The head shop has closed in waterford

gismo13

is this a good or bad thing i heard the drugs will be all over the town again
i thought with this head shops that this stopped drug dealers making lots of money

what do people think

JohnC.

There's two headshops I know of. Which closed?

old gregg

mixed feelings on this tbh. I reckon that head shops are bad news for dealers and I'm happy to see lowlife dealers fall on hard times. At the same time, some of the stuff being sold in head shops is little short of unknown research chemicals and we've yet to see the long term effects of some of the products that were/are/will be available in head shops. At least with weed/ecstasy/shrooms .... even heroin (at the far end of the scale) we can determine reasonably well what long term effects they will have on the average person.

ziedth

Delighted to be honest.

I know it's squeezes dealers but the owners of these people are no different then some guy who found a legal loop
hole to sell yokes.

dayshah

Its definitely good news.

Just think Leaving Cert economics. A new clothes shop opens increasing supply. This causes existing clothes shops to feel the squeeze as competition forces down prices. However as supply increased the amount bought and used increases.

Now replace clothes with drugs.

If I asked around a bit I probably could get my hands on any drugs I want (none of my friends are druggies, but I could ask friends of friends or people I went to school with) but its so much easier to go to a head shop. People who don't have easy access to illegal drugs do have easy access to these shops.

Though 'drug dealers' did feel a squeeze I hold no distinction between 'drug dealers' and 'head shops'. They both make money out of creating misery and I consider them all to be worthless scumbags.

Which one closed by the way? The one on Michael Street? I hope so, terrible to have drug dealing on our main shopping street.

Tragamin2k2

dayshah wrote: »

Its definitely good news.

Just think Leaving Cert economics. A new clothes shop opens increasing supply. This causes existing clothes shops to feel the squeeze as competition forces down prices. However as supply increased the amount bought and used increases.

Now replace clothes with drugs.

If I asked around a bit I probably could get my hands on any drugs I want (none of my friends are druggies, but I could ask friends of friends or people I went to school with) but its so much easier to go to a head shop. People who don't have easy access to illegal drugs do have easy access to these shops.

Though 'drug dealers' did feel a squeeze I hold no distinction between 'drug dealers' and 'head shops'. They both make money out of creating misery and I consider them all to be worthless scumbags.

Which one closed by the way? The one on Michael Street? I hope so, terrible to have drug dealing on our main shopping street.

Theres a pile of legal drugs bein sold on main streets all over the world. Drive through john street bout 3am on sunday mornin and get a look at the resulting high

dayshah wrote: »

creating misery

lol

AdMMM

dayshah wrote: »

Its definitely good news.

Just think Leaving Cert economics. A new clothes shop opens increasing supply. This causes existing clothes shops to feel the squeeze as competition forces down prices. However as supply increased the amount bought and used increases.

Now replace clothes with drugs.

If I asked around a bit I probably could get my hands on any drugs I want (none of my friends are druggies, but I could ask friends of friends or people I went to school with) but its so much easier to go to a head shop. People who don't have easy access to illegal drugs do have easy access to these shops.

Though 'drug dealers' did feel a squeeze I hold no distinction between 'drug dealers' and 'head shops'. They both make money out of creating misery and I consider them all to be worthless scumbags.

Which one closed by the way? The one on Michael Street? I hope so, terrible to have drug dealing on our main shopping street.

I'm assuming you failed economics because you've compared a good that follows the law of demand with a good that does not.

MitchKoobski

Got there before me AdMMM.....

tc2010

dayshah wrote: »

Its definitely good news.

Just think Leaving Cert economics. A new clothes shop opens increasing supply. This causes existing clothes shops to feel the squeeze as competition forces down prices. However as supply increased the amount bought and used increases.

Now replace clothes with drugs.

If I asked around a bit I probably could get my hands on any drugs I want (none of my friends are druggies, but I could ask friends of friends or people I went to school with) but its so much easier to go to a head shop. People who don't have easy access to illegal drugs do have easy access to these shops.

