Government violates constitution to appear tough on headshops

Hammered hippie

The government is using head shops as a scapegoat to draw attention away from their NAMA drama and in a desperate attempt to gain some popularity.
In truth the government only respects the democratic rights of a concerned few and doesn't care they squander the democratic rights of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of head shop visitors, just for a bit of media attention. Clientelism is what that is called.
Also scandalous is the fact that in the public debate about headshops elected government officials were completely biased and hostile towards non law breaking head shops, which is a total violation of article 41 of the Fundamental rights of the constitution of europe (that's right..that is our constitution now as well!).
So wave goodbye to our constitutional democracy. It is a clientelistic democracy for a lucky few at the very best!
Then there is new upcoming laws that will put the onus on head shops to prove their innocence. Well well well..lets completely screw the whole system and get rid of the presumption of innocence, why not. So there we have a violation of article 48 of the fundamental rights in our EU constitution..well done...lets make people guilty until they can proof their own innocence.
Three words come into mind when thinking about this government. 1) Clowns 2) Cowboys 3) Amateurs.

Who else on this forum is as charmed by this media offensive of our government as I am?

amacachi

This isn't the first thing where people have to prove innocence.

Cookie_Monster

previous discussion in AH on this see there and stop being so over dramatic

Hammered hippie

Unfortunately there is nothing dramatic about the whole thing.
It is exactly the way it is.
This new law will make it possibe for the guards or the policy makers that control them to shut every retail organisation that sells a product that might be mind altering on grounds of reasonable suspicion.
So health shops, music shops, pharmacies, shops that sell energy drink all of them could be closed down if a lobby group or politician gets annoyed.
To underestimate this would be a grave mistake.

Its more a human rights issue than an AH issue at this moment.
How often have laws not been interpreted in a way that they were not originally designed for to quickly fix a politicians lust for public appeasement.

Hammered hippie

Hi Amacachi,

Could you tell me where the burden of proof of innocence has been on the defendant? I would be very interested. Thanks

Banned Account

Marching season over then?

My good Hippie man, rather than just spout out some rhetoric about the infringement of the European Convention (there is no European Constitution by the way) please take the time to construct a proper argument.

Across a number of countries, there have been many challenges to drug prohibitions on the grounds that they violate, amongst other things, religious freedom, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to free choice etc. IN all of these cases, the state's position has been upheld with the relevant courts citing the states right to protect it's citizens from substances and cultures that may be harmful to society.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this approach (personally, I wouls like to think I am in favour, but am conflicted with the stance which may present itself in regards to class A narcotics) is not really the point. May I respectfully suggest that you read through the body of case law which exists on this matter across a number of jurisdictions, and then present a palpable and robust argument in favour of legalising such substances. You may find it more productive than merely spouting off some half baked drivel which you have mis-read, mis-heard or mis-understood.

If citing legislation, it is helpful to know the legislation you assert has been transgressed.

Respectfully etc.

amacachi

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Hi Amacachi,

Could you tell me where the burden of proof of innocence has been on the defendant? I would be very interested. Thanks

Tax evasion and all the work the CAB does.

Banned Account

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Hi Amacachi,

Could you tell me where the burden of proof of innocence has been on the defendant? I would be very interested. Thanks

There are a number of instances running through the common law where one can raise a presumption which the defendant then has to rebutt. A google search on the phrase Res ipsa loquitur should give some information on one such instance.

Further to this, in cases of strict liability offences e.g. sexual relations with an underage person, the innocence of the accused is immaterial - what I mean by this is, it matters not if the accused believed or had good reason to believe he was indulging in lawful conduct, the victims age is the defining factor.

maynooth_rules

I blame Joe Duffy

Hammered hippie

It is an absolute travesty that the government has showed no interest in head shops or in regulating them until it became a political football shot forward by our de facto emperor Joe Duffy and a small group of concerned citizens and some irate republicans.
Furthermore my sentiment is not spouted rhetoric but my personal belief and something, as a concerned citizen of this country, that I am worried about.
Taking away liberties from citizens for the sake of some positive media attention is not the way an elected government official with a mandate from his or her voters should act. Regardless of how similar past cases/incidences have been played out, as a democatic society we should not accept governance like this as the 'norm'. Even on a tolkenistic level, as a citizen of this state I have the power to affect change. To simply accept the status quo is to be defeated and concede your civil liberties.

Above all, there was no and is no scientific evidence for the basis of the recent ban on headshop products, just anecdotal soundbites. The issue of poly drug use was never investigated or debated. The sparce cases that did end up at A&E, we're hugely exaggerated and very often were the result of poly drug use. This issue was never discussed in the media.

Marching season is never over and never should be when it concerns fundamental human rights.

Hammered hippie

Hear hear Maynooth rules

Overheal

So where does alcohol currently stand on this mind-altering business?

