Psycho active bill becomes active munday

Hammered hippie

As of 0:00 monday the 23rd of august the psycho active substances bill will become active as decided by our minister for prosecution, D. Ahern.
This bill is so vague that even the gardai don't know how to interpret it, so its effectiveness and implementation will be up to the mood and discretion of the guard that is imposing it.
It is actually not really a law but more a propaganda statement from the government that whatever bothers them in the field of the trade in mind altering substances can instantly be made illegal and branded dangerous. It is the head shop hysteria fuelled by tabloids cast into a 'law' by a spineless coward of a government that prefers to appear tough and further their own carreer than to act in the interest of the people whom they represent.
Since the ban of most legal highs in may A&E deparments have been flooded by people being fed deadly concoctions by the old reliable dealer in the street (http://www.independent.ie/national-n...t-2297957.html) and gang wars have now started to take the lives of innocent people (http://www.herald.ie/opinion/andrew-...s-2273908.html). All of this doesn't bother the government one bit, as long as they can be seen to appease a small group of people they deem more worthy of their democratic rights than the majority that enjoy legal highs.
As this piece of personal propaganda for D. Ahern is supposedly designed to protect the public from 'bad' psychoactive substances we can conclude that the government is telling us that tobacco and alcohol are safe, as they are exempt from the psycho active substances bill. So go out, get drunk, smoke your lungs into tarpits and then come back to sue the government...because they said in a way it was safe to do so...didn't they?

FarmerGreen

They must be on drugs to think like that.

FreudianSlippers

Hammered hippie wrote: »

As of 0:00 monday the 23rd of august the psycho active substances bill will become active as decided by our minister for prosecution, D. Ahern.
This bill is so vague that even the gardai don't know how to interpret it, so its effectiveness and implementation will be up to the mood and discretion of the guard that is imposing it.
It is actually not really a law but more a propaganda statement from the government that whatever bothers them in the field of the trade in mind altering substances can instantly be made illegal and branded dangerous. It is the head shop hysteria fuelled by tabloids cast into a 'law' by a spineless coward of a government that prefers to appear tough and further their own carreer than to act in the interest of the people whom they represent.
Since the ban of most legal highs in may A&E deparments have been flooded by people being fed deadly concoctions by the old reliable dealer in the street (http://www.independent.ie/national-n...t-2297957.html) and gang wars have now started to take the lives of innocent people (http://www.herald.ie/opinion/andrew-...s-2273908.html). All of this doesn't bother the government one bit, as long as they can be seen to appease a small group of people they deem more worthy of their democratic rights than the majority that enjoy legal highs.
As this piece of personal propaganda for D. Ahern is supposedly designed to protect the public from 'bad' psychoactive substances we can conclude that the government is telling us that tobacco and alcohol are safe, as they are exempt from the psycho active substances bill. So go out, get drunk, smoke your lungs into tarpits and then come back to sue the government...because they said in a way it was safe to do so...didn't they?

Not sure what the legal question you have here is?

MagicSean

Hammered hippie wrote: »

As of 0:00 monday the 23rd of august the psycho active substances bill will become active as decided by our minister for prosecution, D. Ahern.
This bill is so vague that even the gardai don't know how to interpret it, so its effectiveness and implementation will be up to the mood and discretion of the guard that is imposing it.
It is actually not really a law but more a propaganda statement from the government that whatever bothers them in the field of the trade in mind altering substances can instantly be made illegal and branded dangerous. It is the head shop hysteria fuelled by tabloids cast into a 'law' by a spineless coward of a government that prefers to appear tough and further their own carreer than to act in the interest of the people whom they represent.
Since the ban of most legal highs in may A&E deparments have been flooded by people being fed deadly concoctions by the old reliable dealer in the street (http://www.independent.ie/national-n...t-2297957.html) and gang wars have now started to take the lives of innocent people (http://www.herald.ie/opinion/andrew-...s-2273908.html). All of this doesn't bother the government one bit, as long as they can be seen to appease a small group of people they deem more worthy of their democratic rights than the majority that enjoy legal highs.
As this piece of personal propaganda for D. Ahern is supposedly designed to protect the public from 'bad' psychoactive substances we can conclude that the government is telling us that tobacco and alcohol are safe, as they are exempt from the psycho active substances bill. So go out, get drunk, smoke your lungs into tarpits and then come back to sue the government...because they said in a way it was safe to do so...didn't they?

Thats not the conclusion I would draw. The large warnings on tobacco products give me plenty of notice they are unsafe. Banning these items is not to blame for the drug violence. The dealers and users are to blame.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

and gang wars have now started to take the lives of innocent people

Are you serious? You don't think there was gang wars before the legal highs? All the legal highs did was bring more money and users into the drug trade.

I'll leave it at that for now because I don't want to overfeed a ranting troll.

FreudianSlippers

I'm still not sure that this post belongs in the LD forum, but I'll bite and attempt to make it relevant to the LD forum.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

As of 0:00 monday the 23rd of august the psycho active substances bill will become active as decided by our minister for prosecution, D. Ahern.

Probably pedantic on my part, but Dermot Ahern is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform not prosecution.
The act is called the Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010

Hammered hippie wrote: »

This bill is so vague that even the gardai don't know how to interpret it, so its effectiveness and implementation will be up to the mood and discretion of the guard that is imposing it.

I'm not sure exactly what is so vague about the Act.
Section 3(1) clearly states A person who sells a psychoactive substance knowing or being reckless as to whether that substance is being acquired or supplied for human consumption shall be guilty of an offence.
This essentially means that the sale and/or supply of substances which aren't listed in the Misuse of Drugs Acts that have psychoactive effects is a criminal offence. Seems clear enough to me.

