Legal Highs

generalmiaow

RMD wrote: »

Don't really see the logic in people saying you're better off taking Marijuana than Smoke / Spice / Pulse.

Yes we don't know what's in the combinations of legal highs yet we also don't know if the weed you're smoking has been cut with something dangerous unless you're buying from a trusty "source".

I disagree. We KNOW smoke/spice/etc are sprayed with synthetic cannabinoids of the JWH series. These are untested chemicals. Very little tox work. They could cause anything from super-cancer to insanity. It takes a decade or more to determine the safety of new chemicals.

Cannabis on the other hand, is the devil you know. While cannabis in countries where it is illegal has been known to be mixed with "filler" or cosmetic materials of various sorts, they are not generally mixed with other psychoactive drugs, because there would be no point in giving away drugs for free. Soapbar is an obvious exception*, but herbal cannabis is a far better bet than trusting mystery sachets from asian factories, probably even back when it had glass all over it.

*Beeswax, turpentine, milk powder, ketamine, boot polish, henna, pine resin, aspirin, animal turds, ground coffee, barbiturates, glues and dyes plus carcinogenic solvents such as Toluene and Benzene apparently. but I can't find any references, and some of those don't make any sense, since they would evaporate before ending up in a finished product[

generalmiaow

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

What is coming into effect in the UK, and what is likely to come into effect here, is a blanket analogue ban. That is, any chemical attempting to replicate the effects of traditional Cannabis would be banned, which would close the loophole. Otherwise things could go on forever. There are thousands of different Cannabinoids out their waiting to be synthesized.

Please provide a source for an analogue ban. I cover things like this on another website and I would be very interested in knowing about an analogue ban in the UK.

carlmango11

Salvia 20x, thought I was a librarian, started organizing by friends into letter categories, while in fits of laughter.

flanum

This guy makes it fun....

flanum

as opposed to this... (ben meeting god....yikes!)!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DxCDf1H3q0

DanielL

these illegal highs are crap id take some homegrown over anything in one of them head shops any day .
also im not sure about this one but will throw it out there..if you were to overdose on this snow stuff and had to be brought to a hospital how the feck would they know how to treat you ?

Hamiltonion

DanielL wrote: »

these illegal highs are crap id take some homegrown over anything in one of them head shops any day .
also im not sure about this one but will throw it out there..if you were to overdose on this snow stuff and had to be brought to a hospital how the feck would they know how to treat you ?

I wouldnt worry bout snow tbh, its useless, I couldnt get anything off it so I done a whole g over the course of about 5 mins and nothing,

Smoke is dangerous though, effectively put myself into a coma the first time:eek:

I think the real danger comes from people ordering research chems like mephedrone online and overindulging/not properly researching effects and dosage beforehand

DanielL

yeah suppose but anything done in enough amounts can be dangerous..
anadin is legal but take 12 of them and it would be your last headache !

liah

I've tried Smoke and Magic. Smoke has no effect on me at all, but Magic has roughly the same effect as your average bud.

Also tried two kinds of legal pills.. forget what they were called, one was pink, the other green, both largeish pills. Took one of each at the same time. I got a brief high (maybe about 20-30 minutes) and then overheating and a headache to the point that I thought I had to go to the hospital as I'd convinced myself I was having a brain bleed the pain was so great. My boyfriend got the overheating, headache, as well as vomiting for an hour straight. My housemate got the same as me. One out of the four showed no effects, but he was also drunk at the time whereas the rest of us were not.

I didn't feel right til later the next day. We all drank plenty of water before, during, and after, and were not consuming alcohol with the pills-- had a bit of Magic at the same time but it was one moderate mixed (with tobacco obviously) joint split between four people.

How those pills are legal, I don't know. This was very recent, too-- only last week. It seriously messed us all up, and the high definitely wasn't worth it at all.

I'm going to stick to the illegal stuff for now I think.

Prof.Badass

DanielL wrote: »

yeah suppose but anything done in enough amounts can be dangerous..
anadin is legal but take 12 of them and it would be your last headache !

yes but anadin has been studied to death. When you take anadin you're not potentially giving yourself cancer or permanently destroying your ability to feel pleasure.