Banned Account

Hammered hippie wrote: »

It is an absolute travesty that the government has showed no interest in head shops or in regulating them until it became a political football shot forward by our de facto emperor Joe Duffy and a small group of concerned citizens and some irate republicans.
Furthermore my sentiment is not spouted rhetoric but my personal belief and something, as a concerned citizen of this country, that I am worried about.
Taking away liberties from citizens for the sake of some positive media attention is not the way an elected government official with a mandate from his or her voters should act. Regardless of how similar past cases/incidences have been played out, as a democatic society we should not accept governance like this as the 'norm'. Even on a tolkenistic level, as a citizen of this state I have the power to affect change. To simply accept the status quo is to be defeated and concede your civil liberties.

Above all, there was no and is no scientific evidence for the basis of the recent ban on headshop products, just anecdotal soundbites. The issue of poly drug use was never investigated or debated. The sparce cases that did end up at A&E, we're hugely exaggerated and very often were the result of poly drug use. This issue was never discussed in the media.

Marching season is never over and never should be when it concerns fundamental human rights.

But what you are suggesting is a society in which each individual can choose which laws should apply to them and which ones shouldn't. The society in which we live neccesitates that the majority decide the rules by which we should abide. Where would you propose that the line is drawn - what should we do with Heroin, crack and crystal meth for example?

Hammered hippie

The Vintners' Association is a hugely influential lobby group which will ensure that this law will not infringe on their trade. As a large majority of elected T.D's are publicans, or come from a publican background, there is a certainty that these interest will have 'special' provisions.

Nodin

Hammered hippie wrote: »

The Vintners' Association is a hugely influential lobby group which will ensure that this law will not infringe on their trade. As a large majority of elected T.D's are publicans, or come from a publican background, there is a certainty that these interest will have 'special' provisions.

...but, as the pub trade declines, this too will pass.

Hammered hippie

@Fitcaraldo...the condition of living in a democratic society is that majority rule. Consensus is an alien concept in a democracy. However I believe that, as a citizen living in a democracy, I have a right to voice my opinion and affect change. It is my personal belief that hard drugs that are well researched and effects are quite apparent, such as heroin and crystal meth, shouldn't be legal. My argument is that there needs to be some reason within a democracy. The proposed laws are both dictatorial and rigid and can only operate within a totalitarian framework and I will not concede to that.

To put it simply
You turn my argument around asking me what validation I can come up with to legalise class A substances whereas I merely pointed out that there was no scientific and no democratic ground behind the recent ban on legal highs.
In a democracy politicians should not yield to the lure of populism and clientelism to boost their own profiles.

Hammered hippie

Hi Nodin,

be that as it may, the Irish population in the main will not allow the government to introduce any type of legislation that infringes on their right to enjoy alcohol because it is such an ingrained part of Irish society. Alcohol related deaths are so under reported in the media, as are tobacco related deaths. People have the blinkers on when it suits them.
As for the future, I cannot see so far ahead to guess but what I do know is that if we simply allow these laws to pass without contesting them we allow the door to be open for similar legislation to be introduced that could ban a wide range of products/activites on the whim of the moral minority or the government of the day

Banned Account

Hammered hippie wrote: »

@Fitcaraldo...the condition of living in a democratic society is that majority rule. Consensus is an alien concept in a democracy. However I believe that, as a citizen living in a democracy, I have a right to voice my opinion and affect change. It is my personal belief that hard drugs that are well researched and effects are quite apparent, such as heroin and crystal meth, shouldn't be legal. My argument is that there needs to be some reason within a democracy. The proposed laws are both dictatorial and rigid and can only operate within a totalitarian framework and I will not concede to that.

To put it simply
You turn my argument around asking me what validation I can come up with to legalise class A substances whereas I merely pointed out that there was no scientific and no democratic ground behind the recent ban on legal highs.
In a democracy politicians should not yield to the lure of populism and clientelism to boost their own profiles.

But what then do you say to the parties that wish to legalise heroin, crystal meth etc and argue that they have the right to bodily autonomy and that they are capable of using such substances in a responsible manner.

Or to the person who wishes to legalise fireams on the same grounds - all I am pointing out is that, unless you legalise everything, you are simply chosing your own form of a la carte democracy and here is where your argument falls.

Hammered hippie

@Fitzcaraldo...I don't support an ad hoc form of democracy, I understand the point you are trying to make about liberalism and where to draw the line etc. However, the narcotics that you mention, heroin, crystal meth etc are proven to be devastating and have an abominal effect on the human condition not to mention the disastrous effect on society. The recent ban, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, was introduced without any formal scientific proof of harm, criminalising one quarter of a million people in Ireland overnight. (This is a modest estimate)
I agree with you that there are certain rules we must live by to function as a society, we are not living in anarchy, there needs to be some order but my point is that the recent legislation was grounded in nothing but anecdotal stories and the law was indeed a carbon copy of a similar law passed in the UK in December. There was no democratic input. Is Joe Duffy now the man we need to call to get something done?
What is more troubling for me however is the proposed legislation that would make psychotropic substances illegal. Where can we draw the line under what is psychotropic? Are petrol fumes coming from a petrol pump psychotropic. Is my morning coffee not psychotropic. Is my beloved red wine going to be banned a few years down the line? I think this law is troubling at best, hugely disturbing at worst. Only within a totalitarian regime would this type of governance work.

