another fine job done Mary Harney and D Ahern!!

Elevator

it's a bit late cryin about it now but the following is very interesting indeed

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/docs-warn-headshop-ban-has-little-effect-2297957.html

for those on the dog n bone

By Terence Cosgrave
Sunday August 15 2010
There has been a huge increase in hospital admissions due to 'head shop' drugs, sold since the stores were banned.
The situation has deteriorated so much since the ban that doctors working in the HSE's methadone programme to manage opiate addiction have issued a warning that these drugs can prove more dangerous than what one HSE methadone programme doctor called "ordinary decent heroin".
The banned products can lead to serious physical problems such as cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), mental problems including paranoia, and even full-blown psychotic episodes.
Another specialist, Dr Colin O'Gara, a consultant psychiatrist working in addiction services at St John of God Hospital in Dublin, says the advent of the drugs caused serious problems, but the recent ban on head shops hasn't even reducing the problem.
"Five years ago, cocaine was 100 per cent of the problem, but now it's 50 per cent, with the rest being made up of head-shop drugs such as methadrone.
"We are about where we were before -- dealing with a serious volume."
It means that rather than destroying the market for drugs previously sold in the shops -- as was hoped for by Health Minister Mary Harney who introduced the ban -- the drugs have simply moved on to the black market.
And the danger they pose has increased because members of the public may take the drugs, without realising what they are taking, and can underestimate both the dose they can tolerate, and the effects the drug may have.
The warning that has been issued by doctors within the drugs service is headed 'Be careful -- advice to anyone using street drugs'.
It details how addiction service staff have become aware of serious physical and mental reactions suffered by drug users and that as far as they can determine, substances previously sold in head shops are now being used to cut drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
This has resulted in a number of people being treated in both medical and psychiatric units.
It urges anyone who uses drugs to be "extra cautious at this time" and to report any unusual reactions to addiction workers or their own doctors.
In addition, doctors say the net effect of the banning of drugs sold in head shops has meant that these drugs they have gone underground.
Also, they warned that new drugs that were concocted in China, are being sold in the shops and "even less is known about these substances and their effects".
The medical staff say the ban has not had the desired effect by a long shot, and they are bracing themselves for even more casualties and health emergencies, resulting from the continued abuse of such substances.

mrDerek

fat bitch

bazmaiden

inb4 call Joe

kylith

"It means that rather than destroying the market for drugs previously sold in the shops -- as was hoped for by Health Minister Mary Harney who introduced the ban -- the drugs have simply moved on to the black market."

Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, it's because of the dozens and dozens of people saying that exactly that would happen sodding MONTHS ago. Harney would do well to think logically, rather than bury her head in the sand. Sure, even the bloody cat knows what happens if you make things people want illegal: they get sold, unregulated, on the black market.

ejmaztec

In before "she's not bad looking for a fat bird".

Elevator

it's one sick joke that the dogs on the street knew this was going to happen when the ban was brought in

fuppin backstards!!

Terry

I don't see how Harney and Ahern are to blame for the idiocy of the average drug user.

MrDarcy

ejmaztec wrote: »

In before "she's not bad looking for a fat bird".

Isn't she suing Nell Mc Cafferty for saying on air that she was an, ... Ah doesn't matter...! :eek::eek::eek:

MrDarcy

Terry wrote: »

I don't see how Harney and Ahern are to blame for the idiocy of the average drug user.

+10, if you take drugs, the consequences of what happens then are down to you, not Harney or Ahern or anyone else, take some personal responsibility!

bleg

Drugs that are dangerous and lead to hospitalization made illegal.
People continue to take them.
Admissions due to Adverse drug reactions associated with these increase.


Weren't the pro legalisation group saying that these drugs are safe?

super_furry

Surely that backs up their argument for banning the sale of these drugs. If there causing such problems when they're banned, having them legal and freely available to anyone would be a worse situation.

Micky Dolenz

Personal abuse will result in infractions/bans.

kylith

bleg wrote: »

Drugs that are dangerous and lead to hospitalization made illegal.
People continue to take them.
Admissions due to Adverse drug reactions associated with these increase.


Weren't the pro legalisation group saying that these drugs are safe?

I don't recall anyone saying they were safe, just safer when legal.