DanielL

vinylmesh wrote: »

yes but anadin has been studied to death. When you take anadin you're not potentially giving yourself cancer or permanently destroying your ability to feel pleasure.

yeah good point actually

Pace2008

It might be worth pointing out that in Ireland (or the UK for that matter) it's not a crime to admit having taken drugs in the past, whether they're illegal or not, so the SWIM acronym is a bit redundant if you're living here.

It was the 20x I did and now I'm wondering how the 50x and over can be any more intense than the trip I was on, maybe it lasts longer I don't know but I couldn't possibly go any higher than I was, it was a complete break from reality like being in a dream

I honestly don't think there's any limit to how high you can go on salvia; it's ridiculous.

InTranceWeTrust

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Yeah I had a proper salvia trip once and although I thought it was great I don't think I'd ever do it again. I mean it really really ****s you up

Always irks me when people are like "Oh man I had a salvia joint I was like, SO high" :rolleyes:

pisses me off as well. these indie/emo/scumbag/whatever kids getting drunk and smoking salvia getting "****ed up".

why you would want to get "****ed up" is beyond me. don't get me wrong, i love being high, but being high is more than just taking whatever drugs you can in an effort to batter reality into submission; it is carefully researching and selecting the correct amount of the right substance(s), planning your setting, taking it in the right environment. crafting mindsets.

i heart drugs

Daroxtar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXQV3DxDwS4

I love this guys reaction

InTranceWeTrust

sordino wrote: »

Swim had some idea that it was from a head shop and, in his innocence, thought it would be quite weak.

there is your mistake right there. why would you assume that because something is legal it is weak? there are many drugs which are legal (or more correctly, haven't been banned yet) which are stronger (and in a number of cases a lot more harmful) than illegal drugs. I don't really feel to sorry for you that you had a bad trip. Take it as a lesson learned. If you'd overdid it with something like "charge" you could have ended up in hospital or worse.

although having said that I do think it is wrong that people are marketing these drugs and give no indication of ingredients (or false ingredients when they do0 or dosages. it is irresponsible and dangerous. it only serves to damage the community and work towards getting said chemicals banned. and make lots of money for the legal high company of course.

sordino

I think the phrase 'in his innocence' explains quite clearly that the person had no idea that legal drugs could be so potent. No one's looking for you to feel sorry for them. It was simply a warning.

On the one hand you're suggesting it's the responsibility of the user to be aware of the potency of the drugs, and on the other you're complaining that it's dangerous for the producers not to list all of the ingredients. As the actress said to the bishop, you can't have it both ways. :eek:

InTranceWeTrust

^ I don't see why not? I also feel the producers and the people in the head shops selling the drugs should give advice on how to take the substances safely. Unfortunately this would undo the "not for human consumption" loophole.

I think people need to be less naive in all aspects of life, not just when it comes to legal drugs.

sordino

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

^ I don't see why not? I also feel the producers and the people in the head shops selling the drugs should give advice on how to take the substances safely. Unfortunately this would undo the "not for human consumption" loophole

Yes, I can see how that plan might fail. Maybe it's a little innocent, or what's that other word...

InTranceWeTrust

now you're just nitpicking. my posts are at least a little constructive.

slipss

rubadub wrote: »

arseholes thinking they are pablo escobar who "risk incriminating" themselves, as though the FBI have tabs on them or something, don't flatter yourself gobsh!tes.

From what I understand, phrases like that aren't used because people think of themselves as major drug dealers and believe the feds are watching there net posts. They are just there to protect the site, in lots of countries people posting on a site saying "I bought a load of heroin and smoked some and sold some" ect, would lead to the site being shut down very quickly. So they use the thinly veiled phrases to negate that.

sordino

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

now you're just nitpicking. my posts are at least a little constructive.

My reply goes to the heart of the reason I posted: I think many of these legal drugs are dangerous.

From both the user point of view (many people I know have no idea they can be so potent), and from the point of view that the people who sell them don't really know what's in them ('not fit for human consumption' gets you through a lot of loopholes).

A little bit of old-fashioned illegality can be a lot safer than this crap.

Prof.Badass

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

^ I don't see why not? I also feel the producers and the people in the head shops selling the drugs should give advice on how to take the substances safely. Unfortunately this would undo the "not for human consumption" loophole.

