Head Shop Fire

Herbal Deity · 14-02-2010 2:21am

penguin88 wrote: »

Ah, takes me back to my leaving cert days in chemistry and physics: mind your units!

0.789 g/ml * 25 ml = ~20 g

So 1g of alcohol would be equivalent to drinking 25 ml of your 5% can.

Eeep. That was a rather royal fúck up

penguin88 wrote: »

Not really. Dilution just makes it harder to take enough of whatever to have an effect. It's all about the potency of the actual active component.

I disagree. It's all about potency versus dilution.

Even taking into account my mistake above, you could drink 10 cans worth of beer by drinking 250ml of pure ethanol - that's half a can.

Yes, it would be horrible to ingest, but there are ways around that such as Alcohol Without Liquid. Or even the more conventional, knocking back 40% shots.

Alcohol is traditionally ingested in highly diluted solutions relative to its potency. Other drugs are not, and I think this is a reason why they are feared by many (and also why you get people admitted to hospital after ingesting what would seem like a very small amount to the average person who doesn't think about potency (i.e. one pill hospitalising someone is pretty shocking))

penguin88 wrote: »

It certainly could be. The sugary drink definitely would be useful to combat the dehydrating and salt depleting effect of MDMA. Do you mean accepted by society? I'd suspect it wouldn't be accepted by a lot of people who take it though, the same people who might stack ecstasy tabs. It's going to take longer to get the desired effect and if they do normally take 2/3 tablets, you're talking about 4-7 litres of fluid.

Well, take into account that a reason why people take 2/3 tablets as opposed to one is due to low quality in an unregulated market.

rubadub · 14-02-2010 2:30am

penguin88 wrote: »

1. The products sold in a pub are all highly regulated (as well as the public house itself), the same cannot be said for headshops.

The drugs in both are legal, I would not describe pubs as being highly regulated. Most commercial spirits are very poor quality containing lots of compounds other than ethanol due to poor distillation techniques which is legally tolerated and easily improved, and of course the drug is medically regarded as a poison. I see no attempt to restrict people to the usual doctors recommended dose of 1-2pints max, surely this should be enforced, like they restrict paracetamol sales.

penguin88 wrote: »

2. All products sold in a pub are labelled accurately with their contents

They certainly are not! alcohol products are exempt from nutritional labelling.

penguin88 wrote: »

3. The potency of products sold in the two places are very different and so they have different dangers associated with them.

So would you be happier if all psychoactive drugs had to be diluted or bulked out to a similar level? What about drugs people buy to combat the comedown effects of the drugs, e.g. people abusing solpadeine to overcome the comedown effects of ethanol. If this was in place people might not abuse the primary drug to the same degree in the first place.

So your main point is one sells regulated drugs, and the other sells legal drugs some of which are not yet regulated. I would not describe that as "very different entities", I would say they are very similar.

penguin88 wrote: »

Well actually in my opinion the biggest difference between them is why there is no definition.

There is no definition because it would expose the surreal irrational hypocrisy of the whole thing. I find it interesting that you never used the word drug at all. I find many people get quite upset when they are branded drug users -this would be people who abuse/use alcohol/nicotine/caffeine, most other drug users have no real issue with the term, I find the hypocrisy amusing & sadly pathetic.

Any definition I can imagine would mean the majority of supermarkets would fall under it, as would hardware shops and lots of others. So people refuse to give a definition just like you refused to.

Kurtosis · 14-02-2010 2:41am

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Eeep. That was a rather royal fúck up

Hehe, sorry for pulling you up on it!

I disagree. It's all about potency versus dilution.

Even taking into account my mistake above, you could drink 10 cans worth of beer by drinking 250ml of pure ethanol - that's half a can.

Yes, it would be horrible to ingest, but there are ways around that such as Alcohol Without Liquid. Or even the more conventional, knocking back 40% shots.

Alcohol is traditionally ingested in highly diluted solutions relative to its potency. Other drugs are not, and I think this is a reason why they are feared by many (and also why you get people admitted to hospital after ingesting what would seem like a very small amount to the average person who doesn't think about potency (i.e. one pill hospitalising someone is pretty shocking))

I'd have said other drugs are diluted relative to their own potency as well, just maybe not to the same degree. I'm gonna take the extreme example here of a spirit (40 %) so you're talking 40 ml of pure ethanol in 100ml of drink. I just did a random google for average ecstasy tablet content and got this, the average tablet they analysed was 250 mg with an average content of ~78 mg, so that's ~31 % concentration. Obviously that's just one study, I'm sure tablet weight and content of MDMA can vary hugely, but the dilution isn't a million miles away from alcohol.

My point about potency was really that the dangers of drugs that can be fatal in overdose are related to their potency. Talking about pure, undiluted compounds, it's going to be far easier to take an overdose of something that is of high potency than something that is of low potency - as in 1 g of a powder vs 250 ml of liquid.

Well, take into account that a reason why people take 2/3 tablets as opposed to one is due to low quality in an unregulated market.

Sure, I was oversimplifying it and not taking that into account. I was really just operating on the basis that there'd be maybe 70-100 mg of MDMA per tab. Even in that case, 2-3 tabs would still be a pretty high dose though.