Banned Account

But you haven't adressed my points regarding those who profess to use such substances in a responsible manner, or those who advocate firearm possession. If you are to seriously advance your cause, you have to be able to deliniate. Legislation, by its very nature has to be black and white, should you succeed in passing legislation allowing for the sale of headshop products, what do you say to the above two hypothetical groups - how to you justify your position whilst denying the others their desire?

Hammered hippie

I understand legislation has to be black and white, the ink and paper. However, the drafting of such legislation is done without any shareholder input or any steering group. It is not transparent, there is no scientific ground or justification for it. Making products illegal from one minute to the next, with no formal warning, strips the user of such a product of all their rights. I hear your argument , its a simplistic one, limiting liberalism equates to eradicating the notion of liberalism. But to answer your question, common sense has to be bountiful when it comes to any narcotics. The idea that previously legal headshop products and heroin be treated in the same manner is absurd. The consequences of heroin, crystal meth etc are well documented and you would have to be a very ill informed person not to know this. However, the right of the heroin user should accounted for. I wholeheartedly agree with you, if the state allows heroin to be obtained within its boundaries then it has to provide for the consequences of its abuse. We do not live in a bubble. If the government decides that heroin is illegal and use/possession is punishable then they need to provide an arena for those affected by its use, of course , by and large they don't.
In terms of firearms, the US has provided many examples whereby firearms are kept safely. Regulating anything, be it firearms or narcotics, cannot be done in an insular way, there has to be some user/shareholder input. With this recent ban there was nothing.
I my living memory, heroin was never leagl in this state. Denying users their rights to use heroin isn't infringing on their human rights because they never had a right to use it. Their right to bodily integrity isn't infringed upon for this matter. However, previously sold legal highs, had always been available free and legally, without warning, without any legitimate grounds for doing so, the government stripped the users of such products of their right as consumers.

sceptre

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Also scandalous is the fact that in the public debate about headshops elected government officials were completely biased and hostile towards non law breaking head shops, which is a total violation of article 41 of the Fundamental rights of the constitution of europe (that's right..that is our constitution now as well!).

1. There isn't an EU Constitution. That's been highlighted several times on a national basis including both votes on Lisbon (which replaced it) so it would have been hard to miss it.

2. Are you in fact thinking/copypasta-ing a reference to Article 41 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights instead? See the first sentence of that as to why it doesn't apply.

Any useful references to things that actually exist? One or two would be good, that way it wouldn't just be a non-paragraphed rehash of the last thread we had on this topic. Throw the discussion a useful bone.

danman

It's funny how any form of normal governence of the country, is simply a way of masking NAMA.
There must have been very little done in the country by governments past, when they didn't have to hide NAMA.

Perhaps there should always have been a NAMA, so that normal work would have been done.

Also, if it was done to gain popularity, perhaps it's a popular decision.
In other words, it was done on the wish of the majority of the community at large.

By the way, I don't think that they should have been closed, I'd prefare regulation rather than prohibition.

Traumadoc

Are all substances sold by head shops banned? Some contained only caffeine.

Hammered hippie

@Sceptre

You are right in assuming there is no such thing that is called a european constitution...its called the Lisbon treaty...but that doesn't mean its something that can be simply disregarded by the Government...they fought to have us accept that treaty so they should also act according to it. It's a treaty...not a nice piece of sunday reading!

Ok..this is the first line of article 41 which in your opiniion makes it non-appliccable
'. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the Institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union.'

It mentions further down the line and in the legal explanation that national governments also fall under this..else it would not be a treaty but just a guideline for EU officials..
Now my question is where the impartial and fair treatment of the government has been towards head shops and their customers, both of which were not breaking any law. I honestly have never seen any public or political discussion in which elected government officials have been so downright hostile and intent on afflicting damage before it was even discussed or proven whether Head Shop products were even damaging to ones health or society. The only source that was consulted by the government was Joe Duffy's Lifeline and maybe some newspaper lying around....
The fact that there was no sound scientific or other basis behind the last ban means that the only attributable grounds behind the law are the effects it it will have...which are a criminalisation of a sector of society that has a certain cultural background. And that last statement doesn't even need to be proven as the responsible politicians have been shouting it from the rooftops that the ban and other legislation was put in place mainly to stop head shops. Funny...a law that is designed to stop a non law breaking business from trading for the sole sake of afflicting damage to that business type without any proper reason as to why this has to be done. Sure there was some exaggerated evidence from A&E, but in all those cases alcohol was the common denominator.

And then this new upcoming law.
Technically with that law a shop selling music could be shut down for selling mind altering producst that could be damaging..
And then it would be up to the shop owner to proof his business is legit and the music is not damaging to...young people?

