison guards eventually caught on to this practice and cracked down on nutmeg's use as a psychoactive in the prison system. In William Burrough's appendix of Naked Lunch, he mentions nutmeg producing a similar experience to marijuana, but causing nausea instead of relieving it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutmeg#Use_as_a_recreational_drug

or cloves
used in Clove cigarettes
Kretek Cigarettes

or

7 Common Foods That Can Actually Get You High

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_16178_7-common-foods-that-can-actually-get-you-high.html#ixzz0rDxtEv4N
http://www.cracked.com/article_16178_7-common-foods-that-can-actually-get-you-high.html

ScumLord

I wonder if you went out trying to sell cake to people as a drug would the guards arrest you. Give all the outward appearance of a drug dealer only be carrying gourmet miniature cakes and act like your slightly out of your box. I'd say you'd get picked up but what would they charge you with?

Steodonn

Belfast wrote: »

will Nutmeg be banned under the new law?

"Use as a recreational drug

Use of nutmeg as a recreational drug is unpopular due to its strong taste and its possible negative side effects, including dizziness, flushes, dry mouth, accelerated heartbeat, temporary constipation, difficulty in urination, nausea, and panic. In addition, experiences usually last well over 24 hours and sometimes in excess of 48 hours, making recreational use rather impractical.[citation needed]

In his autobiography, Malcolm X talks of prison inmates consuming nutmeg powder, usually diluted in a glass of water, in order to become inebriated. The prison guards eventually caught on to this practice and cracked down on nutmeg's use as a psychoactive in the prison system. In William Burrough's appendix of Naked Lunch, he mentions nutmeg producing a similar experience to marijuana, but causing nausea instead of relieving it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutmeg#Use_as_a_recreational_drug

or cloves
used in Clove cigarettes
Kretek Cigarettes

or

7 Common Foods That Can Actually Get You High

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_16178_7-common-foods-that-can-actually-get-you-high.html#ixzz0rDxtEv4N
http://www.cracked.com/article_16178_7-common-foods-that-can-actually-get-you-high.html

By new law you mean the PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL

2.—(1) This Act shall not apply to—
(a) a medicinal product within the meaning of section 1(1) of
15 the Irish Medicines Board Act 1995,
(b) an animal remedy within the meaning of section 1 of the
Animal Remedies Act 1993 authorised in accordance
with—
(i) the European Communities (Animal Remedies) (No.
20 2) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 786 of 2007), or
(ii) Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 March 20041 as
amended,
prescribed or sold for administration to an animal in
25 accordance with those provisions,
(c) intoxicating liquor within the meaning of section 77 of the
Licensing Act 1872,
(d) a tobacco product within the meaning of section 2 of the
Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002,
30 (e) food within the meaning of section 2 of the Food Safety
Authority of Ireland Act 1998 which has been placed on
the market in compliance with food legislation within the
meaning of that section,
(f) unless otherwise expressly provided for in this Act, a con35
trolled drug, or
(g) such other substance, product, preparation, plant, fungus
or natural organism as

So no you can get high on nutmeg

Belfast

Steodonn wrote: »

By new law you mean the PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL


So no you can get high on nutmeg

I have no interest in getting high on Nutmeg.

My brains are scrambled enough already.