Psychoactive bill will become (psycho) active from monday

MagicSean

EnterNow wrote: »

So there was a vote re the banning? Damn, missed that one.

Its called a general election. It was pretty well advertised.

The fact is that society has chosen to allow alcohol and nicotine to be legal. If 3 million people decide they want drugs to be legal they will vote in someone who will make that so. If they decide they want alcohol banned they will vote in an anti-alcohol candidate. That is how democracy works.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

Its called a general election. It was pretty well advertised.

The fact is that society has chosen to allow alcohol and nicotine to be legal. If 3 million people decide they want drugs to be legal they will vote in someone who will make that so. If they decide they want alcohol banned they will vote in an anti-alcohol candidate. That is how democracy works.

:DLol!
Who told you that?

The history of most social change, especially in this country, has been that the politicians have followed the people. When (most) drugs are legalised (and they will be, it is merely a matter of time), it will be because the politicians followed the people.

Hammered hippie

Politicians in Ireland are not ruling with a mandate from the voter, they rule with a mandate from the real policy makers in this country (after J. duffy that is), the pharmaceutical industry and the alcohol lobby.
Now this psycho active law is designed thusly that it also can and will affect the health shops. After the head shops, the health shops are a thorn in the side of the pharma industry.
Health shops are not exempt from the psycho bill...and the only one being able to grant an exempt status is M. Harney, and she is a servant of the pharma industry. So it is a matter of time before health shops and alternative medicine are targetted with this law.
Just so you know how the game is played and what little your civil rights actually constitute.

Pace2008

k_mac wrote: »

The fact is that society has chosen to allow alcohol and nicotine to be legal. If 3 million people decide they want drugs to be legal they will vote in someone who will make that so. If they decide they want alcohol banned they will vote in an anti-alcohol candidate. That is how democracy works.

And as we all know, the popularity and acceptability of a drug alters its pharmacological makeup, which is why alcohol and nicotine are safe whereas illegals will drop you where you stand.

Hammered hippie

drkpower wrote: »

:DLol!
Who told you that?

The history of most social change, especially in this country, has been that the politicians have followed the people. When (most) drugs are legalised (and they will be, it is merely a matter of time), it will be because the politicians followed the people.

Not in Ireland though. Politicians still have the attitude of clan leaders here.
A TD from Dublin north told the press recently he was disgusted that tens of thousands of people in his contituency were shopping in head shops as if they were normal shops (and they were..normal shops). He wanted it to stop and the shops to close
What right does this t(ur)d have to tell voters, whom he was supposed to represent, to tell them what they can and can't do. What a sick attitude of a td, thinking he was in a position to control the behaviour of his voter rather than represent them.
With that kind of attitude change will only be brought about via revolution.
If so many of his voters want to be able to go into a head shops and get legal highs, then let them. Or at least praise them for getting their highs an way that is legal, supporting local economy and getting tax to the government.
But no...laws were designed to make that what was undesired by an elite few illegal.

Hammered hippie

Recently I met a lady who was really upset with the government banning legal highs. After hearing her story I was disgusted with the 'people' that are in control of this country.
She suffered from depression and didnot react well to alcohol. A smoke was the only thing she had to relax, and as she didnot want to be a criminal, she bought her relaxing smokes in the nearby head shop.
She cannot get them anymore as my nearby head shop can't sell them anymore. Now this women used to be a waitress in dublin in a restaurant where mary harney and other ministers used to dine on the cost of the state.
She told me they used to start with champagne, then 14 bottles of wine between 4 or 5 ministers and then whiskey to finish. Then most of them were so drunk they had to puke all over the toilet or on the street and she had to clean it up.
It is the same people that now took her only way to relax away from her.

It reminds me of the horrible way romans used to abuse their slaves at orgies....and those are the people running the country and telling us what we can and can't do.

I am so disgusted

Auvers

Hammered hippie wrote: »

where mary harney and other ministers used to dine on the cost of the state.

tis well known that Harney is extremely fond of the auld alcohol

Myrddin

k_mac wrote: »

Its called a general election. It was pretty well advertised.

