another fine job done Mary Harney and D Ahern!!

Elevator

it's a bit late cryin about it now but the following is very interesting indeed

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/docs-warn-headshop-ban-has-little-effect-2297957.html

for those on the dog n bone

By Terence Cosgrave
Sunday August 15 2010
There has been a huge increase in hospital admissions due to 'head shop' drugs, sold since the stores were banned.
The situation has deteriorated so much since the ban that doctors working in the HSE's methadone programme to manage opiate addiction have issued a warning that these drugs can prove more dangerous than what one HSE methadone programme doctor called "ordinary decent heroin".
The banned products can lead to serious physical problems such as cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), mental problems including paranoia, and even full-blown psychotic episodes.
Another specialist, Dr Colin O'Gara, a consultant psychiatrist working in addiction services at St John of God Hospital in Dublin, says the advent of the drugs caused serious problems, but the recent ban on head shops hasn't even reducing the problem.
"Five years ago, cocaine was 100 per cent of the problem, but now it's 50 per cent, with the rest being made up of head-shop drugs such as methadrone.
"We are about where we were before -- dealing with a serious volume."
It means that rather than destroying the market for drugs previously sold in the shops -- as was hoped for by Health Minister Mary Harney who introduced the ban -- the drugs have simply moved on to the black market.
And the danger they pose has increased because members of the public may take the drugs, without realising what they are taking, and can underestimate both the dose they can tolerate, and the effects the drug may have.
The warning that has been issued by doctors within the drugs service is headed 'Be careful -- advice to anyone using street drugs'.
It details how addiction service staff have become aware of serious physical and mental reactions suffered by drug users and that as far as they can determine, substances previously sold in head shops are now being used to cut drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
This has resulted in a number of people being treated in both medical and psychiatric units.
It urges anyone who uses drugs to be "extra cautious at this time" and to report any unusual reactions to addiction workers or their own doctors.
In addition, doctors say the net effect of the banning of drugs sold in head shops has meant that these drugs they have gone underground.
Also, they warned that new drugs that were concocted in China, are being sold in the shops and "even less is known about these substances and their effects".
The medical staff say the ban has not had the desired effect by a long shot, and they are bracing themselves for even more casualties and health emergencies, resulting from the continued abuse of such substances.

mrDerek

fat bitch

bazmaiden

inb4 call Joe

kylith

"It means that rather than destroying the market for drugs previously sold in the shops -- as was hoped for by Health Minister Mary Harney who introduced the ban -- the drugs have simply moved on to the black market."

Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, it's because of the dozens and dozens of people saying that exactly that would happen sodding MONTHS ago. Harney would do well to think logically, rather than bury her head in the sand. Sure, even the bloody cat knows what happens if you make things people want illegal: they get sold, unregulated, on the black market.

ejmaztec

In before "she's not bad looking for a fat bird".

Elevator

it's one sick joke that the dogs on the street knew this was going to happen when the ban was brought in

fuppin backstards!!

Terry

I don't see how Harney and Ahern are to blame for the idiocy of the average drug user.

MrDarcy

ejmaztec wrote: »

In before "she's not bad looking for a fat bird".

Isn't she suing Nell Mc Cafferty for saying on air that she was an, ... Ah doesn't matter...! :eek::eek::eek:

MrDarcy

Terry wrote: »

I don't see how Harney and Ahern are to blame for the idiocy of the average drug user.

+10, if you take drugs, the consequences of what happens then are down to you, not Harney or Ahern or anyone else, take some personal responsibility!

bleg

Drugs that are dangerous and lead to hospitalization made illegal.
People continue to take them.
Admissions due to Adverse drug reactions associated with these increase.


Weren't the pro legalisation group saying that these drugs are safe?

super_furry

Surely that backs up their argument for banning the sale of these drugs. If there causing such problems when they're banned, having them legal and freely available to anyone would be a worse situation.