Laminations

I find it funny that a hammered hippie is not so happy that they have to go back to street dealers and petty pedlers to get their fix, it makes your recreational pasttime feel a little less legitimate does it?

Laminations

Hammered hippie wrote: »

And then this new upcoming law.
Technically with that law a shop selling music could be shut down for selling mind altering producst that could be damaging..
And then it would be up to the shop owner to proof his business is legit and the music is not damaging to...young people?

You don't need head shops my good man, you are off your rocker already

Hammered hippie

Dear Laminations I think you completely underestimate the effects such a law can have.
Imagine kids listening to some sort of depressing subculture music with explicit lyrics....and then some inflicting harm to themselfs or others.
How often hasn't it happened that certain genre's of music have been blamed for our young people behaving in a non desirable way according to certain conservative lobby groups.
Now how often hasn't it happened that those lobby groups demanded the removal of certain products from the shelves of music stores to 'protect the children' and if that doesn't work they just moan about it at Joe Duffy's until politicians get sick of it and give in!
Then how often hasn't it happened that, in order to appease some worried parents, certain laws have been interpreted a bit more flexible to achieve a criminalisation of whatever needs to be polished away from society.

It is not so far fetched at all...

But then again..it is early in the day and a good bashing of a fellow forum member is way more preferable than using that grey mass between the ears now is it?
I take it that is how you get your fix!

Laminations

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Dear Laminations I think you completely underestimate the effects such a law can have.
Imagine kids listening to some sort of depressing subculture music with explicit lyrics....and then some inflicting harm to themselfs or others.
How often hasn't it happened that certain genre's of music have been blamed for our young people behaving in a non desirable way according to certain conservative lobby groups.
Now how often hasn't it happened that those lobby groups demanded the removal of certain products from the shelves of music stores to 'protect the children' and if that doesn't work they just moan about it at Joe Duffy's until politicians get sick of it and give in!
Then how often hasn't it happened that, in order to appease some worried parents, certain laws have been interpreted a bit more flexible to achieve a criminalisation of whatever needs to be polished away from society.

It is not so far fetched at all...

But then again..it is early in the day and a good bashing of a fellow forum member is way more preferable than using that grey mass between the ears now is it?
I take it that is how you get your fix!

yeah to an extent rubbishing someones argument in a debate is satisfying. Your argument IS that far fetched. There are possibly genres of music where some listeners may self harm but the listening to the music itself causes no harm. The taking of drugs (I include alcohol) does cause direct harm and the legality of alcohol is not sufficient grounds to legalise other harmful substances. It's the 'ipeople eat meat therefore hunting should be allowed' argument.

Banned Account

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Dear Laminations I think you completely underestimate the effects such a law can have.
Imagine kids listening to some sort of depressing subculture music with explicit lyrics....and then some inflicting harm to themselfs or others.
How often hasn't it happened that certain genre's of music have been blamed for our young people behaving in a non desirable way according to certain conservative lobby groups.
Now how often hasn't it happened that those lobby groups demanded the removal of certain products from the shelves of music stores to 'protect the children' and if that doesn't work they just moan about it at Joe Duffy's until politicians get sick of it and give in!
Then how often hasn't it happened that, in order to appease some worried parents, certain laws have been interpreted a bit more flexible to achieve a criminalisation of whatever needs to be polished away from society.

It is not so far fetched at all...

But then again..it is early in the day and a good bashing of a fellow forum member is way more preferable than using that grey mass between the ears now is it?
I take it that is how you get your fix!

12.—(1) The Authority shall perform the function outlined in
section 9(1)(a) and (c) of this Act by taking into account the follow- 35
ing factors—

(a) the effect on perception, health and wellbeing of any
manner of use of a substance or product by persons,
(b) the social effect of any manner of usage of a substance or
product by persons, and 40
(c) individual and social harm-reduction imperatives.
(2) The decisions of the Authority will be considered authoritative
and shall be based on—

8
(a) available scientific and statistical evidence of the effects of
any manner of use of substances or products when consumed
or otherwise used by persons,
(b) qualitative evidence and other credible information from
5 users of substances or products as to their effect on individual
perception, health and wellbeing when consumed
or otherwise used by persons,
(c) qualitative evidence and other credible information from
members of an Garda Síochána, Joint Policing Commit10
tees, Customs and Excise, PSNI, INTERPOL and
EUROPOL as to the effect of the use of substances or
products on individual behaviour and on society, when
consumed or otherwise used by persons,
(d) quantitative and qualitative information including testi15
mony from health staff and the HSE on the effect of the
use of substances or products on perception, health and
wellbeing when consumed or otherwise used by persons,
and
(e) an assessment of information and testimony from such
20 other sources as the Authority deems appropriate with
regards to the effects of the use of substances or products
on society or on the perception, health and wellbeing of
persons.