Herbal Deity · 14-02-2010 2:55am

penguin88 wrote: »

I'd have said other drugs are diluted relative to their own potency as well, just maybe not to the same degree. I'm gonna take the extreme example here of a spirit (40 %) so you're talking 40 ml of pure ethanol in 100ml of drink. I just did a random google for average ecstasy tablet content and got this, the average tablet they analysed was 250 mg with an average content of ~78 mg, so that's ~31 % concentration. Obviously that's just one study, I'm sure tablet weight and content of MDMA can vary hugely, but the dilution isn't a million miles away from alcohol.

The dilution based on mass/volume isn't, but the dilution based on potency is.

There's no accurate measure of "out-of-it-ness", but the fact is that alcohol comes on more slowly due to the way it is consumed.

It might seem crazy, but if you think about it, if MDMA was originally introduced as a very low dose pill, like 20mg or so, or even diluted in a drink like I said earlier, which people could take recreationally to become a little more happy and sociable, would people really fear it and be so vehemently against it?

I don't think it's strictly to do with it's natural potency, but rather the level of dilution and the culture surrounding its ingestion. The same is true of most recreational drugs bar alcohol.

Sea Sharp · 14-02-2010 3:08am

Two of my uncles died because of alcohol, (bad livers, It was a big family though.) Alcohol is a major drain on Irish society. The problems present because of alcohol should be taken into consideration in deciding if it's legal or illegal. If the same assessment was applied to alcohol as is on soft drugs alcohol would have to be made illegal.
There are risks involved with soft-drugs, alcohol and nicotine included.

Kurtosis · 14-02-2010 3:10am

rubadub wrote: »

The drugs in both are legal, I would not describe pubs as being highly regulated. Most commercial spirits are very poor quality containing lots of compounds other than ethanol due to poor distillation techniques which is legally tolerated and easily improved, and of course the drug is medically regarded as a poison. I see no attempt to restrict people to the usual doctors recommended dose of 1-2pints max, surely this should be enforced, like they restrict paracetamol sales.

Exactly, both sell things that are legal, but no limits/controls for headshops. By comparison pubs are highly regulated. They must be licensed, abide by the terms of their licence in terms of opening hours, they are only entitled to sell to certain people (over 18's, people who are not intoxicated). While these regulations are there, whether they are abided by/enforced is a whole other thing.

And I agree the plenty of marketed spirits (and beers!) are not of good quality, but as far as their contents goes, they will contain alcohol and at a known concentration. This is most definitely enforced (if only for Customs and Excise reasons!)

Sure, alcohol is both a drug and a poison, but all other drugs are also poisons (though they are no longer technically covered in the poisons legislation...). I guess the drawback with alcohol is it does not really have any useful therapeutic uses.

As for restricting people's alcohol consumption, as I mentioned there is a limit on sale of alcohol to intoxicated individuals but is not a factor in reality. Still nothing stopping you stockpiling alcohol (or paracetamol) and taking a lot. Taking it back to the headshops though, there is absolutely no attempt to restrict the consumption of those products.

They certainly are not! alcohol products are exempt from nutritional labelling.

Sorry, I worded my point badly in my last post. What I was trying to say was products in a pub are listed accurately with the content of their active component (i.e. alcohol). Headshop products rarely list any concentration or even what active compounds they contain (as they may just list for example, the plant source of the compound).

So would you be happier if all psychoactive drugs had to be diluted or bulked out to a similar level?

Nothing to do with me being happy! Was just stating a fact. As I said in a previous post to another poster, it is more than just diluting/bulking out a drug, a drug poses more of a danger the more potent it is.

What about drugs people buy to combat the comedown effects of the drugs, e.g. people abusing solpadeine to overcome the comedown effects of ethanol. If this was in place people might not abuse the primary drug to the same degree in the first place.

Sorry, I'm a bit tired so not really following what this above point relates to. Are you saying if solpadeine wasn't there, people might lay off the alcohol? Yeah, could be the case for some people. Interestingly, the sale of solpadeine and other codeine products is going to be subject to new guidelines affecting their sale later in the year.

So your main point is one sells regulated drugs, and the other sells legal drugs some of which are not yet regulated. I would not describe that as "very different entities", I would say they are very similar.

Pretty much. Main point is one is regulated, sells regulated products of known identity containing an active substance of low potency; the others are not regulated, sell non regulated products of unknown identity containing active substances at unknown concentrations and some of which are highly potent. Those are the differences I see.

There is no definition because it would expose the surreal irrational hypocrisy of the whole thing. I find it interesting that you never used the word drug at all. I find many people get quite upset when they are branded drug users -this would be people who abuse/use alcohol/nicotine/caffeine, most other drug users have no real issue with the term, I find the hypocrisy amusing & sadly pathetic.

Yes I didn't use the word drug to describe either alcohol or any of the substances contained in headshop products, I was more trying to stick to discussing things in terms of products. But they are all drugs of course, same as caffeine, nicotine, paracetamol etc, and I agree, anyone who uses any of them inappropriately is a drug misuser/abuser.

Any definition I can imagine would mean the majority of supermarkets would fall under it, as would hardware shops and lots of others. So people refuse to give a definition just like you refused to.

Sure a definition of a headshop itself may be difficult to come by, but as I suggested previously, a definition based on "any establishment selling any product containing compounds X, Y, Z...and their derivatives" would work. I suspect the controls that will be put on headshops will not be a case of banning headshops, but a larger framework of controlling the substances being sold in these places, regulating these products and regulating the establishments.

Kurtosis · 14-02-2010 3:25am

Herbal Deity wrote: »

The dilution based on mass/volume isn't, but the dilution based on potency is.

There's no accurate measure of "out-of-it-ness", but the fact is that alcohol comes on more slowly due to the way it is consumed.