Though 'drug dealers' did feel a squeeze I hold no distinction between 'drug dealers' and 'head shops'. They both make money out of creating misery and I consider them all to be worthless scumbags.

Which one closed by the way? The one on Michael Street? I hope so, terrible to have drug dealing on our main shopping street.

Epic fail of trying to sound educated about something your clearly not

dayshah

AdMMM wrote: »

I'm assuming you failed economics because you've compared a good that follows the law of demand with a good that does not.

How do drugs not follow the law of demand?

Even though people get addicted to them they are still affected by price. Cocaine use has gone down due to the recession. Heroin use moves with heroin prices. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

You really think that by making drugs (because thats all they are) easily available to the general public in headshops actually reduces demand?

The laws of economics just describe how things are allocated. This applies to addictive substances like cigarettes or drugs just as much as with milk. Just because demand for those who are addicted is relatively inelastic doesn't mean demand isn't affected by prices. By making things cheaper and more easily available the headshops have introduced people to the world of drugs who otherwise would never have gone near the stuff.

Minstrel27

gismo13 wrote: »

is this a good or bad thing i heard the drugs will be all over the town again

Do you honestly think that they left?

tombliboo83

Headshops being forced to close is an absolute disgrace. We've missed an open goal to have a chance to regulate the drugs industry and make substantial amounts in VAT. I firmly believe that we not only need to educate about drugs but that we also need to legalise all drugs and then regulate. We could make them as safe as possible and at least people would know what they're taking as opposed to taking bangers etc bulked up with other powders. Not to mention the damage done to the illegal trade (who do we think was firebombing headshops?) This may not be popular with everyone (Joe Duffy show) but we must face up to the fact that the world we live in and the 'drug world' are both the same. Our govt. continuously takes the moral highground on issues like the smoking ban, recycling etc. Why not confront the issue of drugs because forcing headshops to close is idiotic. Also, I don't see anybody ringing in to radio shows about the devestating love affair we have with alcohol asking for this to be banned, we can't have that, sure everyone loves an aul drink even though it kills thousands and ruins thousands of families per aannum. How many have died from unregulated drug abuse?

tombliboo83

And one more thing, as Qd goes up Qs goes up not the other way around. And as Qd goes down so too does Qs

dayshah

tombliboo83 wrote: »

Headshops being forced to close is an absolute disgrace. We've missed an open goal to have a chance to regulate the drugs industry and make substantial amounts in VAT...

... Also, I don't see anybody ringing in to radio shows about the devestating love affair we have with alcohol asking for this to be banned, we can't have that, sure everyone loves an aul drink even though it kills thousands and ruins thousands of families per aannum. How many have died from unregulated drug abuse?

How is this an opportunity that we missed? If the government decides to they can still legalise drugs. The headshops were not regulated and much of the stuff they were selling was more dangerous than something like hash. At least with the older drugs people have some idea of their effects (eg cocaine leading to paranoia, heroin highly addictive), but we know a lot less about the long term effects of the man made chemicals.

tombliboo83 wrote: »

And one more thing, as Qd goes up Qs goes up not the other way around. And as Qd goes down so too does Qs

Thats just wrong. Supply and demand interact. Ever hear of a supply shock? Thats what happened when the head shops opened. If we have good weather and lots of strawberries the price of strawberries will go down and people level of demand for strawberries will increase.

Also, the gardaí had a number of large successes lately which also harmed the drug dealers.

froog

there'll be another pop up in a few months with new tings

tombliboo83

You didn'y address even half of the post. Do you think that head shops should be shut down without an open balanced debate? All we've heard from in the public is how drugs are bad "think of the children" etc etc.Nothing about banning the worst drug of all that we as a nation champion..alcohol. Drugs will always be around, the open goal is that there was a chance to tell it as it is- headshops sell drugs not plantfood, we can warn people of side effects and QC the chemicals involved. Legalise and regulate is where it's at, the war on drugs has been lost.

dayshah

tombliboo83 wrote: »

You didn'y address even half of the post. Do you think that head shops should be shut down without an open balanced debate? All we've heard from in the public is how drugs are bad "think of the children" etc etc.Nothing about banning the worst drug of all that we as a nation champion..alcohol. Drugs will always be around, the open goal is that there was a chance to tell it as it is- headshops sell drugs not plantfood, we can warn people of side effects and QC the chemicals involved. Legalise and regulate is where it's at, the war on drugs has been lost.