13.—(1) In any case where there is doubt about the status of a
25 substance or product as a non-medicinal psychoactive substance or
its classification or where a new product or substance is introduced
into Ireland that could fall under the remit of the Authority, any
person including a licensee or potential licensee may apply for a
decision of the Authority as to the classification of the product or
30 substance.
(2) An application under subsection (1) should be submitted in
writing and include—

(a) the name of the product or substance,
(b) the origins of the product or substance,
35 (c) any information that can be reasonably expected to be
provided as to the ingredients or chemical make-up of
the product or substance, and
(d) any information that can be reasonably expected to be
provided relating to the effects of the product or sub40
stance on perception, health and wellbeing when consumed
or otherwise used by persons.
(3) This application should also be accompanied by a physical
sample of the product or substance.
(4) The Authority shall decide whether the substance is a non45
medicinal psychoactive substance and if so whether to—

(a) impose a full prohibition on it, or
(b) regulate it by way of an appropriate Licensing Agreement.
9

Application for a
decision of the
Authority on the
classification of a
product or
substance.
Register of Non-
Medicinal
Psychoactive
Substances.
Power to ban
certain substances
and products.

(5) It shall be an offense under the law to engage in the sale,
importation, distribution, marketing or production of a product
before a decision is made by the Authority on the application
referred to in subsection (1).

14.—(1) The Authority shall perform the function referred to in 5

section 9(1)(d) of this Act by—

(a) setting up as soon as practicable after the establishment
of the Authority a register for substances and products
deemed to be within the remit of the Authority in accordance
with its function referred to in section 9(1)(a) of 10
this Act,

(b) entering on to the register under paragraph (a) all substances
and products entitled to be registered there,
(c) entering on to the register under paragraph (a)—

(i) the name of the substances or products that the Auth- 15
ority deems to be within its remit in accordance with
its function under section 9(1)(a) of this Act,

(ii) any other relevant information relating to the substances
or products that the Authority deems necessary
to fulfill its function under section 9(1)(d) of this 20
Act, including any decision pending or taken by the
Authority under section 13 of this Act regarding its
regulatory status,
(d) otherwise maintaining and updating the register as new
decisions are made, and 25
(e) ensuring that the information in the Non-Medicinal Psychoactive
Substances Register is available without
charge, to the public at all times.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(e) the
Authority shall publish the information on the substances register by 30
means of—

(a) a dedicated website on the internet, updated as new
decisions are made under sections 9(1)(c), 12 and 13, and
(b) at least one other method of publication nationally, as
soon as possible after the setting up of the substances 35
register and thereafter at intervals of not more than 3
months.

15.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 11 the
Authority shall have the power to prohibit the sale, importation, distribution
and production of any non-medicinal psychoactive sub- 40
stance or product where it deems that it is in the public interest to
do so.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), where
there are sufficient public health concerns the Authority shall have
the power to impose a provisional prohibition on the sale, import- 45
ation, distribution and production of any non-medicinal psychoactive
substance or product to allow for the conduct of further research
into the effects of the substance in question.
10
(3) A provisional prohibition under subsection (2) shall have
effect until such time as a final decision is made by the Authority as
to the substance’s classification under sections 9(1)(c), 12 and 13.
(4) The Authority shall also have the power to impose a pro-
5 visional prohibition on the sale, importation, distribution and production
of any non-medicinal psychoactive substance or product to
have effect for the duration of compliance procedures in relation to
relevant legislative provisions such as the EU Technical Standards
Directive.
10 (5) It shall be an offence under the law to engage in the sale,
importation, distribution and production of any non-medicinal psychoactive
substance which is the subject of a prohibition under this
section.

See above for the legislation itself regarding the process to be followed for classification purposes. Also please note that unless you plan to eat, snort or inject your CD collection, your point is rubbish Yet another half baked protest against something you haven't even bothered to read.


http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2010/1810/b1810d.pdf

Hammered hippie

Dear Fitzcaraldo

I did read this draft and it clearly states:

PART 4

Non-Medicinal Psychoactive Substances

12.—(1) The Authority shall perform the function outlined in
section 9(1)(a) and (c) of this Act by taking into account the follow- 35
ing factors—

(a) the effect on perception, health and wellbeing of any
manner of use of a substance or product by persons,
(b) the social effect of any manner of usage of a substance or
product by persons, and 40
(c) individual and social harm-reduction imperatives.
(2) The decisions of the Authority will be considered authoritative
and shall be based on—

8
(a) available scientific and statistical evidence of the effects of
any manner of use of substances or products when consumed
or otherwise used by persons,
(b) qualitative evidence and other credible information from
5 users of substances or products as to their effect on individual
perception, health and wellbeing when consumed

or otherwise used by persons,

All the above is very vague and would easily apply to music on CD as well.
A CD with music would be a 'product' and listening to it would be regarded as 'ohterwise used by persons'
It literally says: the effect on perception, health and wellbeing of any
manner of use of a substance or product by persons.
Which basically doesn't exclude any product used in any way.....:(


So Fitzcaraldo I really appreciate your effort to keep this discussion based on facts, but maybe in future it helps if you yourself would really look into the matter before accusing me of not doing so.
I am not raising the issue of this new law just because I have nothing better to do..I am genuinly concerned about this very vague new law that will be wide open to all kinds of interpretation and prone to all kinds of abuse by whoever wants whatever banned from society.

