Kilkenny Head Shops Closed?

Threadhead

Does anyone know what the status is with the head shops in Kilkenny following this afternoon's ban from perfect health and fitness poster girl Mary Harney?

I heard there was a serious lunchtime rush and both shops closed afterwards. Not sure if it's for the day or full stop.

7 years if you're caught with any head shops sustances they say. Carve someone up and attempt a little bit of murder, you're alright, you'll be out in 3. If that. Gotta love this country.

ergonomics

The ban doesn't stop the sale of all legal highs though, just some of them. The head shops should remain open unless the only thing they stocked was Mephedrone.

fabbydabby

Yeah, I'd say our Mary is no stranger to a fish supper alright.

Details on headshops here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0511/headshops.html

I like the picture that they used. Mephadrone and ketamine were not being sold anyway. Perhaps the plant food will be OK to sell. i don't know what the hell they have against plants anyway. They have as much right to food as the next man. or plant.

Oh well. For the recreational users, I guess it's back to buying the gangland stuff that's smuggled onto our shores in the bulging rectums of drug mules.

Threadhead

Aha! Thought there might be a blanket ban in place. I haven't been able to find much specifics.

Jesus, if it's only Mephedrone being banned it's a bit much for people to be buying it in bulk. Most of the problems with head shops seem to stem from the sale of mephedrone, which doesn't exactly seem like the safest of products.

JohnC.

Threadhead wrote: »

Aha! Thought there might be a blanket ban in place

That is the next step, from what I heard from Cowan on the radio. He wants to ban headshops outright.

Threadhead

Nice one Cowen. Obviously thought it through. Good to see his priorities are in the right place.

odin_ie

At the same time, the Vintners Federation of Ireland are having their annaul conference and they want to stop the Government lowering the level of blood alcohol that people will be done for drink driving from 0.08% to 0.05%. Alcohol is the most widely available and probably most damaging drug to society, and I bet the government will cave on lowering the limit to keep the Vintners happy and let them keep selling their legal drug of choice.

Threadhead

Can anyone else see Roy Keane being savaged by a dog at the bottom right of this page or has my tea been laced with mephedrone again?

Purry Cat

Certainly no harm if the one in Kieran Street has been shut down. The number of layabouts and chavs wandering it and out, hanging outside The Playwright and generally being loud and annoying was most off-putting.

Cabaal

odin_ie wrote: »

At the same time, the Vintners Federation of Ireland are having their annaul conference and they want to stop the Government lowering the level of blood alcohol that people will be done for drink driving from 0.08% to 0.05%. Alcohol is the most widely available and probably most damaging drug to society, and I bet the government will cave on lowering the limit to keep the Vintners happy and let them keep selling their legal drug of choice.

Alcohol is seen as a "socially acceptable" drug as its been around for thousands of years but it will slowly change don't worry....years ago people would have said you'd never ban smoking in cafe's but look at things now

Just because alcohol can be sold doesn't mean this should lay the way for more drugs in the form of what were previously "legal highs", I have to say while the goverments decision was based on public pressure it was a good decision none the less.

It was either that or various head shops would have eventually been burnt down, this I don't agree with on any level as its not acceptable for anyone to take the "law" into their own hands. The way its being done is nice and legal the way it should be.

patrickk

If everyone gave up alcohol for six months ,we would see how much pint would cost then eh ?
As for legal/illegal drugs why bother isnt life complicated enough ?

fabbydabby

To paraphrase Bill Hicks: If you are in favour of banning drugs, please go home and burn every piece of music you own.

SweetEmpathy

The public whiplash is already gaining momentum in this; people are not pleased at all.

The government will keep pulling the substance abuse law, however I don't see alcohol under the same law.

Captain Havoc

SweetEmpathy wrote: »

The public whiplash is already gaining momentum in this; people are not pleased at all.

The government will keep pulling the substance abuse law, however I don't see alcohol under the same law.

Alcohol is a special case as it's been around since the year dot. If alcohol was only being introduced today, it would definately be banned as would tobacco.

I personally think banning head shops is a good thing, it does unfortunately have a bad side effect in that people will go to criminal suppliers who probably don't have a quality control department. How as ever, if you play with fire don't be surprised if you get burnt. I'm not completely against drugs, I was a regular cannabis user and don't really see it as a bad thing but certainly substances which alter perception and thinking need to be controlled and along side a banned list we do need to have a safe list which could consist of substances which would not have long term side-effects.

fabbydabby

The alcohol arguement is a bullsh1t one. Sorry. But it is.