The Act also allows members of AGS to apply to the court for prohibition orders to stop outlets selling psychoactive substances. The Act also contains full search and seizure powers for both AGS and Customs - the Act specifies that AGS and/or Customs must have reasonable grounds similar to the powers contained in other Acts.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

It is actually not really a law but more a propaganda statement from the government that whatever bothers them in the field of the trade in mind altering substances can instantly be made illegal and branded dangerous. It is the head shop hysteria fuelled by tabloids cast into a 'law' by a spineless coward of a government that prefers to appear tough and further their own carreer than to act in the interest of the people whom they represent.

I'm not even going to bother touching this.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Since the ban of most legal highs in may A&E deparments have been flooded by people being fed deadly concoctions by the old reliable dealer in the street (http://www.independent.ie/national-n...t-2297957.html) and gang wars have now started to take the lives of innocent people (http://www.herald.ie/opinion/andrew-...s-2273908.html).

I personally believe that many drugs should be legalised and regulated, but it's impossible to measure the effects of a ban on legal highs at the moment.
I also cannot believe that anyone would think that gang violence has increased because of a ban on legal highs. This is not what is contained in either of the links posted.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

All of this doesn't bother the government one bit, as long as they can be seen to appease a small group of people they deem more worthy of their democratic rights than the majority that enjoy legal highs.
As this piece of personal propaganda for D. Ahern is supposedly designed to protect the public from 'bad' psychoactive substances we can conclude that the government is telling us that tobacco and alcohol are safe, as they are exempt from the psycho active substances bill. So go out, get drunk, smoke your lungs into tarpits and then come back to sue the government...because they said in a way it was safe to do so...didn't they?

Tobacco and alcohol are controlled in other Acts and are not psychoactive substances.
It's also totally untrue that that vast majority of people in this country are "enjoying" legal highs. I believe that the vast majority of people are glad to see these headshops closed and dangerous "legal" drugs controlled.
Should they be illegal? Perhaps not, but it does need regulation.

BogMonkey

k_mac wrote: »

Are you serious? You don't think there was gang wars before the legal highs? All the legal highs did was bring more money and users into the drug trade.

I'll leave it at that for now because I don't want to overfeed a ranting troll.

Gang wars over legal drugs? No. A good example is US prohibition of alcohol. Once it became illegal, gangsters got into the bootlegging business. One of the biggest gang wars in Chicagos history (between Al Capone and Dion O'Bannion) was fuelled in part by the alcohol trade. The OP is not trolling, he's expressing his well founded opinions on an issue that affects every free thinking person in Ireland.

OisinT wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what is so vague about the Act.
Section 3(1) clearly states A person who sells a psychoactive substance knowing or being reckless as to whether that substance is being acquired or supplied for human consumption shall be guilty of an offence.
This essentially means that the sale and/or supply of substances which aren't listed in the Misuse of Drugs Acts that have psychoactive effects is a criminal offence. Seems clear enough to me.

I tried to read it and could not understand it due to the format it was in. I'm guessing you learned how to read this kind of thing beforehand.

OisinT wrote: »

I personally believe that many drugs should be legalised and regulated, but it's impossible to measure the effects of a ban on legal highs at the moment.
I also cannot believe that anyone would think that gang violence has increased because of a ban on legal highs. This is not what is contained in either of the links posted.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility that gangs might be jumping on this opportunity to cease control of the mephedrone and JWH-018 market but I agree with you because I think dealers will just keep selling MDMA and cannabis.

OisinT wrote: »

Tobacco and alcohol are controlled in other Acts and are not psychoactive substances.

What do you mean? They're not considered psychoactive substances in this bill? Why not?

Hammered hippie

Have some of you been living in a legal loophole;)

When headshops were booming, dealers were nearly broke. Great chance, via regulating the legal highs, to curb criminal gangs.

Not only can gangs now pick up on their old trade with their old customers, they get a new range of easy products and some new customers aswell. We might just aswell have given them money straight in their pockets.

Now, if you read this new law you'd realise that the infringement on civil liberties with this new law is unparralled. Besides that it is an extremely vague law as it is very unclear what 'psychoactive products' actually are. Could be a herb, could be relax tea from your local green shop, could be music that alters the mind.

Most unsettling, however, is that I have seen drug dealers dance for joy outside my local head shop when they heard this new law was going to be initiated. Now I ask you, a minister for justice that does stuff that makes drug dealers dance for joy. Incompetence doesn't even cover it!
Unfortunately is d. ahern also responsible for a lot of stuff that goes on in the legal field of out society , so that makes this worthy of a legal discussion. Can a man who makes things way better and easier for severe law breakers, who helps them, can such a man still be allowed to be minister for justice...or is he just a clown trying to protect his political career.

FreudianSlippers

BogMonkey wrote: »

I tried to read it and could not understand it due to the format it was in. I'm guessing you learned how to read this kind of thing beforehand.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0022/print.html

It is a very straightforward format and is the same as all Acts.

BogMonkey wrote: »

Its not beyond the realms of possibility that gangs might be jumping on this opportunity to cease control of the mephedrone and JWH-018 market but I agree with you because I think dealers will just keep selling MDMA and cannabis.

Ok, maybe dealers will start selling what was being sold in the headshops, but it doesn't make sense why people would go to drug dealers when the reason for doing the mephedrone etc was because it was legal.

BogMonkey wrote: »

What do you mean? They're not considered psychoactive substances in this bill? Why not?

That's my mistake - bad wording. Alcohol is a psychoactive substance, but it is clearly a legal psychoactive substance - the sale of which is already legislated in other Acts.

