Head shops issue to be discussed

97i9y3941

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/head-shops-issue-to-be-discussed-2074636.html

The controversy surrounding so called head shops and legal highs will be put under the spotlight by government officials from across Ireland and the UK, it emerged.

As traders face mounting pressure from angry communities, politicians will discuss measures to combat the opening of the stores and use of psychoactive substances.

John Curran, junior minister with responsibility for the national drugs strategy, will chair the ministerial meeting of the British-Irish Council in the Isle of Man on Wednesday. He said the issue of head shops and legal highs is one of ongoing concern, not only in Ireland, but throughout the eight administrations of the council and beyond.

"I was grateful of the opportunity to suggest the addition of this topic to the agenda, and this was readily accepted by the other ministers," said Mr Curran. "While jurisdictions are approaching the problem in different ways, I am sure that we can all learn and benefit from each other's experiences and ideas."

The number of head shops opening in towns across the country has escalated in recent months, with some open until 4am at weekends and offering delivery service. While parents have protested outside some premises, it is also claimed criminals and drug dealers angered over the success of the head shops were prepared to threaten the businesses.

Two stores in Dublin's north inner city were targeted by suspected arsonists this month.

Health minister Mary Harney has promised to introduce legislation to deal with the stores by June and bring Ireland into line with the UK's stricter anti-drugs laws.

The Oireachtas Justice Committee is also holding investigations into head shops and will probe if they can be banned.

Mr Curran said the misuse of drugs in prisons will also be addressed during the summit at the Tynwald Buildings, the Parliamentary buildings of the Isle of Man.

The Council includes members of the Irish and British Governments, the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and representatives of the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. Established to promote positive, practical relationships among the people of the islands, it is the only international forum in which these eight members participate.

now,me thinks all of this fuss started when some yuppies from rich areas/rich familes started to take this stuff and then they started to notice,nobody gave a f#ck when the poor where doing all this,if the gov are stuck for revenue they could put a tax on this stuff,now dont say oh thats wrong etc,they already make money from "Immoral" stuff as cigs,beer,gambleing.

astrofool

They're not long for this world. I'm sure they'll return in some form or another.

Overheal

The Oireachtas Justice Committee is also holding investigations into head shops and will probe if they can be banned.

Means "We have no Real Legal Basis on which we can ban this, so we're looking for a loophole and will probably call them a danger to society as they are big effing targets for out of work drug dealers."

The truth is they werent keeping track of just how big Smoke has gotten in [their] country and they are Shocked to see it all Above Ground now. They want to sweep it back under the Black Market where it wont smudge their rose tinted reality.

Sea Sharp

They've wrecked my economy and now they're wrecking my buzz!!:cool:

Why do they always copy-paste UK laws?
Seriously, what the fcuk is up with that. It's disgustingly lazy and it makes a mockery of our national independence.

Mary Harney, learn to use Google and you will find hundreds of drug policies from around the world that you can rip off. Pay close attention Mexico, Argentina & Portugal

ChocolateSauce

The government should hold joint discussions with the headshops so that they can make friends.;)

But seriously, it's really easy, safe, and cheap for me to go down to the headshop in Rathmines and buy some smoke if I want to spend the weekend in, but if they ban it I'll just go back to buying from illegal dealers.

Congratulations FF, you continue to be a paragon of intelligence, common sense, and positive results.

djpbarry

What gets me about the 'head shop fiasco' is the fact that there was no issue before the premises on Capel Street was burned down. It now seems to have been forgotten (from my perspective, at least) that a serious crime was (possibly) committed (given that a fire broke out in a North Frederick Street premises a matter of days later, it doesn’t strike me as coincidental), with the focus now being on banning head shops. For fire safety reasons. Apparently.

Red_Marauder

djpbarry wrote: »

What gets me about the 'head shop fiasco' is the fact that there was no issue before the premises on Capel Street was burned down. It now seems to have been forgotten (from my perspective, at least) that a serious crime was (possibly) committed (given that a fire broke out in a North Frederick Street premises a matter of days later, it doesn’t strike me as coincidental), with the focus now being on banning head shops. For fire safety reasons. Apparently.

