PeterIanStaker wrote: » Shur there's still legal highs goin around, Joe, there's this stuff called Seratonin, ye produce it in yer own head Joe, so we have headshops in our own heads. Suffering Jerusalem, Joe.
Gerry Asstrix wrote: » Yeah there gone, only in Ireland...
FlutterinBantam wrote: » Aaah great news for the auld taxpayer these kips were closed. What had you got. **** who never payed a cent tax in their lives using them. jerks who saw a chance to make a quick buck and who didn't give a fuck who they screwed up,running them. And they all end up as wrecks 10 years later in Hospitals expecting the taxpayer to bail them out. You ****ers must think John Q is some kind of ree eh??
Pace2008 wrote: » I'm not sure whom you're even addressing, since you're the first person since the OP to mention head shops.
FlutterinBantam wrote: » Just registering my opinion out there in cyberspace. Good riddance that these earners for chavvish shave-headed goons got stunted, and the equally gormless goons who used them. Should save John Q taxpayer a good wedge of tax money.
Augmerson wrote: » There existed the potential to make a huge amount of money in taxes had the present shower in government not been busy pandering and trying to appease the right in this country. The media also had a hand in spouting bull****, and so those who tut and scowl from concealed positions behind sitting room curtains who are the self-proclaimed moral defenders of our country got onto Joeeeeeeeeeeeee Duffy and SOMETHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT. Cogs rolled. Pistons stirred into life. The government took action. It's a pity these people couldn't keep up the momentum and maybe perhaps queried the government on it's role in bankrupting the country for the next 3 generations. I don't think shutting down the headshops saved anthing in this country, certainly not money. The headshops did huge business. Properly regulated, we could have made millions in tax. Remember, you can't tax or regulate illegal drugs. The headshops are now closed, but criminal gangs are now in the midst of a resurgence of power. At one point they were so desperate they attacked headshops, sitting them on fire.
Patricide wrote: » Nail on the head...but of course people will never see it this way.
FlutterinBantam wrote: » Sure they won't , they have sense. Sure why believe highly qualified people, and parents and anyone with responsibility that these places were doing untold harm. When little Johnny and Jonette stumbles in at 5am with the eyes in the back of their heads and totally stoned,people won't see it that way for sure. No use going down to the local shave-head in the 'headshop' he or she won't give a fcuk,once the stuff is paid for. Cop yourselves on.
Nodin wrote: » More generalised ****.
Patricide wrote: » Because parents usually dont have a clue what there kids are actually up to. Id say this holds up about 90% of the time. Because these reports are usually sensationalized and only one side of the story comes out.
Patricide wrote: » When johnny comes in 5 in the morning eyes rolling in his head drunk its ok though right? I mean its cool, no problem alcohols legal even though many reports find it to be more dangerous than a lot of other drugs but you know...why should we trust highly qualified people.
Patricide wrote: » Why do you think that everyone who works at these head shops are "shave heads"? I mean this would pretty much point out to me that your the one who would have no sense. A lot of these places were run by normal people who were very strict on the law, sure there were gaps there where dodgey people ran them but this was in the minority. This also happens in pubs, supermarkets and hell even doctors offices.
Patricide wrote: » Now I didnt smoke or snort or whatever any of the crap from the headshops myself(with the exception of smoke(its a herbal weed substitute) ages ago) but come on really its time to stop burying our head in the sand on the drug issue. Drugs like weed will always be out there, there too easy to grow and they make too much profit. The worlds attitude toward a lot of drugs are changing with every new scientific paper that comes out. In fact in relation to weed, turns out a lot of it was actually blatant propaganda(yes i know not all of it was, i said a lot). Look at countries like portugal as a case study, they have decriminalized ALL drugs, including heroin. What happened? Drug use rates WENT DOWN. Another case study, the netherlands. They legalized weed, did drug rates go up? No in fact the opposite. Drug rates there are among the LOWEST in europe. Also take California who this month will vote to legalize cannabis. Recent polls show that the law will pass and the state will stand to make billions from it in taxation. Even if that bill doesnt go through, it was from the start of this month decriminalized. I know the tax figures over here would be significantly less but it beats getting zero. I mean im sure they get a fair few bob from alcohol and cigarettes, why not highs too? Bottom line, the drugs are out there and will get sold anyway. Might as well make some tax on them. I am for headshops although only with proper regulation on the premises, the staff, and the products, in a similar system like the netherlands. Heres some further reading for you, as you trust the experts you know:http://newsflavor.com/world/europe/scientific-research-proves-alcohol-and-cigarettes-more-dangerous-than-cannabis-lsd-or-ecstasy/http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.htmlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL5730185 Could find more but id wager you will disregard all of my points before you even read them.
ScumLord wrote: » I don't think the headshops would have been workable in the long run. While I think everybody over a certain age should have the right to try drugs the street corner shop approach wasn't really the best and they weren't really doing anything to help the reputation of drugs and drug users. There are real dangers associated with drug use and we do need to be responsible in how people buy and use them. The open ended heapshop approach was always going to be shut down as it was a profit making business. Profit and any drug legal, recreational or medical is always bad. I do think drugs can be used by people safely but I don't think the governments approach should be one of providing jobs or generating taxes because this is people bodies we're talking about. The financial benefit is obvious as it is with any business.
R_H_C_P wrote: » Does that make them bad people if society knew? Yes because its an illegal drug.
R_H_C_P wrote: » The quicker cannibas becomes legal the better. 70 years of prohibition and nothing to show for it. Complete opposite actually, the number of people smoking it has risen very highly................... .
FlutterinBantam wrote: » Little more constructive than your reply though.
Nodin wrote: » No, thats why it can be summed up as "generalised ****".
flash1080 wrote: » WTF are you on about, nobody said that profit and medicinal drugs are bad.
FlutterinBantam wrote: » Not according to these people
flash1080 wrote: » Are they bad people if they support organised crime so they can use a luxury product?
Shulgin wrote: » If cannabis was legalised or at least decriminalised they would have the option to grown their own without fear of being locked up. No criminals involved. Hell, even buy some down the cannabis shop. The laws regarding cannabis are wrong, plain and simple.
flash1080 wrote: » So they're not bad people if they support organised crime so they can use a luxury product?
mikom wrote: » Lots of bad people in 1920's america so..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiYqFXmVAFg We have learned nothing it seems.
FlutterinBantam wrote: » When you have something constructive to post and a point to make I may engage. So far I have seen neither.
