Head Shop Fire

lcrcboy

lcrcboy wrote: »

Id say it was that group RAAD they were accused about a month ago for kneecapping the owner of a head shop I think in Belfast not shure on the location but ya Im pretty shure its them lads

if it wasent them it was probally a dissdent republican faction, I doubt any drug dealers would bother, it would draw to much unwanted heat on them

PopUp

Well there are four options.

1) It was an accident.
2) It was angry drug dealers.
3) It was anti-drug viligantes.
4) It was the owners themselves - either for the insurance money or because the business was failing anyway.

I honestly find options 2 and 3 very far-fetched. These shops have been open for years. If they were angering drug dealers they would have done so far sooner than when this recent campaign kicked off.

As to 3 I simply find it hard to imagine the Joe Duffy crowd moving from spittle-flecked outrage to arson just like that. Sorry but it's impossibly far-fetched. And an organised group of dissident republicans (coming down to Dublin why exactly) - well, these types are usually high on their own self-righteousness. They claim responsibility for this stuff. What's the point of burning something down as a message if you don't make your message clear?

All I'll say as to number 4 is that when a business burns down the first suspects are the owners. And if my business were a Joe Duffy campaign away from being outlawed I'd be very worried.

All things considered I do think option 1 is most likely. All this talk of domestic 'terrorism' is just so Hollywood.

lcrcboy

PopUp wrote: »

Well there are four options.

1) It was an accident.
2) It was angry drug dealers.
3) It was anti-drug viligantes.
4) It was the owners themselves - either for the insurance money or because the business was failing anyway.

I honestly find options 2 and 3 very far-fetched. These shops have been open for years. If they were angering drug dealers they would have done so far sooner than when this recent campaign kicked off.

As to 3 I simply find it hard to imagine the Joe Duffy crowd moving from spittle-flecked outrage to arson just like that. Sorry but it's impossibly far-fetched. And an organised group of dissident republicans (coming down to Dublin why exactly) - well, these types are usually high on their own self-righteousness. They claim responsibility for this stuff. What's the point of burning something down as a message if you don't make your message clear?

All I'll say as to number 4 is that when a business burns down the first suspects are the owners. And if my business were a Joe Duffy campaign away from being outlawed I'd be very worried.

All things considered I do think option 1 is most likely. All this talk of domestic 'terrorism' is just so Hollywood.

didint think really of number 4 on your list but sounds the most realistic same with number 1 on your list, but for number 3 all I can think of is those groups starting off their campaign as of lately with what they are doing up north and not to forget them down in cork going into a well known pub where drug dealers drink and handing out flyers saying anyone caught selling heroin will be kneecapped

Patricide

PopUp wrote: »

Well there are four options.

1) It was an accident.
2) It was angry drug dealers.
3) It was anti-drug viligantes.
4) It was the owners themselves - either for the insurance money or because the business was failing anyway.

I honestly find options 2 and 3 very far-fetched. These shops have been open for years. If they were angering drug dealers they would have done so far sooner than when this recent campaign kicked off.

As to 3 I simply find it hard to imagine the Joe Duffy crowd moving from spittle-flecked outrage to arson just like that. Sorry but it's impossibly far-fetched. And an organised group of dissident republicans (coming down to Dublin why exactly) - well, these types are usually high on their own self-righteousness. They claim responsibility for this stuff. What's the point of burning something down as a message if you don't make your message clear?

All I'll say as to number 4 is that when a business burns down the first suspects are the owners. And if my business were a Joe Duffy campaign away from being outlawed I'd be very worried.

All things considered I do think option 1 is most likely. All this talk of domestic 'terrorism' is just so Hollywood.

Exactly what i thought!

Damo123

Maybe it was just somebody who had a grudge against one of the owners or workers....

Or perhaps someones child was found taking drugs bought in that store... father goes in to talk to manager.... manager blows him off saying its legal stuff yada yada... week later place burns down....

just my 2 cents

rovert

def wrote: »

So who did it ?

Was it drug dealers who didnt like these shops stealing their customers ?

Or could it be the righteous drug warriors who have developed a taste for prohibition inspired terrorism?

What do you think ? Perhaps an unholy union of the two?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0212/dublin.html

Welcome to yesterday, what an original post too

strobe

PopUp wrote: »

1) It was an accident.
2) It was angry drug dealers.
3) It was anti-drug viligantes.
4) It was the owners themselves - either for the insurance money or because the business was failing anyway.