I don't think the story is forgotten, the weekend papers ran a number of reports on it. The thing is there's no further development in the story yet, but all of the papers have reported an ongoing investigation.

It would be interesting if the stores had actually been the target of criminals who had seen their street business suffer, since that would infer that head shops take profits out of the hands of criminal gangs. However, the IRA possibility isn't one that can be dismissed, given that a head shop owner was shot in the leg in Derry recently by an IRA (socialist republican) gunman with no particular motive apart from an evident aversion to drugs.

I have a hard time believing that the parents of Fiachra and Fuinneog from Killiney Hill were behind this kind of thing though.
It's a well known fact that people who live in Killiney don't even know where Capel Street and North Frederick Street are and they have never even heard of The Northside.

Taxipete29

djpbarry wrote: »

What gets me about the 'head shop fiasco' is the fact that there was no issue before the premises on Capel Street was burned down. It now seems to have been forgotten (from my perspective, at least) that a serious crime was (possibly) committed (given that a fire broke out in a North Frederick Street premises a matter of days later, it doesn’t strike me as coincidental), with the focus now being on banning head shops. For fire safety reasons. Apparently.

This has been a huge issue since long before that fire on Capel street.

The issue was raised by concerned parents whose children were buying these so called legal highs. There was also huge concern for the locations of some of these stores around the country, with many apparently being located near schools.

The first action should be to regulate them to stop them serving children. This solves the most immediate problem in my opinion.If adults want to get off their heads let them. Sure the drinks industry is built on that fact

AARRRGH

djpbarry wrote: »

What gets me about the 'head shop fiasco' is the fact that there was no issue before the premises on Capel Street was burned down. It now seems to have been forgotten (from my perspective, at least) that a serious crime was (possibly) committed (given that a fire broke out in a North Frederick Street premises a matter of days later, it doesn’t strike me as coincidental), with the focus now being on banning head shops. For fire safety reasons. Apparently.

We live in a dumb world and are ruled by a bunch of dummies, so I'm not surprised the current 'fiasco' doesn't make much sense.

AARRRGH

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The issue was raised by concerned parents whose children were buying these so called legal highs. There was also huge concern for the locations of some of these stores around the country, with many apparently being located near schools.

You're right, but it's ridiculous the parents would rather their children go to illegal drug dealers.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The first action should be to regulate them to stop them serving children. This solves the most immediate problem in my opinion.If adults want to get off their heads let them. Sure the drinks industry is built on that fact

Agree completely.

PeakOutput

The Oireachtas Justice Committee is also holding investigations into head shops and will probe if they can be banned.

this is the part that really gets me i couldnt care less if they are banned or not but the fact eh goverment is looking at weather or not something can be banned instead of weather or not it SHOULD be banned speaks volumes imo

PeakOutput

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The issue was raised by concerned parents whose children were buying these so called legal highs. There was also huge concern for the locations of some of these stores around the country, with many apparently being located near schools.

id love to see evidence of one of these shops being 'near' a school city center does not count as being near a school just because there are schools in the city center

Taxipete29

PeakOutput wrote: »

id love to see evidence of one of these shops being 'near' a school city center does not count as being near a school just because there are schools in the city center

You do realise that there are other parts of this country other than Dublin??

The instances of shops near schools were from towns outside Dublin. Apparently in one instance it is actually right beside the school.

wes

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The first action should be to regulate them to stop them serving children. This solves the most immediate problem in my opinion.If adults want to get off their heads let them. Sure the drinks industry is built on that fact

That would make a lot more sense imho. If Adults want to try some random crap to get high, more power to them.

Eliot Rosewater

I find the ban-the-head-shops response to the whole situation totally irrational.

So the head shops are put on fire, and one of the most probable theories is that it was done by drug dealers who rightly fear that their business is threatened. The response by some has been to ban head shops. Which will obviously push consumers towards towards the illegal market.

So it all comes down to this: we have a choice between giving customers to the head shops or to the people burning down head shops. Seems a bit of a no-brainer to me.