I think people need to be less naive in all aspects of life, not just when it comes to legal drugs.

They could at least give ingredients and dosages. There's some sort of headshop's association, isn't there?

You'd think with all the cash they are raking in the least they could do is all band together and commision tests on each product that doesn't give ingredients.

It's a pity, because headshops could have been one way to fight prohibition. They really could have pushed the whole harm reduction aspect. They could have been like "See, drugs can be bought and sold in a responsible manner and look, society hasn't collapsed yet." Instead they just want short term profits and don't give a fúck about morals/politics. It annoys me to see such a great opportunity mindlessly squandered by such a small number of people.

ScumLord

Any time I've asked for advice in a headshop I've gotten it.

big b

ScumLord wrote: »

Any time I've asked for advice in a headshop I've gotten it.

Aye, they often point me in the direction of the nearest sweetie shop too

sordino

ScumLord wrote: »

Any time I've asked for advice in a headshop I've gotten it.

Yes, with all those qualifications they have I'm sure it's spot on.

These are people taking your money by selling a product which is marked 'Not fit for human consumption' because it hasn't been tested or analysed. Do you think they really know what's in it or what it's long term effects are?

If I had to, I'd rather trust Micko down the pub. He doesn't have a clue but if something goes wrong you'd sort it out. Old school.

Pace2008

They'll give you advice alright, with the best of intentions, but it's usually based on hearsay or subjective experience. They might be able to tell you enough that you won't drop dead on the spot but when the ingredients on the current batch of party pills are listed as 'herbal blends and ketones' I don't think they can guarantee against the neuro/cardio/hepatotoxicity of their product.

InTranceWeTrust

sordino wrote: »

A little bit of old-fashioned illegality can be a lot safer than this crap.

I don't agree. Mephedrone has become very popular now. Once that is banned it won't disappear, it will simply be pushed underground into the hands of unscrupulous dealers.

The "problem" with drugs is that they are illegal. Making more substances illegal will only make the problem worse. Only when drugs are available in pure form, in government controlled stores where the "pharmacist" can provide all the necessary information for their safe and proper use, and check ID to ensure that children do not get their hands on said substances (as they are right this minute in towns and villages all over Ireland), will the "drug problem" be cured.

sordino

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

The "problem" with drugs is that they are illegal.

Clearly, as you yourself have pointed out, there is also a problem with legal drugs. I'm not pointing out a preference, merely the irony that legal drug outlets are, in my opinion, even more dangerous than old-fashioned 'soft' drug dealers: Their products are not properly tested, they operate under a cloak of some kind of legal respectability, they don't fully know what's in their products and they give people advice on how to take a product marked 'Not fit for human consumption'.

The idea of a world where 'pure' drugs are sold and regulated by the government is quite frankly - I hate to say this - naive. Some drugs will always be illegal. I'm not opposed to legal drugs per se, but I think the current legal drug outlets are clearly dangerous. I wouldn't feed a dog something that said 'Not fit for consumption by a dog.'

Maybe a cat, but not a dog.

InTranceWeTrust

sordino wrote: »

as you yourself have pointed out, there is also a problem with legal drugs.

Yes there is, and the problem as I also pointed out that the legal loophole in which they are sold does not allow for advice to be given for their safe consumption.

sordino wrote: »

The idea of a world where 'pure' drugs are sold and regulated by the government is quite frankly - I hate to say this - naive. Some drugs will always be illegal.

The idea is optimistic and perhaps unrealistic, but it is not naive.Yes some drugs will probably always be illegal, but I did say the problem won't be cured until drugs are legalised, and I do mean all of them. And yes, before you ask that does include heroin.

Dragan

vinylmesh wrote: »

p.s as a harm reduction measure i would reccomend choosing methylone over mephedrone. I would not go near either myself, but i have heard of lots of fucked up side effects in mephedrone users. One to avoid.

With Mephe, it's a dose thing. If you go even a little over what you need, the come ups can be very harsh, and the sides can really kick in.

It's not for people who like to pound a lot of a substance, but for one or two drops over a chilled night, i think this stuff is perfection.