Alcohol is not ignored. There was legislation recently passed about drink driving. Alcohol is too embedded in society to ban it. Personally I would be in favour of enforcing the existing restrictions on advertising alcohol.

Though it probably kills more people than illegal drugs its because it is so easily available. If drugs were more easily available then their use would increase and possibly kill more people. Plenty of people have a drink and are not harmed. Most people can control their alcohol (though of course many do not). How easy is it to be an occasional heroin user? Its just too highly addictive.

There are sound reasons for legalising hash, but what the headshops were selling were higher up the scale, closer to things like cocaine.

tombliboo83

Plenty of people have a line of coke and aren't harmed! My point is, drugs are plentiful in this country, anybody can get them and tens of thousands of people regularly use them. There are responsible people who use and don't abuse drugs. We should legalise all drugs or at least bring the full weight of the debate out into the open. A discussion like this is what's missing in Irish society. Lets weigh up the pros and cons and make a fully informed decision and not just close headshops as a signal of the opposition to drugs.

angry_fox

tombliboo83 wrote: »

Plenty of people have a line of coke and aren't harmed! My point is, drugs are plentiful in this country, anybody can get them and tens of thousands of people regularly use them. There are responsible people who use and don't abuse drugs. We should legalise all drugs or at least bring the full weight of the debate out into the open. A discussion like this is what's missing in Irish society. Lets weigh up the pros and cons and make a fully informed decision and not just close headshops as a signal of the opposition to drugs.

So we should legalise drugs and go into business with the Colombians eh? :rolleyes:

The only pro is the government will make a bit of money from it, it would not reduce crime only increase it, people would only abuse whatever system was in place. I could go forever about this ****e.

And on your point of the tens of thousands responsible people who use and don't abuse drugs, they are responsible for people getting shot daily on our street because of the demand they are creating and simply legalising it would not make this go away. A little link

Not The Real Scarecrow

From my understanding alot of the actual illegal drugs are safer than some of the crap they were selling in the headshops.Safer ,still not safe.
My main problem with the headstores was the direct targeting at younger people that wouldn't know any better and the lack of clear information about what was the ingredients in the stuff. The majority of the legal highs, although marketed as herbal, are actually far from it and incorporate various poisionous chemicals that are unregulated and there's no evidence of the long term effects of them on the body or brain.
I myself believe that certain drugs should be legalised as they are far less harmful than alcohol. Same as alcohol,drug addiction only becomes a problem for a small proportion of actual users. Many people take drugs recreretationaly and may only do so for a short period of their life, others will become addicts, for one reason or another. When they legalised grass in Holland, the whole population didn't become junkies. I'd guess that the same people that would have smoked regularly when it was illegal were the same people, give or take a few , that were smoking on a regular basis when it becam legal.
If there is a drug problem I don't see it being solved by the introduction of more newer drugs, like the legal highs. I think its a good thing that they were closed as instead of acting as a solution to the drug "problem",they were actually creating a whole set of new problems.

Hoffmans

the real beef they had with these stores was that some were being used to wash millions a € every month
the media manipulated confused idiots on joe duffy or walking round with placards and protests only helped push the legislation through...

guess which ones are left open....lol...

dayshah

Hoffmans wrote: »

the real beef they had with these stores was that some were being used to wash millions a € every month
the media manipulated confused idiots on joe duffy or walking round with placards and protests only helped push the legislation through...

guess which ones are left open....lol...

I agree that there was a huge potential for money laundering. So what makes people opposed to the head shops "media manipulated confused idiots"?

People were anti-drugs long before Joe Duffy was on the radio. If you want to see the long term effects just go up to St. Declans (not to mention the damage done to some peoples knowledge of the law of demand and inability to actually argue their points).