It's right there in Section 1 of the Act:

“psychoactive substance” means a substance, product, preparation, plant, fungus or natural organism which has, when consumed by a person, the capacity to—

(a) produce stimulation or depression of the central nervous system of the person, resulting in hallucinations or a significant disturbance in, or significant change to, motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood, or
(b) cause a state of dependence, including physical or psychological addiction;

Then Section 2:

2.— (1) This Act shall not apply to—

(a) a medicinal product within the meaning of section 1 (1) of the Irish Medicines Board Act 1995 ,
(b) an animal remedy within the meaning of section 1 of the Animal Remedies Act 1993 authorised in accordance with—

(i) the European Communities (Animal Remedies) (No. 2) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 786 of 2007), or
(ii) Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 1 as amended,
prescribed or sold for administration to an animal in accordance with those provisions,

(c) intoxicating liquor within the meaning of section 77 of the Licensing Act 1872,
(d) a tobacco product within the meaning of section 2 of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002 ,
(e) food within the meaning of section 2 of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act 1998 which has been placed on the market in compliance with food legislation within the meaning of that section,
(f) unless otherwise expressly provided for in this Act, a controlled drug, or
(g) such other substance, product, preparation, plant, fungus or natural organism as may be specified by order under subsection (2).

(2) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Health and Children and such other Minister of the Government as he or she considers appropriate, by order declare that this Act shall not apply in relation to a substance, product, preparation, plant, fungus or natural organism specified in the order and so long as an order under this subsection is in force, this Act shall not apply in relation to the substance, product, preparation, plant, fungus or natural organism so specified in the order.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Have some of you been living in a legal loophole;)

I believe you are thinking of headshops. They were the ones living in a legal loophole.:p

Hammered hippie wrote: »

When headshops were booming, dealers were nearly broke. Great chance, via regulating the legal highs, to curb criminal gangs.

{{citation needed}}

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Not only can gangs now pick up on their old trade with their old customers, they get a new range of easy products and some new customers aswell. We might just aswell have given them money straight in their pockets.

Why not legalise, regulate and tax all drugs then just as alcohol and cigarettes are?

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Now, if you read this new law you'd realise that the infringement on civil liberties with this new law is unparralled. Besides that it is an extremely vague law as it is very unclear what 'psychoactive products' actually are. Could be a herb, could be relax tea from your local green shop, could be music that alters the mind.

I have read the Act and would love to see examples of the infringement on civil liberties. I invite you to quote the act and raise a rational discussion on this topic. Trolling and complaining that you cannot get legal highs anymore is not a topic worthy of the Legal Discussion forum.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Most unsettling, however, is that I have seen drug dealers dance for joy outside my local head shop when they heard this new law was going to be initiated.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Now I ask you, a minister for justice that does stuff that makes drug dealers dance for joy. Incompetence doesn't even cover it!
Unfortunately is d. ahern also responsible for a lot of stuff that goes on in the legal field of out society , so that makes this worthy of a legal discussion. Can a man who makes things way better and easier for severe law breakers, who helps them, can such a man still be allowed to be minister for justice...or is he just a clown trying to protect his political career.

This act is making it easier to catch and punish those selling illegal drugs, be they headshops or drug dealers. I'm missing your logic here - where is the connection that it is only illegal for headshops to sell these items, so obviously it will help the drug dealers. This Act contains sections that will make it harder for drug dealers to smuggle any drugs into the country and gives AGS power to search, arrest and detain suspected drug dealers.

BogMonkey

OisinT wrote: »

Why not legalise, regulate and tax all drugs then just as alcohol and cigarettes are?

Couldn't agree with you more. This seems to be hard to accept for a lot of people probably because they are so used to living in a world where drugs are "bad" and people who use drugs are criminals but in reality they are just substances that alter ones neurochemistry and physiology and allow them to experience life in a different way as a result. Its every persons right to decide how they manage their own body and life and what risks they are willing to take.

Whether its the norm or not, a government telling us what we can and cannot consume, especially considering they won't punish us for consuming non psychoactive poisons, isn't only an unjustifiable violation of our freedom, consciousness, mental health and well being, its a violation of the evolution of mankind. I don't do any illegal drugs or legal ones (don't even drink or smoke) besides dexedrine which I'm prescribed for ADHD. If I didn't have this prescription I'd be considered a criminal for self medicating and if I told anyone I was taking amphetamines for ADHD they wouldn't believe a word of it. Its ridiculous because with this "drug", I can be way more productive and since I'm studying to become a scientist, contribute way more to society and the evolution of mankind so drug prohibition is detrimental effect on the very thing its supposedly there to protect.

MagicSean

BogMonkey wrote: »

Gang wars over legal drugs? No. A good example is US prohibition of alcohol. Once it became illegal, gangsters got into the bootlegging business. One of the biggest gang wars in Chicagos history (between Al Capone and Dion O'Bannion) was fuelled in part by the alcohol trade. The OP is not trolling, he's expressing his well founded opinions on an issue that affects every free thinking person in Ireland.

The op made two outrageous claims, albeit they were both implied and not openly stated

1) That the ban on legal highs has resulted in a&e being flooded with people poisoned by legal highs. There is no evidence at all of this, be it factual or anecdotal. It is pure fiction.

2) That the ban on legal highs has resulted in an increase of gang war and innocent deaths. The ban on legal highs has not had any real effect on gang wars. Dealers aren't killing each other over these drugs. They are still selling the old reliables.

And there is nothing well founded about his post. It is a rant.

BogMonkey wrote: »

I tried to read it and could not understand it due to the format it was in. I'm guessing you learned how to read this kind of thing beforehand.

Its English.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

When headshops were booming, dealers were nearly broke.

No they weren't.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Not only can gangs now pick up on their old trade with their old customers, they get a new range of easy products and some new customers aswell. We might just aswell have given them money straight in their pockets.