True it's hard to assess the recreational effects of either alcohol or MDMA or other recreational drugs. The closest quantitative measure would be the LD50, the dose that would be lethal to 50% of people - it's used to assess the potency if all drugs, recreational and medicinal. I'm a bit tired to be looking for reliable figure but just googling again, (in rats) the LD50 of MDMA is in the region of 100-300 mg/kg while alcohol is about 10 g/kg, so up to 100 fold difference.

It might seem crazy, but if you think about it, if MDMA was originally introduced as a very low dose pill, like 20mg or so, or even diluted in a drink like I said earlier, which people could take recreationally to become a little more happy and sociable, would people really fear it and be so vehemently against it?

Maybe people would not be so against it. As I said previously, don't know how the majority of people who take it would feel about it though.

I don't think it's strictly to do with it's natural potency, but rather the level of dilution and the culture surrounding its ingestion. The same is true of most recreational drugs bar alcohol.

Taking potency as an isolated factor for arguments sake (obviously in reality there are loads more factor at play!), the danger with a more potent drug is it's easier to take an overdose, just down to pure bulk of substance. No accurate values but going on the above numbers, it's much easier to accidently take 1g of high potency drug leading to an OD than taking 100g of a lower potency drug by accident.

bonerm · 14-02-2010 10:42am

penguin88 wrote: »

...pubs and headshops are very different entities.

Yeah you're right. Headshots (theoretically) don't sell drugs.

Dempo1 · 14-02-2010 11:08am

Whatever the opinions on these business they seem to be very Lucrative, i see in todays independent the fire brigade found €500k in the safe of this particular shop, I can predict "Talk to Joe" will have Field day with this breaking news on Monday, €500K, Jesus either they had a good weekend or the owner has little faith in our banks? (One wonders why)

yoshytoshy · 14-02-2010 12:04pm

Dempo1 wrote: »

€500K, Jesus either they had a good weekend or the owner has little faith in our banks? (One wonders why)

That just sounds like tax evasion ,if they don't lodge it ,no-one knows what they make.

Dempo1 · 14-02-2010 12:14pm

Hmmmm, it is a little suspicious alright, major department stores would be quite happy to have that much cash in their safe, an extraordinary amount of money to find in such a small shop. I don't suspect tax evasion, more like another activity, perhaps the owners should be in the laundry business, Hee Hee:D

xzanti · 14-02-2010 12:21pm

sounds like a job for Elliot Ness.....

rubadub · 14-02-2010 1:33pm

penguin88 wrote: »

And I agree the plenty of marketed spirits (and beers!) are not of good quality, but as far as their contents goes, they will contain alcohol and at a known concentration. This is most definitely enforced

It is the quality I was referring to, people are saying these party pill drugs are made in China with little quality control. Spirits have limits of what "non-ethanol" compounds can be in them but these rules allow poor quality! thats my point, it seems everybody is happy just once it is seemingly "highly regulated", even if those regulatory rules are very lax. It would be like me putting a law in place "all chicken in restaurants must be well cooked" and then saying it can be cooked in 20seconds.

http://homedistiller.org/methanol.htm

How dangerous are the various fusel oils ? I've got some of them listed below.
The ones with toxicity data listed are ...

* Methanol : usual fatal dose 100-250 mL
* 1-Pentanol : LD50 (rat) 3030 mg/kg
* 3-Pentanol : LD50 (rat) 1870 mg/kg

Compare this to the amounts present in distilled spirits. The data in Wheeler & Willmotts "Spirits unlimited - a complete guide to home distilling" gives :

* Home distilled spirit (untreated): methanol 0.0067%, ethanol 99.632%, fusils 0.361%
* Commercial vodka: methanol 0.013%, ethanol 99.507%, fusils 0.48%
* Poor quality home distilled spirit : methanol 0.0186%, ethanol 98.453%, and fusils 1.528%

If you're talking about untreated spirits as being dangerous, then to reach the LD50's that are published, you'd need to consume 149 L to be affected by the methanol, or for a 90kg bloke, about 58 L for the pentanol, from the "good" homemade stuff. That would be one hell of a session ! Even on their "poor quality" brew you'd need 11 L for the fusels. Stock standard pissed-as-a-newt high-school-student alcohol poisoning is the greater problem.

Now their "home distilled spirit" was at a time when their best design was only putting out roughly 75% pure ethanol. What's the story from like a Nixon-Stone or Euro doing 95%+ purity ?

So even the quality one is actually regarded as very poor quality by hobby distillers, they would also use sugar brews which contain only extremely bare traces of methanol, it would not even show up at those percentages. Skyy vodka is the only one I have heard who actively try and remove all cogeners, though they start with a brew which would be relatively high in methanol to begin with. With quality illegal spirits you simply do not get a congener related hangover, this is common knowledge on distillation sites and a sign that you have ran your still correctly.

penguin88 wrote: »

Are you saying if solpadeine wasn't there, people might lay off the alcohol?

