drug squad officers views on clearing out one head shop in Galway yesterday

Elevator

I realise this could be posted in ah but seeing as the whole motivation behind the ban and the ultra sneaky rushing in of the same was 100% political I chose to put it here

two people I got to know the past 2 years and ended up owning one of the head shops we have in town told me exactly what was said to them when three ds officers entered their store yesterday

they actually admitted "there's been a marked decrease in their work load since head shops opened 4/5 years ago" and they also admitted that "the head store drugs even with their faults were a safer option all round for those who chose to use psychotropic drugs for many reasons...not funding criminals opperations being the most important"

now we must admit that there will always be a demand for all the drugs we have now and more than likely any drug that comes out til the end of time

humans have been getting high since we came out of the caves. if we were to actually look at all the popular illegal drugs out at present there are quite a few that would be safer to introduce them to society than many freely available substances/medication.

for crying out loud this is going to put a monumental amount of cash/power into the hands of greedy/totally unregulated drug dealers within a month!!

seeing as our government since 1970 have given away our natural resources and we stand to make nothing from them as a state sitting on the oil deposits we used to own it is hardly surprising they would give into the dealers and
give them back their profits also!!

shocked.com that we have once again been ****ed over and a lot of decent people have been criminalised!!

nanny state.

yoshytoshy

The news of how the two polish lads were killed ,didn't help the headshops one bit.
The chap curran had done around twenty benzo tabs and then stabbed two lads with a screwdriver.

MagicSean

yoshytoshy wrote: »

The news of how the two polish lads were killed ,didn't help the headshops one bit.
The chap curran had done around twenty benzo tabs and then stabbed two lads with a screwdriver.

And don't forget that mad fella in drogheda who stabbed all those people.

DublinWriter

And of course the dozens of alcohol-related incidents that happen around the country each weekend go unreported because we are so conditioned.

yoshytoshy

One bloke with a load of chemicals can bang off thousands of tablets.
It's takes a lot more work to manufacture alcohol and ship it around ,more people getting payed to work.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Maybe the drug squad had less to do, but perhaps the health service had more.

Thoguh I don't know for sure. All I do is mephadrone is far too much fun to not get addicted!

Sulmac

I think the drug policy in this country, and most other countries, is a complete joke. Banning something just makes some people want it more.

Head shops are/were crippling the drug gangs in this country, moreso than any CAB-type operation could do.

What I would do is overhaul the entire way that drugs are treated in this country. Softer drugs, in particular cannabis (which is safer than tobacco and alcohol, and nowhere near as addictive), should be legalised, regulated and taxed.

Legalising drugs has several benefits; including, taking them out of the hands of gangs; making them safer; the ability to tax them; removing the taboo of them so people are less likely to do it; and not treating the population like children.

The money saved from going after "softer" drugs can be used to go after the serious drugs, such as heroin. "Legal highs", such as those found in head shops, should only be allowed to be sold after a certain testing period, as we do with any form of medication. Certain restrictions would also be placed on head shops, such as location (e.g., not allowing them near schools), prices and hours (some in Dublin were open 24/7 and offered deliveries).

There's a reason countries with more liberal drugs policies have a much lower rate of drug use than those with stricter policies, the "thrill" of doing them is taken away. Of course, such an act would need to coincide with a major public information campaign, and proper drugs/alcohol education in schools even at primary level.

However, try getting the Irish government to have any sense of forward-thinking.

Ash.J.Williams

I'm on the fence on this, i prefer to keep things underground, however it really does look like the criminals have been handed an easy victory here.

Pride Fighter

DublinWriter wrote: »

And of course the dozens of alcohol-related incidents that happen around the country each weekend go unreported because we are so conditioned.

True. Also the two incidents you were implicitly replying to above were a combination of head-shop drugs and alcohol.

PCPhoto

yoshytoshy wrote: »

The news of how the two polish lads were killed ,didn't help the headshops one bit.
The chap curran had done around twenty benzo tabs and then stabbed two lads with a screwdriver.

thats b0llox !!! ..... curran was drunk and high on weed at 17yrs of age .... and is a scumbag, he wanted the polish lads to goto the off licence to buy him and mates drink, the polish lads refused.... so he went off - got a screwdriver and tried threatening/bullying them into doing it .... and we all know what happened next (he went overboard)

(this info is from two sources one of the witnesses and also one of the neighbours in the area at the time)

PCPhoto

Sulmac wrote: »

I think the drug policy in this country, and most other countries, is a complete joke. Banning something just makes some people want it more.

Head shops are/were crippling the drug gangs in this country, moreso than any CAB-type operation could do.