This decision of Harney;s was the right decision albiet one that was taken for the wrong reasons.

Whether you drink 8 or 10 cans of legally obtained beer and then go home and beat the sh1t out of your kids, bitch-slap your wife for not having your supper on the table and have indecent bestial relations with your dog is a totally different argument that idiots and hysterics are using to blur the simple and straightforward facts which are as follows.

1) People are going to get wasted on drugs whether it is legal to do so or not. They will do this to enjoy themselves, to stimulate creativity (as they see it), or because they need to escape from problems or because they are addicted to the drug.

2) Making a drug illegal does nothing to dissuade some people from doing this. It won't stop drug abuse and all its grim associated knock-on wife slapping effects. This is exactly why the alcohol arguement is bllx.

The effects and dangers of alcohol, cigarettes, et al are widely known and documented. When you buy a pack of smokes, you know you're an idiot, but you do it anyway. When you buy a large can of beer, you know it will make you p1ssed. But you also know it's been manufactured in a regulated environment and precicely how much alcohol it contains, and that it is safe to be consumed.

The head shop drugs are extremely dangerous. Why? Because:

1) There is zero control in the manufacturing process used to produce them
2) There is zero research into potential negative effects of the drug formulae undertaken
3) There is zero clinical trials undertaken.

People saw that this stuff was legal and assumed it was safe. They were unaware of the dangers of dodgy merchandise and the potential ramifications and (relatively) high probability of having an adverse reaction to it.

The tragic consequences of drug manufacturing gone wrong are well documented and understood.

In the 30's you had Elixir of Sulfanilimide which, although it was good for a sore throat, had the tendency to kill people.
In the 40's you had phenoarbital, a barbiturate derivitave which patients quickly build tolerance to as they take, so they need to take more of the drug to yield the same effects, until the levels in the bloodstream became toxic and they died. This killed and injured hundreds. It is speculated that this is how Marlyn Monroe died.

The 50's - the decade of the vaccine. One company didn't deactivate it properly and gave a load of kids polio.

The 60's. Enter Thalidomide. Probably the greatest tragedy in modern pharmacology. Thalidomide was a morning sickness drug for pregnant women manufactured in a professional, regulated enviornment by a large pharmacutical company. Some batches of the drug had the same chemical formula, but a different molecular arrangement. This caused horrific birth defects in thousands of unborn babies.

All through pharmaceutical history you can examine all of these fuk ups and the legistation and rigourous quality measures that were undertaken in their tragic wake. But we still seem not to have learned.

These are just examples. What about today? There's an acne drug on the market that doctors must excercise discretion in prescribing because of the propensity for the patients to kill themselves while on it. GlaxoSmthKlien are currently involved in litigation with patients who claim that their diabetes drug Avandia is causing heart attacks. Back when I was in college a number of human guinea pigs in London received multiple organ failure during clinical trials for a drug (the last stage before a drug is released onto the market).

Did you know that quite a significant proportion of drugs that actually do make it onto the market today are quietly dropped because of 'unforseen side effects'?

This is the inherent problem with head shop drugs. You don't know what's in them of how they are made. The guys in the shop don't know either, nor do the distributors. The chemists who are making them do, but they don't know about side effects and they don't care. They just know that if they take an MDMA molecule (that's ecstasy to you and me- a drug originally developed and patented by Merck for use as a diet supressant in the early 20th century) and tag on a carbon atom here and there and maybe an oxygen for good measure, it becomes legal again, and people will pay them to get wasted on it.

Maybe it will cause birth defects, sterility, schitzophrenia, blindness, brain tumors, ringworm, crotch rot... or maybe not. Who knows... or more importantly... who cares?

The audacity of that dude from the place on dean street cribbing and moaning about his livelihood in the Advertiser!

People with 5 year degrees in pharmacy wouldn't touch his filthy wares with a barge-pole. What does that tell you about the stuff he sells?

Shulgin

I have a right to take whatever drugs I want as long as nobody else is harmed. It is wrong for me to be criminalised for doing so.