The headshops didn't take much business from the dealers. Even if they did. It's only trading one devil for another. You think the headshop owners gave their money to charity?

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Most unsettling, however, is that I have seen drug dealers dance for joy outside my local head shop when they heard this new law was going to be initiated. Now I ask you, a minister for justice that does stuff that makes drug dealers dance for joy. Incompetence doesn't even cover it!
Unfortunately is d. ahern also responsible for a lot of stuff that goes on in the legal field of out society , so that makes this worthy of a legal discussion. Can a man who makes things way better and easier for severe law breakers, who helps them, can such a man still be allowed to be minister for justice...or is he just a clown trying to protect his political career.

What is the difference between a headshop owner and a drug dealer? Both their products damage people and society.

MagicSean

BogMonkey wrote: »

Couldn't agree with you more. This seems to be hard to accept for a lot of people probably because they are so used to living in a world where drugs are "bad" and people who use drugs are criminals but in reality they are just substances that alter ones neurochemistry and physiology and allow them to experience life in a different way as a result. Its every persons right to decide how they manage their own body and life and what risks they are willing to take.

Whether its the norm or not, a government telling us what we can and cannot consume, especially considering they won't punish us for consuming non psychoactive poisons, isn't only an unjustifiable violation of our freedom, consciousness, mental health and well being, its a violation of the evolution of mankind. I don't do any illegal drugs or legal ones (don't even drink or smoke) besides dexedrine which I'm prescribed for ADHD. If I didn't have this prescription I'd be considered a criminal for self medicating and if I told anyone I was taking amphetamines for ADHD they wouldn't believe a word of it. Its ridiculous because with this "drug", I can be way more productive and since I'm studying to become a scientist, contribute way more to society and the evolution of mankind so drug prohibition is detrimental effect on the very thing its supposedly there to protect.

They alter your entire perception. A person on drugs doesn't see the world as it is. That would be fine if this only affected themselves but it doesn't. Heroine users rob and steal. Cocaine users are violent bastards. Hash, lsd and shrooms make people a danger to themselves and others just by crossing the street. Your right to experiment is not as important as everyone else right to enjoy life.

If a drug has a benefit it is prescribed in a controlled manner like your adhd medicine. But if you are found to be abusing this drug your doctor can and must cut you off.

Hammered hippie

Go to the TRIS site of they european union (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/index_en.htm)

Check the last two months submissions from Ireland. (click the search the database link)
Look at the one that was rushed through with the name 'psychoactive substances'
Then for fun check the references...have a good look at the sources this minister for justice actually uses for his legislation.
No..its not research or proper rapports (apart for some very old ones that just stress the need for monitoring)....dermot ahern used....news paper headlines...mostly from the examiner.
Now people..be honest...that does sound like a joke doesn't it.
Our minister for justice passes hefty legislation curbing our civil rights...and his sources are the headlines from the examiner.
The man actually believes the headlines and heads above opinion pieces in the newspapers and uses them as a basis for his policies. O MY GOD ! :eek::eek::eek:

BogMonkey

k_mac wrote: »

They alter your entire perception. A person on drugs doesn't see the world as it is. That would be fine if this only affected themselves but it doesn't. Heroine users rob and steal. Cocaine users are violent bastards. Hash, lsd and shrooms make people a danger to themselves and others just by crossing the street. Your right to experiment is not as important as everyone else right to enjoy life.

If a drug has a benefit it is prescribed in a controlled manner like your adhd medicine. But if you are found to be abusing this drug your doctor can and must cut you off.

Sober people don't see reality as it is either. Thats because our brains make a representation of what we perceive to be the external world. For example EM waves in the visible light spectrum that hit the retina induce an electrical signal and the brain interprets this electrical signal and converts it into a visual representation for us but how our brains represent it to us depends on different variables such as our beliefs, experiences and neurophysiology. Hypnosis is a good example, people can be hypnotized to be colour blind and since the hypnotic suggestion is just the implantation of a belief, it can be logically assumed that beliefs alone influence the way ones brain represents reality to them. Everyone is born with a different neurochemical makeup and on our experiences literally rewire our brains from the day we are born so no two people see the world the same way.

Heroin users rob and steal because they need money to buy heroin. Opium poppies are as easy to grow as sugarcane and pure
heroin could be produced as cheaply as sugar. If junkies could buy a kilo of heroin for 10 euros do you think they would rob to support their habit? As for cocaine I agree. I've tried it and it never made me a violent bastard but its definitely an ego inflater so it will make violent people more violent. Hash and shrooms don't make people more dangerous unless they are driving or operating heavy machinery similar to how alcohol makes driving or operating heavy machinery more dangerous. If anything I think its safer crossing the road on shrooms because you are more perceptive on them. My experimentation does not have any affect on the right of others to enjoy their lives. I don't have a wife and kids so I don't have responsibilities like that and I don't drive or go out in public on drugs. I don't even take drugs besides dexedrine and that stuff just makes me productive.

The problem is sometimes the patient knows what works on him better than the doctor does. Medical marijuana isn't prescribed in Ireland despite the fact it is one of the most effective analgesics known to man and has all sorts of other medical uses like inducing hunger in cancer patients. I was prescribed hydromorphone after an operation and it did absolutely nothing. In the end I resorted to getting someone to roll me a joint which I hadn't smoked in years and as soon as the stuff kicked in, all pain miraculously disappeared. No known medical uses my bollox.

