Why where ALL headshops products banned?

CorkMan

I took some party pills from a headshop before, apparently they are the same as extasy. I got more sociable and talked to people who I normally wouldn't talk to. I later found out they are/almost very are the exact same as extacy only stronger. (I never once got drugs from a dealer, but I heard from a classmate extacy pills are very weak compared to before)

TBH I got a bit of a buzz alright, but that is all. I took 2 tablets around 6 months apart, they are not something that would "destroy lives". They are far from addictive, and they give you "something" that is different from having to intake Alcohol. There was no big withdrawals or anything, I am shocked TBH that they were banned, "The 2nd coming of Satan" they were portrayed as.

And TBH a lot of peoples sole argument for banning them is "people take them with other stuff and that is very bad". Well if people drank alcohol with paracetamol, anti-depressants, or the vast majority of medications then alcohol would be banned due to the casualties from mixing alcohol with these medications. The critics "they're fine by themselves, but terrible when mixed with "some other stuff", ban it all. We can't have our society being destroyed by these wretchets".

7sr2z3fely84g5

Putting dealers out of business.
Snobs children where taking them.

Do the snobs and media care when a junkie dies...no...

Temptamperu

Drugs legal or no are not the monster under the bed the media would portrya them as.
Used correctly and not abused most drugs are about as harmful as alcohol which is pretty harmful. But its not for some politician or corporate police man to tell me what to do with my body.

LighterGuy

See, the topic of headshops is a varied argument. With lots of points made.

For me, I dont do drugs. But if some person wants to ... its their choice. Their life. I dont have an issue. But i've never actually thought of the whole headshop debate before (obviously not being interested in it)

So look at the pros and cons.

pros:
- Allows people to buy and take what they want. we are all adults after all. Sure as long as "over 18s" is enforced. A persons choice.

cons:
- We are making drug dealers legit.
- Alot of negitives can come from this, people can legally be spaced out of their head. Which in turn could increase crime and violence.

Im sure there are other things... its not so straight forward.

mackg

CorkMan wrote: »

I took some party pills from a headshop before, apparently they are the same as extasy. I got more sociable and talked to people who I normally wouldn't talk to. I later found out they are/almost very are the exact same as extacy only stronger. (I never once got drugs from a dealer, but I heard from a classmate extacy pills are very weak compared to before)

TBH I got a bit of a buzz alright, but that is all. I took 2 tablets around 6 months apart, they are not something that would "destroy lives". They are far from addictive, and they give you "something" that is different from having to intake Alcohol. There was no big withdrawals or anything, I am shocked TBH that they were banned, "The 2nd coming of Satan" they were portrayed as.

And TBH a lot of peoples sole argument for banning them is "people take them with other stuff and that is very bad". Well if people drank alcohol with paracetamol, anti-depressants, or the vast majority of medications then alcohol would be banned due to the casualties from mixing alcohol with these medications. The critics "they're fine by themselves, but terrible when mixed with "some other stuff", ban it all. We can't have our society being destroyed by these wretchets".

Daaaayyyycent chats are way better than the stuff you used to get in the headshops. Also the more often you take it the worse the comedown same as anything, first times a freebie in this regard. Can you still get salvia or did they ban that too? That stuff is class.

AhSureTisGrand

LighterGuy wrote: »

We are making drug dealers legit.

How?

BOHtox

Alden Warm Handshake wrote: »

Putting dealers out of business.
Snobs children where taking them.

Do the snobs and media care when a junkie dies...no...[/QUOTE]

Winehouse is all over the news at the moment!

CorkMan

TBH I wouldn't ever want Heroin/Crack/Crystal Meth to be legalised, but they are in a different galaxy compared to the likes of weed, extacy.

AhSureTisGrand

BOHtox wrote: »

Alden Warm Handshake wrote: »

Putting dealers out of business.
Snobs children where taking them.

Do the snobs and media care when a junkie dies...no...[/QUOTE]

Winehouse is all over the news at the moment!

But she was a rich and famous junkie

GAAman

Because headshops would kill you and everyone you care about given half the chance.......

