nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Head Shop in Roscommon

yessam

Is the protest outside the Head Shop on Castle Street a waste of time. The protestors are doing well but I have heard the head shops are doing a delivery service and going to open 24 hours a day.
What do you think should happen. Are we better off with the shop open or closed.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

thirdmantackle

and so its a victory for the drug dealers and pushers.

hurrah!!

Theponylady

thirdmantackle wrote: »

and so its a victory for the drug dealers and pushers.

hurrah!!

Exactly:( These do gooders that pushed for the anti-head shop laws are running around thinking they did good. They don't realize that they just took millions in taxable revenue that the government could have used for drug awareness and rehab programs, and put it in the pockets of drug dealers. They may as well have given the bad guys the green light. Now the money is non-taxable, there are going to be people killing each other on the street in turf wars(and killing any innocent bystanders who accidentally get in the way), the drugs will have no quality control (their kids may be taking rat poisen without knowing it), it's all bad:(

Never in the history of mankind has there been a time when a large segment of the population didn't use mind altering drugs. Even when faced with death for using drugs, many people still make the choice to use drugs.

It's time to stop banning them, which has never EVER worked, and make them legal, and use the money generated to attempt to educate the next generation.

thirdmantackle

Theponylady wrote: »

Exactly:( These do gooders that pushed for the anti-head shop laws are running around thinking they did good. They don't realize that they just took millions in taxable revenue that the government could have used for drug awareness and rehab programs, and put it in the pockets of drug dealers. They may as well have given the bad guys the green light. Now the money is non-taxable, there are going to be people killing each other on the street in turf wars(and killing any innocent bystanders who accidentally get in the way), the drugs will have no quality control (their kids may be taking rat poisen without knowing it), it's all bad:(

Never in the history of mankind has there been a time when a large segment of the population didn't use mind altering drugs. Even when faced with death for using drugs, many people still make the choice to use drugs.

It's time to stop banning them, which has never EVER worked, and make them legal, and use the money generated to attempt to educate the next generation.

I don't quite agree with all that.

There is room to sell safe and certifiable products in a controlled environment. the dutch looked at ways that this could be done and decided the cafe route was the best idea. i'd probably have to agree

but some of the stuff in headshops were clearly not meant for human comsumption or use at all

Head The Wall

The "Not for HUman Consumption" was only to circumvent the law. These things were designed to be ingested, you don't surely think that someone actually decided to snort a particular type of Bath Salts and discovered they could get high.

The problem with anybody taking any type of alcohol or substance is people take too much. People will take drugs regardless of where they get them. It reminds me of all these cases you see in the papers where people assault other people, acting the asshole etc.

Previously these people would be saying "I don't drink too often" or "I was upset after a break up" and thats why I was like that. The dog on the street would know that this was not the case with these people, they were drunk or off their faces when it happened. They couldn't exactly tell the judge they were taking illegal drugs so lately they have been saying they are taking legal drugs as it is a more palatable excuse.

This is only my opinion and I think it explains how these cases have been in the papers a lot and the ensuiing witchhunt. The ban will do nothing for the madness on the streets though

the_syco

Head The Wall wrote: »

The "Not for HUman Consumption" was only to circumvent the law.

Aye, these shops are getting shut down because the stuff they sell usually gets banned after a year, when long term use of them begin to show very bad side effects.

Everyone knows what coke, weed, heroine, etc does to you, but the stuff sold in the shops try to mimic the effects with chemicals, without knowing what long term effects they have.

"Not for Human Consumption" means that they were most likely not properly tested for use on humans, so the amount of time from making a product to selling it gets cut.

The stuff being sold may now get sold by dealers, but it's unlikely, as the dealers would have to buy the stuff off a legit shop. Also, why would anyone buy a substance to mimic the effects of weed, when they can just buy weed? Most people who I knew who smoked it, smoked weed before it came out, and only seemed to use the "legal" stuff, as they could get it easier.

yessam

I heard the shop has reopened again today. Whats the story.

Head The Wall

yessam wrote: »

I heard the shop has reopened again today. Whats the story.

They probably had to go through all the stock double checking what was legit to sell and are now ready for business again.

the_syco

Head The Wall wrote: »

They probably had to go through all the stock double checking what was legit to sell and are now ready for business again.