Unless you're living on planet Zog, its obvious drugs will be bought and sold anyway. Allowing the kind of people who are willing to burn down their competitors buildings to have full control of the drugs market is ridiculous.

bildo

Banning things does not make them go away.
It never has and it never will.
If this is a problem for any reason, we need to be grown up about it as a country and tackle the problem.
By banning more and more substances we are only putting more potential products and therefore profits directly into the hands of drug dealers.
This is extremely counter productive no matter what your opinion is regarding headshops and their wares.
Banning things equates only to socially ignoring them and hoping that they'll go away which they never do.

djpbarry

Taxipete29 wrote: »

This has been a huge issue since long before that fire on Capel street.

I’ll have to take your word for it. I stress that this is purely from my own perspective, but (for example) that shop on Capel Street had been there for years, without provoking any incident or large-scale protest (as far as I’m aware – I’m open to correction), it get’s burned down and then BANG – ‘Let’s ban the head shops’. Needless to say, that wouldn’t be the most mature of responses.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The first action should be to regulate them to stop them serving children. This solves the most immediate problem in my opinion.If adults want to get off their heads let them.

Yeah, absolutely. Stick some age restrictions and health warnings on the substances in question and then everyone’s happy except the gangland scum. Perfect.

PeakOutput

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You do realise that there are other parts of this country other than Dublin??

The instances of shops near schools were from towns outside Dublin. Apparently in one instance it is actually right beside the school.

assuming i was talking about dublin is your ignorance not mine buddyand as i said id still like to see proof and no more apparantly this apparently that

i have no problem with regulation just automatic banning of things some of which are simple vitamins ffs

Roibead

I agree with banning them as this is another step in the ladder to becoming another Amsterdam, they attract unnecessary attention from people looking for a "high" and the fact is I watched one day when several cars at one of the shop pulled up and bought there "stuff" and drove off.

Are these people committing an offence if they drive whilst under this influence as it is not covered in law, as it is neither Drink Driving or Drug driving as that is in relation to both Prescribed and illegal drugs, which bracket does the head crap fall into and yes it would be dangerous for people to be driving with this stuff in there system.

Roibead

Roibead wrote: »

I agree with banning them as this is another step in the ladder to becoming another Amsterdam, they attract unnecessary attention from people looking for a "high" and the fact is I watched one day when several cars at one of the shop pulled up and bought there "stuff" and drove off.

I saw a guy once buy a bottle of whiskey and a slab of cans in Tesco and get into his car and drive off. I didn't think for the life of me that he would be drink driving, but that's just how my mind works.


What a Joe Duffy argument of the highest tripe. The undisputable fact is, you have no idea where these people are doing "there stuff".

Roibead

No need to be smart and to put it in a nutshell this is selling of now "Legal" dangerous untested drugs.

Personally if every last one of these shops was burnt down I would be happy as long as nobody gets hurt.

My 2 cents.

Roibead

Roibead wrote: »

No need to be smart and to put it in a nutshell this is selling of now "Legal" dangerous untested drugs.

Personally if every last one of these shops was burnt down I would be happy as long as nobody gets hurt.

My 2 cents.

Like the staff that lose their jobs, the tax that these companies give, the drug-dealers that will find their profits soaring.

There is no such thing as nobody getting hurt.

If anything, headshops have proven how legalisation and regulation are nothing but a good thing. Take the power and the product away from the dealers on the street.

PeakOutput

Roibead wrote: »

Are these people committing an offence if they drive whilst under this influence as it is not covered in law, as it is neither Drink Driving or Drug driving as that is in relation to both Prescribed and illegal drugs, which bracket does the head crap fall into and yes it would be dangerous for people to be driving with this stuff in there system.

there is no law stopping people driving under the influence of illegal drugs i can drive around high all day if i want with no risk of legal ramifications

in a nutshell this is selling of now "Legal" dangerous untested drugs.

how do you know they are dangerous? whats in what is being sold? do you know?

in a nutshell you have no idea what you are talking about

first step to becoming like amsterdam haha what a joke, most of the westernised world is decriminalising pot weventually we will cop on and follow suit and once that is shown to be not the end of days asmost people think it would be hopefully their ignorance to everything else will lessen

OhNoYouDidn't

What is interesting about the government reaction is the conceptual reasons that they ban 'drugs' in the first place.