Forst it would be a brick to the head, then two bricks and then the whole fcukin shop lands on you!!!

:eek:

Or scaremongering

:rolleyes:

7sr2z3fely84g5

There was serious money to be made in it,famous case of €500,000 found in safe of shop that was burnt down-

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/firefighters-find-8364500000-in-head-shop-safe-2062798.html

Almost €500,000 in cash was discovered in a safe by Dublin Fire Brigade in the debris of a burnt-down Capel Street 'head shop', according to garda sources.

It is thought the cash was discovered in a basement of the building which was partly demolished after fire raged through it.

syklops

Temptamperu wrote: »

Drugs legal or no are not the monster under the bed the media would portrya them as.
Used correctly and not abused most drugs are about as harmful as alcohol which is pretty harmful. But its not for some politician or corporate police man to tell me what to do with my body.

I would agree with a lot of this, but, unfortunately, some dealers, cut their gear with stuff that is at best harmful, and at worst lethal to humans.

Friends of mine have died, from 'drug related injuries' when to be honest, they didnt die from the drugs, they died from poor quality control on what they took.

Some people like drugs. Some dont. Trying to get to a situation where no-one takes drugs is, like the war on drugs, a waste of time and money.

To be honest, if everyone adopted a mature attitude , they could give many drugs away for free for a lot less than they spend on drug prevention, and it would take money out of the pockets of other criminals.

xoxyx

Temptamperu wrote: »

Used correctly and not abused most drugs are about as harmful as alcohol which is pretty harmful.

I'll challenge you on this one!!! With respect to most drugs, (in the context we're talking about, as well as in the larger sphere), alcohol is much more harmful.

mackg

GAAman wrote: »

Because headshops would kill you and everyone you care about given half the chance.......

Forst it would be a brick to the head, then two bricks and then the whole fcukin shop lands on you!!!

:eek:

Or scaremongering

:rolleyes:

Headshops killed my father...and raped my mother:eek:

Logical Fallacy

CorkMan wrote: »

I took some party pills from a headshop before, apparently they are the same as extasy. I got more sociable and talked to people who I normally wouldn't talk to. I later found out they are/almost very are the exact same as extacy only stronger. (I never once got drugs from a dealer, but I heard from a classmate extacy pills are very weak compared to before)

TBH I got a bit of a buzz alright, but that is all. I took 2 tablets around 6 months apart, they are not something that would "destroy lives". They are far from addictive, and they give you "something" that is different from having to intake Alcohol. There was no big withdrawals or anything, I am shocked TBH that they were banned, "The 2nd coming of Satan" they were portrayed as.

And TBH a lot of peoples sole argument for banning them is "people take them with other stuff and that is very bad". Well if people drank alcohol with paracetamol, anti-depressants, or the vast majority of medications then alcohol would be banned due to the casualties from mixing alcohol with these medications. The critics "they're fine by themselves, but terrible when mixed with "some other stuff", ban it all. We can't have our society being destroyed by these wretchets".

Our Government has always been, and will always be, very emotionally reactive.

Just look at the current call to shut down remote access to voicemail because some hacking occurred in another country.

My name is URL

I'm glad they were shut down, and I'm pretty feckin liberal when it comes to ones freedom to choose what they put in their bodies.

The stuff sold in headshops is designed to get through various legal loopholes in laws that shouldn't really exist in the first place, not to ensure that the drug is as safe and effective as it should be.

Sticky_Fingers

LighterGuy wrote: »

pros:
- Allows people to buy and take what they want. we are all adults after all. Sure as long as "over 18s" is enforced. A persons choice.

cons:
- We are making drug dealers legit.
- Alot of negitives can come from this, people can legally be spaced out of their head. Which in turn could increase crime and violence.

Im sure there are other things... its not so straight forward.

As for making drug dealers legit (would you consider a publican a drug dealer, how about Mary down the corner shop who sells fags?) this is a positive since it takes the money out of the hands of scumbags who murder for market share. Headshops were hurting the scummers so they actively harnessed the owners which shows how effective they were in disrupting the illegal drug trade.