It'd be interesting to see what is being sold. No doubt the "weed", which is pretty much a tobacco replacement, and doesn't get you stoned. It's green, and this usually is bought by the scumbags who know no better.

thirdmantackle

Hurrah, the place has re-opened

delighted.

if only to show that shops should be allowed exercise their right to open...

ocokev

thirdmantackle wrote: »

Hurrah, the place has re-opened

delighted.

if only to show that shops should be allowed exercise their right to open...

God bless us all. I am ringing that Jacqui Snype one straight away, it wont be open for long and all those poor students spending their lunch money on heroine and the like

Chipboard

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What do you suggest Donna, do we close down all the shops?, regulate them more? The alternative is everyone goes back to street dealers which creates a bigger problem for society than we already have.
There's no right or wrong answer but people will always want to experiment. How do we keep everyone happy?

According to this argument we should legalise paedophilia. we don't want it going on behind closed doors. It would be safer if it was controlled and we could tax it.

Rubbish.

Chipboard

def wrote: »

Health is no reason to deny freedom of choice , the only valid reason to prohibit a substance or activity is if it inflicts harm on others by its consumption , if it causes mass puplic immorality or disorder .Would banning these products or shops reduce or increase immorality and disorder ?.

Google the words "drug, addict, baby, died, convicted". Read all the stories about degenerate drug addicts who have hurt and killed not only strangers but people they would have cherished had they not been out of their minds. There was a case a few weeks ago where a girl left her baby with the father who she knew was an addict and he beat it and it died.

Don't tell me that this is different, that you have it under control. Addiction sneaks up on you. Nobody chooses it.

Theponylady

Chipboard wrote: »

According to this argument we should legalise paedophilia. we don't want it going on behind closed doors. It would be safer if it was controlled and we could tax it.

Rubbish.

Not the same thing, not even remotely close. Paedophilia is something that is done to someone else, generally against the will of that person.

Drugs are something people do to themselves, by their choice.

Laws against driving under the influence of drugs need to be pretty harsh, to get people in the frame of mind that using drugs and driving, where they are endangering others by their driving, simply won't be tolerated. We pretty much have those laws when it comes to alcohol, but they don't seem to be enforced when it comes to other drugs.

Laws against hurting other people already exist, being able to say "it was the alcohol or drugs that caused me to do it", with the exception of if someone was somehow slipped the drugs without their knowledge, should not affect the judges decision of punishment. With the exception of, someone who already KNEW they tended to act in a way that hurt other people while on drugs, in which case, their punishment should in my opinion be more harsh because the person knew how the drugs affected them, and choose to do it and hurt another person anyway.

I often wonder why alcohol is so accepted, and is not considered a recreational drug by most people, when in fact, it is no differant than any other drug. And is in fact much more dangerous than many other recreational drugs. I see the same people picketing the head shops, going out for a pint afterwards, or having a glass of wine when they get home. Highly hippocritical in my opinion.

Hospital ERs are full of people who have hurt themselves or become poisened by alcohol. I can think of a number of my students who have ended up in hospital thanks to alcohol poisening-but I haven't seen a single one of their parents picketing pubs and off licenses and asking for them all to be closed. Yet heaven forbid one of those kids go to a head shop and get some drug. What's the difference?

Society needs to either accept the fact that drug use is a part of human nature, or it needs to not accept ANY drugs, including alcohol. You really can't have it both ways. You can't say "this mind altering drug, despite the fact it kills thousands every year, is okay, yet this mind altering drug, which kills very few each year, is NOT okay".

They are either legal, or they are not.

PogMoThoin

Chipboard wrote: »

Google the words "drug, addict, baby, died, convicted". Read all the stories about degenerate drug addicts who have hurt and killed not only strangers but people they would have cherished had they not been out of their minds. There was a case a few weeks ago where a girl left her baby with the father who she knew was an addict and he beat it and it died.

Don't tell me that this is different, that you have it under control. Addiction sneaks up on you. Nobody chooses it.

Replace the word drug with alcohol in your google search and see how many more stories there are, in fact take a spin to Your local hospital A&E at 2.00am next saturday and see the carnage of alcohol

Theponylady

thirdmantackle wrote: »

I don't quite agree with all that.

There is room to sell safe and certifiable products in a controlled environment. the dutch looked at ways that this could be done and decided the cafe route was the best idea. i'd probably have to agree

but some of the stuff in headshops were clearly not meant for human comsumption or use at all

I actually don't see where our difference of opinion is.