The stated reason is that the chemical reactions the body has to narcotics are dangerous and as such, certain drugs are banned (or technically the chemicals within). As such, surely the head shops are a happy medium? Synthesised, safer, highs manufactured in laboratory conditions that are taxed and not sold to minors. Surely thats a good thing?

Unless the problem is the idea of someone putting something in a cigarette to relax, taking a pill to dance all night or snorting a powder to give an energy burst.

This is simply a blue rinse brigade attack on youth culture. No more no less. No surprise that that right wing reactionary catholic nutter Aherne's fingerprints are all over it.

AARRRGH

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What is interesting about the government reaction is the conceptual reasons that they ban 'drugs' in the first place.

The stated reason is that the chemical reactions the body has to narcotics are dangerous and as such, certain drugs are banned (or technically the chemicals within). As such, surely the head shops are a happy medium? Synthesised, safer, highs manufactured in laboratory conditions that are taxed and not sold to minors. Surely thats a good thing?

Unless the problem is the idea of someone putting something in a cigarette to relax, taking a pill to dance all night or snorting a powder to give an energy burst.

This is simply a blue rinse brigade attack on youth culture. No more no less. No surprise that that right wing reactionary catholic nutter Aherne's fingerprints are all over it.

I agree.

The basic problem is humans are emotional creatures and unfortunately most are a bit thick.

If you think about risk logically, it is clear things like religion are drastically more dangerous than things like legal highs -- how many people have died because of religion (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc.) and how many people have died because of legal highs?

Even if we forget about religion ('cause the blue rinse brigade would never understand that one) how many people die due to illegal drug dealing and how many people die to legal highs? Maybe I have my facts wrong but I don't think the legal high shop owners are doing gangland killings.

In fact, I would bet money that NAMA is more dangerous than legal highs. The former most definitely will damage or even destroy many lives, whereas the latter will make a few teenagers do stupid things.

In a nutshell, it's ****ing retarded.

Elevator

Roibead wrote: »

I agree with banning them as this is another step in the ladder to becoming another Amsterdam, they attract unnecessary attention from people looking for a "high" and the fact is I watched one day when several cars at one of the shop pulled up and bought there "stuff" and drove off.

Are these people committing an offence if they drive whilst under this influence as it is not covered in law, as it is neither Drink Driving or Drug driving as that is in relation to both Prescribed and illegal drugs, which bracket does the head crap fall into and yes it would be dangerous for people to be driving with this stuff in there system.

How many cars are parked outside the pubs most evenings?? Are we to presume that you are also watching this new trend of people driving to where they need to go and when they're finished they just drive off?? Absolutely despicable it is

OhNoYouDidn't

Roibead wrote: »

I agree with banning them as this is another step in the ladder to becoming another Amsterdam, they attract unnecessary attention from people looking for a "high" and the fact is I watched one day when several cars at one of the shop pulled up and bought there "stuff" and drove off.

Are these people committing an offence if they drive whilst under this influence as it is not covered in law, as it is neither Drink Driving or Drug driving as that is in relation to both Prescribed and illegal drugs, which bracket does the head crap fall into and yes it would be dangerous for people to be driving with this stuff in there system.

Riobeard, I am sure there are legitimate arguments against head shops, but that simply isn't one of them.

Its like saying you shouldn't be allowed drive to Powercity in case you turned on your new telly in the car and got distracted.

slimjimmc

PeakOutput wrote: »

there is no law stopping people driving under the influence of illegal drugs i can drive around high all day if i want with no risk of legal ramifications

Actually there are 2 laws as per the Road Traffic Act 1961

49.—(1) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.
[GA]
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or, at the discretion of the court, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

50.—(1) In this section "unfit to drive" means under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

(2) A person who, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle which is in a public, place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle, but not driving or attempting to drive the vehicle, is unfit to drive the vehicle shall be guilty of an offence.

