Kilkenny Head Shops Closed?

swifty73

The dutch kids grow up knowing what they want out of there life because there parents and schools guide them from a very young age.even as young as 4 or 5 there is a gym for kids to play in and more importantly it keeps kids sociable,so they get on with each other ,and when there older there are happy with who they are, and around others.untill Ireland grows up we will have a culture of unhappy children that will enjoy escapism on what ever they can get there hands on.We need to stop blaming history or other cop outs,Its up to education of our kids not nanny state or politicians that are trying to take the place of the church and preach morals ,which i for one think, is a joke ,they can,t even run this island with out f,,,in it up.think the only way legal weed can work is for over 21,s and maybe let the pubs sell it.

Purry Cat

swifty73 wrote: »

The dutch kids grow up knowing what they want out of there life because there parents and schools guide them from a very young age.even as young as 4 or 5 there is a gym for kids to play in and more importantly it keeps kids sociable,so they get on with each other ,and when there older there are happy with who they are, and around others.untill Ireland grows up we will have a culture of unhappy children that will enjoy escapism on what ever they can get there hands on.We need to stop blaming history or other cop outs,Its up to education of our kids not nanny state or politicians that are trying to take the place of the church and preach morals ,which i for one think, is a joke ,they can,t even run this island with out f,,,in it up.think the only way legal weed can work is for over 21,s and maybe let the pubs sell it.

Let the pubs sell weed... Will you have sense, for goodness sake?!

Captain Havoc

Purry Cat wrote: »

Let the pubs sell weed... Will you have sense, for goodness sake?!

I think it's a fair point by swifty. It's better to have a controlled substance sold through a reputable source rather than an uncontrolled substance via underground dealers or legimate dealers(which was the case). Another good reason for pubs selling weed etc.. is that if you make it illegal to have in possesion outside these, you could control to a degree how much people take. It would all be reliant on a safe list though.

swifty73

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think it's a fair point by swifty. It's better to have a controlled substance sold through a reputable source rather than an uncontrolled substance via underground dealers or legimate dealers(which was the case). Another good reason for pubs selling weed etc.. is that if you make it illegal to have in possesion outside these, you could control to a degree how much people take. It would all be reliant on a safe list though.

cheers captain, anything mind altering,should be sold in small amounts so people can not pass it on to a second party,head shops,pubs, offies and chemists there all the same.my head my business .

Purry Cat

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think it's a fair point by swifty. It's better to have a controlled substance sold through a reputable source rather than an uncontrolled substance via underground dealers or legimate dealers(which was the case). Another good reason for pubs selling weed etc.. is that if you make it illegal to have in possesion outside these, you could control to a degree how much people take. It would all be reliant on a safe list though.

No, it's a totally impractical point. What do you think Eamon Langton or Kieran Bollard would say if you invited them to sell weed?

catbear

What does it matter what they say?

If they choose not to participate then that's their business and nobody runs their business better than them.

If some other publican opts to sell it then that's their business.

fabbydabby

Selling weed would certianly reduce the number of late night street fights cause everyone would be too panned out / lazy to attempt to kick someone's ass.

Purry Cat

catbear wrote: »

What does it matter what they say?

If they choose not to participate then that's their business and nobody runs their business better than them.

If some other publican opts to sell it then that's their business.

Do you envisage this happening any time soon?

catbear

You did not answer my question so I will restate it in a way that hopefully is not too confusing for you.

If the state were to allow the selling of weed through licensed bars, then what does it matter what the owners of the businesses you mentioned think of it?

Do they have some undeclared special veto power?

Purry Cat

catbear wrote: »

You did not answer my question so I will restate it in a way that hopefully is not too confusing for you.

If the state were to allow the selling of weed through licensed bars, then what does it matter what the owners of the businesses you mentioned think of it?

Do they have some undeclared special veto power?

Apologies - thought it was a rhetorical question originally. To answer it, and your follow-up question here: yes, of course it matters what they think because they'd be the ones with the option of selling it in this brave new world of yours. The veto power they and everyone else would have would be exactly that: saying no.

Hopefully you in turn will not find the following too confusing. Pubs are pubs. They sell drink (and food). That's why they're pubs. They don't sell hardware or toiletries or groceries. If they did they wouldn't be pubs any more. If they sold weed they wouldn't be pubs any more either.

Tell you what, though. If you can find a few reputable publicans in Kilkenny who'd be willing to sell weed, then I'll acknowledge it's a super idea rather than the adolescent pie in the sky it clearly is. Is that fair enough?

And if you can only find a few disreputable publicans who'd be willing to sell weed, then I trust you'll agree that that would defeat the purpose in the first place.

Captain Havoc

I'm very open minded, I don't see why it should be an avenue that must slammed shut without proper research. It would take years of research into any substance before it would be declared fit for human use but let the producers fund the independant tests. Pubs are public houses that serve alcohol but as pointed out also other things like food and why not other substances, the example given of hardware etc.. are all retail items and wouldn't fall into the same category at all.

I just think the current situation is a p1ss poor one, feeding the most vile of criminals, destroying talented minds and turning people vulnerable. If the ball started to roll now towards testing substances that maybe used to stimulate the mind in a safe and controlled manner, we would make the drug dealers less neccessary.