Much of what is sold in headshops, can be bought other places as well, it's just labled differently. Hardware stores, department stores, etc. Heck, people sniff glue-you can buy that pretty much anywhere.

Pretty much YES, someone DID decide to smell or eat bath salts or whatever other weird stuff, got some kind of kick out of it, and decided to sell it to someone else to get high, rather than for its originally intended use. Where did they get the original stuff? From the corner grocery store, hardware store, pet shop...

I remember when I was a kid, the "in" thing was clove cigarettes. Some people smoked them because they thought they would get high, others smoked them as a supposedly healthier alternative to regular tobacco cigarettes. Some smoked them because the smoke didn't stink as much as regular cigarettes, so the kids thought they could get the "cool" look of smoking, without the telltale stink that would cause their parents to catch them. No one made any laws against them, their popularity just sort of seemed to fall. I know they still exist, I've seen them sold in shops, but I personally only know one person who smokes them, and they don't seem to be prevalant in the younger population like they were in my day. Probably because no one got excited about it, so it just didn't seem to be such a rebellious act as it would have been if people had started marching around picketing the things.

Chipboard

Theponylady wrote: »

Not the same thing, not even remotely close. Paedophilia is something that is done to someone else, generally against the will of that person.

No, not the same thing, a similar thing. An analogy doesn't have to be the same for it to be relevant.

If we could ensure that the people who use drugs won't do things which are socially unacceptable to other people, then as far as I'm concerned they can take all the drugs they want. The reality is that other peoples drug taking does affect society. I have been burgled several times. On three occasions the burglar was caught and all three were drug addicts. Everybody knows how drug addicts fund their habit and very few of them them do it lawfully.

To say that you can't legalise one drug and not the other is simply wrong - where did you get this from. It is the case that alcohol does alot of damage but that is not a justification for allowing more damage. Millions of people use alcohol responsibly and do no damage to themselves or others. How many people use drugs responsibly. Alcohol when used responsibly is socially acceptable, drugs are not, simple as. Laws are enacted for the greater good not for one small section of society.

PogMoThoin

Chipboard wrote: »

To say that you can't legalise one drug and not the other is simply wrong - where did you get this from. It is the case that alcohol does alot of damage but that is not a justification for allowing more damage. Millions of people use alcohol responsibly and do no damage to themselves or others. How many people use drugs responsibly. Alcohol when used responsibly is socially acceptable, drugs are not, simple as. Laws are enacted for the greater good not for one small section of society.

Lots, ask Councillor Ming Flanagan who is a self admitted cannabis smoker, leads a normal healthy life, runs marathons and does a fine job of being a Councillor

Chipboard

Cllr Luke Flanagan is not typical of drug takers. Whether he does a good job or not is debatable. I personally think that in so much as the role of county councillors is of any benefit, he probably does do an ok job but the role itself is a bad use of money. The only thing councillors have a significant input into is planning and look at the state of that (and Roscommon is a case in point).

You've taken one of the most acceptable of drugs (apart from alcohol) and coupled it with a person who is not representative of society as a whole (as he is obviously more balanced than most people) and you've tried to justify a drugs free for all on that basis. That is an extreme case and laws are not based on extreme cases.

A guy in a high powered car drove up the N4 at 160 mph the other day and he made it to Sligo without crashing so from now on everyone can drive at whatever speed they like ?

PogMoThoin

Its not just Ming, lots of people lead a normal life and are recreational drug takers. My brother is a plumber, lives and works a normal life and smokes a joint most evenings. A few years ago I knew solicitors, accountants, even Gardai who would sometimes take stuff on a night out, they led normal lives and still do.

Theponylady

Chipboard wrote: »

Cllr Luke Flanagan is not typical of drug takers. Whether he does a good job or not is debatable. I personally think that in so much as the role of county councillors is of any benefit, he probably does do an ok job but the role itself is a bad use of money. The only thing councillors have a significant input into is planning and look at the state of that (and Roscommon is a case in point).

You've taken one of the most acceptable of drugs (apart from alcohol) and coupled it with a person who is not representative of society as a whole (as he is obviously more balanced than most people) and you've tried to justify a drugs free for all on that basis. That is an extreme case and laws are not based on extreme cases.