Laminations

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Dear Fitzcaraldo

I did read this draft and it clearly states:

PART 4

Non-Medicinal Psychoactive Substances

12.—(1) The Authority shall perform the function outlined in
section 9(1)(a) and (c) of this Act by taking into account the follow- 35
ing factors—

(a) the effect on perception, health and wellbeing of any
manner of use of a substance or product by persons,
(b) the social effect of any manner of usage of a substance or
product by persons, and 40
(c) individual and social harm-reduction imperatives.
(2) The decisions of the Authority will be considered authoritative
and shall be based on—

8
(a) available scientific and statistical evidence of the effects of
any manner of use of substances or products when consumed
or otherwise used by persons,
(b) qualitative evidence and other credible information from
5 users of substances or products as to their effect on individual
perception, health and wellbeing when consumed

or otherwise used by persons,

All the above is very vague and would easily apply to music on CD as well.
A CD with music would be a 'product' and listening to it would be regarded as 'ohterwise used by persons'
It literally says: the effect on perception, health and wellbeing of any
manner of use of a substance or product by persons.
Which basically doesn't exclude any product used in any way.....:(


So Fitzcaraldo I really appreciate your effort to keep this discussion based on facts, but maybe in future it helps if you yourself would really look into the matter before accusing me of not doing so.
I am not raising the issue of this new law just because I have nothing better to do..I am genuinly concerned about this very vague new law that will be wide open to all kinds of interpretation and prone to all kinds of abuse by whoever wants whatever banned from society.

Ok so the day this legislation is abused and used against music I'll stand beside you in protest (unless it's Jedward) but until that day (which will never come) you are using a very tenuous slippery slope argument to keep you in good supply of your nose candy.

Hammered hippie

I forgot to outline the wonderfully worded ' credible information from
users of substances ' which is as vague as it gets and most likely refers to users of products telling their experiences on Lifeline as most people regard that as 'credible information'

Banned Account

Hammered hippie wrote: »

All the above is very vague and would easily apply to music on CD as well.

A CD with music would be a 'product' and listening to it would be regarded as 'ohterwise used by persons'
It literally says: the effect on perception, health and wellbeing of any
manner of use of a substance or product by persons.
Which basically doesn't exclude any product used in any way.....:(

So Fitzcaraldo I really appreciate your effort to keep this discussion based on facts, but maybe in future it helps if you yourself would really look into the matter before accusing me of not doing so.
I am not raising the issue of this new law just because I have nothing better to do..I am genuinly concerned about this very vague new law that will be wide open to all kinds of interpretation and prone to all kinds of abuse by whoever wants whatever banned from society.

Ok, so you are selectively analysing and quoting the legislation you have 'read'. The 'otherwise used' phrase refers only to gathering evidence from previous users. The act relates to substances sold for 'human consumption' - do you know people who 'consume' CD's?

You also ignore the preceding sections which refer to empirical evidence gathered on a scientific basis. If indeed you have read the act, may I suggest you re-read it in totality and come back with contextual remarks.

Hammered hippie

@Laminations

I just used the music example to demonstrate how wide open to abuse this new law actually can be and how little the government has thought this through in their hasty attempt to get their faces on the front of every newspaper with this tough looking farce of a law.
Talk about slippery slope!

Do you know there is a judge in Galway that wanted energy drinks like red bull banned...well now she can with this new law.
Health shops will also be an easy target with this law (they have been the target for harsh regulationn already) as the government has all but sold its soul to the pharmaceutical industry. No more chammomile tea for me:(

Hammered hippie

@Fitzcaraldo

We all know how 'scientifically' sound the arguments were for the last ban of legal highs which didn't even have the support of a bill like this.
Furthermore this law leaves plenty of room for wide interpretation of what kind of evidence is needed to deem a product worthy of the title 'non medicinal and mind altering'
The government has rarely sought any emperical or scientific proof for any legislation passed or measures taken so I don't see why this new law would change that attitude. I think the government will do exactly what I did...take from the bill what suits them and use it as a sort of argument to support whatever measures they see fit. Anyways..it will be up to the proprietor of a retail outlet to prove their producst are not damaging or not mind altering or whatever (this law is till very vague and in its early stages)
So some institution, person or Guard will claim a product is mind altering and then it is up to the retailer to come up witht the evidence that it is not, or , in case it is mind altering, come up with the scientific proof that it is not harmful , then pay up to a million to get a license and then...finally then the man is allowed to sell his Burren flower tea on the market.
At least that is how the minister for justice sees this law work...so it probably will be amemded quite a lot.