The fact is that society has chosen to allow alcohol and nicotine to be legal. If 3 million people decide they want drugs to be legal they will vote in someone who will make that so. If they decide they want alcohol banned they will vote in an anti-alcohol candidate. That is how democracy works.

No, I wasn't talking about political parties/elections.

How is the banning of Head Shops a textbook example of democracy? Was there a referendum? Is that the same type of democracy that has denied us the right to overdue by-elections? The same democracy as the forced referendum on Lisbon, even AFTER the majority voted no? If so, you've some pretty odd views on the technicalities of a democracy man.

The_Minister

EnterNow wrote: »

No, I wasn't talking about political parties/elections.

How is the banning of Head Shops a textbook example of democracy? Was there a referendum? Is that the same type of democracy that has denied us the right to overdue by-elections? The same democracy as the forced referendum on Lisbon, even AFTER the majority voted no? If so, you've some pretty odd views on the technicalities of a democracy man.

How about this?
Our elected representatives voted, and AFAIK all of them voted to ban.
There you go.

Myrddin

The_Minister wrote: »

How about this?
Our elected representatives voted, and AFAIK all of them voted to ban.
There you go.

By all means elected representitives have to power to vote, but what merit was it on? What scientific basis were these products on? Were any long-term analysis carried out on the toxicity of the products? Did the newspapers/media play a part in determining the legal status of these products?

What about my other points? Where's the by-elections? Why the forced referendum? Where's the democracy in that?

Elevator

you'll do what you're told and that's that!!!

Myrddin

Elevator wrote: »

you'll do what you're told and that's that!!!

So it would seem

I agree with the banning of dangerous legal highs, though I will admit, the legal highs post-ban are a different kettle of fish altogether. While the pre-ban highs may not have been scientifically proven one way or the other, they had years of track record useage, proper vendors with discussion forums (not the "website for a tenner" type vendors you get today, doseage instructions etc.

I've seen packets recently with just a branded name. You have to wonder about the sanity of consuming something like that. Then there are the Naphyrone A&E horror stories, psychosis, dysphoria etc all related to these newer alternatives. Granted mephedrone was probably dangerous too, but given the amount that purportedly used it, it couldn't have had a patch on Whack/NRG.

The government dropped the ball on this one I feel. Regulation & taxation would have made sense. As it stands, people have stopped buying from shops & are either using drug dealers or buying completely untested chemicals online. I wonder if it has had any impact on useage figures since.

As an aside, I hadn't even heard of Legal Highs until the media blew it up. I would be willing to bet all the hysteria has INCREASED useage of the products.

Overheal

flash1080 wrote: »

F***ing hippies making up bulls*** to support their agendas. Some f***wits who choose to break the law for luxury recreational drugs end up having adverse reactions and take up space in hospitals, f*** them.

lol... hippies with an agenda :pac::pac::pac:

DepecheHead101

Can we please cut the 'poor us having to be criminals ' garbage? The pro regulation mindset has many, many good, valid points backed up with social, political and scientific evidence that we can make. Ancedotal self victimization doesn't help. In fact it is exactly what the Duffy crowd do.

None of us who used head shop drugs gave a damn about 'breaking the law' and being 'criminals' for buying Cannabis prior to the ban, and none of us are going to feel the same afterwards. Most of us tend to be of the mindset that the law is not always right and it's just an invisible line we are willing to cross to get some good bud. You are not forced to roll joints in a pair of handcuffs.

Anyway : What's the situation on bongs and seeds? I shudder to think what would happen if the lovely stoner paraphenelia get's banned. Screw the messy research chemicals. That said this ban flew way over my head [thanks in large part to the medias sudden lack of interest once they got their way] and I forgot to stock up on Salvia. I doubt the dealers are going to start flogging Salvia so it looks like I have to jet off abroad to speak to the green geometrical god of the machine city once again :mad:.

Elevator

I beg to differ depechead, I actually thouroughly enjoyed bein able to purchase black ice from my local head store up until 10pm each night and being able to walk thru town and not have to be looking over my shoulder all the way home!!

see what you are doing is the same as d ahern and trying to speak for everyone on our behalf

I really like not breaking the law but I also like to smoke a j every day!!

why the fcuk should I now be branded a criminal again?!?!