Bullcrap law.

fabbydabby

I can't comment on whether it was a bullcrap law or not because I am not legally trained and I don't understand law. But I suspect that you are right. It probably IS a bullcrap law. Like I said, it was the right ban introduced for the wrong reasons, namely knee-jerk and social pressure from Joe Duffy listeners and ould wagon's who have never done anything remotely exciting with their lifes.

I am not anti-drugs at all, I believe in people's right to get wasted in private. I resent the nanny state that prevents me from buying cans after 10PM or prevents me from attending an all night techno club. I just harbor an extreme distaste to the way in which this business was conducted. It is absolutely perverse, and highly dangerous.

As someone who has undertaken extensive work in FDA regulated industry, it is simply wrong to sell that stuff in that way. It's not like growing a bit of smoke, far more sinister imo. But again, the smoke is lumped in with the methadrone and bzp by people who don't know any better

But hey, that's just opinion. And we're all entitled to ours.

Shulgin

Yup, I agree with everything you said. The headshops and the way they did business was more of a symptom of prohibition than anything else.

If cannabis and mdma were legal and regulated then the whole legal high /designer drug/headshop thing wouldn`t have got so out of hand.

Hopefully sometime in the future we will get politicians to look at the whole drug situation without the propaganda and stigma of the war on drugs.

I`d say I`ll be long dead and buried before it happens

fabbydabby wrote: »

I can't comment on whether it was a bullcrap law or not because I am not legally trained and I don't understand law. But I suspect that you are right. It probably IS a bullcrap law. Like I said, it was the right ban introduced for the wrong reasons, namely knee-jerk and social pressure from Joe Duffy listeners and ould wagon's who have never done anything remotely exciting with their lifes.

I am not anti-drugs at all, I believe in people's right to get wasted in private. I resent the nanny state that prevents me from buying cans after 10PM or prevents me from attending an all night techno club. I just harbor an extreme distaste to the way in which this business was conducted. It is absolutely perverse, and highly dangerous.

As someone who has undertaken extensive work in FDA regulated industry, it is simply wrong to sell that stuff in that way. It's not like growing a bit of smoke, far more sinister imo. But again, the smoke is lumped in with the methadrone and bzp by people who don't know any better

But hey, that's just opinion. And we're all entitled to ours.

argosy2006

you see kids under 18 going into head shop in kieran street and been served, so close them all if they can't even obey that law,
as long as they pay they don't care if ur kid or adult,

Shulgin

argosy2006 wrote: »

you see kids under 18 going into head shop in kieran street and been served, so close them all if they can't even obey that law,
as long as they pay they don't care if ur kid or adult,

The problem was, there was no regulation whatsoever to keep under 18s out of the headstores. The government could have done that right away but they chose to ban everything instead.

Cabaal

SweetEmpathy wrote: »

The public whiplash is already gaining momentum in this; people are not pleased at all.

I'm sure some people are not happy, the problem is is that the people that are unhappy are a bunch of unorganized people who likely don't even vote so they are basically nothing to worry about.

The happy people (those AGAINST the shops) have been far more vocal and organized then those for the shops, given this has been the case I honestly can't see those "unhappy" people getting organized to change a thing

Shulgin wrote: »

I have a right to take whatever drugs I want as long as nobody else is harmed. It is wrong for me to be criminalised for doing so.

Actually no you don't and who's to say you don't take a drug then decide its a great idea to get into your car and run over 5 people, don't be a fool your not invincible

fabbydabby made some very interesting points even if these drugs were made legal and required testing and trials before hand I honestly can't see those backstreet chemists having the money to run the trials, so you'd have the potential to make it legal provided it passes tests but they wouldn't have the money to do the tests

Shulgin

Cabaal wrote: »

Actually no you don't and who's to say you don't take a drug then decide its a great idea to get into your car and run over 5 people, don't be a fool your not invincible

I dont recognise the drug laws in this country just like thousands of people all over the land who take recreational drugs. i don`t drink, I prefer to socialise while using other drugs.

Alcohol doesnt suit me, I have done plenty or really stupid things while under the influence of it. I cant say the same for cannabis or mdma. They are much safer by the way.

Of course I don`t think I am invincible, but I have a great resource called the internet to give me a fair idea what to expect with a drug, dosage, what not to take it with etc... (erowid, bluelight)

If anyone jumps into a car while intoxicated on any drug including alcohol then that is their fault. Blaming the drugs for your actions is pathetic. If you or any of your friends jump into a car while pissed and kill 5 people would you blame the drink?, the old booze has a great history of causing death on the roads.

fabbydabby

My thoughts exactly. Alcohol is dangerous because of what you can do while on it, whereas taking unknown synthesised head shop drugs is dangerous beccause you have literally no idea what you are doing to your body.