A guy in a high powered car drove up the N4 at 160 mph the other day and he made it to Sligo without crashing so from now on everyone can drive at whatever speed they like ?

I'm afraid I completely disagree. I have MANY friends who are very respected good people. Doctors, solicitors, etc. And a large number use cannabis regularly. You wouldn't know it though, because they don't go out doing stupid things when they are using it. They don't go around throwing up, getting noisy, or acting like complete eejits like most people imbibing in alcohol do on a regular basis.

I belive the councellor is EXTREMELY representative of society. But alcohol, a VERY dangerous drug that kills many people(including those who do not use it but are killed by others who do while they are driving cars, or who do insane things while drunk), and destroys many many lives(I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of severe alcoholics I know personally, who have destroyed their lives and often those of their families thanks to drink), is legal, while cannabis is not. What is the sense in that?

Your thinking is just what I'm talking about. Why is it that alcohol, which is dangerous, very mind altering, dangerous to unborn children if the mother is drinking, dangerous to any person in the vicinity of a drunk person, why is that okay, and many other relatively benign drugs are not? I have met alcoholics who were every bit as much a mess as those on heroin. I know of alcoholics who steal so they can go out on a binge. Where is the difference?

I don't drink at ALL, not even a glass of wine, nor do I do drugs. Not because I think myself so much better than other people, but simply because I can't abide such a loss of control in myself. I like myself, and don't want to be something a drug can make me into, it's just not my thing. I find it terribly hippocritical to say "well, this drug is okay, cause everyone else is doing it, but this one isn't, cause less people are doing it". Either ban everything, or allow everything, and tax the heck out of it and use if for drug/alcohol education and rehab.

Theponylady

Chipboard wrote: »

A guy in a high powered car drove up the N4 at 160 mph the other day and he made it to Sligo without crashing so from now on everyone can drive at whatever speed they like ?

This is not the same thing. If speed limits were raised, the law abiding citizens would also be driving much faster, because it was legal. And that much traffic going that fast we do know is going to cause a whole lot of deaths. The majority of law abiding citizens STILL break the speed limit regularly.

As it stands right now, many law abiding citizens use legal drugs bought in headshops, off licenses, hardware stores. And many other otherwise law abiding citizens, including many who are supposed to be upholding our laws(including gardes, judges, solicitors, prison guards), are using illegal drugs such as cannibis, very regularly. You don't notice them, because they don't have the huge effect on the majority of people that many other harder drugs do.

Cannabis is considered to be one of the more "safe" drugs, because a person can grow it at home(quality control), or it can be bought but it's relatively obvious if something else has been mixed into it.

I suppose that opens up the debate that cannabis can be a gateway drug, but from what I've seen, tobacco can be a gateway drug(leading people to be more likely to smoke cannabis), and alcohol is definately a gateway drug(when people get drunk, they are more likely to use OTHER drugs they normally wouldn't touch were they not drinking), yet those are legal.

The worst thing about closing down legal avenues of buying drugs is, that it is going to increase the amount of illegal activity. You don't see head shop owners running around shooting each other in drug wars. They declare their territory by legally buying/renting property, paying taxes, following the law, and selling what people want to buy. You do see the big and small illegal drug dealers establishing their territory, by killing each other and innocent bystanders as well, and selling drugs that often are not what they are made out to be, and are MUCH more dangerous than drugs that have been made legally with some sort of quality control.

PogMoThoin

You need to look at Holland, the Dutch are recreational drink and drug users, the people with the problems are the immigrants. They educate their childen in schools of the dangers and effects of drink and drugs. I lived there for 5 months and the only people I saw strung out were the foreignors.

On a side note, another thing we could take from their society, the legal age of sex is 12 and prostitution is legal and taxed, there's virtually no rape and much lower teenage pregnancies, the children are educated better in school, even shown how to put on a condom. We're a long way away from that.

We're a backward nation really, led by backward un-educated politicians

frag420

so now that the protestors have forced have pushed these substances back into the hands of criminals am I right to assume that these same parents, worried adults etc will be marching outside your local dealers house then in order to close down his bussiness. you know the person I am talking about. Lives somewhere dodgy, does not work, pays no tax, prob has a gun maybe...............or were headshops just an easy target for you??

If you protestors really cared about the health implications drugs have on your loved ones then get of your arse and go protest outside the scumbag dealers house............

not so vocal now eh??

frAf

bandit197

PogMoThoin wrote: »

You need to look at Holland, the Dutch are recreational drink and drug users, the people with the problems are the immigrants.