FreudianSlippers

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Go to the TRIS site of they european union (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/index_en.htm)

Check the last two months submissions from Ireland. (click the search the database link)
Look at the one that was rushed through with the name 'psychoactive substances'
Then for fun check the references...have a good look at the sources this minister for justice actually uses for his legislation.
No..its not research or proper rapports (apart for some very old ones that just stress the need for monitoring)....dermot ahern used....news paper headlines...mostly from the examiner.
Now people..be honest...that does sound like a joke doesn't it.
Our minister for justice passes hefty legislation curbing our civil rights...and his sources are the headlines from the examiner.
The man actually believes the headlines and heads above opinion pieces in the newspapers and uses them as a basis for his policies. O MY GOD ! :eek::eek::eek:

Once again claiming our "civil rights" are being curbed, but failing to cite specific details on how this is happening.

I think it may be time to lock up this thread or move it to After Hours - this is not a Legal Discussion thread.


EDIT: by the way, the sources he cited were not what were used for the legislation, it was used to show why they were making the legislation to comply with Directive 98/34/EC

Kurtosis

OisinT wrote: »

Once again claiming our "civil rights" are being curbed, but failing to cite specific details on how this is happening.

I think it may be time to lock up this thread or move it to After Hours - this is not a Legal Discussion thread.

Not a lot of point moving to AH, the OP has already made a thread there (with almost identical responses).

BogMonkey wrote: »

Whether its the norm or not, a government telling us what we can and cannot consume, especially considering they won't punish us for consuming non psychoactive poisons, isn't only an unjustifiable violation of our freedom, consciousness, mental health and well being, its a violation of the evolution of mankind.

Good thing Darwin's Law isn't on the statute books :P

cushtac

Hammered hippie wrote: »

When headshops were booming, dealers were nearly broke. Great chance, via regulating the legal highs, to curb criminal gangs.

Nonsense, dealers were as busy as ever. Legal highs had a negligible impact on the likes of cocaine & cannabis and absolutely none on heroin.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Not only can gangs now pick up on their old trade with their old customers, they get a new range of easy products and some new customers aswell. We might just aswell have given them money straight in their pockets.

I have yet to see any dealers getting stopped with any of the previously legal highs, it's all just the usual drugs. I've also yet to see any evidence that their business has increased as result of the recent bill; it's the same old users going to the same old dealers.

FreudianSlippers

penguin88 wrote: »

Not a lot of point moving to AH, the OP has already made a thread there (with almost identical responses).



Good thing Darwin's Law isn't on the statute books :P

Ah, right you are... one of many threads already started on the subject.

The way I see it is this thread can go one of 2 ways:
OP starts discussing it rationally and supporting his arguments with fact or IBTL

Jev/N

k_mac wrote: »

They alter your entire perception. A person on drugs doesn't see the world as it is. That would be fine if this only affected themselves but it doesn't. Heroine users rob and steal. Cocaine users are violent bastards. Hash, lsd and shrooms make people a danger to themselves and others just by crossing the street. Your right to experiment is not as important as everyone else right to enjoy life.

Whatever perception of the world you have, it seems to be a very black and white one

Dandelion6

k_mac wrote: »

The op made two outrageous claims, albeit they were both implied and not openly stated

1) That the ban on legal highs has resulted in a&e being flooded with people poisoned by legal highs. There is no evidence at all of this, be it factual or anecdotal. It is pure fiction.

There may not be any factual evidence, but I've heard similar claims from two people who work in this area (counselling drug users). In their professional experience, what has happened when these substances are banned is that new and more lethal substances appear in their place.

McCrack

At first glance this Act does seem very indulgent towards the authorities without the usual checks and balances. It seems to allow a great degree of scope for Gardai and Customs to search and seize more so than MDA legislation.

I'm not altogether comfortable with it.

Hammered hippie

The reason this new law should be the centre of political and legal discussion is as follows.

The law is very vague. It is designed that way and kep that way so it can be used as a tool that always works. It is designed to create a grey area. It is not clear , it does not outline what is legal and illegal, so whenever a head shop owner does something the government doesn't like this law can be explained in a way that gets the head shop owner into trouble.
The guards don't exactly know how to use it either, and what constitutes a psychoactive product is unclear.
Laws shoud not leave as much room for interpretation as this law does. The law should clearly explain what is allowed and what not.
In that sense it is not a law but merely a tool of intimidation that will always apply when authorities want it.

Another flaw is that it is not a law for every citizen or organisation within the state. I just bought a box of quite strong relax tea at a health shop that will make me drowsy, is not to be used with heavy machinery or in combo with alcohol. It clearly is a psychoactive product. So why can health shops sell psychoactive products and head shops notm, although health shops and herbal tea are not exempt in this law.
The reason is that this law is dicriminating in the way it is implied. Laws should be the same for all...but this one is not. So it is a bad flawd law.

FreudianSlippers

Hammered hippie wrote: »

The reason this new law should be the centre of political and legal discussion is as follows.

The law is very vague. It is designed that way and kep that way so it can be used as a tool that always works. It is designed to create a grey area. It is not clear , it does not outline what is legal and illegal, so whenever a head shop owner does something the government doesn't like this law can be explained in a way that gets the head shop owner into trouble.
The guards don't exactly know how to use it either, and what constitutes a psychoactive product is unclear.
Laws shoud not leave as much room for interpretation as this law does. The law should clearly explain what is allowed and what not.
In that sense it is not a law but merely a tool of intimidation that will always apply when authorities want it.

Another flaw is that it is not a law for every citizen or organisation within the state. I just bought a box of quite strong relax tea at a health shop that will make me drowsy, is not to be used with heavy machinery or in combo with alcohol. It clearly is a psychoactive product. So why can health shops sell psychoactive products and head shops notm, although health shops and herbal tea are not exempt in this law.
The reason is that this law is dicriminating in the way it is implied. Laws should be the same for all...but this one is not. So it is a bad flawd law.

I've already explained to you what the definition of psychoactive substances are under the Act and quoted from the legislation.