InTranceWeTrust

Dragan wrote: »

With Mephe, it's a dose thing. If you go even a little over what you need, the come ups can be very harsh, and the sides can really kick in.

It's not for people who like to pound a lot of a substance, but for one or two drops over a chilled night, i think this stuff is perfection.

I wouldn't touch the stuff either. Used in moderation it might not cause any immediate problems but the molecule is shaped in such a way that its likely to cause heart problems later on down the road (a la fenfluramine, the anti-obesity medication which was withdrawn from the market after reports of heart valve disease, and pulmonary hypertension, including a condition known as cardiac fibrosis).

Methylone would be a much safer option if you had to use one.

sordino

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

Yes some drugs will probably always be illegal, but I did say the problem won't be cured until drugs are legalised, and I do mean all of them. And yes, before you ask that does include heroin.

You're saying that there's a problem that won't be 'cured' until drugs are legalised, yet you agree that some drugs will probably always be illegal, and you also have agreed that there are several problems with current legalised drugs. So clearly, simply legalising drugs doesn't cure "the problem".

I'm arguing that unregulated headshops are currently a danger. I think you agree with that as far as I can tell. Cool. :cool:

ChocolateSauce

I've always wondered why anyone would do legal drugs when the illegal ones are cheaper, nicer, and quite possibly safer in the long run.

Dragan

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

I wouldn't touch the stuff either. Used in moderation it might not cause any immediate problems but the molecule is shaped in such a way that its likely to cause heart problems later on down the road (a la fenfluramine, the anti-obesity medication which was withdrawn from the market after reports of heart valve disease, and pulmonary hypertension, including a condition known as cardiac fibrosis).

Methylone would be a much safer option if you had to use one.

Wow, interesting stuff there. Must look into this more.

InTranceWeTrust

sordino wrote: »

You're saying that

1. there's a problem that won't be 'cured' until drugs are legalised,

2. yet you agree that some drugs will probably always be illegal,

3. and you also have agreed that there are several problems with current legalised drugs.

So clearly, simply legalising drugs doesn't cure "the problem".

I'm arguing that unregulated headshops are currently a danger. I think you agree with that as far as I can tell. Cool. :cool:

I'm getting tired explaining myself to you so listen up because it will be the last time I do. Quite frankly I don't see what is so hard to understand.

1. Yes. The problem is that drugs are illegal, which really means that they are unregulated and impure. They are readily available regardless of legal status.

2. I am being realistic. I can see cannabis being legalised in the future or at least decriminalised but I don't see addictive drugs such as heroin being treated in the same way, at least not in this or similar societies. (you'll have to remember that it isn't up to me after all)

3. These drugs are not "legalised". They are legal, but perhaps it would make more sense to say that they haven't been made illegal yet*. There isn't actually a problem with the drugs themselves, there is a problem with the way they are sold (in a loophole situation which doesn't allow for guidance and advice on how to take them safely).

* Because the government is either unaware of the drug's existence, or they are aware but layers and layers of bureaucracy have a tendency to slow down new legislation coming into place.

I think we do agree on the last point, but if you can't understand my other points then I think its past your bed-time and you shouldn't be allowed on the computer at this time of night.

sordino

You're going to have to keep explaining yourself if you come out with naive comments like this:

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

There isn't actually a problem with the drugs themselves,

Do you know for sure what's in many of these headshop drugs? No. Have they been properly tested? No. Does anyone really know if there's isn't a serious problem with these new synthetic drugs? No.

Unless you've got a new paper coming out on the subject?

Sorry you're getting tired. Must be hard for you to stay up this late.

InTranceWeTrust

How unimaginative you must be if you had to resort to using the very same insult I used in the very post you were replying to! :rolleyes:

As long as people are made aware of the health effects associated with a particular drug then I don't see what the problem with that drug is, regardless of how dangerous it is. Adults should have a choice what they put into their bodies. Free will and all that. It all boils down to one thing, information through education.

Ok, now I really have better things to be doing. Quote me of of context and nitpick with word play and alternative meanings if you want, it bothers me but I can't do anything about it so I'm just going to let it go.

sordino

There are several implications to my comments, and being too young to stay up late is only one possibility. Older people who are somewhat set in their ways also find it hard to stay up (in more ways than one).