However, unlike alcohol limits, the law does not have a set limit for drugs.

You can legally drive with alcohol and/or drugs so long as (a) the alcohol is below the permitted limit and (b) your driving is not messed up.

Run_to_da_hills

slimjimmc wrote: »

Actually there are 2 laws as per the Road Traffic Act 1961
However, unlike alcohol limits, the law does not have a set limit for drugs.

A lot of the limits are entirely up to the judges discretion, as it was in this case in Limerick where a guy got disqualified from driving for four years because of traces of cannabis that were found in his blood.

Kurtosis

PeakOutput wrote: »

there is no law stopping people driving under the influence of illegal drugs i can drive around high all day if i want with no risk of legal ramifications

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A lot of the limits are entirely up to the judges discretion, as it was in this case in Limerick where a guy got disqualified from driving for four years because of traces of cannabis that were found in his blood.

Point is PeakOutput cannot drive around high all day with no risk of legal ramifications. There are potential legal ramifications as pointed out above relating the Road Traffic Act. Is it so much to expect people who either take drugs/defend the taking of drugs to at least inform themselves of what the current law/situation is in this country?

PeakOutput wrote: »

how do you know they are dangerous? whats in what is being sold? do you know?

in a nutshell you have no idea what you are talking about

To be fair though, no one really knows if these products are dangerous or what is in them. Unless someone is doing some sort of home analysis on them!

Nick_oliveri

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A lot of the limits are entirely up to the judges discretion, as it was in this case in Limerick where a guy got disqualified from driving for four years because of traces of cannabis that were found in his blood.

Wow thats fairly ****. All those cannabis related road accidents must have had something to do with banning a guy from.........GARRGHH!!

PeakOutput

penguin88 wrote: »

Point is PeakOutput cannot drive around high all day with no risk of legal ramifications.

ok i assumed that because there is no way for the gardai to test you on the side of the road like they can for alcohol, but i was wrong my bad, id love to know how that guy in limerick was caught

To be fair though, no one really knows if these products are dangerous or what is in them. Unless someone is doing some sort of home analysis on them!

any of them iv seen have ingredients on them, for examle the ingredients listed on the head shop version of cocaine is one or two vitamins(i think a and b but i cant remember exactly) magnesium i think and creatine, i dont know about magnesium but id bet vitamin a and b are safe as is creatine. weather you trust the ingredients is up to you but i dont see any reason for them to lie and risk being shut down due to that when they can just tell the truth seen as everything in them is apparently legal anyway.

edit; oh and caffeine

personally i dont care if they are banned all that much as i dont use them but in principle i dont think they should be just automatically banned because of uninformed reactionary opinion of the joe duffy brigade thats basically my opinion on the subject. i also think prohibition of anything dosnt work

Kurtosis

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok i assumed that because there is no way for the gardai to test you on the side of the road like they can for alcohol, but i was wrong my bad, id love to know how that guy in limerick was caught

Ignorance/assumptions are no defense if you were caught.

any of them iv seen have ingredients on them, for examle the ingredients listed on the head shop version of cocaine is one or two vitamins(i think a and b but i cant remember exactly) magnesium i think and creatine, i dont know about magnesium but id bet vitamin a and b are safe as is creatine. weather you trust the ingredients is up to you but i dont see any reason for them to lie and risk being shut down due to that when they can just tell the truth seen as everything in them is apparently legal anyway.

Any idea what the name of the product is? If those are the only ingredients, you'd probably be better off snorting a vitamin tablet!