Yes, I find it really odd how people go on about the horrendous comedown effects of some drugs, yet laugh off the extreme effects of a comedown of alcohol. If there were adverts on TV obviously selling their drug as a cure for a particular legal high there would be uproar -with booze nobody bats an eyelid, head firmly stuck in the sand.

penguin88 wrote: »

but all other drugs are also poisons

Not really, I am saying alcohol is primarily considered poisonous, many substances (e.g. water) will kill you in high enough doses but are not classed primarily as poisons. I have never heard THC or psilocybin described as poisons. If alcohol was never drank before and these shops started selling it can you imagine the media frenzy that would happen? People have one drink and smash their wives face in, they fall about and injure themselves, vomit everywhere, start fights, are out of work for days due to the comedown, they are drinking industrial degreaser etc. People just laugh all this off though -utter hypocrisy.

penguin88 wrote: »

I suspect the controls that will be put on headshops will not be a case of banning headshops, but a larger framework of controlling the substances being sold in these places, regulating these products and regulating the establishments.

It could only be a ban on products unless it is licenced in the way OTC drugs and alcohol are -in which case I expect it would be limited to pharmacies. People/media conveniently forget at one time cocaine was freely available OTC in dublin pharmacies, and that it was supposed to have very widespread use.

If they get to the stage of listing off compounds the compounds will probably be banned and so no shops will be selling them. People also do not realise some drugs on sale might already be regulated, like caffeine. I take one "legal high" which is fully intended for food use and undergoes strict quality control, I have never seen it on sale in any headshops here and hope I don't. The shops just turn to other legal highs, there are 1000's out there. If they were to list every substance with the potential for intoxication you would see many products disappearing from shops.

penguin88 wrote: »

The closest quantitative measure would be the LD50, the dose that would be lethal to 50% of people - it's used to assess the potency if all drugs, recreational and medicinal.

You can measure threshold or baseline amounts. I regularly would drink the LD50 of alcohol (about 15pints at my weight) and the LD50 of many drugs is ridiculously high, like THC & psilocybin. Many drugs are made illegal due to their "high potential for abuse", having a very high LD50 relative to recreational dose increases this potential for abuse (people feel safer taking it), therefore it is not surprising that many illegal drugs have a wide gap between the 2. Many doctors would consider amphetamine as a far safer recreational stimulant than caffeine, amphetamine was favoured by the military for the lack of side effects.

Kurtosis · 14-02-2010 2:34pm

rubadub wrote: »

It is the quality I was referring to, people are saying these party pill drugs are made in China with little quality control. Spirits have limits of what "non-ethanol" compounds can be in them but these rules allow poor quality! thats my point, it seems everybody is happy just once it is seemingly "highly regulated", even if those regulatory rules are very lax. It would be like me putting a law in place "all chicken in restaurants must be well cooked" and then saying it can be cooked in 20seconds.

http://homedistiller.org/methanol.htm

So even the quality one is actually regarded as very poor quality by hobby distillers, they would also use sugar brews which contain only extremely bare traces of methanol, it would not even show up at those percentages. Skyy vodka is the only one I have heard who actively try and remove all cogeners, though they start with a brew which would be relatively high in methanol to begin with. With quality illegal spirits you simply do not get a congener related hangover, this is common knowledge on distillation sites and a sign that you have ran your still correctly.

The point I was trying to make was just that you're looking at a regulated industry vs an unregulated industry. Even considering the above about the presence of other alcohols other than ethanol, compared to most of the legal highs on sale here, they would be highly regulated.

Your beer contains a known and stated concentration of ethanol. A legal high might state it contains "ketones" on the label...no concentration, no further explanation. It could pretty much contain anything, it really is a lucky dip.

Yes, I find it really odd how people go on about the horrendous comedown effects of some drugs, yet laugh off the extreme effects of a comedown of alcohol. If there were adverts on TV obviously selling their drug as a cure for a particular legal high there would be uproar -with booze nobody bats an eyelid, head firmly stuck in the sand.

You're taking it out of context though. No ads on TV saying "Buy solpadeine for all your hangover needs", it is not marketed for curing alcohol withdrawal even though many people might use it for that.

Not really, I am saying alcohol is primarily considered poisonous, many substances (e.g. water) will kill you in high enough doses but are not classed primarily as poisons. I have never heard THC or psilocybin described as poisons.

THC and psilocybin are two notable exceptions. Still though, any drug used inappropriately can be poisonous.

If alcohol was never drank before and these shops started selling it can you imagine the media frenzy that would happen? People have one drink and smash their wives face in, they fall about and injure themselves, vomit everywhere, start fights, are out of work for days due to the comedown, they are drinking industrial degreaser etc. People just laugh all this off though -utter hypocrisy.

Bit of exaggeration here? One drink, extreme violence and a hangover for days? Must have been a big drink.

I see your point though, but alcohol is not the same as other drugs. This is not to do with its actual actions on the body or anything, only that it is socially acceptable or a social norm.

It could only be a ban on products unless it is licenced in the way OTC drugs and alcohol are -in which case I expect it would be limited to pharmacies.

But alcohol isn't sold through pharmacies. I was suggesting that a new category of substances could be created and an establishment that they be sold in.

People/media conveniently forget at one time cocaine was freely available OTC in dublin pharmacies, and that it was supposed to have very widespread use.

Sure Coca Cola had cocaine in it up until the early 1900's and people were using Laudanum Tincture and for diarrhoea giving Morphine and Kaolin to kids. Point is they are not readily available anymore.

If they get to the stage of listing off compounds the compounds will probably be banned and so no shops will be selling them.

They might be banned. They also might not be banned. Would you not think it would be better to have this market regulated somehow rather than having a free for all? AT least then people would know what they are taking and what is in it.

The shops just turn to other legal highs, there are 1000's out there. If they were to list every substance with the potential for intoxication you would see many products disappearing from shops.