They were made illegal overnight, and some headshops decided to sell their stock to dealers rather than take the financial loss. The dealers are now cutting them with who knows what or using them as filler with other substances without knowing how one drug will effect the other. Of course this makes them more dangerous. Alcohol, which is dangerous enough to start with, was a potential killer during the US's Prohibition era because it was made in an unregulated fashion.

Had the government not had such a knee-jerk reaction to these substances they could have been properly tested and treated accordingly; either with restrictions on sale, or with warnings about how 'these pills will make your balls fall off'.

Wertz

Funny, I'd been using "street drugs" for years and never been to A&E (for anything related)...

Never took any of the pseudo headshop stuff though ('cept salvia)...at least with the old school illegals (cocaine, speed, ecstasy, LSD), you knew what to expect...and so did the doctors if it came to that...sure, a lot of it was cut with crap and had the potential to kill you if you took too much....but at least you knew that...with analogue this and esters of that all nicely packaged and branded, no-one knows a f*ck how the body is going to react, to what are mostly industrial chemicals in varying concentrations.

I lay the blame for all this nonsense, the emergence of headshop highs included, at the continued insistence on prohibition of the "traditional" drugs, especially cannabis.

Not really fair* blaming Mary and Dermo though...it's the army of liveline idiots that goaded them into reactionary measures that are the real culprits here. People were told that other crap like naphyrone would emerge if they moved against mephedrone too quickly, ut no...if we ban them it all just goes away.

*Well, it is really.

Terry

kylith wrote: »

I don't recall anyone saying they were safe, just safer when legal.

They were made illegal overnight, and some headshops decided to sell their stock to dealers rather than take the financial loss. The dealers are now cutting them with who knows what or using them as filler with other substances without knowing how one drug will effect the other. Of course this makes them more dangerous. Alcohol, which is dangerous enough to start with, was a potential killer during the US's Prohibition era because it was made in an unregulated fashion.

Had the government not had such a knee-jerk reaction to these substances they could have been properly tested and treated accordingly; either with restrictions on sale, or with warnings about how 'these pills will make your balls fall off'.

Yeah, because all the warnings on alcohol and tobacco have led to lower usage.

PeterIanStaker

I'm sure the dealers in real drugs are delighted with Joe.

kylith

Terry wrote: »

Yeah, because all the warnings on alcohol and tobacco have led to lower usage.

Maybe, maybe not. The point is that with proper research you're forewarned of the dangers.

bleg

kylith wrote: »

I don't recall anyone saying they were safe, just safer when legal.

They were made illegal overnight, and some headshops decided to sell their stock to dealers rather than take the financial loss. The dealers are now cutting them with who knows what or using them as filler with other substances without knowing how one drug will effect the other. Of course this makes them more dangerous. Alcohol, which is dangerous enough to start with, was a potential killer during the US's Prohibition era because it was made in an unregulated fashion.

Had the government not had such a knee-jerk reaction to these substances they could have been properly tested and treated accordingly; either with restrictions on sale, or with warnings about how 'these pills will make your balls fall off'.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

The substances sold in headshops were unregulated and could be cut with anything. They were sold as bath salts and plant food, not for human consumption.

To keep these free from adulterants and ensure they are supplied correctly you would need quite a few systems put in place.

1. You would need an organisation that could oversee and inspect the production of these substances. Something similar to the IMB, however the IMB could not conduct this function as these products would not be medicinal.
2. You would need clear standards set for the production of these substances (something similar to the Eudralex http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex/index_en.htm).
3. You would need an organisation that oversees the safe supply and sale of these substances from approved stores. Something similar to the PSI.

All of this would require substantial funding. The only way to recoup this would be to increase the cost of the drugs. Increased cost would lead to illegal supply of these drugs via the internet or dealers making the whole system pointless.

Misanthrope

Who are we going to listen to here?Some Dr. O Gara with his fancy shmancy medical degree and scientifical codology, or names we can trust like Ahern and Harney.Who does O Gara think he is,disagreeing with the finest politicking minds in the country?We voted Mary Harney in, all proper democratical like.

If O Gara wants to crack the whip let him be on the ballot.I can't trust anyone who is not a politician.


God bless and protect Mary Harney.She's like our own Queen.

DarkJager

Maybe Mary should also have a look at the amount of drug seizures and drug related murders since the ban came in? For all the moral guardian bull**** the likes of liveline and the rest were forcing down our throats, I hope they now realise they got it dreadfully wrong. Nothing to do but laugh as we descend back in to good old Ireland.

