<MEGA MERGE> General Head Shop discussion thread. Read posts # 1 & 1014

barrackali wrote: »

Delighted to hear of this news, I can't believe I'm actually with a measure taken by Mary Harney.

At the risk of sending this thread spiraling.....why do you agree with her?

Do you have a good reason for being on her side?

More money for criminals, wahey! How exactly did the head shops target kids? They haven't exactly changed their approach, or even adopted one at all, in recent memory. If anything, the media frenzy created a draw for kids, give a teenager a way to rebel and they'll do it. There wasn't exactly an air of rebellion surrounding legal drugs, or else salvia etc. would be on the list of bannings. This is just the government getting an easy 'win' against drugs, because they can't do anything about the illegal drugs. Embarassing that people are hailing this as some great victory really.

Placebo wrote: »

have you ever been offered cocaine ? i certainly have not. With MDMA out of the question and ecstacy having a terrible hangover name for itself, its better this way.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean it doesn't make much sense.

alot of people i know do it. And the intake and usage sky rocketed as they would party through out the night and wait for head shops to open at 10 and go buy some more. Same cannot be said for illegal drugs, drug dealers dont hang around the 'corners' with shoes hangin from telephone wires.

get out more.

No, the drug dealer usually hangs out at the house party, he sleeps most of the day and is up all night because those are he's working hours. He'll travel to meet you, unlike the inconsiderate headshops.

Anyone else find the picture RTE used for the story more than a bit hilarious?

barrackali wrote: »

I absolutely support her on this matter....is that clear enough for you. Sorry, but I'm not going to support a load of scumbag head shop owners...they can eat all of their mind altering drugs.

Btw, poor Ming Flanagan is on Newstalk at the moment.

What???? How are head shop owners scumbags? Because they sell mild-altering substances? In that case, are publicans and off licence owners scumbags too? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You do know that it's the scumbag DRUG DEALERS that are going to gain from this?




BTW, you never stated why exactly you support her when someone asked you the question.

Oh dear.
There are more loopholes in this than in a large slice of gruyere cheese.
This is kneejerk legislation, ill-advised, rushed and unlikely to achieve its purpose.
These substances have been banned on the basis of harm caused, while the government's official research into them was prevented from considering the degree of harm they cause.
And Ahern's ridiculous attempt to legislate against substances that remain legal (on the basis that they could be psychoactive) is beyond ludicrous and impossible to implement.
Will he be banning nutmeg? What about alcohol? I predict this nonsense will be easily circumvented and the government will continue to look ridiculous on this issue.
How about licensing and decriminalising those substances which we have done harm studies on, and which proved not to be particularly harmful?
I'm thinking of actual cannabis (not dubious synthetics) and MDMA, both of which the Lancet medical journal found to be way less harmful than legal substances (like tobacco and alcohol) and prescriptive drugs (tranqs, methadone, etc).

Biggins wrote: »

Are you serious?
There are more pressing, more much longer outstanding issues waiting to be sorted out then this public "seen to be doing something" PR schite!

Exactly!

This is a shallow, thoughtless moved aimed at garnering votes from a vocal minority.

Squeezing in high-media moves before they slip away into obscurity.....



...on massive pensions

brianthebard wrote: »

He asked why, not repeat yourself.

I support her because teenagers were using a lot of these substances, I've seen the results....they are not pretty.

barrackali wrote: »

I support her because teenagers were using a lot of these substances, I've seen the results....they are not pretty.

Try this.

Go to any major A&E on a Friday or Saturday night.

See how many people show up with head-shop related problems.

See how many show up with drink related problems.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And Ahern's ridiculous attempt to legislate against substances that remain legal (on the basis that they could be psychoactive) is beyond ludicrous and impossible to implement.
Will he be banning nutmeg? What about alcohol? I predict this nonsense will be easily circumvented and the government will continue to look ridiculous on this issue.

Ridiculous just isn't a strong enough word for it.

I'm actually half hoping this legislation will pass just for the smug satisfaction i'll get on seeing those quack-doctor "health shops" taken down .

(It would also be interesting to see supermarkets, vegetable/spice markets, garden centres and electronics stores raided).

One thing i will say is that by their opening in more and more open locations, selling snortable cocaine-replacements and staying open till 4am, headshops kinda brought this on themselves.
With a little forward thinking they could have avoided all this fuss. Instead they went to maximise short term profits. I somehow doubt many of these headshop owners really care about drug legalisation. They're probably laughing all the way to the bank.

Funkfield wrote: »

Try this.

Go to any major A&E on a Friday or Saturday night.

See how many people show up with head-shop related problems.

See how many show up with drink related problems.

Try Beaumont A&E, I am very familiar with the problems these substances have caused there.....and it's not just at weekend's. My uncle is a neuro consultant in the Mater, he is also delighted with this legislation.