Not saying it would be easy to try and keep ahead of these - it would probably be a logistical nightmare, but it would not be impossible. It keep a few analytical chemists in a job maybe!

You can measure threshold or baseline amounts. I regularly would drink the LD50 of alcohol (about 15pints at my weight) and the LD50 of many drugs is ridiculously high, like THC & psilocybin. Many drugs are made illegal due to their "high potential for abuse", having a very high LD50 relative to recreational dose increases this potential for abuse (people feel safer taking it), therefore it is not surprising that many illegal drugs have a wide gap between the 2. Many doctors would consider amphetamine as a far safer recreational stimulant than caffeine, amphetamine was favoured by the military for the lack of side effects.

That's the thing about the LD50, it's lethal to half the population. People have different thresholds, a "lightweight" (regardless of their actual weight) might be trolleyed after 4 pints, whereas for other people it'd would take a lot more.

LD50 is high for THC and psylocin because they do not have receptors in the respiratory and cardiac centres of the brain, so will only affect a persons vital through non specific actions. They are really the exception to the rule.

There are also drugs of abuse with a small window between their recreational dose and lethal dose such as opiates. Throw in to the equation that tolerance can develop and there is a high chance of overdose.

Many doctors might think that, but obviously many others do not agree, otherwise amphetamine would not be a controlled drug here and caffeine freely available. Amphetamines are far from side effect free.

rubadub · 14-02-2010 3:54pm

penguin88 wrote: »

You're taking it out of context though. No ads on TV saying "Buy solpadeine for all your hangover needs", it is not marketed for curing alcohol withdrawal even though many people might use it for that.

I have seen several ads for drugs directly or subtly aimed at the hangover market. There is a big rise in them around christmas time, you will see lads getting out of bed, pizza boxes strewn around the place, the lad holding his hungover head in agony then he takes some headache pill or antacid. Of course they will have other ads to make it not so blatant, they would be fools not to, but nobody bats an eyelid, its all a big laugh.

Then you have drugs like "lifeline" specifically for hangover -NO other use is mentioned, it is solely for the comedown off alcohol. Look at st sin http://www.st-sin.de/ which masks alcohol breath, it would be like selling eyedrops specifically to reduce cannabis induced red-eye to try and mask your drug use from employers/police.

penguin88 wrote: »

THC and psilocybin are two notable exceptions. Still though, any drug used inappropriately can be poisonous.

There are loads more, those are 2 popular illegal drugs, not some oddball ones. LSD, mescaline, salvia, and most hallucinogens have very high LD50's compared to recreational dose. You only have to look at deaths attributed to the physiological effect of the drugs -zero or a very low % of user base in many cases. There is a very low incidence of overdose of MDMA, the number of deaths due to it (not water intoxication) are extremely low compared to the massive user base. The media love to highlight a MDMA related death but it only shows how relatively safe it is. It is easy to pop an overdose of pills but it doesn't appear to be happening, in fact it is far more common to see people who took too much alcohol, if was taken in pill form you might actually see less indulgence, people seem to fear overdose with pills more.

Alcohol is responsible for more deaths PER USER % than all the illegal drugs combined. That IS taking into account there are more alcohol users.

penguin88 wrote: »

Bit of exaggeration here? One drink, extreme violence and a hangover for days? Must have been a big drink.

Not exaggerating in the slightest, quite the opposite if anything. This is what the media would say, have you ever read the OTT crap they trot out. Also it would be said to be highly addictive, probably hooked after than first drink, if you live to tell the tale. In another thread I said

Of course many people have the illogical/irrational opinion that anybody taking any drug other than alcohol/nicotine/caffeine is a degenerate junkie who could not do anything but abuse it to extreme levels.

Many will just see a junkie, think "oh he must be on smack" and then think thats what every heroin user is like, or that everybody on E is a gurner sweating lunatic -while the business man at the bus stop each morning could be a heroin addict, or alcoholic. Many people will keep their illegal drug use private, due to its illegality.

If all recreational drugs were illegal drinkers would be portrayed in the same light as junkies and winos. And people would laugh at the idea of an "alcohol user" being able to enjoy a glass of wine with his dinner, because the media would portray all alcohol users as degenerate, incapable, outcast, alcoholic scumbags who could never display any restraint in their drug use.

penguin88 wrote: »

But alcohol isn't sold through pharmacies.

Yes it is, usually high strength drinking alcohol, people use it to make liqueurs, my father used to get it in the 80's, I have seen pharmacies recommended as a source in books.

penguin88 wrote: »

I was suggesting that a new category of substances could be created and an establishment that they be sold in.

This is what I cannot imagine happening, many drugs are crossover and so would belong in a pharmacy or just a regular supermarket, like caffeine pills. If you need a licence I expect current off licence holders would be first on the approved list. It would make more sense to leave it in the hands of shops which appear to obey current regulations. I would see it mixed in with the off licence trade if it happened, those with a history of dealing recreational drugs.

penguin88 wrote: »

Sure Coca Cola had cocaine in it up until the early 1900's and people were using Laudanum Tincture and for diarrhoea giving Morphine and Kaolin to kids. Point is they are not readily available anymore.

It was powder form and used recreationally, there was no secret about this, pharmcies were akin to off-licences or amsterdam coffeeshops, I am not talking about cocacola having trace amounts, or medicinal use. Point is cocaine WAS readily available with widespread recreational use and nobody even seems to recall this, obviously it was not such a major epidemic/problem as people would predict it to be now -that is the point.

penguin88 wrote: »

Would you not think it would be better to have this market regulated somehow rather than having a free for all? AT least then people would know what they are taking and what is in it.