It's ironic that the Joe Duffy brigade and the illegal dealers were on the same side in this fight

starbelgrade

RTE basically brought about the political swing that saw the closing of headshops in Ireland... and the whole campaign was spearheaded by Joe Duffy & his horde of idiots - mostly uneducated dimwits from Dublin's working classes.

"Ah Joe... think of de childerins Joe"

Logical Fallacy

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm glad they were shut down, and I'm pretty feckin liberal when it comes to ones freedom to choose what they put in their bodies.

The stuff sold in headshops is designed to get through various legal loopholes in laws that shouldn't really exist in the first place, not to ensure that the drug is as safe and effective as it should be.

Pretty much, i'd much rather people take something that has been around for a long time than something just out of a ****ty lab in Asia somewhere.

El Weirdo

CorkMan wrote: »

apparently they are the same as extasy.

CorkMan wrote: »

I later found out they are/almost very are the exact same as extacy only stronger.

That's bollocks.

Logical Fallacy

Look, the only people who thing legal highs are the same as MDMA are people who have never done MDMA.

xoxyx

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm glad they were shut down, and I'm pretty feckin liberal when it comes to ones freedom to choose what they put in their bodies.

The stuff sold in headshops is designed to get through various legal loopholes in laws that shouldn't really exist in the first place, not to ensure that the drug is as safe and effective as it should be.

That's why they should have been legislated for, rather than banned. Banning headshops solved no problems - just shoved those problems under the rug.

LighterGuy

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

How?

:pac:
Ok. A head shop was a legal business. Before they got banned. Paying tax, employing people etc etc. Many headshops (not all) where owned / unofficially run by drug dealers. Think of it this way, why sell hash, coke etc illegally running the risk of going down when you can do it in a headshop legally. (of course it was herbal hash etc)

Some "shady characters" (drug dealers) invested money into creating these shops.

Problem for them was it got the attention of other shady drug dealers who had an "issue" with people choosing these shops over their business.

Richard Hillman

Because Its terrible, Joe.

Sticky_Fingers

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm glad they were shut down, and I'm pretty feckin liberal when it comes to ones freedom to choose what they put in their bodies.

The stuff sold in headshops is designed to get through various legal loopholes in laws that shouldn't really exist in the first place, not to ensure that the drug is as safe and effective as it should be.

Don't agree, the stuff in the headshops was muck for sure but it's not my place, or anyone elses for that matter, to tell another adult what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

I would ensure that the owners of the shops fully informed the customers concerning the health risks (or complete lack of knowledge of such) and then let them make up their own minds.

mackg

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Look, the only people who thing legal highs are the same as MDMA are people who have never done MDMA.

Mushrooms were the only thing in the headshops that were really that good and long lasting. Great way to spend a Sunday they were. Actually now that I mention it I think it's getting to that time of year...:)

Mickeroo

LighterGuy wrote: »

cons:
- We are making drug dealers legit.
- Alot of negitives can come from this, people can legally be spaced out of their head. Which in turn could increase crime and violence.

I don't see how being high would increase crime and violence. The only drug I've ever seen make people violent is alcohol.

Logical Fallacy

mackg wrote: »

Mushrooms were the only thing in the headshops that were really that good and long lasting. Great way to spend a Sunday they were. Actually now that I mention it I think it's getting to that time of year...:)

I was at a festival in the UK and i ran into this dude who had made his own caps with a mixture of MDMA and ground up mushrooms in them. I bought a few off him and waited till i was back in Ireland a few weeks and did them.

Best thing ever i have to say...that dude really new his **** and the ratio's of both we absolutely perfect.

starbelgrade

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I was at a festival in the UK and i ran into this dude who had made his own caps with a mixture of MDMA and ground up mushrooms in them.

That's nothing - I make all my own clothes, including shoes & boots from a mixture of heroin, speed & ground up coffee beans.

