Head Shop Fire

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

The dangers of alcohol are widely documented.

So then you agree that Alcohol needs to be banned in 3 months or we should start setting pubs on fire?

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

Shush! the grownups are talking.

To be fair you dont need to talk about Dlofnep in the third person: write your post to his face. You're being extremely rude.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

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

No, they shouldn't. Alcohol is safe when not abused, and the public is well aware of the consequences of what happens when it is abused. These legal highs are not tested, and the public is not aware of the dangers of them. This is the difference. Comprende?

Overheal wrote: »

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

That is not the question I asked. I will repeat - Would you support the sale of cocaine, e's and meth if they were legal?

Overheal wrote: »

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!

What was that you said about hyperbole?

Overheal wrote: »

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

So we should leave everything legal first, wait for someone to die and then do tests to see if it should be legal or not?

Overheal wrote: »

lol, no they arent.

Yes they are.

Overheal wrote: »

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?

Yeah, because alcohol and heroin are even comparable.

Alcohol, when seriously abused will cause liver failure. Heroin can't be taken, even casually without screwing your entire body up.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

So then you agree that Alcohol needs to be banned in 3 months or we should start setting pubs on fire?

No, I don't agree. Read my post correctly, or don't bother responding. If you want to have a debate with yourself, go ahead.

Herbal Deity

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

You said people were educated on the dangers, not that the dangers are documented.

The dangers of a lot of illegal substances are documented as being less so than alcohol.

Many of these legal highs are very similar in structure and effects to these well-documented drugs.

They're also just going to ban them outright, as opposed to temporarily banning them until scientific conclusions are drawn. Without bothering to do any research, they're just going to assume they're dangerous.

Shulgin

That is not the question I asked. I will repeat - Would you support the sale of cocaine, e's and meth if they were legal?

Why not legalise E (MDMA), LSD, Mushrooms and some others? THEY ARE SAFER THAN ALCOHOL!

dlofnep wrote: »

Alcohol, when seriously abused will cause liver failure. Heroin can't be taken, even casually without screwing your entire body up.

You are completely wrong. Heroin is almost non toxic when used correctly.
Its just very addictive psychologically and physically.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they shouldn't. Alcohol is safe when not abused, and the public is well aware of the consequences of what happens when it is abused. These legal highs are not tested, and the public is not aware of the dangers of them. This is the difference. Comprende?

That is not the question I asked. I will repeat - Would you support the sale of cocaine, e's and meth if they were legal?

I dont know enough about Meth. E's if they were standardized could prove to be a safe drug, and cocaine when of a high enough purity can be as safe as alcohol or tobacco when used in proportional moderation. Contaminants in both are what make them the most dangerous.

So we should leave everything legal first, wait for someone to die and then do tests to see if it should be legal or not?

Son that is Common Law.

We didnt ban Texting While driving before Texting and Driving were invented. How can you outlaw something when you dont even know its a problem?

What you're implying - Everything is Illegal until its Legal - would be the Legal System completely flipped upside down on its head. Guilty until Proven Innocent, etc.

Yeah, because alcohol and heroin are even comparable.

Alcohol, when seriously abused will cause liver failure. Heroin can't be taken, even casually without screwing your entire body up.

Okay, so just so we can find some common ground though, you would not have a problem with the Legalisation of Cannabis, and would you then not have a problem with these Headshops making a living off the sale of Cannabis?

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

Okay, so just so we can find some common ground though, you would not have a problem with the Legalisation of Cannabis, and would you then not have a problem with these Headshops making a living off the sale of Cannabis?

No, I wouldn't. I'd be more than happy to let them sell cannabis, as it would take the money out of the pockets of drug-dealers. But I'm not happy for them to sell drugs which have not been tested, and are still an unknown entity.

dlofnep

Shulgin wrote: »

Why not legalise E (MDMA), LSD, Mushrooms and some others? THEY ARE SAFER THAN ALCOHOL!

As someone who has taken all of the above - they are in me hole safer.

Shulgin wrote: »

You are completely wrong. Heroin is almost non toxic when used correctly.
Its just very addictive psychologically and physically.

LOL sure. Find me one heroin addict that's anyway normal. Just one!