What I would do is overhaul the entire way that drugs are treated in this country. Softer drugs, in particular cannabis (which is safer than tobacco and alcohol, and nowhere near as addictive), should be legalised, regulated and taxed.

Legalising drugs has several benefits; including, taking them out of the hands of gangs; making them safer; the ability to tax them; removing the taboo of them so people are less likely to do it; and not treating the population like children.

The money saved from going after "softer" drugs can be used to go after the serious drugs, such as heroin. "Legal highs", such as those found in head shops, should only be allowed to be sold after a certain testing period, as we do with any form of medication. Certain restrictions would also be placed on head shops, such as location (e.g., not allowing them near schools), prices and hours (some in Dublin were open 24/7 and offered deliveries).

There's a reason countries with more liberal drugs policies have a much lower rate of drug use than those with stricter policies, the "thrill" of doing them is taken away. Of course, such an act would need to coincide with a major public information campaign, and proper drugs/alcohol education in schools even at primary level.

However, try getting the Irish government to have any sense of forward-thinking.

its funny that in a recession the government do whatever they can to stop new "legal" business from opening and expanding !!!

its amazing how they can rush these kind of changes in a couple of months and yet cant produce proper systems to monitor sex offenders after they leave prison.....or even keep track of kids in care of the state !!

alastair

yoshytoshy wrote: »

The news of how the two polish lads were killed ,didn't help the headshops one bit.
The chap curran had done around twenty benzo tabs and then stabbed two lads with a screwdriver.

What head shop would have sold benzo? It's a prescription drug.

Einhard

I think the constant comparisons with alcohol is lazy reasoning. Are people really suggesting that we allow the one because the other is also legal? Not exactly a great basis on which to form legislation. The reality is that alcohol is too ingrained in human culture to be prohibited now. It just wouldn't be possible to ban pubs and off licences. It's the same with tobacco. The situation is different with these legal highs. Relative to the other two, a small proportion of the population use them. I don't see the merit in keeping them legal because alcohol is, when even those who propose this, acknowledge the harm that alcohol can cause. Doesn't seem particularly sensible, nor responsible.

Also, I think it's pretty plain to all but the most partisan supporters of head shops, that their wares are far more potent, and potentially damaging than alcohol, and even tobacco. My group of friends have all been drinking for at least ten years, and none of us suffer drink related ailments. I do know several people however, who've been smoking weed for the same period, and a sizeable proportion have been seriously and adversely affected by this. It's as plain as day. It's so bad that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between their stoned state and their natural state.

My brother actually works in a headshop, and is an enthusiastic imbiber of the wares he sells. He at least acknowledges the downside. He used to smoke every now and then, maybe a few times a month. He also attended college and was generally getting on well in life. But with the advent of the headshops, he started smoking every night. The smell from his room permeated the whole house. it was, as he said, just so easy to get. He rarely left his room, was often moody and irritable, and has since dropped out of college.

It's pretty obvious then to the neutral observer, that the substances sold in headshops can, and do have a significantly negative impact on the user. Moreso I would argue, than alcohol at least, and even tobacco. A

Despite all this, and what some might think, I'm not some Joe Duffy calling reactionary. Headshops don't particularly bother me, and I greeted the news of the new legislation with only mild interest. But I do get annoyed when people make comparisons with alcohol and tobacco, claim that the substances sold are not harmful, and condemn moves against their sale as actions of a nanny state.

prinz

Sulmac wrote: »

There's a reason countries with more liberal drugs policies have a much lower rate of drug use than those with stricter policies, the "thrill" of doing them is taken away.

Could you tell us what countries you are referring to here?

Horse_box

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I guess they don't want the taxpayers complaining when these little arseholes arrive in A&E and block up the place.

I would have no problem with headshops if they looked after the little goons they screw up and not cost me any tax money.

Bolloxed if I am going to watch some cunt driving around in Beemer while I clean up after him/her with my tax money.


No way Jose:D

Eh the headshops have to pay tax. The amount of tax they pay would most definitely cover the medical bills of the very few people that have to go to the hospital.

Would you rather drug consumers getting messed up on illegal substances, pay no tax, fill up the A&E, waste police time and feed criminal gangs, rather than just going to the headshop? People buying fom the headshop instead of the drug dealer, saves the taxpayer vast sums of money

IrishTonyO

Einhard wrote: »

. My group of friends have all been drinking for at least ten years, and none of us suffer drink related ailments.