It is fine of you want to make a valid argument regarding the legislation by citing sections that fit your argument, but if you continue to spew the same talking points over and over again without any evidence to support your statements (especially when others have posted sections to disprove your argument) then you are not going to persuade anyone to see your side of the argument and this thread should be locked.

Finnbar01

cushtac wrote: »

Nonsense, dealers were as busy as ever. Legal highs had a negligible impact on the likes of cocaine & cannabis and absolutely none on heroin.

Legalise them all then. Let people make their own choices with what they want to do with their mind and bodies.

MagicSean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Legalise them all then. Let people make their own choices with what they want to do with their mind and bodies.

Its not about what they do to themselves. It's about the effects on people around them.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

The law is very vague. It is designed that way and kep that way so it can be used as a tool that always works. It is designed to create a grey area. It is not clear , it does not outline what is legal and illegal, so whenever a head shop owner does something the government doesn't like this law can be explained in a way that gets the head shop owner into trouble.

It was deliberately made vague so that there wouldn't need to be a schedule of banned substances a mile long which would need to be updated weekly if not daily to take account of the new chemicals been produced to avoid the legislation. Anyway it will not be up to the government to decide who is breaking the law. It will be decided by caselaw.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

The guards don't exactly know how to use it either

Please quote your source.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Another flaw is that it is not a law for every citizen or organisation within the state. I just bought a box of quite strong relax tea at a health shop that will make me drowsy, is not to be used with heavy machinery or in combo with alcohol. It clearly is a psychoactive product. So why can health shops sell psychoactive products and head shops notm, although health shops and herbal tea are not exempt in this law.
The reason is that this law is dicriminating in the way it is implied. Laws should be the same for all...but this one is not. So it is a bad flawd law.

They dont sell them with those warnings. They sell them as plant food.

Finnbar01

k_mac wrote: »

Its not about what they do to themselves. It's about the effects on people around them.

That's an entirely different point. If a person harms another, whether high on drugs or alcohol or for pure spite, that's an issue for the courts.

Besides criminalising drugs does far more harm than good, especially to the innocents.

MagicSean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

That's an entirely different point. If a person harms another, whether high on drugs or alcohol or for pure spite, that's an issue for the courts.

Besides criminalising drugs does far more harm than good, especially to the innocents.

Prevention is better than cure. If I could point you towards this incident in Drogheda a while back.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0412/1224268137997.html

Do you think the seven people stabbed would prefer to have not been stabbed by some fella off his face on drugs or should they be happy that he was caught?

FreudianSlippers

Hammered hippie wrote: »

I just bought a box of quite strong relax tea at a health shop that will make me drowsy, is not to be used with heavy machinery or in combo with alcohol. It clearly is a psychoactive product

It is certainly not clearly a psychoactive substance. What are the ingredients? Psychoactive substances are defined as chemical substances which must impair and alter brain function of the central nervous system by crossing the blood-brain barrier.

FreudianSlippers

Finnbar01 wrote: »

That's an entirely different point. If a person harms another, whether high on drugs or alcohol or for pure spite, that's an issue for the courts.

Besides criminalising drugs does far more harm than good, especially to the innocents.

You are missing the point between the differences in legislative and judicial powers/separation.

It is one party who must make the laws and another which upholds and interprets them.
Criminalising drugs may well do more harm that good - and there are many many many credible studies that suggest that this may be true, but that is a legislative matter.

When one person harms another, regardless of the circumstances then it is clearly a judicial matter.

It is not for the judicial branch to decide whether or not it is correct to legalise drugs, it is their duty to interpret and uphold those laws.
I suggest that this argument of whether or not drugs should be made legal and the pros and cons of such would be better suited to the Politics forum.

The legal aspect of upholding and interpreting this Act belongs in this forum.

Finnbar01

k_mac wrote: »

Prevention is better than cure. If I could point you towards this incident in Drogheda a while back.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0412/1224268137997.html

Do you think the seven people stabbed would prefer to have not been stabbed by some fella off his face on drugs or should they be happy that he was caught?

Nowhere in that article does it say he was on illegal drugs. He was apparently drunk so should we ban alcohol now then?

Also, so what if he was on alcohol and drugs. It was his choice to take those things in the first place, no one force it upon him. I'm getting sick of wasters blaming drink or drugs for their problems. Can a drunk driver blame alcohol for forcing him to drive his car drunk? I was only experimenting your honor.

He seemed to know what he was doing as the article states he attempted to flee the scene after the incident.

When one person harms another, regardless of the circumstances then it is clearly a judicial matter.

That's the point I was making. Regardless of whether the person was high or not is irrelevant when they've committed their criminal actions.

rubensni

OisinT wrote: »

Psychoactive substances are defined as chemical substances which must impair and alter brain function of the central nervous system by crossing the blood-brain barrier.

Most common glues would thus fall under the definition of psychoactive substance under the Act, as would petrol. Both are available in every village and town in the country, and both are widely abused for their psychoactive properties (solvent abuse is hardly a new concept). However, I suspect that this law won't be used to close down the local Texaco or B&Q.

Enforcing the law equally isn't the point of this legislation, instead it is to give the local Garda superintendent the power to hassle head shop owners by raiding them until they shut down.

McCrack wrote: »

At first glance this Act does seem very indulgent towards the authorities without the usual checks and balances. It seems to allow a great degree of scope for Gardai and Customs to search and seize more so than MDA legislation.

I'm not altogether comfortable with it.

+1 It is very broad in its definitions and thus it might well be unconstitutional as the definitions in the Act are too vague, arbitrary and unspecific to allow citizens to regulate their conduct.