F-Stop

Terry wrote: »

I don't see how Harney and Ahern are to blame for the idiocy of the average drug user.

I don't know about that, they drive me to drink. The idiocy part I don't know about, I never voted for them.

Prof.Badass

Terry wrote: »

I don't see how Harney and Ahern are to blame for the idiocy of the average drug user.

Not that I'm for cocaine use, but cocaine has been relatively* safe for decades. Now when people buy coke they could be getting this nasty headshop ****e aswell/instead.
If someone ends up in hospital due to snorting naphyrone when they thought it was cocaine, it's not entirely their own fault.
Especially when you consider how relatively benign adulterants used to be before these research chemicals came about.

On another note, I'm happy that people are back smoking weed instead of jwh-018.

*compared to some of the ****e being sold as "alternatives".

Terry

Misanthrope wrote: »

Who are we going to listen to here?Some Dr. O Gara with his fancy shmancy medical degree and scientifical codology, or names we can trust like Ahern and Harney.Who does O Gara think he is,disagreeing with the finest politicking minds in the country?We voted Mary Harney in, all proper democratical like.

If O Gara wants to crack the whip let him be on the ballot.I can't trust anyone who is not a politician.


God bless and protect Mary Harney.She's like our own Queen.

Did you read the quote properly, or did you just read the bits you wanted to see?

Another specialist, Dr Colin O'Gara, a consultant psychiatrist working in addiction services at St John of God Hospital in Dublin, says the advent of the drugs caused serious problems, but the recent ban on head shops hasn't even reducing the problem.

Just look over the emboldened part again (ignoring the grammatical error).

Terry

DarkJager wrote: »

Maybe Mary should also have a look at the amount of drug seizures and drug related murders since the ban came in? For all the moral guardian bull**** the likes of liveline and the rest were forcing down our throats, I hope they now realise they got it dreadfully wrong. Nothing to do but laugh as we descend back in to good old Ireland.

Supply and demand.

If people were to obey the laws of the land, and not ring their local, friendly dealer for their weekly fix, then perhaps there would be less people being shot.
But let's just blame the government for people not being able to be self-indulgent, and not being able to have some self control.

F-Stop wrote: »

I don't know about that, they drive me to drink. The idiocy part I don't know about, I never voted for them.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get what you are saying here.

---

I have to laugh. You have people calling drug addicts the scum of the earth, but then the same people are constantly calling for certain, or all, drugs to be legalised.
Then the old alcohol prohibition argument comes out, completely ignoring the fact that, by dosage, all illegal drugs are more potent than alcohol. Yes, even cannabis (one joint will get you stoned. One alcohlic drink will not get you drunk).
This is followed by the yeah, but Ireland is full of alcoholics. This isn't fair. I just want to get stoned argument. If you want to get stoned on a regular basis, then perhaps you have a problem and you should go to see an addiction councillor.
But cannabis is not addictive. It's psychologically addictive. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Up next is the taxation and regulation argument. More self-indulgent and can't see beyond your own selfishness crap.
Firstly, just like alcohol and tobacco, the government would tax other drugs to the hilt. Don't be so deluded as to think otherwise. Regulation can be bypassed. How many of you were able to get cans of beer when you were 15? I'd imagine that 100% of people who drank at that age didn't have much of a problem getting their naggin, flagon, 6 pack or alcopops. Do you honestly believe that there are people who would not go and buy some legal heroin/ E/ weed/ coke or whatever, and then cut it before selling it on?

Hard drugs are illegal for a reason. That reason is because they are far more potent than alcohol and tobacco. Most of them are far more addictive than alcohol. They can all, just like alcohol, cause psychotic episodes.
The pro-legalisation sites that many of seem so fond of only tell one side of the story. Do yourselves a favour and read both sides of the argument.

Terry

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Not that I'm for cocaine use, but cocaine has been relatively* safe for decades. Now when people buy coke they could be getting this nasty headshop ****e aswell/instead.
If someone ends up in hospital due to snorting naphyrone when they thought it was cocaine, it's not entirely their own fault.
Especially when you consider how relatively benign adulterants used to be before these research chemicals came about.

On another note, I'm happy that people are back smoking weed instead of jwh-018.