MaybeLogic

dlofnep wrote: »

As someone who has taken all of the above - they are in me hole safer.

Professor David Nutt, ex-head of the UK governments committee which investigated the effects of these drugs spents years testing them and came up with the conclusion that they are safer.

LOL sure. Find me one heroin addict that's anyway normal. Just one!

Heroin, in non-lethal amounts, is the one of the least toxic drugs around. The smack-heads are fecked-up from all the stuff that's mixed into it, not the heroin itself.

Shulgin

dlofnep wrote: »

As someone who has taken all of the above - they are in me hole safer.

Experts would disagree with you on that one.
Can you tell us what makes them less safe than alcohol?

They are less toxic, less likely to be abused, nowhere near as addictive.....

dlofnep wrote: »

LOL sure. Find me one heroin addict that's anyway normal. Just one!

I just pointed out what you said is complete bollocks.

dlofnep

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Professor David Nutt, ex-head of the UK governments committee which investigated the effects of these drugs spents years testing them and came up with the conclusion that they are safer.

I disagree with his findings. I found LSD to be overpowering, and a bad trip is worse than a bad hangover any day of the year. Watching people get panic attacks on E's, complaining about their heart is not fun. All very common side effects.

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Heroin, in non-lethal amounts, is the one of the least toxic drugs around. The smack-heads are fecked-up from all the stuff that's mixed into it, not the heroin itself.

Would you allow your children to take heroin?

dlofnep

Shulgin wrote: »

Experts would disagree with you on that one.

I don't care. I'm giving my opinion on what I've personally experienced, and personally seen. My opinion is as valid as anyone elses.

Shulgin wrote: »

Can you tell us what makes them less safe than alcohol?

They are much more traumatic on a mental level.

Shulgin

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't care. I'm giving my opinion on what I've personally experienced, and personally seen. My opinion is as valid as anyone elses.

Well to be honest most people who get decent quality E (mdma) have an absolutely great time on it. If LSD is taken in the right set and setting it can be one of the most most mind expanding and best experiences of your life.

Just because you had crap drugs in crap settings or whatever is unfortunate. Most people who had the same drugs will tell you what a great time they had. Sorry!

Your opinion counts yes, but impartial expert opinions count just that bit more.

Oh, and If you don`t care then stop arguing like you do care.

They are much more traumatic on a mental level.

For you , yes. Sorry to hear that.

MaybeLogic

dlofnep wrote: »

I disagree with his findings. I found LSD to be overpowering, and a bad trip is worse than a bad hangover any day of the year. Watching people get panic attacks on E's, complaining about their heart is not fun. All very common side effects.

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.

Would you allow your children to take heroin?

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

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

I disagree with his findings. I found LSD to be overpowering, and a bad trip is worse than a bad hangover any day of the year. Watching people get panic attacks on E's, complaining about their heart is not fun. All very common side effects.

Youre basically stating you took a larger dose than you were prepared for. Your LSD experience would be comparable to someone who's first drink was half a litre of vodka. My first experience was about a 5th of Blue Aftershock but thats another story. Crazy, crazy night.

As for panic attacks they can happen with any drug. Shoot, I had a panic attack because I misread the label on my prescribed painkiller for an ear infection, thinking I had overdosed and worried about the probability of liver failure, my heart began racing like a horse. That doesnt make it the Painkiller's fault. I would argue that the people having a panic attack on E's is much in large part due to the widely held concept that they are a Russian Roulette of sorts, that just one of the tablets is enough to kill you, if its not made properly.

dlofnep

Shulgin wrote: »

Well to be honest most people who get decent quality E (mdma) have an absolutely great time on it.

I've had many a quality night on E's. But it doesn't meant that I haven't seen many people get serious panic attacks, and scare the **** out of me and my friends.

Shulgin wrote: »

If LSD is taken in the right set and setting it can be one of the most most mind opening and best experiences of your life.

Yes, and expects that you have complete and utter control of your mind - which you don't. Bad trips are terrible. I've only ever had it happen to me once, but it was the scariest experience of my life and not something I'd wish on anyone.