5) It was torched because they refused to pay protection.

PopUp

The head shop owner has already made up his mind for option 3 it seems:

While the cause of the fire is not yet known, Nirvana’s owner Jim Bellamy claimed it may have been started deliberately following a widespread campaign against head shops.
Speaking on radio, he said: “Somebody has taken the law into their own hands by the disgusting media coverage of the last month or so. We have been tried by the media, found guilty . . . and this is the sentence.”

It just seems very unlikely to me that somebody could move from Joe Duffy to arson in a matter of weeks.

There is a thread next to this one called 'Head-Shops. About three months left?' Honestly that may not be far wrong. If I were a head shop owner I would have the wind up me. Their business is on a knife-edge.

It would not surprise me at all if somebody were to decide they were better off out of it and made a play for the insurance money. Happens all the time. Not saying it happened here - not by any means! Just saying it's one possibility and I bet in these circumstances the insurance company will be looking into everything very closely.

lcrcboy

PopUp wrote: »

The head shop owner has already made up his mind for option 3 it seems:

It just seems very unlikely to me that somebody could move from Joe Duffy to arson in a matter of weeks.

There is a thread next to this one called 'Head-Shops. About three months left?' Honestly that may not be far wrong. If I were a head shop owner I would have the wind up me. Their business is on a knife-edge.

It would not surprise me at all if somebody were to decide they were better off out of it and made a play for the insurance money. Happens all the time. Not saying it happened here - not by any means! Just saying it's one possibility and I bet in these circumstances the insurance company will be looking into everything very closely.

I think number 3 is very likely if you remove the joe duffy fans and are left with the vigalante groups which have become more active in the last few months (off topic its a real sign of recession you never hear of these things when the economy is doing well)

gollem_1975

PopUp wrote: »

There is a thread next to this one called 'Head-Shops. About three months left?' Honestly that may not be far wrong. If I were a head shop owner I would have the wind up me. Their business is on a knife-edge.

Or just move the business online ?

Biggins

def wrote: »

So who did it ?

Some bright spark. Case solved.
Next...

Overheal

Now the government will rush to ban these shops - not for any other reason than "Oh we dont want to risk that someone else will try and burn one down, so we better ban them."

Shop owners dead right imo. A gang of bastards who think they're rosy family-oriented ireland is in jeopardy, so they're committing arson because 'the ends justify it'.

dlofnep

christina_x wrote: »

Thats somebody's business and only form of income (im presuming). Theres no point trying to stop these shops, people who buy products from these places will more than likely buy the illegal drugs if they cant get access to the legal stuff.

Who gives a shít? Maybe they should look at alternative sources of income, instead of trying to make a living off selling drugs?

Heroin dealer's only source of income is selling heroin. Should we let them deal also becayse of it?

christina_x wrote: »

So they'v just ruined a family's income, jobs, govt tax (business and vat) and now theres more people on the dole.

*plays world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin*

**** them. Good riddens.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

Who gives a shít? Maybe they should look at alternative sources of income, instead of trying to make a living off selling drugs?

Heroin dealer's only source of income is selling heroin. Should we let them deal also becayse of it?

Objection! They also get money off the dole, because they arent working a real job.

Dfolnep you'd be a better man to watch Marijuana Inc. Cannabis alone is a multi billion dollar industry, isnt it about time that income was tapped?

Youre also relating Headshops and Legal Highs to Heroin - which is complete Hyperbole. Off the high horse now, lad.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

Objection! They also get money off the dole, because they arent working a real job.

That's assuming they are even capable of making it to the dole office.

Overheal wrote: »

Dfolnep you'd be a better man to watch Marijuana Inc. Cannabis alone is a multi billion dollar industry, isnt it about time that income was tapped?

Personally, I think it should be legalized - But that's here nor there. The effects of cannibis on people are widely known and understood. The effects of "legal-highs" however are not.

Turtyturd

dlofnep wrote: »

Who gives a shít? Maybe they should look at alternative sources of income, instead of trying to make a living off selling drugs?

Heroin dealer's only source of income is selling heroin. Should we let them deal also becayse of it?



*plays world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin*

**** them. Good riddens.

Maybe pub owners should look at an alternative income than selling the public a drug too?

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

That's assuming they are even capable of making it to the dole office.

They are. Heroin dealers generally dont get hooked on their own product and even when they do they are as capable of making it to the Dole line as they are Tescos. Guys gotta eat.