They are two totally seperate and different debates that have been blended together by the sh1t stirrer extraordinaire himself, Mr Duffy, and it was his hype machine that got the knee-jerk blanket ban, not a careful and thoughtful consideration on effect the use of legal / illegal drugs (including booze and cigarettes) has on society as a whole.

Shulgin

fabbydabby wrote: »

My thoughts exactly. Alcohol is dangerous because of what you can do while on it, whereas taking unknown synthesised head shop drugs is dangerous beccause you have literally no idea what you are doing to your body.

That is true and politicians need to look at the root of this problem. Headshops and legal highs only appeared beacause of the prohibition of well established and researched drugs. Politicians ignore this and continue the war on drugs business as usual.

They are two totally seperate and different debates that have been blended together by the sh1t stirrer extraordinaire himself, Mr Duffy, and it was his hype machine that got the knee-jerk blanket ban, not a careful and thoughtful consideration on effect the use of legal / illegal drugs (including booze and cigarettes) has on society as a whole.

Thats about the size of it alright. No thoughtful consideration at all went into recent actions. They just said lets ban every thing and stop people getting high, like getting high is morally wrong or something.

The government should be making drugs that are going to be consumed anyway safer by regulation..

Cabaal

Shulgin wrote: »

I dont recognise the drug laws in this country just like thousands of people all over the land who take recreational drugs. i don`t drink, I prefer to socialise while using other drugs.

I expected a teenage like attitude like this alright, sure while we're at it how about we don't recognize laws in relation to speeding because sure you can drive safely at speed its only other people that do stupid things.

Your man enough to make your own decisions after all its your life and it doesn't affect other people...right?

Of course I don`t think I am invincible, but I have a great resource called the internet to give me a fair idea what to expect with a drug, dosage, what not to take it with etc... (erowid, bluelight)

I like that attitude , now sure I think we should make all prescription drugs available over the counter as well, its clear from your argument that people can use the internet to see if the drugs are suitable for them.

I really like your argument and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

If we make all drugs of all types freely accessible then anorexics can easily get access to the likes of Ali without consulting with a doctor or even a pharmacist, clearly these people are of sound mind to make such decisions and again its only their life.
:rolleyes:

Reality of course says otherwise

If anyone jumps into a car while intoxicated on any drug including alcohol then that is their fault. Blaming the drugs for your actions is pathetic. If you or any of your friends jump into a car while pissed and kill 5 people would you blame the drink?,

Lets see you would however blame
- Easy access to drink
- Shops selling it to underage people
- Bars selling drink to people that had to much
- Drink prices too low making it easily accessible

Oh and wait...the fact that people that drink before making them over confident and do not think logically in relation to their capability...the cause of which is alcohol...oh look at that we can say its the cause.

the old booze has a great history of causing death on the roads.

I'm confused, above you said its the persons fault and that blaming the drug is pathetic......now your say its alcohols fault after all it has a great history of causing death.....can you explain how it can be both but yet blaming the drug is still pathetic?

Now surely if we want to reduce death we should ensure that other drugs that clearly affect people's actions should also not be freely available, clearly we don't want to make things worse then they already are because alcohol has a great history of causing problems already.....

right?

SweetEmpathy

Both sides have made valid points on this subject. I think a complete ban will only whiplash, however if they simply cracked down on the dangerous substances and removed them this wouldn't have been such a big deal.

The substances need to be tested properly before put on the market to be honest. I've heard some horror stories in relation to a couple of the smoking herbs; and I wouldn't wish the experiences these people had on anyone.

People will always want to experiment with changing their mental state; making it illegal is not going to change this.

Though I may get some backlash on this I think weed/hash would be the best substance to legalise, considering there have been extensive tests done on the drug and its effects.

Cabaal

SweetEmpathy wrote: »

Though I may get some backlash on this I think weed/hash would be the best substance to legalise, considering there have been extensive tests done on the drug and its effects.

While there may be some backlash this backlash will be from a percentage of people that will have little to no affect on the government as a whole, if we've learned anything the people that want this stuff banned are far more organized then those that want it legal.