*compared to some of the ****e being sold as "alternatives".

It's their fault for being so stupid as to buy crap from some scumbag, and breaking the law in the process.

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

Supply and demand.

If people were to obey the laws of the land, and not ring their local, friendly dealer for their weekly fix, then perhaps there would be less people being shot.

Yes, demand.

The people are demanding alternative drugs. And you can't beat the people as they said of the Vietnamese when they fought for freedom.

I have to laugh. You have people calling drug addicts the scum of the earth, but then the same people are constantly calling for certain, or all, drugs to be legalised.

Some do, some don't.

Then the old alcohol prohibition argument comes out, completely ignoring the fact that, by dosage, all illegal drugs are more potent than alcohol. Yes, even cannabis (one joint will get you stoned. One alcohlic drink will not get you drunk).

I don't drink a whole lot. I can certainly feel the effects of one pint.

This is followed by the yeah, but Ireland is full of alcoholics. This isn't fair. I just want to get stoned argument. If you want to get stoned on a regular basis, then perhaps you have a problem and you should go to see an addiction councillor.

I get stoned on a regular basis. I live in Amsterdam where I frequent coffeeshops and see a lot of other people get stoned on a regular basis. Fully functioning adults, most of them. Why do I need to see a councillor?

But cannabis is not addictive. It's psychologically addictive. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Correct. And if psychological addiction is to be a basis for making things illegal then gambling, shopping for things you don't need, the internet etc. will have to be made illegal.

Up next is the taxation and regulation argument. More self-indulgent and can't see beyond your own selfishness crap.
Firstly, just like alcohol and tobacco, the government would tax other drugs to the hilt. Don't be so deluded as to think otherwise.

Well, of course. Instead of spending money on policing/incarceration etc. they'll make money on taxing it. That's an argument in favour, surely?

Regulation can be bypassed. How many of you were able to get cans of beer when you were 15? I'd imagine that 100% of people who drank at that age didn't have much of a problem getting their naggin, flagon, 6 pack or alcopops.

I'd imagine most kids can get their hands on any drug they want these days anyway, if they wanted them, their current illegality notwithstanding.

Do you honestly believe that there are people who would not go and buy some legal heroin/ E/ weed/ coke or whatever, and then cut it before selling it on?

Probably.

Hard drugs are illegal for a reason. That reason is because they are far more potent than alcohol and tobacco. Most of them are far more addictive than alcohol. They can all, just like alcohol, cause psychotic episodes.

And while drugs continue to be illegal the dealers keep coming up with more and more potent variations; crack/crystal meth/super strength skunk, which do cause problems and only serve to fuel the cause for prohibition thus ensuring the vicious cycle continues.

The pro-legalisation sites that many of seem so fond of only tell one side of the story.

Do yourselves a favour and read both sides of the argument.

Most people that take drugs have seen both sides of the story yet are still in favour of legalisation of either some or all drugs.

Wertz

Terry wrote: »

(one joint will get you stoned. One alcohlic drink will not get you drunk).

Bullsh*t.

One joint might get you "stoned"....but then several joints get you stoned.
Like one pint might get you tipsy...but several might make you drunk.

You know the big difference there? No matter how much someone's had to smoke, they can still get up and go to work the next morning (when there's work to go to)...on the other hand how much time and productivity in the workplace are lost in this country every year by people pulling sickies, sleeping in the jacks at work or geenerally doing as little as they can with their massive hangovers and comparing notes on how sh*t faced they were last night. I know I missed my share in my younger days.


Terry you have a prejudice against anyone that can't see it from your narrow "I love drink, drink should be enough for anyone" attitude....and this nonsense about something being illegal being oh so wrong simply because it's illegal is delusional.
What difference is there in someone wanting to alter their mind with one substance, over someone wanting to alter their mind with another?

We're just treading old ground here, not getting anywhere...a lot like our collective drug policies...

Terry wrote:

Do you honestly believe that there are people who would not go and buy some legal heroin/ E/ weed/ coke or whatever, and then cut it before selling it on?

You see that bit I actually agree with you on...which is why you go town on anyone caught doing it...
Legalistation would be fraught with problems....but the current system is fraught with probelms, is costing millions and is having f*ck all effect, or at least not the one that those in power think it is...

starbelgrade

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Not that I'm for cocaine use, but cocaine has been relatively* safe for decades. Now when people buy coke they could be getting this nasty headshop ****e aswell/instead.