Personally, I think it should be legalized - But that's here nor there. The effects of cannibis on people are widely known and understood. The effects of "legal-highs" however are not.

Sure but it remains that these shops are currently legal and despite their uncertain future someone has taken vigilante justice and robbed someone of their hard worked investment.

If you want to look at it another way if these are made illegal in 3 months he would have closed up shop and sold the premises etc. but now he cant even do that, and whatever he put into that business is in cinders now. After all you would hardly call someone slime for smoking indoors in the months before the recently passed Smoking Ban became active. Similarly just because these shops 'could' become illegal doesnt make it right to burn down someone's otherwise legitimate livelihood.

Collie D

PopUp wrote: »

Well there are four options.

1) It was an accident.
2) It was angry drug dealers.
3) It was anti-drug viligantes.
4) It was the owners themselves - either for the insurance money or because the business was failing anyway.

I honestly find options 2 and 3 very far-fetched. These shops have been open for years. If they were angering drug dealers they would have done so far sooner than when this recent campaign kicked off.

As to 3 I simply find it hard to imagine the Joe Duffy crowd moving from spittle-flecked outrage to arson just like that. Sorry but it's impossibly far-fetched. And an organised group of dissident republicans (coming down to Dublin why exactly) - well, these types are usually high on their own self-righteousness. They claim responsibility for this stuff. What's the point of burning something down as a message if you don't make your message clear?

All I'll say as to number 4 is that when a business burns down the first suspects are the owners. And if my business were a Joe Duffy campaign away from being outlawed I'd be very worried.

All things considered I do think option 1 is most likely. All this talk of domestic 'terrorism' is just so Hollywood.

First sensible post in this thread...terrorists ffs :rolleyes:

Most fires are accidental rather than arson...think a few people need to put down the bong and step into the real world.

ChocolateSauce

If it were another headshop, I might think fraud, but this one sold mainly clothing made of hemp and growing equipment (I should know:))- ie, this shops' income wouldn't have dried up after prohibition on certain legal highs.

This was either arson or an accident.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

Sure but it remains that these shops are currently legal and despite their uncertain future someone has taken vigilante justice and robbed someone of their hard worked investment.

Investing at the expense of the health of others. I'm glad they are out of business. Maybe they'll think twice about making a profit off of selling drugs, that are only legal because they haven't been made illegal as of yet (and they will).

Would you support e's, cocaine and meth being sold legally? Because that's what these drugs are comparable to.

Anyone stupid enough to invest in something that was always going to be made illegal at some point would have made a loss anyways.

The actual arson on the shop was borderline stupid on account of the chance of someone innocent getting hurt. But the actual business closing, I couldn't care less about.

Turtyturd

dlofnep wrote: »

Investing at the expense of the health of others. I'm glad they are out of business. Maybe they'll think twice about making a profit off of selling drugs, that are only legal because they haven't been made illegal as of yet (and they will).

Would you support e's, cocaine and meth being sold legally? Because that's what these drugs are comparable to.

Anyone stupid enough to invest in something that was always going to be made illegal at some point would have made a loss anyways.

The actual arson on the shop was borderline stupid on account of the chance of someone innocent getting hurt. But the actual business closing, I couldn't care less about.

That kind of closed minded attitude is ridiculous.

While I agree that more testing should be done on legal highs I think that banning them outright is ridiculous and another example of people out of touch with the issue making laws that they feel are suitable.

As I said in my earlier posts maybe pub owners should be put out of business for drug dealing, the physical danger of alcohol has been known for years and it is still freely available. Add in the side effects and people should be marching on the Dail demanding a ban.

dlofnep

Turtyturd wrote: »

That kind of closed minded attitude is ridiculous.

So we should make all drugs legal, is it?

Turtyturd wrote: »

While I agree that more testing should be done on legal highs I think that banning them outright is ridiculous and another example of people out of touch with the issue making laws that they feel are suitable.

Wouldn't it be more appropiate to test them first, prior to making them legal? At least then we would know the consequences of taking them. As it stands, there is no information on them at all.

What you want is for a drug to be legal, without any scientific tests being done on it firsthand. Sorry, but if I ever have children - I'll want to make sure that anything sold as a "legal high" has been thoroughly tested first. I'm not against the idea of all drugs in society - I think that hash should be legal. But these drugs are still an unknown entity, and that is my issue with them. Not the fact that they are drugs.