LighterGuy

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't see how being high would increase crime and violence. The only drug I've ever seen make people violent is alcohol.

for the record i am up for letting a person choosing to take drugs or not. their choice. I stand by it. Im just talking about another sides argument.

But as you say, alcohol? well ... it does. Not in everyone tho. Same as drugs I guess. Its just there is a stigma with heavy drugs ... people stealing etc. Obviously the government doesnt want to make legal a herbal version out of fears of the same outcome.

Logical Fallacy

starbelgrade wrote: »

That's nothing - I make all my own clothes, including shoes & boots from a mixture of heroin, speed & ground up coffee beans.

Can't see that mixture making a superior boot...sound like the kind of thing that would fall apart in the rain.

Do you use a kind of varnish on them?

My name is URL

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Don't agree, the stuff in the headshops was muck for sure but it's not my place, or anyone elses for that matter, to tell another adult what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

I would ensure that the owners of the shops fully informed the customers concerning the health risks (or complete lack of knowledge of such) and then let them make up their own minds.

The thing is though, that the stuff goes through a whole chain of supply without anyone really knowing for sure the effect that it might have on people because there is so little regulation, so it would be near impossible for a shop to genuinely inform customers about the dangers. And completely impossible to enforce a rule which is based on virtually nothing.

I'm all for the legalisation of stuff that has been scientifically tested and has had its adverse effects recorded and reported. I wouldn't go into a pharmacy and expect all of the drugs to be available without any documentation or assurance that the stuff was safe to ingest. It would be completely irresponsible for any business to operate like that, and would lead to even more irresponsibility. People should be responsible.. that means making informed decisions about things.

Laisurg

The main reason that headshops were banned was that a lot of teenagers were taking their products, one of my cousins took quite a bit of their stuff when he was 15 (he's perfectly fine and it never did him any harm) and he managed to go in and buy it in a few of their shops and wasn't asked for any id and he did not look 18 at all or even 16 for that matter i went with him once and saw this first hand (this was a fair few years ago and i was 17 at the time so i didn't really care).

The stuff was also not really tested to see if it was safe as far as i know so that sets off alarm bells for a lot of people and rightly so, i don't think it should of been completely banned but if the shops had been run slightly better they may not have been shut down.

That synthetic weed they sold was bloody strong as well, far stronger than any weed I've smoked to this day, I still have no idea though if it was completely safe or not, although it's not really comparable to cannabis as it felt very different than being stoned.

starbelgrade

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Can't see that mixture making a superior boot...sound like the kind of thing that would fall apart in the rain.

Do you use a kind of varnish on them?

No. I just avoid going out when it rains.

Temptamperu

My name is URL wrote: »

The thing is though, that the stuff goes through a whole chain of supply without anyone really knowing for sure the effect that it might have on people because there is so little regulation, so it would be near impossible for a shop to genuinely inform customers about the dangers. And completely impossible to enforce a rule which is based on virtually nothing.

I'm all for the legalisation of stuff that has been scientifically tested and has had its adverse effects recorded and reported. I wouldn't go into a pharmacy and expect all of the drugs to be available without any documentation or assurance that the stuff was safe to ingest. It would be completely irresponsible for any business to operate like that, and would lead to even more irresponsibility. People should be responsible.. that means making informed decisions about things.

And yet the pharmicuticule companies get around laws everyday and not a word is said. My chemist cant tell me that my medication causes diabetes because they dont know what they are giving me. Its true that these headshops had no Health and safety section but thats whats needed in thes situations and that will only come with legalisation.

El_Drago

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Look, the only people who thing legal highs are the same as MDMA are people who have never done MDMA.

In many cases they could be far worse.

For example,the difference between MDMA and MDA,an MDMA metabolite,is a carbon and 3 hydrogen atoms.MDA can itself be taken as a drug and is far more potent than MDMA and is directly toxic to the neurons in the brain.The point is that a very subtle difference to the chemical structure can both significantly enhance a substances potency and increase its toxicology profile.Altering the chemical structure slightly is precisely how these legal highs are made legal.