DepecheHead101

Elevator wrote: »

I beg to differ depechead, I actually thouroughly enjoyed bein able to purchase black ice from my local head store up until 10pm each night and being able to walk thru town and not have to be looking over my shoulder all the way home!!

see what you are doing is the same as d ahern and trying to speak for everyone on our behalf

I really like not breaking the law but I also like to smoke a j every day!!

why the fcuk should I now be branded a criminal again?!?!

Why would you look over your shoulder with hash in your pocket but not with Black Ice? You have equal chance of being pursued and searched by the Gardai and in all honesty given Black Ice's strong resemblance to hash they would have confiscated it off you anyway. Drugs in the pockets paranoia always amused me. People always wind up getting themselves caught by walking away too fast from an oncoming Gardai car or crossing the road. Just imagine the pockets were empty as yer psychology and run from there. They wouldn't stop you, would they? [rare unlucky exceptions aside, mind you].

Fair enough you obivously have a different opinion to me on it but what's so actively enjoyable about either breaking the law or not? You were smoking Black Ice, I was smoking Hash. We were both smoking something. I don't see where this big scary thing called 'the law' comes into it when all you are really doing is getting baked and watching Two & A Half Men.

I certainly don't feel bad for breaking the law. It's all about the act. I would feel bad for murdering someone. Not for toking up.

Elevator wrote: »

why the fcuk should I now be branded a criminal again?!?!

Because the people running the country are incompetent. I don't see why you or I should bear the burden of the guilt. In realistic everyday terms your not really a criminal.

Pace2008

EnterNow wrote: »

I've seen packets recently with just a branded name. You have to wonder about the sanity of consuming something like that. Then there are the Naphyrone A&E horror stories, psychosis, dysphoria etc all related to these newer alternatives. Granted mephedrone was probably dangerous too, but given the amount that purportedly used it, it couldn't have had a patch on Whack/NRG.

The government dropped the ball on this one I feel. Regulation & taxation would have made sense. As it stands, people have stopped buying from shops & are either using drug dealers or buying completely untested chemicals online. I wonder if it has had any impact on useage figures since.

As an aside, I hadn't even heard of Legal Highs until the media blew it up. I would be willing to bet all the hysteria has INCREASED useage of the products.

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

Can we please cut the 'poor us having to be criminals http://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/custom/black/smilies/frown.gif' garbage? The pro regulation mindset has many, many good, valid points backed up with social, political and scientific evidence that we can make. Ancedotal self victimization doesn't help. In fact it is exactly what the Duffy crowd do.

Agreed for the most part. Mephedrone can go sniff itself now that MDMA's hit our shores again, and I always thought the smokeables were like weed with added ****ness and without reassurance that what you were toking was safe in moderation. My sympathy for the headshop owners waned then vanished as the saga reached its end. Joe Duffy and his moronic entourage brought the head shops into the public sphere, but the proprietors did themselves no favours by springing up everywhere like weeds of the bad kind, opening 24/7 and selling products with no hint whatsoever as to the active ingredients, let alone information on dosage. They showed their true colours as profiteering chancers post mephedrone ban by replacing a chemical that might be dangerous with powdered heart attacks that resulted in more hospitalisations within a week of introduction than ecstasy likely causes in a year. I feel sorry for the people who enjoyed the produce, and did so as safely as could be considered possible, and for the not insignificant number of shop workers who lost their jobs as a result of the ban, but if I'm to be truthful the situation wasn't good and it had to be handled in some manner.

What irked me, what enraged me, was the manner in which the situation was handled.

It's easy to look down on drug use when in your mind the user is the stereotypical homeless junkie or layabout stoner, a parasite and a drain on the system, who'll never amount to anything and will continue using and abusing till the day of their premature death. Drug users know that these are the people at the very bottom rung of the demographic, they don't represent the majority, and that for every scrounging addict there are any amount of well-balanced people who imbibe psychoactives whilst living normal, balanced lives.

There were some valid reasons cited as to why the headshops had to close. They were selling completely untested chemical that could be a ticking time-bomb for those taking them. Perhaps the headshops open supply of these chemicals was, to an extent, creating a demand in a portion of the populace where it didn't previously exist. But on top of this, I think what was upsetting so many people was that so many customers weren't junkies but clean-cut middle-class types that jarred completely with what they imagined a drug user should be. It brought home the fact that people you know and respect could really be filthy drug users, and this truth had to swept back under the carpet.