I think it should be regulated and age restrictions applied. It would still be pretty much a free for all though, it could even lead to further abuse just like alcohol where people become overly complacent about it and feel it is safe since they know the dose, but still drink near the LD50 of it anyway. After reading up about mephedrone it put me right off it and I will probably never take it, however I feel like a hypocrite since I should be more worried about alcohol & smokes, the reading of their effects makes far more worrying reading.

penguin88 wrote: »

Many doctors might think that, but obviously many others do not agree, otherwise amphetamine would not be a controlled drug here and caffeine freely available.

You are missing my point, its a controlled drug BECAUSE it is relatively safe and has a high potential for abuse. The lack of a comedown is a strong factor in determining potential for abuse. Look at alcohol, on distillation sites I have seen it suggested that they purposely leave very lax regulations so commercial distilleries will continue to output low grade alcohol full of congeners which will result in hangovers. It is more profitable for distillers to do this, so they work on the borderline. You have guys like Skyy who do created "hangover free" vodka, but they seem very careful about marketing it in such a way, I expect the authorities would not like it. BZP had a very bad comedown effect and I have no doubt this is partly the reason it was legal for so long, it is a self regulating effect. I was not out last night due to a hangover from alcohol.

Kurtosis · 14-02-2010 5:18pm

I think you're straying from my original points on why pubs are different to headshops. These seem to be minor tangents.

rubadub wrote: »

I have seen several ads for drugs directly or subtly aimed at the hangover market. There is a big rise in them around christmas time, you will see lads getting out of bed, pizza boxes strewn around the place, the lad holding his hungover head in agony then he takes some headache pill or antacid. Of course they will have other ads to make it not so blatant, they would be fools not to, but nobody bats an eyelid, its all a big laugh.

Then you have drugs like "lifeline" specifically for hangover -NO other use is mentioned, it is solely for the comedown off alcohol. Look at st sin http://www.st-sin.de/ which masks alcohol breath, it would be like selling eyedrops specifically to reduce cannabis induced red-eye to try and mask your drug use from employers/police.

Sorry, my wording is bad again. I meant marketed as a pharma term, as in the marketing authorisation the product is given. It's not indicated as a hangover cure, but doesn't mean people don't use it as such. Same way lots of other perfectly valid OTC medicines can also be abused.

Lifeline is not a drug. Think it's technically classed as a supplement and is of questionable efficacy. Not familiar with St Sin stuff, and don't know German. What's to stop cannabis users using one of the OTC red-eye eye drops? I've actually seen it being done.

There are loads more, those are 2 popular illegal drugs, not some oddball ones. LSD, mescaline, salvia, and most hallucinogens have very high LD50's compared to recreational dose. You only have to look at deaths attributed to the physiological effect of the drugs -zero or a very low % of user base in many cases.

Again, not sure how this makes pubs and headshops the same. But regardless, mescaline is an amphetamine derivative and really does not have a comparatively high LD50. LSD and most hallucinogens are structurally related to psilocybin, so I was classing them all as part of that exception.

Not exaggerating in the slightest, quite the opposite if anything. This is what the media would say, have you ever read the OTT crap they trot out. Also it would be said to be highly addictive, probably hooked after than first drink, if you live to tell the tale.

Wait, still talking about alcohol? Anyone who suffers those effects after one (normal drink) would certainly be in the vast minority

Yes it is, usually high strength drinking alcohol, people use it to make liqueurs, my father used to get it in the 80's, I have seen pharmacies recommended as a source in books.

Only sort of alcohol sold in pharmacies in recent years would either be rubbing alcohol/surgical spirits or methylated spirits. Certainly no high strength drinking alcohol on sale here now. But again, this is tangential.

This is what I cannot imagine happening, many drugs are crossover and so would belong in a pharmacy or just a regular supermarket, like caffeine pills. If you need a licence I expect current off licence holders would be first on the approved list. It would make more sense to leave it in the hands of shops which appear to obey current regulations. I would see it mixed in with the off licence trade if it happened, those with a history of dealing recreational drugs.

It was powder form and used recreationally, there was no secret about this, pharmcies were akin to off-licences or amsterdam coffeeshops, I am not talking about cocacola having trace amounts, or medicinal use. Point is cocaine WAS readily available with widespread recreational use and nobody even seems to recall this, obviously it was not such a major epidemic/problem as people would predict it to be now -that is the point.

My opiate examples were sold for medicinal use, like cocaine was, and were also abused recreationally. Point is, that was the past, regulations were introduced to control those products and pharmacies, now this is not the case. Can do the same for headshops, only difference is headshops products are not sold now for therapeutic/medicinal reasons (or human consumption!).

You are missing my point, its a controlled drug BECAUSE it is relatively safe and has a high potential for abuse. The lack of a comedown is a strong factor in determining potential for abuse.

Amphetamines are relatively safe compared to what? Caffeine? Don't think so. The comedown effect is the physical withdrawal symptoms of the drug. Are you saying a small/absent comedown effect means more abuse potential?

hitlersson666 · 14-02-2010 5:32pm

A sex shop went on fire today as well.... this is really suss IMO

caseyann · 14-02-2010 5:36pm

5 hundred thousand found in the safe under that shop.I am in wrong work i have decided to open one of these shops :cool:

rubadub · 14-02-2010 6:29pm

penguin88 wrote: »

...pubs and headshops are very different entities.

penguin88 wrote: »

I think you're straying from my original points on why pubs are different to headshops.