Some good views from the last three posters there. Just to further your points:

"The number of opiate addicts in the Netherlands — between 26,000 and 30,000 — is stable, and low compared to other EU countries (2.6 per 1,000 inhabitants in the Netherlands; 4.3 per 1,000 inhabitants in France; and 6.7 per 1,000 inhabitants in the United Kingdom)."
Source:
Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 8.

"The ratio of drug-related deaths in The Netherlands is the lowest in Europe."
Source:
Johnston, Philip, The Daily Telegraph, "International Conventions: UK Regime Among the Most Severe in Europe" (London, England: The Daily Telegraph, March 31, 2000.), and van Dijk, Frans, and de Waard, Jaap, "Legal Infrastructure of the Netherlands in an International Perspective: Crime Control" (The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Justice Directorate of Strategy Development, June 2000).

"Violent crime rates in The Netherlands are much lower than in the US, as is the rate of transmission of HIV/AIDS through injection drug use."
Source:
van Dijk, Frans, and de Waard, Jaap, "Legal Infrastructure of the Netherlands in an International Perspective: Crime Control" (The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Justice Directorate of Strategy Development, June 2000).

There was also a study done recently that showed that the Dutch youth have one of the lowest cannabis usage figures in Europe despite it being widely available. I will find the study and post it here here. Education is the key not prohibition.

Chipboard

Sorry, had to skip off for lunch and a nice glass of wine (but no heroin).

Theponylady wrote: »

I have MANY friends who are very respected good people. Doctors, solicitors, etc. And a large number use cannabis regularly.

I don't believe you. What kind of circles do you hang around in that you, who doesn't even drink, are surrounded by all these Hedonists? Suits your argument methinks.

Theponylady wrote: »

I belive the councellor is EXTREMELY representative of society.

Come off the grass. Ming Flanagan.... extremely representative of society.

Theponylady wrote: »

But alcohol, a VERY dangerous drug that kills many people(including those who do not use it but are killed by others who do while they are driving cars, or who do insane things while drunk), and destroys many many lives(I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of severe alcoholics I know personally, who have destroyed their lives and often those of their families thanks to drink), is legal, while cannabis is not. What is the sense in that?

I'll say it again, that while everyone admits that alcohol does damage, you can't use it to justify even more damage.

Theponylady wrote: »

Why is it that alcohol, which is dangerous, very mind altering, dangerous to unborn children if the mother is drinking, dangerous to any person in the vicinity of a drunk person, why is that okay, and many other relatively benign drugs are not? I have met alcoholics who were every bit as much a mess as those on heroin. I know of alcoholics who steal so they can go out on a binge. Where is the difference?

Do you feel in danger when you go into a pub?

Theponylady wrote: »

I have met alcoholics who were every bit as much a mess as those on heroin.

Have you really met someone who is addicted to heroin?

Theponylady wrote: »

I find it terribly hippocritical to say "well, this drug is okay, cause everyone else is doing it, but this one isn't, cause less people are doing it".

I never said alcohol is ok. I said that it was socially acceptable. There's a difference.

Theponylady wrote: »

Either ban everything, or allow everything, and tax the heck out of it and use if for drug/alcohol education and rehab.

Even you don't believe this.

Chipboard

Theponylady wrote: »

This is not the same thing.

No, its not the same thing, its a similar thing. I'll say it again - an analogy doesn't have to be identical to be relevant.

Theponylady wrote: »

If speed limits were raised, the law abiding citizens would also be driving much faster, because it was legal. And that much traffic going that fast we do know is going to cause a whole lot of deaths.

Soooo, if we change the laws, everyone will be doing drugs and the world will turn to sh1t. Or, is it, its ok for one person to do it but if everyone does it there will be chaos. My point was that just because there is an exception to a rule, it doesn't mean we should change the rule. What was your point?

Theponylady wrote: »

As it stands right now, many law abiding citizens use legal drugs bought in headshops, off licenses, hardware stores. And many other otherwise law abiding citizens, including many who are supposed to be upholding our laws(including gardes, judges, solicitors, prison guards), are using illegal drugs such as cannibis, very regularly. You don't notice them, because they don't have the huge effect on the majority of people that many other harder drugs do.