Another example off the top of my head is codeine,morphine and heroin.Although all 3 are remarkably similar in structure and target the exact same receptor to mediate their effects,they have very different addictive and analgesic (painkilling) profiles.

wonderfulname

OP - that was the medias spin on it, if you look into what was being sold in head shops, its pretty stupid that any of us were taking them. You're talking chemicals with mind altering effects that went through zero testing, had no method of report back on any side effects, and were so new that we have no concept of what the long term health consequences could be, that includes the cannabis substitutes, which contrary to what was on the back of the pack were not all natural.

You would have been considerably better off getting illegal highs, at least we know the pros and cons where they are concerned, at least if, god forbid, you wound up in hospital they would know what to do with you, they would have a fair idea of what you had ingested, even if it was down to something used to bulk up the end product, indeed if the illegal drug market were taken out of the hands of scum I could confidentially say that they are considerably safer than their alternatives.

starbelgrade

El_Drago wrote: »

In many cases they could be far worse.

For example,the difference between MDMA and MDA,an MDMA metabolite,is a carbon and 3 hydrogen atoms.MDA can itself be taken as a drug and is far more potent than MDMA and is directly toxic to the neurons in the brain.The point is that a very subtle difference to the chemical structure can both significantly enhance a substances potency and increase its toxicology profile.Altering the chemical structure slightly is precisely how these legal highs are made legal.

Another example off the top of my head is codeine,morphine and heroin.Although all 3 are remarkably similar in structure and target the exact same receptor to mediate their effects,they have very different addictive and analgesic (painkilling) profiles.

Digging the science bit dude!

mackg

<snip>

Sticky_Fingers

My name is URL wrote: »

The thing is though, that the stuff goes through a whole chain of supply without anyone really knowing for sure the effect that it might have on people because there is so little regulation, so it would be near impossible for a shop to genuinely inform customers about the dangers. And completely impossible to enforce a rule which is based on virtually nothing.

If there is no information available to provide then this should be told to the customer. As long as they are fully aware that they are taking a completely untested substance and are willing to effectively become guinea pigs then thats their informed choice.

Of course all this would be moot if the government would stop being such a bunch of chicken sh1ts and nanny staters and let people have access to the real stuff.

El_Drago

Temptamperu wrote: »

And yet the pharmicuticule companies get around laws everyday and not a word is said. My chemist cant tell me that my medication causes diabetes because they dont know what they are giving me. Its true that these headshops had no Health and safety section but thats whats needed in thes situations and that will only come with legalisation.

If you mean that you're chemist can't tell you that your medication "doesn't" cause diabetes then you're right,no they can't.However, what you're chemist can guarantee is that your medicine underwent approx. 12 years of rigorous testing before it was even eligible to be approved by the Irish Medicines Board.More than can be said for any legal high.

Mickeroo

LighterGuy wrote: »

Its just there is a stigma with heavy drugs ... people stealing etc. Obviously the government doesnt want to make legal a herbal version out of fears of the same outcome.

You couldn't get versions of any of the hard drugs as far as I know. Ecstasy's not a class-A drug, it wasn't like there was synthesised versions of crack or heroin onsale and certainly nothing addictive to my knowledge. I can also assure you none of the drugs in those places were herbal, usually a cocktail of chemicals.

Quite frankly they'd be much better off selling the real stuff than that crap, at least the effects of the likes of MDMA and that are well researched.

Mickeroo

mackg wrote: »

:eek: This sounds rather interesting, I will have to look into it further. Never thought of mixing mushrooms with other stuff. Did you take them all in one go at the start like you would with mushies or did you take them gradually 1 by one or 2 by 2 like with e?

Lads I wouldn't talk so openly about that stuff on a public website for all to see. Just sayin....:pac:

Temptamperu

El_Drago wrote: »

If you mean that you're chemist can't tell you that your medication "doesn't" cause diabetes then you're right,no they can't.However, what you're chemist can guarantee is that your medicine underwent approx. 12 years of rigorous testing before it was even eligible to be approved by the Irish Medicines Board.More than can be said for any legal high.