To me they were all moot points, maybe regulation is very important to you, but they are very similar in my mind. To me it would be like saying mcdonalds and burgerking are "very different entities". Why- one doesn't sell the whopper. If one takeaway opened and said its stuff was not for human consumption I certainly would not describe it as a very different entity from a normal one.

From what I see inferred a headshop is a place to go and get both regulated and unregulated drugs, a pub is a type of a headshop which specialises in one drug. In the pub Anto sitting near the jacks can sort me out with the unregulated stuff

, pubs are a very common outlet to get unregulated/illegal drugs. Dunno if anybody here remembers the old Chinaman pub in town which was basically a coffeeshop. I wouldn't be surprised if some pubs or clubs are openly selling the unregulated drugs. I remember ones were selling the regulated "legal high" which is intended for human consumption that I take.

If your local pub starts to sell mephedrone as plant food behind the counter is it a headshop or a pub?

penguin88 wrote: »

What's to stop cannabis users using one of the OTC red-eye eye drops? I've actually seen it being done.

If cannabis was made legal tomorrow and you had ads with lads waking up amid pizza boxes and bongs with obvious red-eye, then it showed him putting in eyedrops and then at a business meeting then I expect auld biddies would be on Joe Duffy kicking up a storm. That is all I am getting at, hypocritical people need to realise drug abuse and comedowns are the norm for many people, including themselves.

penguin88 wrote: »

Wait, still talking about alcohol? Anyone who suffers those effects after one (normal drink) would certainly be in the vast minority

Yes, thats what I was getting at....

penguin88 wrote: »

Certainly no high strength drinking alcohol on sale here now.

I expect many still do. My sister gets water, salts and cream none of which is on display. I am not sure about here but in some countries high strength alcohol was not allowed be sold in a regular off licence, it was more treated like a OTC drug where its sort of at the discretion of the pharmacist who should make sure you are aware of what you are taking. The same sort of control/professional advice would be welcome with any drugs IMO.

penguin88 wrote: »

Amphetamines are relatively safe compared to what? Caffeine? Don't think so.

Well I do think so, it was the lack of side effects which lead it to be used by the military in favour of caffeine. I was just reading today the US army are issuing chewing gum with 100mg of caffeine per stick, it was amphetamine in WWII when caffeine was around too.

penguin88 wrote: »

Are you saying a small/absent comedown effect means more abuse potential?

Yes, I would have been abusing alcohol last night if I was not suffering the comedown from alcohol the night before.

AnonoBoy · 14-02-2010 6:31pm

hitlersson666 wrote: »

A sex shop went on fire today as well.... this is really suss IMO

Today? Where? Utopia beside Nirvana burned down on Friday but I didn't hear about any other place going up in flames.

caseyann wrote: »

5 hundred thousand found in the safe under that shop.I am in wrong work i have decided to open one of these shops :cool:

Yeah - that might put paid to people's theories that they burned it down for the insurance because their business was falling off. It's quite obvious they
were doing a roaring trade.

Kurtosis · 14-02-2010 6:48pm

rubadub wrote: »

To me they were all moot points, maybe regulation is very important to you, but they are very similar in my mind. To me it would be like saying mcdonalds and burgerking are "very different entities". Why- one doesn't sell the whopper. If one takeaway opened and said its stuff was not for human consumption I certainly would not describe it as a very different entity from a normal one.

This example is shortsighted, you're talking about a retrograde change to who the burgers are aimed at. If one spot's burgers were never sold for human consumption, they're not going to be held to the same standards and could have anything in them...not many people going to be eating those over the burgers for humans.

From what I see inferred a headshop is a place to go and get both regulated and unregulated drugs, a pub is a type of a headshop which specialises in one drug. In the pub Anto sitting near the jacks can sort me out with the unregulated stuff , pubs are a very common outlet to get unregulated/illegal drugs. Dunno if anybody here remembers the old Chinaman pub in town which was basically a coffeeshop. I wouldn't be surprised if some pubs or clubs are openly selling the unregulated drugs. I remember ones were selling the regulated "legal high" which is intended for human consumption that I take.

You're taking a ridiculous example here. The pub itself is not selling unregulated drugs, some customers may conduct business there, nothing to do with the pub, might as well be doing it on a street corner or in a park.

If your local pub starts to sell mephedrone as plant food behind the counter is it a headshop or a pub?

Hmmm, so you're wondering would there be any difference between a pub and a headshop if a pub sold the same things a headshop does? Eh, you're kind of killing your own point here...

Yes, thats what I was getting at....

Still don't know where you're going with this one.

I expect many still do. My sister gets water, salts and cream none of which is on display. I am not sure about here but in some countries high strength alcohol was not allowed be sold in a regular off licence, it was more treated like a OTC drug where its sort of at the discretion of the pharmacist who should make sure you are aware of what you are taking. The same sort of control/professional advice would be welcome with any drugs IMO.

Ok, you can buy things in a pharmacy that aren't out on the shelf, doesn't mean you can buy alcohol for drinking. It may have been the case in the past or in different countries, it is not here.

Well I do think so, it was the lack of side effects which lead it to be used by the military in favour of caffeine. I was just reading today the US army are issuing chewing gum with 100mg of caffeine per stick, it was amphetamine in WWII when caffeine was around too.

This is what happens, substances are used in the past, unknown effects are discovered, its usage then changes. Why doesn't their chewing gum still contain amphetamine then?