The headshops are being dealt with. You can't do much about someone who gets a kick out of sniffing jeyes fluid or sticking nails in himself but then again unless he's a very good marketeer and he manages to convince a lot of people to join him, its not a big problem.

The Gardai, judges etc are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Just because its not possible to achieve 100% enforcement, doesn't mean you just give up.

Theponylady wrote: »

Cannabis is considered to be one of the more "safe" drugs, because a person can grow it at home(quality control), or it can be bought but it's relatively obvious if something else has been mixed into it.

One of the most socially acceptable of drugs. I personally am not terribly concerned about cannabis. Lets talk about the fun stuff, the stuff that makes you think you should beat an innocent newborn baby to death.

Theponylady wrote: »

The worst thing about closing down legal avenues of buying drugs is......selling drugs that often are not what they are made out to be, and are MUCH more dangerous than drugs that have been made legally with some sort of quality control.

Not so. Many of the drugs sold by headshops are not designed for the purpose they are sold for and it even says so on the packaging. Furthermore they are not tested or certified as being safe.

Chipboard

frag420 wrote: »

so now that the protestors have forced have pushed these substances back into the hands of criminals am I right to assume that these same parents, worried adults etc will be marching outside your local dealers house then in order to close down his bussiness. you know the person I am talking about. Lives somewhere dodgy, does not work, pays no tax, prob has a gun maybe...............or were headshops just an easy target for you??

If you protestors really cared about the health implications drugs have on your loved ones then get of your arse and go protest outside the scumbag dealers house............

not so vocal now eh??

frAf

The headshops weren't illegal so people protested against them. Thats how laws are enacted, public opinion (majority, not minorities) make their feelings known, and public representatives change the laws.

When the laws are enacted, it is then a matter for the Gardai. Drug dealing is already illegal and it is not the role of private citizens to enforce the laws.

Having said that, in situations where the law failed to deal with it, there were numerous instances of the public taking the law into their own hands in parts of Dublin in the last 20 years.

PogMoThoin

Majorities of ignorant un-educated assholes.

I'm not a young teenage drugtaker preeching here, I'll be 35 on my next birthday. I'm married and a family man for years, I've not taken any drugs in a long time, but I have taken them, I do drink alcohol, not every week though. I've got 11 and 12 year old children, I got a daughter going into secondary school next September. I wouldn't dream about telling them not to take drugs, that would be hypocritical, when I know its a given that they're going to encounter them and try them. I'd much prefer to see a controlled situation here, not have them down the alleyway sniffing tipp-ex thinners or lighter gas. I do advise them not to take anything they know nothing about and not to give into peer pressure, education is the key.

Your backward approach changes nothing, prohibition hasn't worked for the last 50 years and all its done is create a big market for criminals. There are thousands of non-criminals out there who recreationally take drugs and don't rob or steal to provide for them. Instead of campaigning to close the headshops we should be regulating them, we should be watching what they sell, to whom and we should make them display ingredients on the packaging. We should also educate our children of the dangers and effects of drink and drugs, but we first need to educate the ignorant majority who are keeping this country from moving forward.

Theponylady

Chipboard wrote: »

Sorry, had to skip off for lunch and a nice glass of wine (but no heroin).

I don't believe you. What kind of circles do you hang around in that you, who doesn't even drink, are surrounded by all these Hedonists? Suits your argument methinks.

Come off the grass. Ming Flanagan.... extremely representative of society.

I'll say it again, that while everyone admits that alcohol does damage, you can't use it to justify even more damage.

Do you feel in danger when you go into a pub?

Have you really met someone who is addicted to heroin?

I never said alcohol is ok. I said that it was socially acceptable. There's a difference.

Even you don't believe this.

You can choose to live in your fantasy world if you like. My friends are not "hedonists", they are just normal people, people you'd be doing business with every day. You'd never know they were drug users unless they told you. They are normal functiional and often quite successful people. My guess is you are not the type of person people would be comfortable opening up to, or perhaps you have a very small circle of friends.

I grew up in a large metropolitan area, and I've done a bit of travelling and lived in several different countries. I've had the opportunity to meet a lot of different people, and see how things are done in other places. I've seen things that work, and things that don't work.

The United States has spent literally billions on their "war on drugs" campaign. Drugs are much more prevalant now than EVER before in the history of the country. Gangs and criminal activity are prevalant. It hasn't worked.