On another note, I'm happy that people are back smoking weed instead of jwh-018.

*compared to some of the ****e being sold as "alternatives".

Coke has been cut with all sorts of nasty sh*t since it's introduction in Ireland. It is almost impossible to get pure cocaine unless you are very close to one of the main dealers in the country (or hide it up your ass on a trip back from Columbia).

A lot of the grass here is also sprayed with glass particles to give it more weight & make it look crystalised, though relatively speaking, this is fairly harmless.

There was an opportunity with the headshops to provide safe, legal alternatives to street drugs, but it wasn't taken.

Personally, I'd rather see the lot decriminalised, but the blanket ban of headshop products was just another step backwards for our drugs policies.

Misanthrope

Terry wrote: »

Did you read the quote properly, or did you just read the bits you wanted to see?



Just look over the emboldened part again (ignoring the grammatical error).

He said the head shop ban wasn't working.I would construe that as a critique of the ban.Do you think he's backing them up?As a friend of the man I have a pretty good idea what he thinks about this,hence my tongue in cheek response.

Maybe you need to have a read back.

Elevator

I don't drink musc either and can back up the previous poster that one pint can definately hit me good

also one pint is enough to have you over the limit to drive safely

Terry

King Felix wrote: »

Yes, demand.

The people are demanding alternative drugs. And you can't beat the people as they said of the Vietnamese when they fought for freedom.


Some do, some don't.
I don't drink a whole lot. I can certainly feel the effects of one pint.
I get stoned on a regular basis. I live in Amsterdam where I frequent coffeeshops and see a lot of other people get stoned on a regular basis. Fully functioning adults, most of them. Why do I need to see a councillor?
Correct. And if psychological addiction is to be a basis for making things illegal then gambling, shopping for things you don't need, the internet etc. will have to be made illegal.

Well, of course. Instead of spending money on policing/incarceration etc. they'll make money on taxing it. That's an argument in favour, surely?I'd imagine most kids can get their hands on any drug they want these days anyway, if they wanted them, their current illegality notwithstanding. Probably.

And while drugs continue to be illegal the dealers keep coming up with more and more potent variations; crack/crystal meth/super strength skunk, which do cause problems and only serve to fuel the cause for prohibition thus ensuring the vicious cycle continues.
Most people that take drugs have seen both sides of the story yet are still in favour of legalisation of either some or all drugs.

Denial and diversion in every counter argument there.

Wertz wrote: »

Bullsh*t.

One joint might get you "stoned"....but then several joints get you stoned.
Like one pint might get you tipsy...but several might make you drunk.

You know the big difference there? No matter how much someone's had to smoke, they can still get up and go to work the next morning (when there's work to go to)...on the other hand how much time and productivity in the workplace are lost in this country every year by people pulling sickies, sleeping in the jacks at work or geenerally doing as little as they can with their massive hangovers and comparing notes on how sh*t faced they were last night. I know I missed my share in my younger days.


Terry you have a prejudice against anyone that can't see it from your narrow "I love drink, drink should be enough for anyone" attitude....and this nonsense about something being illegal being oh so wrong simply because it's illegal is delusional.
What difference is there in someone wanting to alter their mind with one substance, over someone wanting to alter their mind with another?

We're just treading old ground here, not getting anywhere...a lot like our collective drug policies...

More joints will get you higher.
Maybe one joint is enough for you. That's fair enough. However, most people will not stop at one joint.
Then there's the mixing it with alcohol or other drugs. Yeah, it happens, and it's not on a small scale either.

I remember drinking a flagon of cider when I was 17. Then I bumped into a friend and he rolled a joint. The mixture of the two made me puke. At the time I blamed the cider. I was too naive to realise that it was the combination of both which made me sick. Much like mixing drinks will make you sick or give you a worse hangover than you would normally have. Then again, that's over-indulgence. Something that anyone using any form of drug will quite regularly do.

Now you can live in denial all you want, but you and I, and most other rational and sane people, know that cannabis is far more potent than alcohol.

If one drink has more of an effect on you than one joint, then perhaps you are smoking too much weed. Just as much as anyone who needs more than Two or Three drinks to get a buzz is over indulging in alcohol.