Yes, I would have been abusing alcohol last night if I was not suffering the comedown from alcohol the night before.

Think you're using abuse potential in the wrong sense here. Look at heroin, a drug with one of the highest abuse potentials, so you'd expect no comedown effects, right? Well the opposite is the case, some of the most severe physical withdrawal symptoms.

Valmont · 14-02-2010 6:59pm

This country would be great if it wasn't for the media, the government, the scumbags, and the murdering drug dealers. Don't forget our deeply held cultural practice of not letting individuals do what they want to. This whole affair with the headshops has sickened me.

Cheap Thrills! · 14-02-2010 7:05pm

Valmont wrote: »

This country would be great if it wasn't for the media, the government, the scumbags, and the murdering drug dealers. Don't forget our deeply held cultural practice of not letting individuals do what they want to. This whole affair with the headshops has sickened me.

Yep, couldn't agree more.

If I want to fill my boots with mephedrone of a Saturday then its no-one's business but my own.

Fcuk the Joe Duffy brigade.

wylo · 14-02-2010 7:10pm

Im pro headshops but I know someone who took a snowstorm(which has meph in it i think) , his lips went blue and he was puking alot, he ended up in hospital.
Im just pointing out to the 'pro' people that you dont have a clue what your putting into yourself, so stop comparing it to alcohol.
Im still pro headshops , I just believe that these reactions should be well documented and be shown in the shops, just like the warnings on cigarette boxes.

Cheap Thrills! · 14-02-2010 7:15pm

^^ I also have had one poxy experience with party pills, along with plenty of good ones with both pills and powders.

Of course we don't know whats in them but that's what seperates the drug taker from the non drug taker. You know you are taking a risk but you accept the personal responsibility.

Its not big and its not clever but its there and people are gonna do it. Always and all the prohibition in the world wont change that.

When Head shops are banned and Im sorry to say they will be, people will just switch to buying online. Less convenient of course but thats what living in Ireland is all about. Make everything as awkward as possible.

BTW. Meph is contraindicated with antidepressants which people should know.

Kurtosis · 14-02-2010 7:33pm

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

BTW. Meph is contraindicated with antidepressants which people should know.

How should people using it find this out? Does the label say it/does the person selling it tell them?

Cheap Thrills! · 14-02-2010 7:50pm

penguin88 wrote: »

How should people using it find this out? Does the label say it/does the person selling it tell them?

The label can't say it because although legal its not supposed to be sold for human consumption. But a check of Wikipedia sorts that.

Kurtosis · 14-02-2010 7:58pm

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

The label can't say it because although legal its not supposed to be sold for human consumption. But a check of Wikipedia sorts that.

Ok so it's not legal to be sold for human consumption. Can I ask just as I haven't seen any meph products, would it say mephedrone on the label?

rubadub · 14-02-2010 8:26pm

penguin88 wrote: »

If one spot's burgers were never sold for human consumption, they're not going to be held to the same standards and could have anything in them...not many people going to be eating those over the burgers for humans.

They go by their own standards & reputation, if I go to my mates house and his mother offers me a bit of chicken I will take it, I am not worried that her kitchen is not subject to health inspector audits. The very fact the guy had €500,000 in the safe would suggest people are not too worried about the regulations you think are so important.

It would be similar to the government having an anti-obesity law saying no burgers can be made with over 30g of fat in them anymore, and chippers still selling them and winking at you saying "now you know thats not fit for human consumption;)"

penguin88 wrote: »

You're taking a ridiculous example here.

Not nearly as ridiculous as your refusal to see comparisons between 2 outlets for recreational drugs.

penguin88 wrote: »

Hmmm, so you're wondering would there be any difference between a pub and a headshop if a pub sold the same things a headshop does?

Yes, so are you going to answer it? the point is headshops DO currently sell legal regulated drugs, so do pubs. I am still trying to figure out a definition of "headshop", and wonder what your primary criteria is to define one. Is the moment they sell intoxicants "not fit for human consumption" if so tesco & woodies are headshops.

penguin88 wrote: »

Still don't know where you're going with this one.

The media exaggerate the effect of drugs that your mammy would not take, then she buys the paper.

penguin88 wrote: »

Ok, you can buy things in a pharmacy that aren't out on the shelf, doesn't mean you can buy alcohol for drinking. It may have been the case in the past or in different countries, it is not here.

Why are you so certain that you cannot buy it in any pharmacy? Have you ever even asked? I don't see what the big deal is.

penguin88 wrote: »

Why doesn't their chewing gum still contain amphetamine then?

Simple, its a controlled substance now, just like MDMA was only banned in the 80's, people were freely using it up to that point. Caffeine is not too popular as a recreational drug taken in high doses to emulate an amphetamine stimulant high it is quite unpleasant in high doses. You could say the uncontrolled abusers ruined it for everybody, so now the military who took amphetamine in small controlled doses now have to suffer and use a less suitable drug with worse side effects. Sort of like people who were taking BZP as an alternative to E -its not their ideal choice, they just made do.

penguin88 wrote: »

Look at heroin, a drug with one of the highest abuse potentials, so you'd expect no comedown effects, right?

NO, that is completely faulty logic, if you really cannot understand the concept I will explain, but I think you are just taking the piss.

Grimreaper666 · 14-02-2010 8:27pm

Whatever about robbing ATM machines it looks like headshops are the way to go, has anyone got a minidigger I can borrow?:)

Head Shop Fire

Comments