Amsterdam has instituted a good education system on drugs. You can buy drugs easily, but you can also walk down the street and feel safe.

Do I feel unsafe going into pubs? On occasion, YES. I've been around a few bar fights, those are not something you want to be anywhere near, you can get hurt even if it's got nothing to do with you. I've had drunks who were VERY intimidating come after me. There have been times when I've left because I was scared. Now, MOST of the time, it's not like that. But it's happened more than a few times.

I have not EVER been intimidated by people who were smoking cannabis.

I don't use alcohol to "justify" doing more damage. You did that-you claimed it was socially acceptable and therefore it was okay, drugs weren't socially acceptable, therefore, not okay. I called into question why it was okay if it was "socially acceptable", even though alcohol does as much or more damage as all the other drugs combined. They are all drugs, regardless of whether they are the fashion or not. I will restate my opinion-either drugs should be legal, or they should not. This halfway thing doesn't work.

However, prohibition has never worked either. The only way it seems to work even halfway is if there are extreme punishments for using, long term jail or death. And I don't think that's the route to go either.

Have I met heroin addicts? Yes, sadly. None of them my personal friends, thank goodness. That is an awful drug, and how anyone can be stupid enough to take it is beyond me.

Perhaps with more drug awareness and education programs, we could reduce the numbers of people trying hard drugs like that. And with more rehab programs, we could help the people who made the bad decisions anyway.

But programs like that cost a LOT of money. They have to be paid for somehow. It seems to me making drugs legal, taking away the stigma so people can talk about them openly, give people information, and keep otherwise lawabiding citizens out of jail(where they meet and learn a LOT about those who break the law for a living-not a great place to send already vulnerable people), would be wiser. Taxing the drugs and earmarking that money for those programs would be helpful. It would also remove much of the criminal element.

And right now, many people in society have found that society has lied to them, they didn't drop dead when they smoked pot, so maybe society has lied about the harder drugs, and they try them. We don't talk about drug use openly in Ireland. Kids get most of their information from other kids, not a great place to go for info!

Do I believe we need to either ban everything, or legalize everything? Absolutely! We can't have it both ways. It hasn't worked in any other country in the world, it's not going to work here.

Theponylady

Thanks for that information. I know when I have been in Amsterdam, it seemed very clean, and there weren't a bunch of druggies hanging on street corners. I had no qualms walking around the city late in the evening. Even the red zone, wasn't intimidating (although, it was a bit shocking to my eyes!) Very unlike most other large cities I have been in.

I found the mix of sex/head shops sitting next to toy stores rather strange, but it was normal there and of course not shocking to them. I think the easy availability of stuff, and the amount of education available to the general population makes the stuff less attractive.

My first time in Amsterdam, I was young and exceedingly naieve, and didn't know about the coffee shops. I was fairly shocked when I went in one, and discovered what was going on! However, I found them to be relatively quiet, with people behaving themselves quite well, just like the smaller rural pubs in Ireland.

I'd been looking for those statistics, but hadn't found them, thanks for posting them here.

bandit197 wrote: »

Some good views from the last three posters there. Just to further your points:

"The number of opiate addicts in the Netherlands — between 26,000 and 30,000 — is stable, and low compared to other EU countries (2.6 per 1,000 inhabitants in the Netherlands; 4.3 per 1,000 inhabitants in France; and 6.7 per 1,000 inhabitants in the United Kingdom)."
Source:
Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 8.

"The ratio of drug-related deaths in The Netherlands is the lowest in Europe."
Source:
Johnston, Philip, The Daily Telegraph, "International Conventions: UK Regime Among the Most Severe in Europe" (London, England: The Daily Telegraph, March 31, 2000.), and van Dijk, Frans, and de Waard, Jaap, "Legal Infrastructure of the Netherlands in an International Perspective: Crime Control" (The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Justice Directorate of Strategy Development, June 2000).

"Violent crime rates in The Netherlands are much lower than in the US, as is the rate of transmission of HIV/AIDS through injection drug use."
Source:
van Dijk, Frans, and de Waard, Jaap, "Legal Infrastructure of the Netherlands in an International Perspective: Crime Control" (The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Justice Directorate of Strategy Development, June 2000).

There was also a study done recently that showed that the Dutch youth have one of the lowest cannabis usage figures in Europe despite it being widely available. I will find the study and post it here here. Education is the key not prohibition.