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

As long as people are made aware of the health effects associated with a particular drug then I don't see what the problem with that drug is

People aren't being made aware of the health effects of these drugs at headshops. That's the point. Do keep up.

InTranceWeTrust

Oh give over, you know as well as I do that is one of the points I was arguing! I'm beginning to smell a troll.

rubadub

ScumLord wrote: »

There have been buds that have been covered in stuff to make it heavier but that is rare.

I would have said it was far from rare, maybe you have a better supply, but for a time every single bud I saw from various sources was white, but not sticky in the slightest, some had visible sand in the corner of bags. In other countries the governments took action about it, of course the head was firmly in the sand here (excuse the pun!).

generalmiaow wrote: »

We KNOW smoke/spice/etc are sprayed with synthetic cannabinoids of the JWH series. These are untested chemicals. Very little tox work. They could cause anything from super-cancer to insanity. It takes a decade or more to determine the safety of new chemicals.

Cannabis on the other hand, is the devil you know. While cannabis in countries where it is illegal has been known to be mixed with "filler" or cosmetic materials of various sorts, they are not generally mixed with other psychoactive drugs, because there would be no point in giving away drugs for free.

I would be shocked if people do not start mixing synthetic cannabis into weed now. It is active in very small doses so could be diluted and sprayed on, like the other crap. It would make perfect sense to do it, it is not really giving drugs for free, it is diluting drugs down with cheaper ones and selling at the same or higher price. Problem is you will have idiots making their own concoctions, you could get nuggets of JWH on weed and people having severe effects, I expect the makers of spice at least have a decent scales and know-how in measuring out potent research chemicals.

A lot of weed is already stripped of some or a lot of its trichomes/crystals by growers or sellers. It can be further stripped with solvents leaving a left over "spent" bud which could be sprayed with JWH or other cannabinoids and sold at a premium.

DanielL wrote: »

these illegal highs are crap id take some homegrown over anything in one of them head shops any day .
also im not sure about this one but will throw it out there..if you were to overdose on this snow stuff and had to be brought to a hospital how the feck would they know how to treat you ?

I expect a lot of the "illegal stuff" could well be legal now too. Like the cannabis it would make sense for dealers to dilute coke or other drugs down with legal alternatives, giving a blend, this has already gone on for decades, look at E, people use ephedrine, BZP, caffeine etc as filler, it is obviously easier to do with speed or coke sold in powders. Also saying "illegal highs are crap", perpetuates the problem of people overdosing on legal drugs, before a drug is illegal it was legal, so it is a bit odd to presume they are all crap. Was cannabis crap when legal? Mushrooms is a more recent one you could answer. Cocaine was at one time freely and legally available OTC in dublin and had widespread use, but that is conveniently forgotten/ignored.

sordino wrote: »

I think many of these legal drugs are dangerous.

They certainly are. Many illegal drugs are illegal since they are so relatively SAFE. If a drug is safe with little side effects, comedown etc then it has a high "potential for abuse", this makes it all the more likely to be nipped in the bud early before it gets a large user base who would object to it. You have few moaning about mushrooms being banned, there would be uproar at the thought of tobacco or alcohol being made illegal. People would say its not fair on the publicans yet viewed mushroom sellers as dodgy people. Of course if mammy & the gardai use a drug then its fine. The lack of opposition to banning drugs sometimes also shows how relatively safe they are, i.e. you have no addicts complaining since, well, there are none...

sordino wrote: »

A little bit of old-fashioned illegality can be a lot safer than this crap.

A lot of dealers don't know whats in their stuff either, and as I said above I expect they will contaminate their own supply more and more. Some might pass off completely legal drugs as illegal, they can up the price and not face prosecution if caught win-win. It can be cheaper to get illegal ones though.

vinylmesh wrote: »

They could at least give ingredients and dosages. There's some sort of headshop's association, isn't there?