BogMonkey

Yeah banning all "psychoactive substances" is pretty insane because under certain conditions the air we breath is psychoactive. Nitrogen narcosis severely impairs ones ability to function and enriched or depleted oxygen air makes people feel different to how they feel breathing the air they're used to. Thats just off the top of my head I bet any good lawyer could point out a million flaws in this absurd law.

FreudianSlippers

Again the substances must cross the blood-brain barrier chemically. The examples cited thus far are not agents which chemically cross the BBB

rubensni

OisinT wrote: »

Again the substances must cross the blood-brain barrier chemically. The examples cited thus far are not agents which chemically cross the BBB

Petrol does cross the BBB, as does glue, along with the VOCs, and all fall under the definition of “psychoactive substances” in the Act.

Interestingly enough, if I was promote the use of petrol or glue for their psychoactive effects and then go on to outline where one could obtain these substances, I would have committed an offence under the act (s.12(1)(c)(ii)).

Now I am betraying no secrets by sharing that these exotic chemicals are available 24hrs a day from your local petrol station, but to save myself from a lengthy prison sentence (up to 5 years) I would only recommend their consumption for fueling your car, painting your fence, or fixing a broken cup.

Seriously, could this law be any more ridiculous?

Hammered hippie

@k'mac

I'd rather not expose my sources. This law did not only come into being as something that really favours drug dealers by accident.

MagicSean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Nowhere in that article does it say he was on illegal drugs. He was apparently drunk so should we ban alcohol now then?

You're right it doesn't say it in the article. I dont drink alcohol and I think its one of the biggest problem causers in this country so it wouldn't bother me if it was banned.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Also, so what if he was on alcohol and drugs. It was his choice to take those things in the first place, no one force it upon him. I'm getting sick of wasters blaming drink or drugs for their problems. Can a drunk driver blame alcohol for forcing him to drive his car drunk? I was only experimenting your honor.

You're right. It was his choice. And all his victims paid the price for him being able to make that choice. So does his right to drink and take drugs take precedence over their right to life?

Finnbar01 wrote: »

That's the point I was making. Regardless of whether the person was high or not is irrelevant when they've committed their criminal actions.

Not to the victim.

Hammered hippie wrote: »

@k'mac

I'd rather not expose my sources. This law did not only come into being as something that really favours drug dealers by accident.

I think you want this forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

Hammered hippie

Ha ha

Kmac

So predictable

Being very close to the action I can give you some remarks the guards made when asked by a shopkeeper what he was allowed to sell under this new law

'Oh ehm...wel sure you'd know yourself what you can't sell'

'Oh..well if tesco can sell it you can sell it'

Now does that sound like a well informed guard... I don't think so.

Other stuff is a bit more sensitive...
But please k-mac...keep spicing up things with snappy shallow remarks, please entertain us man!

maidhc

I have never tried any psychoactive drugs such as those sold in headshops or on street corners, but I tend to agree with those who say the "banning" of headshops and their contents was somewhat cack handed. Alcohol is one of the most potent of all (and I can't say I don't enjoy the odd drink!), and it is perfectly legal.

I really think strict regulation is the better option for all, and I can't see why a supposedly "calming" drug such as cannibis is also illegal.

I would draw a line at some drugs such as heroin, and other chemicals whose long term health effects are unknown.

Finnbar01

k_mac wrote: »

You're right it doesn't say it in the article. I dont drink alcohol and I think its one of the biggest problem causers in this country so it wouldn't bother me if it was banned.

So why should all those people who enjoy alcohol be punished because of a selected few?

You're right. It was his choice. And all his victims paid the price for him being able to make that choice. So does his right to drink and take drugs take precedence over their right to life?

Yes it was his choice and people make choices everyday that invariably affect others. Would you like to see choices banned as well?

Not to the victim.

when we leave our homes everday we are in danger, whether it is crossing the street or going on a night out. You want an utopia, which is an impossibilty.

I think you want this forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

I take it that you're pointing to the conspiracy theory threads? I myself don't believe in any conspiracy when it comes to drug taking. What I do believe in, is that the government thinks it can eradicate drug addiction, it can't.

MagicSean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

So why should all those people who enjoy alcohol be punished because of a selected few?

I didn't say it should be banned. I said it wouldn't bother me if it was. The reason it is not illegal is because of the amount of voters who drink it. If the voters in the country wanted alcohol banned they would elect candidates who would ban it. It is the opposite with drugs. The majority of people are happy with drugs being illegal so that is how it will stay. If everyone wakes up tomorrow and decides they want to do cocaine they will vote in someone who will make that legal.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Yes it was his choice and people make choices everyday that invariably affect others. Would you like to see choices banned as well?

Would I ban choices that affect others in a negative way? Thats what criminal law is.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

when we leave our homes everday we are in danger, whether it is crossing the street or going on a night out. You want an utopia, which is an impossibilty.

Do you think we would be in more or less danger if there was no heroine or cocaine junkies on the streets?

Kurtosis

maidhc wrote: »

I have never tried any psychoactive drugs such as those sold in headshops or on street corners, but I tend to agree with those who say the "banning" of headshops and their contents was somewhat cack handed. Alcohol is one of the most potent of all (and I can't say I don't enjoy the odd drink!), and it is perfectly legal.

I really think strict regulation is the better option for all, and I can't see why a supposedly "calming" drug such as cannibis is also illegal.

I would draw a line at some drugs such as heroin, and other chemicals whose long term health effects are unknown.

(my emphasis added)

Applying that logic, you would not want headshop products being legal.

Look perhaps regulating the headshops would have been the better option, but the government went with the easier option. Making the transition from these products being legal and unregulated to legal and regulated (and requiring research/studies into their effects in between) would have been problematic and would have probably resulted in these products being off the market for a significant time anyway. Also, coming up with a regulatory system in order to control the sale of this new category of substances as well as seeing who would foot the bill for this would not have been easy feats either.