That you aware of, binge drinking is defined by more than 3/4 drinks, and is considered to have serious health implications. So having 2 double vodkas you are classified as a binge drinker. Also the alcohol related symptoms are long term and pretty much irreversible,

Gazzydee

PCPhoto wrote: »

its funny that in a recession the government do whatever they can to stop new "legal" business from opening and expanding !!!

its amazing how they can rush these kind of changes in a couple of months and yet cant produce proper systems to monitor sex offenders after they leave prison.....or even keep track of kids in care of the state !!

Well said I think the greeks were right, "PEOPLES OF EUROPE RISE UP!!"

FlutterinBantam

Horse_box wrote: »

Eh the headshops have to pay tax. The amount of tax they pay would most definitely cover the medical bills of the very few people that have to go to the hospital.

Would you rather drud consumers getting messed up on illegal substances, pay no tax, fill up the A&E, waste police time and feed criminal gangs, rather than just going to the headshop? People buying fom the headshop rather than the drug dealer saves the taxpayer vast sums of money

Buddy, I'd rather drug consumers paid for their own problems.

get your head fcuked up by some head shop **** shit, pay the doctor yourself and pay the hospital yourself, on your own pal.


Don't expect me to clean up after you or pay for Dr. Feelgood's Beemer.

That's the way I roll buddy....ingest all you like but you are on your own.

Einhard

IrishTonyO wrote: »

That you aware of, binge drinking is defined by more than 3/4 drinks, and is considered to have serious health implications. So having 2 double vodkas you are classified as a binge drinker. Also the alcohol related symptoms are long term and pretty much irreversible,

I'm aware that alcohol can have serious health implications, but clearly they are not so profound, nor so immediate as using legal highs. Also, I put myself at risk by binge drinking, drinking to excess, as you point out. But someone who uses these legal highs, puts themselves at risk with one single experience of them. That's a massive difference, and as such the comparison between the two is disingenuous.

Horse_box

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Buddy, I'd rather drug consumers paid for their own problems.

get your head fcuked up by some head shop **** shit, pay the doctor yourself and pay the hospital yourself, on your own pal.


Don't expect me to clean up after you or pay for Dr. Feelgood's Beemer.

That's the way I roll buddy....ingest all you like but you are on your own.

The drug users would be paying for their own treatment though! That's the point. The government makes millions through the taxation of the legal drugs, which in turn should be used to pay for any medical bills brought on by the users. Simple

Horse_box

Einhard wrote: »

I think the constant comparisons with alcohol is lazy reasoning. Are people really suggesting that we allow the one because the other is also legal? Not exactly a great basis on which to form legislation. The reality is that alcohol is too ingrained in human culture to be prohibited now. It just wouldn't be possible to ban pubs and off licences. It's the same with tobacco. The situation is different with these legal highs. Relative to the other two, a small proportion of the population use them. I don't see the merit in keeping them legal because alcohol is, when even those who propose this, acknowledge the harm that alcohol can cause. Doesn't seem particularly sensible, nor responsible.

Also, I think it's pretty plain to all but the most partisan supporters of head shops, that their wares are far more potent, and potentially damaging than alcohol, and even tobacco. My group of friends have all been drinking for at least ten years, and none of us suffer drink related ailments. I do know several people however, who've been smoking weed for the same period, and a sizeable proportion have been seriously and adversely affected by this. It's as plain as day. It's so bad that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between their stoned state and their natural state.

My brother actually works in a headshop, and is an enthusiastic imbiber of the wares he sells. He at least acknowledges the downside. He used to smoke every now and then, maybe a few times a month. He also attended college and was generally getting on well in life. But with the advent of the headshops, he started smoking every night. The smell from his room permeated the whole house. it was, as he said, just so easy to get. He rarely left his room, was often moody and irritable, and has since dropped out of college.

It's pretty obvious then to the neutral observer, that the substances sold in headshops can, and do have a significantly negative impact on the user. Moreso I would argue, than alcohol at least, and even tobacco. A

Despite all this, and what some might think, I'm not some Joe Duffy calling reactionary. Headshops don't particularly bother me, and I greeted the news of the new legislation with only mild interest. But I do get annoyed when people make comparisons with alcohol and tobacco, claim that the substances sold are not harmful, and condemn moves against their sale as actions of a nanny state.

There is no denying drugs can have bad effects on certain people. The thing is though, people are always going to do drugs, regardless if they are legal or illegal. We need to take our head out of the sand and realise that.

Why not legalise the safest non-addictive drugs(not what the headshops were selling) and use this money being generated in tax to create medical facillities in order to help the adversely effected minority, as well as wipe out gang crime and greatly reduce police spending on prohibition enforcement

TheCelticWizard

Sulmac wrote: »

I think the drug policy in this country, and most other countries, is a complete joke. Banning something just makes some people want it more.