There was, it was a bit of a joke really, as bad as the vitners;). The ingredients are kept secret for good reason. Spice listed its alleged ingredients so customs etc thought it was just some herbal mixture, if they revealed it had JWH then it would have been investigated and banned a lot sooner. If you don't tell them whats in it then it can't be banned, that is how many operate, it is not really that the drug is "legal", in most cases it is more accurate to just say it is not "illegal", it is unknown. The analogue acts can cover many new drugs, but some do not fall under current laws, so the chemists have to just change the structure enough to circumvent the laws, and of course not publish this or they would not be able to sell it.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I've always wondered why anyone would do legal drugs when the illegal ones are cheaper, nicer, and quite possibly safer in the long run.

They risk arrest, they have no contacts to get it from, and many wrongly presume they are safer - "if they were harmful they would be illegal right?"

sordino

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

Oh give over, you know as well as I do that is one of the points I was arguing! I'm beginning to smell a troll.

Your argument seems to revolve around the need for some kind of chat with the friendly headshop man about how to use the drugs properly. What dosage, what's right for me today, etc. To me this is based on a blind faith, or naivety if you prefer (he he), in the contents of these drugs.

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

As long as people are made aware of the health effects associated with a particular drug then I don't see what the problem with that drug is, regardless of how dangerous it is.

How can one advise on the health effects of untested drugs, the contents of which aren't labelled properly and which are marked 'Not fit for human consumption'?

ElaElaElano

I've not followed every page of this debate but my tuppence-

The headshop in Bray is a bit disasterous, the kids working in there haven't got a f*cking clue what they're selling. It's cringe worthy watching them babble on about their products.

I took some Salvia a few weeks ago and it wasn't a dangerous or a bad trip, but I did whip my lad out in front of quite a large amount of people and (apparently) rambled incessantly about having a 42ft urethera, before lying down and going to sleep.

Prof.Badass

rubadub wrote: »

There was, it was a bit of a joke really, as bad as the vitners;). The ingredients are kept secret for good reason. Spice listed its alleged ingredients so customs etc thought it was just some herbal mixture, if they revealed it had JWH then it would have been investigated and banned a lot sooner. If you don't tell them whats in it then it can't be banned, that is how many operate, it is not really that the drug is "legal", in most cases it is more accurate to just say it is not "illegal", it is unknown. The analogue acts can cover many new drugs, but some do not fall under current laws, so the chemists have to just change the structure enough to circumvent the laws, and of course not publish this or they would not be able to sell it.

Ah, but they were able to do it with bzp, I see no reason why they cannot do it with jwh-018. The secret is out in the open now, it's already been banned in loads of countries. There's nothing to be gained from keeping the ingredients secret and there's everything to be lost. Our government didn't bother to ban bzp untill europe forced them to (mary harney even said she had no interest in banning it), who knows, if ingredients were listen on these blends a simmilar thing might happen.

Even if one producer started giving dosages it would make a huge difference. If we want to avoid a ban on jwh-018 we'll have to show what benifits it can have. Really push the harm reduction aspect of it. If someone went and made a jwh-018 containing pill/liquid it would be incredibly easy to win people over (no more harmful smoke).

You honestly cannot expect people to care when the government ban dodgy "herbal" blends claiming to be "all natural" when they actually contain untested chemicals not listed on the pack.

And this stuff about headshops not being able to do anything is just not true. Irish head stores are heavily involved with "smoke" (their email adress is on the organic worx website). And from what i have heard Nirvana are heavily involved with some of the pills they sell.
I definitely think that both Irish head stores and Nirvana have the neccesary power that they could have jwh-018 products with listed ingredients/doseages on their shelves within months if they wanted to.

sordino

vinylmesh wrote: »

I definitely think that both Irish head stores and Nirvana have the neccesary power that they could have jwh-018 products with listed ingredients/doseages on their shelves within months if they wanted to.

Why would you think that? The drugs are untested. Do you think they could find out the long-term effects of, say, JWH-018 within months. No. Do you think these people have any power? No. Do you think they actually give a f***?

Currently, headshops exploit legal loopholes in order to make a quick buck. Bottom line is they don't give a s*** about long-term health effects on their customers. If they did they wouldn't sell untested products, which contain uncertain ingredients and some of which are marked as 'Not fit for human consumption'.

It's INSANIA.

Prof.Badass

sordino wrote: »

Why would you think that? The drugs are untested. Do you think they could find out the long-term effects of, say, JWH-018 within months.