On the topic of this latest law, again, a better option may have been to simply but chemists to work and try to keep up with the manufacturers of these chemicals and ban specific chemicals as or before they emerge. While the methods that have been chosen to deal with headshops may not have been ideal, they are still a solution and have solved the problem of these unregulated products with unknown quantities of unlabelled ingredients.

Jev/N

Regulation of head shop products is all well and good and is an acceptable approach, but wouldn't it make much more sense to legalise and regulate those drugs that have been used for the past 50-60 years and are more 'tried-and-tested' in terms of harmful effects (for want of a better phrase) than these new ones that were simply created to circumvent current legislation and regulation?

maidhc

penguin88 wrote: »

On the topic of this latest law, again, a better option may have been to simply but chemists to work and try to keep up with the manufacturers of these chemicals and ban specific chemicals as or before they emerge. While the methods that have been chosen to deal with headshops may not have been ideal, they are still a solution and have solved the problem of these unregulated products with unknown quantities of unlabelled ingredients.

Banning something has historically never solved the problem of supply and demand, and I don't know if this problem has been solved.

Will people just revert to using ecstacy and so forth which appears to be often adulterated and which has a far greater market penetration than the rebadged horse tranquilizer sold at times in these headshops?

I don't know, but I feel an opportunity was lost to reach out to people and reel them in from the pushers and possibly make some tax money too.

PatientX

The facts are clear, dealers don't ask for ID, they use kids as runners to avoid prosecution thereby bringing a never-ending supply of recruits to criminal gangs. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 for minor possession and drug use, crime and dearths have gone down. Our government would rather make a law like this to appease the Joe Duffy crowd than explain the true facts and appproach the matter in a logical way! Prohibition has been the policy for over 50 years, what has it accomplished?? Criminal gangs and social ills we acan all see.... The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results! The question is, are they insane or do they actually support criminal gangs?

FreudianSlippers

Look, whether or not drugs should be legalised is an interesting discussion and in my view an important one - but it is not for the LD forum.

The OP and some other posters in this thread have made accusations about the Act and about its ability to be implemented by the Gardaí, without citing sources or making intelligent and credible arguments. This is the discussion that belongs in this thread - about the Act.

Discussion about legalisation of drugs and whether not not this Act should exist belongs in the Politics or Debate forums.

rubensni

OisinT wrote: »

The OP and some other posters in this thread have made accusations about the Act and about its ability to be implemented by the Gardaí, without citing sources or making intelligent and credible arguments.

That's been your speciality on this thread.

And remember, no one likes a back seat moder.

FreudianSlippers

rubensni wrote: »

That's been your speciality on this thread.

And remember, no one likes a back seat moder.

I've quoted the legislation multiple times.

Hammered hippie

OisinT wrote: »

Look, whether or not drugs should be legalised is an interesting discussion and in my view an important one - but it is not for the LD forum.

The OP and some other posters in this thread have made accusations about the Act and about its ability to be implemented by the Gardaí, without citing sources or making intelligent and credible arguments. This is the discussion that belongs in this thread - about the Act.

Discussion about legalisation of drugs and whether not not this Act should exist belongs in the Politics or Debate forums.

Oisin I am sure that, although it is not what this thread is about, that a discussion about the legalisation of narcotics does have a place in a sub forum about legal discussion.

Finnbar01

k_mac wrote: »

You're right it doesn't say it in the article. I dont drink alcohol and I think its one of the biggest problem causers in this country so it wouldn't bother me if it was banned.

Banning it though wouldn't make the problems that alcohol cause go away. They'd still be with us,

You're right. It was his choice. And all his victims paid the price for him being able to make that choice. So does his right to drink and take drugs take precedence over their right to life?

People make choices everyday that affects the lives of others and no, drug taking doesn't take precedence over other peoples right to life.

Not to the victim.

An assault is an assault regardless of whether it's done by someone high or sober.

FreudianSlippers

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Oisin I am sure that, although it is not what this thread is about, that a discussion about the legalisation of narcotics does have a place in a sub forum about legal discussion.

I disagree - it's a legislative topic and this is a judicial forum.

Mark27

So if i opened up a shop tomorrow and started selling bottles of liquid alloy wheel cleaner. That also happened to contain GBL (liquid Ecstacy or something similar) and had 'for motor use only, not for human consumpation' could they shut me down?

BogMonkey

OisinT wrote: »

Again the substances must cross the blood-brain barrier chemically. The examples cited thus far are not agents which chemically cross the BBB

Ah right, thats a fair bit more reasonable but this law is still quite ridiculous. Chocolate is now an illegal substance as it contains theobromine, a known psychoactive compound capable of crossing the BBB:

Caffeine and theobromine are now known to cross the placental and blood brain barrier thus potentially inducing fetal malformation by affecting the expression of genes vital in development.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2j423713174l315/

Off the top of my head parsley, nutmeg, fennel, thyme and dill are all illegal herbs and vegetables now. I bet a number of psychoactive compounds can be found in Irish stew, the national dish of Ireland. Pepper in the gravy for example contains piperine and chavicine, mildly psychoactive compounds with structural similarities to the piperazines (a class of compounds which BZP is a part of).

Mark27 wrote: »

So if i opened up a shop tomorrow and started selling bottles of liquid alloy wheel cleaner. That also happened to contain GBL (liquid Ecstacy or something similar) and had 'for motor use only, not for human consumpation' could they shut me down?

I don't think so. Companies selling superglue can't be shut down simply because some people sniff glue. I don't think so anyway but the way things are going at the moment I wouldn't be surprised.