I think the time was right for the first mature, objective drug discussion in the history of the state. Instead we got a farce that lasted months, with the media publishing horror stories of psychotic episodes and incidences of people dying from mephedrone (or "Meow-Meow, a name apparently fashioned entirely by the red-tops, that no human under the age of 65 could utter with a straight face) when the drug wasn't even in the victims' system, let alone implicated in the deaths, while politicians clambered over each other in an attempt to lambast the establishments, delighted that the spotlight had been taken off our country's more pressing problems they themselves helped engineer. People turned a blind eye or even offered tacit support as violent criminals firebombed these establishments, and stood side by side with them in protest outside the shops which were, in some cases, situated beside premises which provide the nation with a drug that keeps A&E lively every Saturday night, is a known contributing factor towards heart disease, liver cirrhosis and cancer, and is implicated in over than 50% of rapes and assaults in the country.

And so, the squeaky wheel had to be greased, and while other European governments accepted the prohibitionist stance was an expensive failure and endeavored to introduce harm reduction policies like decriminaliastion, our own stuck their fingers in their ears whilst humming loudly, and did things the only way they know how. We first had a blanket cathinone and cannabinoid ban, which states that carrying a bag of MCAT, or Top Cat, or whatever the cool kids call it, is a more grievous offence than holding a wrap of heroin. This was hotly pursued by the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which effectively banned literally everything with the exception of the drugs the legislators like. Everything, including obscure, harmless curios like salvia, as well as crap like poppers which no one cared about or even liked that much anyway. After the law was announced, some politicians continued to flog a dead horse by declaring the bill that banned everything was "not enough." There was also something in the first draft, seemingly targeting clairvoyants, that stated it was an offence to sell smoking parephenalia if the vendor knew it would be used for illegal purposes, though it AFAIK it wasn't included in the final bill. Presumably it was some form of crude joke.

There's a thread going on in AH at the moment, with the OP objecting to someone on a radio show labelling us as "A Catholic Nation." I'd like to think we're not, but the whole head shop episode showed many of us retain a vestigial Catholic attitude when it comes to perceived vice. I'd thought we'd reached our zenith of drug-induced hysteria when mushrooms were banned after that one dude got drunk and jumped out a window. I was wrong, we rallied together and, I'd like to think, managed to better our personal best. Sadly, the the circus mightn't be coming to town again as we have nothing left to ban.

Welcome to Ireland, proud owners of the most backwards drug laws in the western world since 23/08/10.

/Disjointed rant

Pace2008

Oh, seeing that there, it's more tl;dr than I realised...

EDIT: Looks like I stole it from a blog as well.

Herbal Deity

Pace2008 wrote: »

It's easy to look down on drug use when in your mind the user is the stereotypical homeless junkie or layabout stoner, a parasite and a drain on the system, who'll never amount to anything and will continue using and abusing till the day of their premature death. Drug users know that these are the people at the very bottom rung of the demographic, they don't represent the majority, and that for every scrounging addict there are any amount of well-balanced people who imbibe psychoactives whilst living normal, balanced lives.

There were some valid reasons cited as to why the headshops had to close. They were selling completely untested chemical that could be a ticking time-bomb for those taking them. Perhaps the headshops open supply of these chemicals was, to an extent, creating a demand in a portion of the populace where it didn't previously exist. But on top of this, I think what was upsetting so many people was that so many customers weren't junkies but clean-cut middle-class types that jarred completely with what they imagined a drug user should be. It brought home the fact that people you know and respect could really be filthy drug users, and this truth had to swept back under the carpet.

I agree 100% with this.

I don't think most people actually grasp just how many drug users actually exist that have normal lives and respectable jobs. And I think people actually refuse to believe it.