Head shops are/were crippling the drug gangs in this country, moreso than any CAB-type operation could do.

What I would do is overhaul the entire way that drugs are treated in this country. Softer drugs, in particular cannabis (which is safer than tobacco and alcohol, and nowhere near as addictive), should be legalised, regulated and taxed.

Legalising drugs has several benefits; including, taking them out of the hands of gangs; making them safer; the ability to tax them; removing the taboo of them so people are less likely to do it; and not treating the population like children.

The money saved from going after "softer" drugs can be used to go after the serious drugs, such as heroin. "Legal highs", such as those found in head shops, should only be allowed to be sold after a certain testing period, as we do with any form of medication. Certain restrictions would also be placed on head shops, such as location (e.g., not allowing them near schools), prices and hours (some in Dublin were open 24/7 and offered deliveries).

There's a reason countries with more liberal drugs policies have a much lower rate of drug use than those with stricter policies, the "thrill" of doing them is taken away. Of course, such an act would need to coincide with a major public information campaign, and proper drugs/alcohol education in schools even at primary level.

However, try getting the Irish government to have any sense of forward-thinking.

This hits the nail squarely on the head in my opinion. Drugs are here to stay, banned or not. Drug dealers do not pay tax, head shops do. If the drugs sold in the head shops were regulated along with the opening hours, just like pubs, the only effects it would have is to make drugs safer for those who take them, and generate large amounts of revenue which will now go instead to the criminals.

Stky10

prinz wrote: »

Could you tell us what countries you are referring to here?

Here's some examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal --- Check out the Results section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands --- Check out the 'Results of the drug policy' section

FlutterinBantam

Horse_box wrote: »

The drug users would be paying for their own treatment though! That's the point. The government makes millions through the taxation of the legal drugs, which in turn should be used to pay for any medical bills brought on by the users. Simple

Uh huh no no no no


Let the headshops open all they want, but let the punters who USE THEM and inevitably get into trouble, fund their own rehab.

No hiding behind general taxes.


Soon put a stop to this wankery;)

Einhard

Horse_box wrote: »

There is no denying drugs can have bad effects on certain people. The thing is though, people are always going to do drugs, regardless if they are legal or illegal. We need to take our head out of the sand and realise that.

Some people will use drugs regardless of whether they're legal or not. It's obvious though that literally selling them on the street corner, and legally, entices people who would not have encountered them otherwise. This really can't be denied. Otherwise, why set up the shops in the first place?

Why not legalise the safest non-addictive drugs(not what the headshops were selling) and use this money being generated in tax to create medical facillities in order to help the adversely effected minority, as well as wipe out gang crime and greatly reduce police spending on prohibition enforcement

These are good points, but I'd stilla argue that no drug is safe. It's ridiculous the way some supporters of legal highs point out that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous but legal, and then state that their substance of choice should be legalised on that basis. Surely if the drugs are dangerous, then there's a case to be made for their prohibition, regardless of what else is legally available?

Manic Moran

I think the drug policy in this country, and most other countries, is a complete joke. Banning something just makes some people want it more.

What sort of daft logic is that? Have you had a sudden desire to paint up your house in lead-based paint or to enter your dog into a dogfight just because they're banned?

The same amount of people will want it, legal or otherwise. What does change is the extent to which some of those people go in order to obtain it. They'll pay more, they'll jump through more hoops, they'll take greater risks. They want it, and damnit, they're going to get it. Some others will think it's just not worth the hassle and leave it alone, even if they still want it, but not that much.

NTM

Elevator

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I guess they don't want the taxpayers complaining when these little arseholes arrive in A&E and block up the place.

I would have no problem with headshops if they looked after the little goons they screw up and not cost me any tax money.

Bolloxed if I am going to watch some cunt driving around in Beemer while I clean up after him/her with my tax money.


No way Jose:D

but you're happy that your local drug dealer is making major profits, letting debts build up, has been cutting his product with previously banned head substances since they were banned!!

using the head shops as a guide you can begin to see the demand for what it is and maybe even more so for the illegals, out of all the people I know that used head shops I knew slightly more who refused to step inside one due to not wanting to be seen going in and out,

I think in light of real evidence that a **** load of people can take mushrooms, bzp, salvia, smoke related products, etc etc with no real advice coming from the government other than propaganda and hearsay. fair enough some people had a bad turn but personal responcibility doesn't even get a look in, they showed not one piece of medical evidence to back up their claims afaik (correct me if I'm wrong...)

dealers are in the money now and every single person who chooses to use drugs are very much in real danger once again. end of and a Fact with a capital Fact

NANNY STATE

Elevator

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Uh huh no no no no


Let the headshops open all they want, but let the punters who USE THEM and inevitably get into trouble, fund their own rehab.