Was it covered much on Billy McCarthy or local papers? I didn't see too much.

lonsdale

tombliboo83 wrote: »

Headshops being forced to close is an absolute disgrace. We've missed an open goal to have a chance to regulate the drugs industry and make substantial amounts in VAT. I firmly believe that we not only need to educate about drugs but that we also need to legalise all drugs and then regulate. We could make them as safe as possible and at least people would know what they're taking as opposed to taking bangers etc bulked up with other powders. Not to mention the damage done to the illegal trade (who do we think was firebombing headshops?) This may not be popular with everyone (Joe Duffy show) but we must face up to the fact that the world we live in and the 'drug world' are both the same. Our govt. continuously takes the moral highground on issues like the smoking ban, recycling etc. Why not confront the issue of drugs because forcing headshops to close is idiotic. Also, I don't see anybody ringing in to radio shows about the devestating love affair we have with alcohol asking for this to be banned, we can't have that, sure everyone loves an aul drink even though it kills thousands and ruins thousands of families per aannum. How many have died from unregulated drug abuse?

spot on....the so called "war on drugs" has been ongoing for a long time now and there has been no cut in output or consumption, it has probably increased..some ppl like taking drugs..its as simple as that...the war on drugs will never be won...a radical new approach needs to be taken. Early education would act as a deterant. Regulation of substances would be highly affective, It would earn some desperatly needed revenue for the govt, aswell as putting scumbag drug dealers out of business...imagine a world where cocaine was legal for example...however to get your gramme you had to go to the local council register yourself as a user and write a 3 page declaration of why you use the drug...would turn a lot of ppl off me thinks...

tombliboo83

Lonsdale is spot on!!! As for Day_Shah, have you ever even been out in St. Declans???Have you any family members there or ever had?? If you've had then you'll know that ALCOHOL is the biggest problem in this country yet it is lauded as the epicentre of every social occassion. I'm not anti-alcohol and I'm certainly not anti-drugs. Alcohol is in the same realm as other drugs but the disparity in attitudes to both is shocking.

dayshah

tombliboo83 wrote: »

Lonsdale is spot on!!! As for Day_Shah, have you ever even been out in St. Declans???Have you any family members there or ever had?? If you've had then you'll know that ALCOHOL is the biggest problem in this country yet it is lauded as the epicentre of every social occassion. I'm not anti-alcohol and I'm certainly not anti-drugs. Alcohol is in the same realm as other drugs but the disparity in attitudes to both is shocking.

I accept that alcohol is a problem (largely because it is much more easily available than drugs) but that's a topic for a different thread.

dayshah

lonsdale wrote: »

spot on....the so called "war on drugs" has been ongoing for a long time now and there has been no cut in output or consumption, it has probably increased..some ppl like taking drugs..its as simple as that...the war on drugs will never be won...a radical new approach needs to be taken. Early education would act as a deterant. Regulation of substances would be highly affective, It would earn some desperatly needed revenue for the govt, aswell as putting scumbag drug dealers out of business...imagine a world where cocaine was legal for example...however to get your gramme you had to go to the local council register yourself as a user and write a 3 page declaration of why you use the drug...would turn a lot of ppl off me thinks...

Not true. Prohibition does reduce consumption. Even in the US in the 1920s, where alcohol prohibition was considered a failure, consumption did decrease.

When you have an illegal trade in something there is no legal mechanism to enforce contracts. You can't just sue someone if they owe you money. Instead you have to force the issue yourself. The mafia in the US can probably best be understood as an organisation that licences and enforces contracts for illegal activities like gambling, theft, drugs etc. So legalisation would probably lead to a decrease in gangland killings, but an increase in consumption of drugs. (There would still be a criminal element though, as we can see with cigarette smuggling).

If some sympathy for the idea of legalising and regulating hash. However legalisation and regulation requires that people are rational. This breaks down when someone is addicted to something like heroin. These people will still be involved in burglaries and so on as they try get the money together for their next fix.