Turtyturd wrote: »

As I said in my earlier posts maybe pub owners should be put out of business for drug dealing, the physical danger of alcohol has been known for years and it is still freely available. Add in the side effects and people should be marching on the Dail demanding a ban.

Once again - People are educated as to the dangers of alcohol. They are not educated on the dangers of these legal highs, and thus can't make a truly educated choice when buying them.

Herbal Deity

dlofnep wrote: »

People are educated as to the dangers of alcohol.

LMAO.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

Investing at the expense of the health of others. I'm glad they are out of business.

Then you agree that Pubs should be shut down for making a profit at the expense of their patrons' addiction issues?

Would you support e's, cocaine and meth being sold legally? Because that's what these drugs are comparable to.

Ecstasy LSD and Cocaine were all once upon a time legal. They were eventually made illegal.

Anyone stupid enough to invest in something that was always going to be made illegal at some point would have made a loss anyways.

Tell that to Starbucks. Or Red Bull. Despite Red Bull overdosings, we have yet to see a ban of Caffeine or Energy Drinks. Or Ginseng. Evil Ginseng!

Wouldn't it be more appropiate to test them first, prior to making them legal? At least then we would know the consequences of taking them. As it stands, there is no information on them at all.

Thats simply not how Law works: see Marijuana, Cocaine, Ecstasy, LSD, etc.

Once again - People are educated as to the dangers of alcohol. They are not educated on the dangers of these legal highs, and thus can't make a truly educated choice when buying them.

lol, no they arent.

But alright - 'we know the dangers of alchohol so its ok to sell it to people and give them a choice' - how come you dont think the same argument holds true for Cocaine and Heroin?

PeterLT

I'm passing by these shops every morning. Just remembered that on Thursday I've noticed that all goods (dildos etc.) in the sex shop's window were missing. It looked like they were moving out or something. Next day fire broke out. Coincidence?

Sandvich

Even if it's true that they were selling dodgy products; the government had an opportunity to actually control these stubstances and blew it.

At the end of the day, people will go to drug dealers and get more dodgy products. People will ultimatley end up dying because of the beliefs of some idiotic social conservatives.

Overheal

PeterLT wrote: »

I'm passing by these shops every morning. Just remembered that on Thursday I've noticed that all goods (dildos etc.) in the sex shop's window were missing. It looked like they were moving out or something. Next day fire broke out. Coincidence?

Maybe they broke in the rear entrance, stole the cocks and THEN set the place on fire.

Because shoot, who wants to breathe in dildo fumes? Not I sir. Not I.

I guess you'll know who did it though by the fake penises and rubber vaginas in the boot of their car.

dlofnep

Herbal Deity wrote: »

LMAO.

I'm not sure what is funny. The dangers of alcohol are widely documented. The dangers of legal highs are not. Either you get this point, or you don't.

yoyo

Turtyturd wrote: »

Maybe pub owners should look at an alternative income than selling the public a drug too?

What the pub sells doesnt have "not for human consumption", Plant fertilizer, bath salt etc on it. You buy alcohol in a pub, and its marketed for human consumption, I dont think banning head shops is right, I do think some legislation is needed though. Also I cant buy alcohol after 10 every night due to legislation, yet from what I hear I can go to headshops (some open 24 hours some days) and get mind altering drugs.

Nick

Shulgin

Overheal wrote: »

Then you agree that Pubs should be shut down for making a profit at the expense of their patrons' addiction issues?
Ecstasy LSD and Cocaine were all once upon a time legal. They were eventually made illegal.
Tell that to Starbucks. Or Red Bull. Despite Red Bull overdosings, we have yet to see a ban of Caffeine or Energy Drinks. Or Ginseng. Evil Ginseng!
Thats simply not how Law works: see Marijuana, Cocaine, Ecstasy, LSD, etc.lol, no they arent.

But alright - 'we know the dangers of alchohol so its ok to sell it to people and give them a choice' - how come you dont think the same argument holds true for Cocaine and Heroin?

The guy obviously doesn`t have a clue what he is talking about.

What i can understand from his argument then he should be absolutely OK with the legalisation of MDMA,LSD,Mushrooms,cannabis because their effects on humans are well researched and understood. Also they have the added benefit of being safer than alcohol.

I hope he also realises that it is the prohibition of the very same substances are the reason there are so many 'legal highs' in headshops.