No.

Do you think these people have any power?

Yes. Seeing as "irish head stores" practically make "smoke", definitely. They could easily list ingredients dosages if they wanted to.

Do you think they actually give a f***?

That is what i am giving out about.

sordino

vinylmesh wrote: »

I definitely think that both Irish head stores and Nirvana have the neccesary power that they could have jwh-018 products with listed ingredients/doseages on their shelves within months if they wanted to.

What kind of power do you think they have? Amuse me.

They're hardly going to list an untested drug like JWH-018 that has already been banned in several other countries, unless it's to their benefit. If they list it they'll be shut down.

carlmango11

InTranceWeTrust wrote: »

How unimaginative you must be if you had to resort to using the very same insult I used in the very post you were replying to! :rolleyes:

As long as people are made aware of the health effects associated with a particular drug then I don't see what the problem with that drug is, regardless of how dangerous it is. Adults should have a choice what they put into their bodies. Free will and all that. It all boils down to one thing, information through education.

Ok, now I really have better things to be doing. Quote me of of context and nitpick with word play and alternative meanings if you want, it bothers me but I can't do anything about it so I'm just going to let it go.

Do you think a teenager is going to reason out the consequences and long term effects of, say, legal cocaine or MDMA if it is openly available in shops? I doubt it. If your Free Will ideal is to be applied to everything then Prostitution and Heroin should be legal and plenty of other things. And I'd imagine society would be in a very sorry state.

joseph brand

StopWhispering wrote: »

Yeah but then you have the unfortunate side effect of having a bunch of stupefied high people zombieing around the place. At least the only people like that now are the ones to desperate to escape reality to care. If drugs are fully legalised, it removes the negative attributions from society's psyche and more people will feel more comfortable taking them.

I'd take a bit of crime in exchange for a land of the living dead any day.

Anyway, this thread is about legal highs not legalising highs.

Sounds like this poster has never smoked weed at all.
I know people who have tried weed and ran scared from it. Won't touch it ever again, unless inebriated by that safe alcohol, which is legal.
Others can smoke it and carry on about their day, no hassle. Different people, different tastes/ effects.

Legalising won't remove the 'druggie' stigma attached, and the people who smoke weed if legalisation became a reality would be the people who now smoke it in it's illegal form. Not more people, the same amount.

I mean, if it was legalised tomorrow, I sure wouldn't roll a cone in front of my mother in law, but I could crack open a can of beer under her nose, no problem.

sordino

carlmango11 wrote: »

Do you think a teenager is going to reason out the consequences and long term effects of, say, legal cocaine or MDMA if it is openly available in shops? I doubt it. If your Free Will ideal is to be applied to everything then Prostitution and Heroin should be legal and plenty of other things. And I'd imagine society would be in a very sorry state.

Absolutely. I'd go even further and ask if teenager's are currently reasoning out the long-term effects of JWH-018?

Currently, headshops are a racket run by people who have no respect for people. If they did they wouldn't sell untested synthetic drugs without proper lists of ingredients. They know everyone smokes the products marked 'Not fit for human consumption', yet they cover their own ass by making sure that they're not liable if something goes wrong and some poor kid ends up in hospital or suffers severe anxiety attacks.

I say shut the f****** kips down that sell that s*** to kids.

Shoop

sordino wrote: »

Absolutely. I'd go even further and ask if teenager's are currently reasoning out the long-term effects of JWH-018?

Currently, headshops are a racket run by people who have no respect for people. If they did they wouldn't sell untested drugs without proper lists of ingredients. They know everyone smokes the products marked 'Not fit for human consumption', yet they cover their own ass by making sure that their not liable if something goes wrong and some poor kid ends up in hospital or suffers severe anxiety attacks.

I say shut the f****** kips down that sell that s*** to kids.

I'm 18 and no problems with the stuff or the people in there. I'd say it's better than going out and getting pissed on vodka etc and slightly more classy than knacker drinking cans of dutch Gold in a field.

At least if I buy the legal cocaine I know it's not talcum powder and rat poison I'm snorting, same with the weed there, I know it's not fertilizer and stuff like that. Let's face it, most people my age will try out drugs of some kind. It's the lesser of two evils