So we have a choice. We can legalise, which would lead to less gangland killings but more people destroyed by addiction, or continue prohibition which means more money spent on law enforcement, but less on caring for addicts.

The bottom line is, when it comes to reducing drug use, prohibition works.

DjBryn

dayshah wrote: »

Not true. Prohibition does reduce consumption. Even in the US in the 1920s, where alcohol prohibition was considered a failure, consumption did decrease.
The bottom line is, when it comes to reducing drug use, prohibition works.

it does thats why Alcapone became a house hold name........

dayshah

DjBryn wrote: »

it does thats why Alcapone became a house hold name........

Hmm, maybe you should actually read what I wrote.

The aim of Prohibition in the 1920s/30s was to reduce alcohol consumption. It achieved this.

The supply of alcohol was sharply reduced by the law which lead to a big increase in price. This made huge potential profits for those who illegally supplied alcohol. There was a trade off between the benefits of reducing alcohol consumption and the need to counter the likes of Al Capone. People decided that the reduction in alcohol consumption wasn't worth the trade off.

But in terms of reducing alcohol consumption, it worked.

Asmodean

I think it's a good thing becase TBH if a person is interested in drugs, they would find it a hell of a lot easier to just walk into a legal shop and buy something ( that might eventually get them into the harder stuff ) rather than have to locate a dealer. That's how I look at it anyway. The shops closing will make it somewhat harder to obtain these substances. I know a lot of people who are already into drugs will have dealers as friends or whatever but any step that keeps the **** off the streets is a positive move in my opinion.

MrLuke

dayshah wrote: »

I agree that there was a huge potential for money laundering. So what makes people opposed to the head shops "media manipulated confused idiots"?

It presented the opportunity to have a debate on the effects of drugs on Irish society, from everyday drugs such as alcohol to drugs that have been shown in studies to have less of an impact on health than alcohol (when taken on their own - I'm referring to an article in Newsweek in 2007 on the use of Ecstasy). As for media manipulation the headshops have operated in Ireland since 2004, with little or no coverage in the media for most of that time.

Another poster mentioned the Irish Govt to be reactionary in their attitude towards plastic bags and the smoking ban, tbf that was quiet revolutionary in terms of changing attitudes. They totally went against public (or perceived public opinion) on those occasions. I had hoped an honest open debate about wtf is good and not good for our health on this occasion would occur.

I'll be honest, I dont care how much the govt can make from taxing 'legal' highs, what I care about is finding out if my alcohol intake is less or more harmful than other options out there. Because if its more harmful we all pay, pay in illness, poor health, our families pay in dealing with our ill-health, and in taxes to cover the costs of alcohol related illnesses treatment.

Its a fair question that wont be answered by this or any govt for a long time.

dayshah

MrLuke wrote: »

It presented the opportunity to have a debate on the effects of drugs on Irish society, from everyday drugs such as alcohol to drugs that have been shown in studies to have less of an impact on health than alcohol (when taken on their own - I'm referring to an article in Newsweek in 2007 on the use of Ecstasy). As for media manipulation the headshops have operated in Ireland since 2004, with little or no coverage in the media for most of that time.

A debate can still be held with the headshops closed, though I accept that national debates are usually only held when there is some form of crisis that brings an issue to a head.

However, this thread gave people an opportunity for a debate. Most of the pro-headshop comments are in the form of anti-headshop people don't know what they are talking about and are idiots.

Its as though anti-headshop people have not seen 'the light' and are stuck in the stone-age. There is the occasional sensible comment by the pro-headshop crowd but it gets lost behind all the rest.


Pro-headshop people should remember that they are seen by lots of people as general wasters and that their arguments have to be watertight to get beyond any stereotypes people have of drug takers. Also, lot of the 'facts' put out by the pro-headshop crowd are simply incorrect. As things are the pro-headshop crowd are not listened to, so I needed worry too much about any incorrect information put out.

(As for headshops existing since 2004, I think the recession and high unemployment, as well as general greater awareness, has increased their popularity)