Bollox if any medication went on as much trial as marijuana it would all be illegal. have you never read the list of side effects that comes with prescribed medication it dosent come close to some of the illegals out there.

Sticky_Fingers

Mickeroo wrote: »

You couldn't get versions of any of the hard drugs as far as I know. Ecstasy's not a class-A drug, it wasn't like there was synthesised versions of crack or heroin onsale and certainly nothing addictive to my knowledge. I can also assure you none of the drugs in those places were herbal, usually a cocktail of chemicals.

Quite frankly they'd be much better off selling the real stuff than that crap, at least the effects of the likes of MDMA and that are well researched.

You can synthesis a heroin analogue called krokodil, truly horrific stuff.
Link to thread here

Mickeroo

Temptamperu wrote: »

Bollox if any medication went on as much trial as marijuana it would all be illegal. have you never read the list of side effects that comes with prescribed medication it dosent come close to some of the illegals out there.

Pretty sure that's why it's prescribed though, and it's usually possible side effects not definite. If they get rid of your ailment whats the big deal anyway?

mackg

El_Drago wrote: »

In many cases they could be far worse.

For example,the difference between MDMA and MDA,an MDMA metabolite,is a carbon and 3 hydrogen atoms.MDA can itself be taken as a drug and is far more potent than MDMA and is directly toxic to the neurons in the brain.The point is that a very subtle difference to the chemical structure can both significantly enhance a substances potency and increase its toxicology profile.Altering the chemical structure slightly is precisely how these legal highs are made legal.

Another example off the top of my head is codeine,morphine and heroin.Although all 3 are remarkably similar in structure and target the exact same receptor to mediate their effects,they have very different addictive and analgesic (painkilling) profiles.

The compound that was used in the legal pills was BZP 1 benzylpiperazine
or other compounds of the same family. They didn't get around the laws in the way you mentioned although what you said is bang on. Legalisation and control are the best way to get rid of scumbag dealers and dodgy cut with drain cleaner drugs.

Edited to remove stupidity

El_Drago

Temptamperu wrote: »

Bollox if any medication went on as much trial as marijuana it would all be illegal. have you never read the list of side effects that comes with prescribed medication it dosent come close to some of the illegals out there.

Could you clarify the bit in bold?Are you trying to say that the side effects of prescribed medication are far less than illegal drugs?
There isn't a medication out there that doesn't have side effects.For a drug to get approved it's about the balance being tipped in favour of improving the patients' condition rather than making it worse.For example, a cancer patient wouldn't think twice about taking medication that would improve their chances of survival if dizzyness was the most serious listed side effect.Yet,not many people would take medication for anything if it was carcinogenic,not that it would be approved either.

Buceph

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ecstasy's not a class-A drug,

You are correct. Ecstasy is not a "class-A" drug. In fact no drugs in Ireland are. As far as the law goes all drugs are as illegal as each other (until you start getting into medications.) I think only cannabis has a different status, and that's only a recommendation on sentencing.

Mickeroo

Buceph wrote: »

You are correct. Ecstasy is not a "class-A" drug. In fact no drugs in Ireland are. As far as the law goes all drugs are as illegal as each other (until you start getting into medications.) I think only cannabis has a different status, and that's only a recommendation on sentencing.

Thought that was a world wide thing!

Didn't they also pass something recently where people entering the country with possesion of medicinal marijuana were now allowed to keep it?

Temptamperu

El_Drago wrote: »

Could you clarify the bit in bold?Are you trying to say that the side effects of prescribed medication are far less than illegal drugs?
There isn't a medication out there that doesn't have side effects.For a drug to get approved it's about the balance being tipped in favour of improving the patients' condition rather than making it worse.For example, a cancer patient wouldn't think twice about taking medication that would improve their chances of survival if dizzyness was the most serious listed side effect.Yet,not many people would take medication for anything if it was carcinogenic,not that it would be approved either.

But Dizzyness isnt the only side effect you see the side effects on any cancer patient. They look like corpses not because the cancer but the cure if thats what you can call it.