Basically every retailer is allowed to trade whatever might be mind altering to the dicretion of the Gardai or other 'authorities/organisations' that might influence them. That is how the minister for Justice sees this law, according to his remarks in the media.

Dublin_Gunner

Overheal wrote: »

So where does alcohol currently stand on this mind-altering business?

Taxable

Viper_JB

Terms like grounds for reasonable suspicion result in situations such as ... http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/content/1582361/aiyana-jones-7yearold-shot-by-police-was-asleep/ not quiet the same situation but it's a stepping stone to facilitate this happening over here.

pooch90

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Anyways..it will be up to the proprietor of a retail outlet to prove their producst are not damaging or not mind altering or whatever (this law is till very vague and in its early stages)

Just had an image of the directors of woodies sitting around the board room, sniffing their glue ranges to make sure they don't get high!

Hammered hippie

Indeed...prejudice 'helps' a lot when trying to form reasonable suspicion. That's why the law in should always be very clear and not meddle in vague wording such as 'reasonable suspicion'
It is a very slippery slope all together this new law.

Dublin_Gunner

HH - music recordings on CD / Tape / DVD (any media) cannot be construed as 'substances'.

While I do believe the blanket ban on substances sold in headshops was just a tad bit reactionary, local counsellors have been put under a lot of pressure by locals to have headshops closed.

It may form what they perceive as being a 'popular' decision, primarily due to the fact that the people that approach local government have been asking for action against the shops. In contrast, I seriously doubt local government officials have been approached by many headshop users / owners begging for the shops to remain open.

Hence, they take the popular decision / action.

The likes of Joe Duffy and the red-tops over dramaticising the situation certainly doesn't help, as it then gets national airtime. Also, most people who would want to have the places closed, would most likely have no idea what they're talking about, only what they hear on the likes of JD and what they read in the red-tops.

Its fighting a losing battle to try to counter the recently drafted laws.

If there was a genuine basis for a breach of human right or EU legislation - the headshop owners could attempt a class action in Europe to have the law overturned.

I however, so not see this happening. Ever.

Banned Account

Hammered hippie wrote: »

@Fitzcaraldo

We all know how 'scientifically' sound the arguments were for the last ban of legal highs which didn't even have the support of a bill like this.
Furthermore this law leaves plenty of room for wide interpretation of what kind of evidence is needed to deem a product worthy of the title 'non medicinal and mind altering'
The government has rarely sought any emperical or scientific proof for any legislation passed or measures taken so I don't see why this new law would change that attitude. I think the government will do exactly what I did...take from the bill what suits them and use it as a sort of argument to support whatever measures they see fit. Anyways..it will be up to the proprietor of a retail outlet to prove their producst are not damaging or not mind altering or whatever (this law is till very vague and in its early stages)
So some institution, person or Guard will claim a product is mind altering and then it is up to the retailer to come up witht the evidence that it is not, or , in case it is mind altering, come up with the scientific proof that it is not harmful , then pay up to a million to get a license and then...finally then the man is allowed to sell his Burren flower tea on the market.
At least that is how the minister for justice sees this law work...so it probably will be amemded quite a lot.

Basically every retailer is allowed to trade whatever might be mind altering to the dicretion of the Gardai or other 'authorities/organisations' that might influence them. That is how the minister for Justice sees this law, according to his remarks in the media.

so now you have moved from criticising the act itself to criticising what 'may' happen in the future.

pooch90

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I however, so not see this happening. Ever.

Agreed. The headshops will now keep their heads down for a while and get off the mainstreets. After a while they'll start restocking their ranges and I'd be very worried that eventually they'll come across a formula which does some real damage.

Hammered hippie

@Fitzcaraldo

The act that you refer to is still only a draft and as such is just part of all the evidence available that will tell us what this new law might be like.
Another part of this evidence is the remarks of the minister for justice that this new law will empower the guards to close head shops on grounds of suspicion and that the onus will be on the owners to prove their business is legit/ their innocence.

I am only putting forward my fears on the basis of what evidence I have been able to extract from the media and other outlets.

Hammered hippie

@Dublin Gunner

The way you describe it sounds a lot like clientelism.

The government decided on the basis of complaints from potential voters to favour the democratic rights of those concerned people over those of the large group of customers that frequented head shops.
No further research was done and the shops and their customers were 'punished'.

Some say it was 'people's power' but it was more like a public execution if you ask me.

So in the future if you want something done or someone punished...complain at Joe Duffy and your local TD and the elected government officials will go ahead and execute it for you. No research, no discussion and most important, the persons affected will not be heard or consulted....direct punishment by popular vote. That doesn't sound a bit like a democracy to me.

Dublin_Gunner

UNfortunately, thats the way it works. the Gov have to spoon fed information.

If they're only hearing one side on an argument, that's the side they'll take.

In fairness, if all they're hearing is 'close this down' or whatever, and not one voice defending the places, well then, that's who they're going to please.