Shulgin wrote: »

Just because you had crap drugs in crap settings or whatever is unfortunate. Most people who had the same drugs will tell you what a great time they had. Sorry!

I never said that some people don't have good times. But there are many incidents where people have traumatic experiences and these are the reason why society isn't ready to accept these as legal ways to get high.

Shulgin wrote: »

For you , yes. Sorry to hear that.

No, not for me - for many people.

Overheal

And speaking of your traumatic drug experiences what about alcoholic experiences? Frankly I was more concerned when my Dad would come back after X pints and Y Jamesons and start roaring abuse an throwing the Dining Table over. Would that not also be considered a Bad Trip?

Karlusss

dlofnep wrote: »

I never said that some people don't have good times. But there are many incidents where people have traumatic experiences and these are the reason why society isn't ready to accept these as legal ways to get high.

I know a guy who snapped his banjo string while having sex, and I know of many other incidents when this occurred too.

Should Joe Duffy ban sex?

Shulgin

dlofnep wrote: »

I've had many a quality night on E's. But it doesn't meant that I haven't seen many people get serious panic attacks, and scare the **** out of me and my friends.

Everything has a risk factor. If people weren`t filled up with all the scaremongering by governments and the media then many of these psychological freakouts wouldn`t happen I believe.

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes, and expects that you have complete and utter control of your mind - which you don't. Bad trips are terrible. I've only ever had it happen to me once, but it was the scariest experience of my life and not something I'd wish on anyone.

Yup, bad trips are terrifying, but they can be avoided by not taking psychedelics without first doing the right research first. LSD and other psychedelics are not for everyone and should be treated with great respect.

dlofnep wrote: »

I never said that some people don't have good times. But there are many incidents where people have traumatic experiences and these are the reason why society isn't ready to accept these as legal ways to get high.

Most people don`t have these terrible experiences + lack of education is at least partly the reason people have these bad time on drugs.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, not for me - for many people.

Just because a few people don`t like a certain drug doesn`t mean it should be banned for everyone else.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Feel really bad for this shop. They sell clothes and lots of other stuff, always seemed like nice people.

The other night I tried the meph stuff which is the reason everyone's been tlaking about head shops.

Can completely understand people being suspicious the fire was done by drug dealers. This stuff costs a tiny percentage of cocaine and the effects imo were far better than e/cocaine. Might be more unhealthy for the consumer but it doesn't cause any aggressiveness so the general public aren't in danger from it like they would be cocaine abusers.

I think meph should be banned because we don't know anything about its long term effects. trying to close the head shops is ridiculous though.

I would also agree mdma/ecstacy/mushrooms should be legalized, perhaps would be more justified than legalization of cannabis(which I also think should be legalized) I don't think heroin, cocaine, lsd or crystal meth should be though.

goose2005

dlofnep wrote: »

As someone who has taken all of the above - they are in me hole safer.

So your personal experience is more valid than actual scientific studies?

rubadub

My local headshop was burnt down last year, due to open next month though, the area is gonna be full of out of their head junkies falling about the place again.
.
Re-open date is Tuesday March 30th at 6:00pm

Kurtosis

rubadub wrote: »

My local headshop was burnt down last year, due to open next month though, the area is gonna be full of out of their head junkies falling about the place again.
.
Re-open date is Tuesday March 30th at 6:00pm

...pubs and headshops are very different entities.

rubadub

penguin88 wrote: »

...pubs and headshops are very different entities.

Really? why so? I suppose most headshops do not allow ingestion on the premises, but they could allow it. Please give clear definition of a headshop. I have asked for one in many many threads and have yet to hear one, I am particularly interested in hearing a legislative type definition. This talk of "headshops closing in 3 months" is laughable when nobody can even describe one.

Kurtosis

rubadub wrote: »

Really? why so?

Well I've 3 quick reasons, a bit more below as well.

1. The products sold in a pub are all highly regulated (as well as the public house itself), the same cannot be said for headshops.

2. All products sold in a pub are labelled accurately with their contents (bacon fries containing bacon fries!) and are all sold for human consumption. Headshop products often list their contents by an incorrect botanical name for herbal products or else by some other "generic" name, while many are sold as bath salts or plant feeders.