M cebee

they're a menace to kids .selling 'legal highs' openly

they'll be driven out by the public if the law can't sort it

PeakOutput

penguin88 wrote: »

Ignorance/assumptions are no defense if you were caught.

grand

Any idea what the name of the product is? If those are the only ingredients, you'd probably be better off snorting a vitamin tablet!

not sure exactly the lads were calling it blow but dont know if that was the exact name just tried googling it with not much success

actually found this 'Vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, amino acids blend, caffeine, herbal blends, hoodia (a slimming aid) and minerals.'

here http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/mail-on-sunday-london-england-the/mi_8003/is_2010_Jan_17/cocaine-100pc-legal-called-head/ai_n48662717/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

i love how the sponsored links on the page are for head shops the hypocrisy is amazing

edit; having just read on in that article it appears that there have been tests run that found extra substances to what is listed on the ingredients nothing illegal but definitely not 'herbal'. so it appears that the ingredients cant be trusted so id say regulation is definitely necessary prohibition definitely isnt imo. im loathe to trust that particular paper by the way but i also couldnt be arsed finding evidence to the contrary so ill take it at its word

they'll be driven out by the public if the law can't sort it

doubt it, its not a silent majority of people who are against them its a vocal minority, in my experience most people couldnt give a **** either way

Kurtosis

PeakOutput wrote: »

not sure exactly the lads were calling it blow but dont know if that was the exact name just tried googling it with not much success

actually found this 'Vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, amino acids blend, caffeine, herbal blends, hoodia (a slimming aid) and minerals.'

here http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/mail-on-sunday-london-england-the/mi_8003/is_2010_Jan_17/cocaine-100pc-legal-called-head/ai_n48662717/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

i love how the sponsored links on the page are for head shops the hypocrisy is amazing

edit; having just read on in that article it appears that there have been tests run that found extra substances to what is listed on the ingredients nothing illegal but definitely not 'herbal'. so it appears that the ingredients cant be trusted so id say regulation is definitely necessary prohibition definitely isnt imo. im loathe to trust that particular paper by the way but i also couldnt be arsed finding evidence to the contrary so ill take it at its word

That'd be my opinion that the area needs regulation. Even if it did contain just herbals, how is that going to tell you what's in it? That could be something harmless like actual grass or that could be something toxic like deadly nightshade...or anything in between! Without accurate labeling you might as well have no labeling, if it's done wrong it has more potential to cause damage.

97i9y3941

ah sure with headshops gone,there be still enough of stoners at oxygen *who goes to oxygen for the music to be honest!*

Elevator

M cebee wrote: »

they're a menace to kids .selling 'legal highs' openly

they'll be driven out by the public if the law can't sort it

You misinformed dillisional muppet, most head shops no more sell legal highs to kids than off licences sell alcohol to the same age group, kids will get drink, smokes and legal or illegal forever and nothing this government does will stop that, they could raise the limits of alcohol to 25 and it still wouldn't stop them but yes why don't we all go spastik over head shops. I hope Gerry Adams sorts you out and shuts your type up cos ya not helping the situation one little bit believe me!!!!

Kurtosis

Elevator wrote: »

You misinformed dillisional muppet, most head shops no more sell legal highs to kids than off licences sell alcohol to the same age group, kids will get drink, smokes and legal or illegal forever and nothing this government does will stop that, they could raise the limits of alcohol to 25 and it still wouldn't stop them but yes why don't we all go spastik over head shops. I hope Gerry Adams sorts you out and shuts your type up cos ya not helping the situation one little bit believe me!!!!

Wait, so do you or do you not think there should be an an age limit imposed for the sale of these products?

Elevator

penguin88 wrote: »

Wait, so do you or do you not think there should be an an age limit imposed for the sale of these products?

Yes i do mate but the 18s limit on alcohol hasn't dome anything to stem the supply to minors so what difference will a legislative age limit on legal highs really make??? I have some mates who worked in head stores the past 3 years in dublin and Galway and they never sold to under 18s. In fact if people came in to buy something like salvia and had an attitude that they were hardcore cos they can munch ecstasy all night he downright refused to sell it them as they would probably not handle the experience. On a further note there is only one reason why the provos are trying to bully the head store owners out of business and it's not for the good of the people.

Kurtosis

Elevator wrote: »

Yes i do mate but the 18s limit on alcohol hasn't dome anything to stem the supply to minors so what difference will a legislative age limit on legal highs really make???

Well I'm not going to deny that under 18's still have plenty of access to booze, but to say that the age limit has done nothing to stop them getting it? You'd think some sort of age limit is better than a free for all. Sure at the moment for head shops, there's perfectly entitled to sell to kids if they want with no legal ramifications. I know a lot of head shops have signed up to voluntary guidelines including an 18's age limit but you still need something to deal with the cowboy retailers.