And in fairness (massive generalisation coming up), the vast majority of people I see emerging from the headshops are those I can't imagine being in the top of the queue at the polling stations.

I've only ever been in one once - I rather call my own guys

Hammered hippie

@Fitzcaraldo

Even if I am critical of what might happen when a law passes. It's not the law itself that eventually will bring harm to the people but its implementation.
So there is nothing wrong with putting forward a scenario of what might happen when a law is passed. It puts things in a more tangable perspective than discussing the technical details of the law.
After all this is a forum about politics and how it affects people.

Hammered hippie

@Dublin Gunner

You are so right about politicians being quite one sided. It's called politics.
Unfortunately , as soon as a politician is elected into an official government function, she or he is acting with a mandate of the voter, all voters, not just the exalted ones that Joe Duffy allows to speak on his show.
Furthermore..these government officials also have a duty to be unbiased and impartial. In a public discussion it is up to them to respect the rights of both parties as long as they stay within the law.
As a politcian you can adopt whatever biased view you want...but as soon as you are a government official you can't just go and try to destroy a business that sticks to the law that you as a government have laid down.
Then to try and change that law is fine as long as there is a sound emprical scientific basis for it. It shouldn't be the way it was that head shops are not breaking the law...ok..lets make them break the law by altering the law just for the purpose of damaging head shops (and some popularity gain maybe).

Simply put...as a government official you can't just abuse your power to make segments of society into criminals just because you or your friends don't like those segments.
There has to be a reason other than that...like public health and safety. Unfortunately the proof that many of the products that have been banned were damaging hasn't been produced yet.
So we are left with the only thing the government has been telling us over and over..that these laws were designed solely to harm head shops and criminalise their customers. And that is a very wrong approach in breach with several articles of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

Traumadoc

Hammered hippie wrote: »

@Dublin Gunner

You are so right about politicians being quite one sided. It's called politics.
Unfortunately , as soon as a politician is elected into an official government function, she or he is acting with a mandate of the voter, all voters, not just the exalted ones that Joe Duffy allows to speak on his show.
Furthermore..these government officials also have a duty to be unbiased and impartial. In a public discussion it is up to them to respect the rights of both parties as long as they stay within the law.
As a politcian you can adopt whatever biased view you want...but as soon as you are a government official you can't just go and try to destroy a business that sticks to the law that you as a government have laid down.
Then to try and change that law is fine as long as there is a sound emprical scientific basis for it. It shouldn't be the way it was that head shops are not breaking the law...ok..lets make them break the law by altering the law just for the purpose of damaging head shops (and some popularity gain maybe).

Simply put...as a government official you can't just abuse your power to make segments of society into criminals just because you or your friends don't like those segments.
There has to be a reason other than that...like public health and safety. Unfortunately the proof that many of the products that have been banned were damaging hasn't been produced yet.
So we are left with the only thing the government has been telling us over and over..that these laws were designed solely to harm head shops and criminalise their customers. And that is a very wrong approach in breach with several articles of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

I agree with some of your sentiments: I find redbull and vodka a far more dangerous drug than say BZP.
However the methamphetamine analogues were very concerning.

Many drugs may take years for the health consequences to become apparent : I am sure that if the health consequences of cigarettes had become apparent that form of nicotine delivery would never become legal.

The problem especially with synthetic drugs is the consequences may or may not become apparent. In the early 80s synthetic heroin cause the users to get immediate Parkinsons disease. Who knows what the long term problems will become apparent.

There has been a recent increase in drug related acute psychosis presenting to A&E- most of it related to mephadrone. Will we get an increase in chronic psychotic illness also?

There is an argument for personal freedom , but there is an argument that society has to protect itself.

Nodin

This bears some relevance, I think.

Toxicology tests have shown that two teenagers whose deaths were linked to mephedrone had not taken the drug.
The deaths of Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19, in March 2010 sparked concern about the synthetic stimulant, which was then legal.
The Labour government banned the "legal high" in April, making it a Class B drug.
Former chief drugs adviser Prof David Nutt said the test results undermined the reasons behind the ban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10184803.stm

Nodin

Traumadoc wrote: »

I agree with some of your sentiments: I find redbull and vodka a far more dangerous drug than say BZP.
However the methamphetamine analogues were very concerning.

Many drugs may take years for the health consequences to become apparent : I am sure that if the health consequences of cigarettes had become apparent that form of nicotine delivery would never become legal.

The problem especially with synthetic drugs is the consequences may or may not become apparent. In the early 80s synthetic heroin cause the users to get immediate Parkinsons disease. Who knows what the long term problems will become apparent.

There has been a recent increase in drug related acute psychosis presenting to A&E- most of it related to mephadrone. Will we get an increase in chronic psychotic illness also?

There is an argument for personal freedom , but there is an argument that society has to protect itself.

While I see where you're coming from, the fact is that the debate is currently dominated by hysteria, outrage and "Something Must Be Done!!".

One might also point out that outlawing "natural" drugs has done nothing to help either.