I understand the argument for making weed legal and if Irish society was different I'm sure it would have been, however just because its legal in one European company doesn't mean its suitable for all.

If we look at Irish and English society compared to even the likes of France there are massive differences, how drugs in general are approached and even how drink is used and more importantly abused.

A common Irish view for approaching drink is to get off your face to enjoy yourself, this is sadly the wrong approach

Shulgin

Until the law changes that makes recreational drugs other than alcohol available in a a safe and controlled manner then thousands of recreational drug users will make their own decisions, just like they have been doing for years. Thats just the way it is, like or not.

People are never going to stop taking cannabis,mdma,mushrooms, or other recreational drugs no matter how harsh the laws become. Propaganda doesn`t work anymore because of easy access to information online.

Shulgin

Cabaal wrote: »

I expected a teenage like attitude like this alright, sure while we're at it how about we don't recognize laws in relation to speeding because sure you can drive safely at speed its only other people that do stupid things.

Me sitting on a couch stoned on cannabis or dancing at a rave on MDMA is hardly the same thing now?

Your man enough to make your own decisions after all its your life and it doesn't affect other people...right?

Correct, in relation to my choice of recreational drugs yes.

I like that attitude , now sure I think we should make all prescription drugs available over the counter as well, its clear from your argument that people can use the internet to see if the drugs are suitable for them.

I really like your argument and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

If we make all drugs of all types freely accessible then anorexics can easily get access to the likes of Ali without consulting with a doctor or even a pharmacist, clearly these people are of sound mind to make such decisions and again its only their life.

Reality of course says otherwise
:rolleyes:

I actually think that some drugs like inhalers,st johns wort,5-htp,L-tyrosine,ginko biloba, melatonin and many should be available over the counter. They are in the USA and many other countries, why not here?

If I could go to a recreational drug doctor and get a prescription for cannabis or mdma I would . But the law doesn`t allow this, and has no interest in doing so.

Lets see you would however blame
- Easy access to drink
- Shops selling it to underage people
- Bars selling drink to people that had to much
- Drink prices too low making it easily accessible

Oh and wait...the fact that people that drink before making them over confident and do not think logically in relation to their capability...the cause of which is alcohol...oh look at that we can say its the cause.

What is the difference between being on alcohol and deciding to drive and being on any other drug? Stupid people do stupid things. Blame yourself.

I'm confused, above you said its the persons fault and that blaming the drug is pathetic......now your say its alcohols fault after all it has a great history of causing death.....can you explain how it can be both but yet blaming the drug is still pathetic?

Now surely if we want to reduce death we should ensure that other drugs that clearly affect people's actions should also not be freely available, clearly we don't want to make things worse then they already are because alcohol has a great history of causing problems already.....

right?

I was being sarcastic saying that booze caused the deaths, of course it was the drinkers choice to get behind the wheel, just like the guy who cheated on his wife and blamed the drink. Sorry, not an excuse.

I believe that if people have free access to other safer drugs rather than alcohol I believe people will drink less. less fighting on the streets, beating the wife, liver damage, a&e admissions. We have one choice in this country to legally intoxicate ourselves, I believe we should have access to more safer drugs yes. It would benefit society in many ways.

swifty73

if the head shops were allowed to sell weed to over 21,s they could have stopped selling all the other stuff because nobody would buy it.and only selling personal use supply because there is lots of s...heads who would love to sell it to kids. we have one rotten nanny state that needs to grow up, and stop been run by the whine lines.

SweetEmpathy

Cabaal wrote: »

While there may be some backlash this backlash will be from a percentage of people that will have little to no affect on the government as a whole, if we've learned anything the people that want this stuff banned are far more organized then those that want it legal.

I understand the argument for making weed legal and if Irish society was different I'm sure it would have been, however just because its legal in one European company doesn't mean its suitable for all.

If we look at Irish and English society compared to even the likes of France there are massive differences, how drugs in general are approached and even how drink is used and more importantly abused.

A common Irish view for approaching drink is to get off your face to enjoy yourself, this is sadly the wrong approach

Considering Irelands history we will be behind in most decisions anyway. We always take the back seat and wait to see what the other countries are doing first.

The legalize weed campaign has some serious support behind it overseas. Give it time and it will come to our shores.


The Irish attitude towards drink is ridiculous; do you really need to be completely off your face to enjoy yourself? And what is the point if you can't remember it the day after?