Elevator

penguin88 wrote: »

Well I'm not going to deny that under 18's still have plenty of access to booze, but to say that the age limit has done nothing to stop them getting it? You'd think some sort of age limit is better than a free for all. Sure at the moment for head shops, there's perfectly entitled to sell to kids if they want with no legal ramifications. I know a lot of head shops have signed up to voluntary guidelines including an 18's age limit but you still need something to deal with the cowboy retailers.

True but the government will only make the wrong decisions I'm the end and the drug dealers will be winning once again and everyone will be back getting high with no age limits or any more of a clue what they're really taking so why are we even wasting our time here? Should go for an over priced pint and stand outside smoking in the freezing cold, oh wait I can't afford to socialize in the pub dammit lol

Standman

Theres no point in trying to see the logic in the governments view on headshops. As far as they are concerned - drugs are bad, fullstop. If they dont pander to the vocal minority they fear it will look like they are condoning drug use. I doubted whether there was much in depth debate on the issues surrounding this in the Oireachtas, so I read over a few of the debates online. Heres couple of the points raised in opposition of head shops:

Senator Geraldine Feeney: Our hands are tied because technically the shops have the right to exist, yet they have no right to exist in the minds of God-fearing, good-living people.

According to her anyone who consumes/condones the use of headstore products not only lives a bad life but is a godless heathen.She states before this that she had never even heard of a head shop until just before Christmas, then apparently based her decision on a wikipedia search and an episode of primetime.

Senator Larry Butler: The people who use the products sold in these head shops will eventually progress to harder drugs, which will cost the Health Service Executive a great deal more money because they will become addicted.

Based on nothing but opinion pulled out of his arse.

There were a few mentions of how great Joe Duffys liveline show is in helping to combat the scourge that is a head shop. The debate was not on whether or not to ban headshops, this was a frogone conclusion, it was more focused on debating the best way to make it illegal for them to operate. The only sensible position in this debate was that of Mary Harney who suggested that debate and education are the best way to tackle drug abuse, which of course is absolutely meaningless coming from her. Anyone who wants to read it can here.

As said before consenting adults should be allowed to take whatever they want. We need to get away from this idea that we are not responsible for ourselves, that the government needs to take away some of our rights because we cant handle them.

Elevator

It really is comical how they can be discussing this subject and making decisions witn no clue of what they're talking about. Really does make me wonder do they know anything at all about any of the more important decicions they make???

Overheal

Standman wrote: »

According to her anyone who consumes/condones the use of headstore products not only lives a bad life but is a godless heathen.She states before this that she had never even heard of a head shop until just before Christmas, then apparently based her decision on a wikipedia search and an episode of primetime.

In fairness she said God-Fearing, not Believers. You wouldn't have to Fear a God to believe in one. So Godless Heathens is quite a stretch of the imagination.

That doesn't mean she wasn't being presumptuous. Nor your one who concludes blindfolded that all users of Drugs eventually move on to worse things.

But if that were true, all users of Cigarettes and Alcohol [or Coffee to an extent] need to be tarred with the same brush, as they too are essentially narcotics in their ability to alter state and incite addiction. "Alcoholism is a Gateway to Heroine!!" We should make those bumper stickers, just to highlight the absurdity of the claim.

DeVore

Do people who oppose headshops believe that they are increasing the market for weed or simply servicing an existing market?


I've lived in north central dublin most of my adult life and I've seen and known drug dealers. Of their "businesses" weed makes up about 80% of their sales and far more than 80% of their profit (its very profitable since it can be grown for almost nothing!).

If you want to attack drug dealers, the best possible way is to restrict headshops to selling weed replacements, tax them, monitor them and cut the legs from under the drug dealer businesses.

They (drug dealers) will not be able to survive on the proceeds of hard drugs, there just arent enough users and they tend to die a lot
That will force them out of business because they will not be able to sustain their lifestyles or indeed any lifestyle. This is why they (headshops) are being attacked, because like any "invading" drug gang, they are facing resistance for moving into some dealers "patch".