3. The potency of products sold in the two places are very different and so they have different dangers associated with them. One gram of a headshop product will more than likely give a significant psychotropic effect...I'd say a lot of people only wish the same could be said for a gram alcohol!

Please give clear definition of a headshop. I have asked for one in many many threads and have yet to hear one, I am particularly interested in hearing a legislative type definition. This talk of "headshops closing in 3 months" is laughable when nobody can even describe one.

Well actually in my opinion the biggest difference between them is why there is no definition. Pubs and the sale of alcohol are highly regulated by a number of different pieces of legislation - control of when they can operate, who they can sell to, how they get their stock as well as penalties for contravening these. Then there are the headshops: not covered in legislation (yet) and the substances they sell have not been controlled (again, yet).

The headshops are unregulated as it is but I'd say that's not going to be the case for much longer. One option Mary Harney might go for is to introduce regulations to govern them (probably bring headshops under the remit of the Irish Medicines Board). Just a case of defining the substances being sold by them (and their derivatives), only permitting their sale from certain establishments (i.e. headshops) and then enforcing conditions on such premises (and possibly quality control/licencing of the products themselves).

Kurtosis

goose2005 wrote: »

So your personal experience is more valid than actual scientific studies?

Nice chart, but where's the actual scientific studies part?

Herbal Deity

penguin88 wrote: »

.I'd say a lot of people only wish the same could be said for a gram alcohol!

EDIT: I'm an idiot

It's all about the dilution. I've thought in the past that having other drugs in a more diluted format would be a good idea, as I think a lot of the fear surrounding drugs other than alcohol does lie in the fact that one pill, one joint or one line has a very strong effect compared to one can.

Spirits exist, but heavy spirit drinking isn't really considered hugely acceptable, at least amongst those who would be strongly against drugs besides alcohol.

The standard dose of MDMA would be 70-120mg. I wonder if it'd be more accepted if 20mg of it were served diluted in a 500ml sugary drink, and you'd have to drink 4/5 to feel a strong effect?

Kurtosis

Herbal Deity wrote: »

.

Ah, takes me back to my leaving cert days in chemistry and physics: mind your units!

0.789 g/ml * 25 ml = ~20 g

So 1g of alcohol would be equivalent to drinking 25 ml of your 5% can.

It's all about the dilution.

Not really. Dilution just makes it harder to take enough of whatever to have an effect. It's all about the potency of the actual active component.

I've thought in the past that having other drugs in a more diluted format would be a good idea, as I think a lot of the fear surrounding drugs other than alcohol does lie in the fact that one pill, one joint or one line has a very strong effect compared to one can.

Spirits exist, but heavy spirit drinking isn't really considered hugely acceptable, at least amongst those who would be strongly against drugs besides alcohol.

The standard dose of MDMA would be 70-120mg. I wonder if it'd be more accepted if 20mg of it were served diluted in a 500ml sugary drink, and you'd have to drink 4/5 to feel a strong effect?

It certainly could be. The sugary drink definitely would be useful to combat the dehydrating and salt depleting effect of MDMA. Do you mean accepted by society? I'd suspect it wouldn't be accepted by a lot of people who take it though, the same people who might stack ecstasy tabs. It's going to take longer to get the desired effect and if they do normally take 2/3 tablets, you're talking about 4-7 litres of fluid.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

I have no problems with headshops etc etc

But have to say to anyone, if you're looking for a powder, do not do A Yup (might be spelled wrong but something to that effect)

Everyone I've talked to had at least one sleepless night and 3 days depression. But thats from over indulgence too, alcohol can do the same before anyone decides to jump on this for a reason to shut down the shops...

Kurtosis

Shulgin wrote: »

You are completely wrong. Heroin is almost non toxic when used correctly.
Its just very addictive psychologically and physically.

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Heroin, in non-lethal amounts, is the one of the least toxic drugs around. The smack-heads are fecked-up from all the stuff that's mixed into it, not the heroin itself.

Care to elaborate lads? Maybe a bit of evidence to back this stuff up? Actually, even if you could just say what you mean by non toxic and being used correctly/non-lethal amounts, that'd be great.