The flip side is, no we can't return to "head shops" they're just as bad as the drug dealers, except they're legal (well they were). All that's happening there is they import what ever it is that hasn't been banned and sell it until it's found to be dangerous, which is also pure lunacy. Closing the head shops was definately a good thing.

catbear

Purrycat, I will have to restate my question to you again, but this time I will put in bold the piece I think you may have missed.

If the state were to allow the selling of weed through licensed bars, then what does it matter what the owners of the businesses you mentioned think of it?

I don't care what you think of the legalisation of the drugs at the centre of the debate, I simply want you to clarify your statement.

To the best of your knowledge do these people have some undeclared special veto power?

By the way, please describe this brave new world you imagine I have, I believe I have not stated a opinion on this matter. Do you care to tell me what I think or would you prefer to dictate it to me?

I've seen you make sense in posts before, I hope you can do so again.

Purry Cat

catbear wrote: »

Purrycat, I will have to restate my question to you again, but this time I will put in bold the piece I think you may have missed.

If the state were to allow the selling of weed through licensed bars, then what does it matter what the owners of the businesses you mentioned think of it?

I don't care what you think of the legalisation of the drugs at the centre of the debate, I simply want you to clarify your statement.

To the best of your knowledge do these people have some undeclared special veto power?

By the way, please describe this brave new world you imagine I have, I believe I have not stated a opinion on this matter. Do you care to tell me what I think or would you prefer to dictate it to me?

I've seen you make sense in posts before, I hope you can do so again.

Right, I'll clarify as best I can. Obviously I can't be certain about this as it's a statement of opinion, not fact, but were the state to propose - propose, not allow - that pubs sell weed, I think it's a not unreasonable assumption that the Vintners Association would be strongly opposed to the idea on the basis that they're publicans, not headshop owners, that they've enough to be doing selling alcohol without catering for the needs of potheads as well and that their customers don't want to be disturbed by smelly guys with dreadlocks looking to get whacked out of their heads.

I could be very wrong there. You may believe otherwise and be perfectly right. Might we perhaps agree that the situation is so hypothetical as to be not worth arguing over?

swifty73

I Don,t think all pubs would sell weed ,but i can tell you they would not let anybody else sell it.so let the ones who want sell it, and the other,s will catch up.We could say good bye to our money worry,s if we were an european island with legal weed.So it,s a winner all round.Time to think out side the box, support the green economy.

Purry Cat

catbear wrote: »

Purrycat, I will have to restate my question to you again, but this time I will put in bold the piece I think you may have missed.

If the state were to allow the selling of weed through licensed bars, then what does it matter what the owners of the businesses you mentioned think of it?

I don't care what you think of the legalisation of the drugs at the centre of the debate, I simply want you to clarify your statement.

To the best of your knowledge do these people have some undeclared special veto power?

By the way, please describe this brave new world you imagine I have, I believe I have not stated a opinion on this matter. Do you care to tell me what I think or would you prefer to dictate it to me?

I've seen you make sense in posts before, I hope you can do so again.

Finally, while the two publicans I mentioned clearly do not have "undeclared special veto power" by themselves, they're members of the Vintners Association who as a body most certainly do have a non-statutory veto power.

catbear

What do you mean when you prefixed your reply with "Finally", I believe the question never changed from the first time I put it to you.

Are you having problems?

JohnC.

If it were entirely legal and they thought it would bring customers in, I'm sure at least some publicans would do it. Comparing it to a pub selling hardware is a false comparison. Surely it would be more like them selling cigarettes?

Purry Cat

catbear wrote: »

What do you mean when you prefixed your reply with "Finally", I believe the question never changed from the first time I put it to you.

Are you having problems?

Which question? I answered two of them. In relation to the third, I'm quite aware you're able to form your opinions by yourself and without any help from me or anyone else. Does this reply satisfy you?

catbear

The only opinion I can form based upon your reply is that you choose not to answer the last question.

Purry Cat

catbear wrote: »

The only opinion I can form based upon your reply is that you choose not to answer the last question.

The last question you asked me was, am I having problems? The answer is no.

The last question you asked me before that was, would I prefer to dictate your opinion to you? I've already said no and that you're well able to form your opinions by yourself.

If you want to claim that neither of these was the "last question", feel free. But in that case please do specify exactly what the "last question" was.

catbear

The last question was the question that was last.

PhilipMarlowe

Boring as a drug you take too regularly...
The Kilkenny Head Shops Closed? thread is in danger of being closed itself if it doesn't go somewhere (else) soon.

Purry Cat

Licksy wrote: »

Boring as a drug you take too regularly...
The Kilkenny Head Shops Closed? thread is in danger of being closed itself if it doesn't go somewhere (else) soon.

Licksy, brilliantly put! Am losing the will to live myself, so can imagine what it must be like for everyone else here. Please do feel free to put this thread out of its misery.

Catbear: I am not having problems, other than regret at allowing myself be dragged into a cul de sac with a pedant such as yourself. "The last question was the question that was last" - is this really the best you can do?

PhilipMarlowe

http://www.offbalance.com/art4.html

pueblo

oh the irony

and a hilarious sketch too

Cabaal

sure thing