Hammered hippie

The most bothersome thing about this law is the way it came about.
Media hysteria, lies, public outrage on the basis of joe duffy shouting on the radio, then burning of shops.
Honestly..not a single sane word has been said during the whole campaign.m Policians chosing sides in a public debate as if their life depended on it.
A&E doctors admitted later on that everyone that ended up in their department also was very drunk on alcohol and that the numbers were exaggerated roughly 6x (12 people in one week, oh no ehm in one month...well actually the last quarter)
So the only fact is that we don't know the long term effects. Which might just aswell be a reason not to ban them as they might actually not be that bad...or less than alcohol.... and cigarettes, which give you cancer.

It is so dangerous that politicians actually are willing to pass legislation ment to prosecute certain sector of society on the basis of hysteria and headlines in news papers, without doing research themselves.
Same thing happened just before things got really bad in any knows dictatorship of the past--public hysteria--political siding with hysteria for political gain--attacks on sectors of society with silent agreement--persecution. God this sounds so familiar...must have seen it before at history lessons.

Don't think now the politicians are allowed to use this old toy once more, that they will let it go. Dermot Ahern will want to appear tough, even after all headshops have gone...so the only question now is...who will be next.
I think it might be those pesky know it alls on forums that exhibit a more than critical political view.... or would it be the internet all together...just to help the big labels and movie industry a bit.

sbsquarepants

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I agree 100% with this.

I don't think most people actually grasp just how many drug users actually exist that have normal lives and respectable jobs. And I think people actually refuse to believe it.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I'm a man in my mid 30's, more or less the average citizen (movie star looks aside:)). I can honestly say i know way more people who take drugs, or have taken drugs, than those who haven't. I'm talking decent people with jobs, mortgages, well looked after kids etc. I know 1 or 2 junkies as do most people, i wouldn't associate with them, or even give them the time of day to be honest.
I hate junkies. Recreational drug users are not the same species as junkies! We are a very sizeable minority, when the older generation have passed we will be the majority, only then will there be any real hope of change or even rational discussion on the subject. Sad but true!

Stuxnet

any of the do gooders there, educate yourself and watch the recently aired series on chan 4 Our war on Drugs, and realise how drug policy the last 40 years has done more damage then anything else, ban ban ban...hear no evil, see no evil...get off yer high horses'

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war/episode-guide

DepecheHead101

iPwnage wrote: »

any of the do gooders there, educate yourself and watch the recently aired series on chan 4 Our war on Drugs, and realise how drug policy the last 40 years has done more damage then anything else, ban ban ban...hear no evil, see no evil...get off yer high horses'

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war/episode-guide

As people have previously said ... I honestly think all the education in the world wont do these people any good. Thing is ... to get to the crux of the matter ... these people are idiots. Idiots don't take in information they don't want to hear very well. It's like reverse osmosis. Or something.

I actually watched that very good series a week ago and as I was watching it I could picture Jackie Snype, Colm Hodgson's brother et all sitting there with a mental guard up against any rational arguments saying 'era sure feck off!'.

What we need is generational change. I would like to think most 18-30 year olds now have the typical pro regulation view 70-80% of the people posting in threads like these do.

smokedeels

.....I'm done with drugs, never did much for me, I just want to buy a few beers after 10pm and take them home, where can I complain?

Auvers

smokedeels wrote: »

I just want to buy a few beers after 10pm and take them home, where can I complain?

nah you have to goto our democratically elected TDs public house to service that particular need

Pace2008

smokedeels wrote: »

.....I'm done with drugs, never did much for me, I just want to buy a few beers after 10pm and take them home, where can I complain?

It is not the nation's will to have off-licences remain open after 10pm. Our democratically elected government has decided it is in our country's best interest to close them at this hour. If you have such a problem with it, you should campaign and promote your cause until there's an overwhelming mandate to amend the laws, or maybe next time around you should vote in a political party with a policy to suit your agenda.

Damn, I've always wanted to trot that one out.

smokedeels

I was thinking of doing the above, but I was worried that I would sound like an alcoholic.

Hammered hippie

The political parties are all together on a lot of points, much like a cartel. This is done to protect interests of the politicians themselves or third parties. Clientelism and nepotism are rife.
The saddest thing is that if you want to change this and offer the public an alternative in the form of a new political party, then you are only allowed to do so when one of your initial party members/co founders is a sitting TD. Protectionism to the highest degree if you ask me. Doubt whether that kind of thing is even constitutional. It certainly is not the way the EU intends things to be.