No hiding behind general taxes.


Soon put a stop to this wankery;)

not really tho as a LOT of people used the shops and didn't have bad turns so the profits were only going to increase as the customer base continued to rise and flourish,

new stock on the way in 2 days time so a big FU to the government, yer playin with peoples lives here and don't give a ****

ChocolateSauce

Einhard wrote: »

I think the constant comparisons with alcohol is lazy reasoning. Are people really suggesting that we allow the one because the other is also legal? Not exactly a great basis on which to form legislation. The reality is that alcohol is too ingrained in human culture to be prohibited now. It just wouldn't be possible to ban pubs and off licences. It's the same with tobacco. The situation is different with these legal highs. Relative to the other two, a small proportion of the population use them. I don't see the merit in keeping them legal because alcohol is, when even those who propose this, acknowledge the harm that alcohol can cause. Doesn't seem particularly sensible, nor responsible.

Also, I think it's pretty plain to all but the most partisan supporters of head shops, that their wares are far more potent, and potentially damaging than alcohol, and even tobacco. My group of friends have all been drinking for at least ten years, and none of us suffer drink related ailments. I do know several people however, who've been smoking weed for the same period, and a sizeable proportion have been seriously and adversely affected by this. It's as plain as day. It's so bad that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between their stoned state and their natural state.

My brother actually works in a headshop, and is an enthusiastic imbiber of the wares he sells. He at least acknowledges the downside. He used to smoke every now and then, maybe a few times a month. He also attended college and was generally getting on well in life. But with the advent of the headshops, he started smoking every night. The smell from his room permeated the whole house. it was, as he said, just so easy to get. He rarely left his room, was often moody and irritable, and has since dropped out of college.

It's pretty obvious then to the neutral observer, that the substances sold in headshops can, and do have a significantly negative impact on the user. Moreso I would argue, than alcohol at least, and even tobacco. A

Despite all this, and what some might think, I'm not some Joe Duffy calling reactionary. Headshops don't particularly bother me, and I greeted the news of the new legislation with only mild interest. But I do get annoyed when people make comparisons with alcohol and tobacco, claim that the substances sold are not harmful, and condemn moves against their sale as actions of a nanny state.

Well I'm going to compare drugs and alcohol again. Your brother was a fool to smoke too much, but you can't blame the drugs and say they should be banned- people who drink too much are fools too, and we call them alcoholics, but we don't ban alcohol.

Are you suggesting that we maintain the double standard of allowing one but not the other? And we allow the one which is known to be the more harmful? Seriously? It's barefaced hypocrisy.

Einhard

Elevator wrote: »

NANNY STATE

Ok, this is the nonsense that annoys me. Anytime the government does something that someone doesn't agree with, we're living in a nanny state.

The government lowers drink drive limits....

The government makes wearing of seat belts compulsory...

The government prohibits smoking indoors in public places...

Nanny state, nanny state, nanny state...

The thing people don't seem to realise is that any government has a vested interest in the proper working of society, and the health of its citizens. Not merely because it invariably has to pick up the tab when things go wrong for the individual, but also because the health of the individual has a direct impact on the health of society. I don't think it entirely unreasonable that a government take some steps to safeguard the former for the benefit of the latter.

Einhard

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well I'm going to compare drugs and alcohol again. Your brother was a fool to smoke too much, but you can't blame the drugs and say they should be banned- people who drink too much are fools too, and we call them alcoholics, but we don't ban alcohol.

Are you suggesting that we maintain the double standard of allowing one but not the other? And we allow the one which is known to be the more harmful? Seriously? It's barefaced hypocrisy.

See, you don't get my point. If alcohol was a recent discovery, and imbibed by only a small section of society, we would ban it. But it's neither. It's millenia old and used by approx 95% of the adult population. It would be impossible to prohibit its consumption. The same isn't true of legal highs, or drugs in general. e can prohibit them with a degree of success. It's not perfect obviously, but it's an objective that's far more achievable than outlawing alcohol.

Anyway, I don't really think anyone can seriously compare the risks inherent with alcohol, and those involved with a chemical composite invented in a Far Eastern lab. Also, many people drink responsibly; they don't risk their health by doing so- indeed, it has been shown to have positive health implications. On the other hand, there is no such thing as the responsible popping of a mild altering hallucinogen. That's a pretty major difference.