This is simple economics.

DeV.

Kurtosis

Elevator wrote: »

True but the government will only make the wrong decisions

Standman wrote: »

Theres no point in trying to see the logic in the governments view on headshops. As far as they are concerned - drugs are bad, fullstop. If they dont pander to the vocal minority they fear it will look like they are condoning drug use.

Since this is the Politics forum I feel I should ask: did you talk to your local TD or anything? If ya think it's the vocal minority that is leading the politicians to have the opinions they have on this (and it probably is!) then why don't you as part of the majority speak up and put your points across?

Standman wrote: »

There were a few mentions of how great Joe Duffys liveline show is in helping to combat the scourge that is a head shop. The debate was not on whether or not to ban headshops, this was a frogone conclusion, it was more focused on debating the best way to make it illegal for them to operate. The only sensible position in this debate was that of Mary Harney who suggested that debate and education are the best way to tackle drug abuse, which of course is absolutely meaningless coming from her. Anyone who wants to read it can here.

Admittedly the two FF senators you quoted seemed to be very short sighted and narrow minded in their views. I don't think was discussed as a foregone conclusion overall. Mary Harney mentioned that their research did involve discussing the issue with various interest groups so even if they don't know a lot, they are involving people with expertise. A number of contributors including the Minister and Dan Boyle, suggest that some products/substances may be banned but that head shops will still be around.

Again Dan Boyle also addressed that fact that any sort of action on head shops had to be integrated into an overall drugs strategy and would be ineffective alone.

As said before consenting adults should be allowed to take whatever they want. We need to get away from this idea that we are not responsible for ourselves, that the government needs to take away some of our rights because we cant handle them.

So wait, do you think people should be able to take whatever they want? Heroin, cocaine, make them freely available?

DeVore

Why not, we let them smoke, we let them drink, we let people ski (thats REALLY dangerous), we let people do lots of very dangerous and potentially lethal things... why is this different?

DeV.

Kurtosis

DeVore wrote: »

Why not, we let them smoke, we let them drink, we let people ski (thats REALLY dangerous), we let people do lots of very dangerous and potentially lethal things... why is this different?

DeV.

Well I suppose you have to consider the overall risk of all of these things. Skiing may be plenty dangerous but it has the benefit of being an effective form of exercise. For drugs, looking at their potential for dependence and physical harm, cocaine and heroin are at the upper end of both. Alcohol and nicotine do not pose as great a risk. The substances in headhops products? The risks aren't fully known yet. So would it not make sense to have some sort of regulatory system in which the effects of these substances can be assessed and a decision regarding legality can then be made based on this?

Eliot Rosewater

I think heroin is an extreme example. Its continued banning could be argued on the basis of its ability to get a user addicted, and the damage it does to the addicts family.

But when it comes to the overall drugs debate, opinions are decided more by a "gut instinct" than any reasoning like that. I find that many of those who are against the legalization of drugs don't have any starting rationale, rather they have a preconceived aversion to the idea of people taking drugs.

It comes down a lot to attitudes. Imagine you're on a night out and you see a drunk guy stumbling down the street before collapsing onto the pavement. You probably wouldn't do much; some people might even laugh it off. Now imagine you are in a bathroom and you see someone snorting cocaine and subsequently collapsing on the ground. Most people would freak out and very many would call an ambulance.

I think these kind of contradictions are at the heart of the drugs debate. Alcohol is summarily dismissed as grand and safe, while softer drugs like marijuana are continually fought against. It makes it very hard to have a proper debate on the pros and cons of legalization, because some people are unwilling to accept any argument against their position.

Taxipete29

PeakOutput wrote: »

assuming i was talking about dublin is your ignorance not mine buddyand as i said id still like to see proof and no more apparantly this apparently that

i have no problem with regulation just automatic banning of things some of which are simple vitamins ffs

I use the words apparently because I was using information I heard on the radio. While I sincerely doubt these people were lying, it would be silly to just relay it as the gospel truth.

If you think these are simple vitamins then you have a serious ignorance problem.