Micky Dolenz

Personal abuse will result in infractions/bans.

kylith

bleg wrote: »

Drugs that are dangerous and lead to hospitalization made illegal.
People continue to take them.
Admissions due to Adverse drug reactions associated with these increase.


Weren't the pro legalisation group saying that these drugs are safe?

I don't recall anyone saying they were safe, just safer when legal.

They were made illegal overnight, and some headshops decided to sell their stock to dealers rather than take the financial loss. The dealers are now cutting them with who knows what or using them as filler with other substances without knowing how one drug will effect the other. Of course this makes them more dangerous. Alcohol, which is dangerous enough to start with, was a potential killer during the US's Prohibition era because it was made in an unregulated fashion.

Had the government not had such a knee-jerk reaction to these substances they could have been properly tested and treated accordingly; either with restrictions on sale, or with warnings about how 'these pills will make your balls fall off'.

Wertz

Funny, I'd been using "street drugs" for years and never been to A&E (for anything related)...

Never took any of the pseudo headshop stuff though ('cept salvia)...at least with the old school illegals (cocaine, speed, ecstasy, LSD), you knew what to expect...and so did the doctors if it came to that...sure, a lot of it was cut with crap and had the potential to kill you if you took too much....but at least you knew that...with analogue this and esters of that all nicely packaged and branded, no-one knows a f*ck how the body is going to react, to what are mostly industrial chemicals in varying concentrations.

I lay the blame for all this nonsense, the emergence of headshop highs included, at the continued insistence on prohibition of the "traditional" drugs, especially cannabis.

Not really fair* blaming Mary and Dermo though...it's the army of liveline idiots that goaded them into reactionary measures that are the real culprits here. People were told that other crap like naphyrone would emerge if they moved against mephedrone too quickly, ut no...if we ban them it all just goes away.

*Well, it is really.

Terry

kylith wrote: »

I don't recall anyone saying they were safe, just safer when legal.

They were made illegal overnight, and some headshops decided to sell their stock to dealers rather than take the financial loss. The dealers are now cutting them with who knows what or using them as filler with other substances without knowing how one drug will effect the other. Of course this makes them more dangerous. Alcohol, which is dangerous enough to start with, was a potential killer during the US's Prohibition era because it was made in an unregulated fashion.

Had the government not had such a knee-jerk reaction to these substances they could have been properly tested and treated accordingly; either with restrictions on sale, or with warnings about how 'these pills will make your balls fall off'.

Yeah, because all the warnings on alcohol and tobacco have led to lower usage.

PeterIanStaker

I'm sure the dealers in real drugs are delighted with Joe.

kylith

Terry wrote: »

Yeah, because all the warnings on alcohol and tobacco have led to lower usage.

Maybe, maybe not. The point is that with proper research you're forewarned of the dangers.

bleg

kylith wrote: »

I don't recall anyone saying they were safe, just safer when legal.

They were made illegal overnight, and some headshops decided to sell their stock to dealers rather than take the financial loss. The dealers are now cutting them with who knows what or using them as filler with other substances without knowing how one drug will effect the other. Of course this makes them more dangerous. Alcohol, which is dangerous enough to start with, was a potential killer during the US's Prohibition era because it was made in an unregulated fashion.

Had the government not had such a knee-jerk reaction to these substances they could have been properly tested and treated accordingly; either with restrictions on sale, or with warnings about how 'these pills will make your balls fall off'.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

The substances sold in headshops were unregulated and could be cut with anything. They were sold as bath salts and plant food, not for human consumption.

To keep these free from adulterants and ensure they are supplied correctly you would need quite a few systems put in place.

1. You would need an organisation that could oversee and inspect the production of these substances. Something similar to the IMB, however the IMB could not conduct this function as these products would not be medicinal.
2. You would need clear standards set for the production of these substances (something similar to the Eudralex http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex/index_en.htm).
3. You would need an organisation that oversees the safe supply and sale of these substances from approved stores. Something similar to the PSI.

All of this would require substantial funding. The only way to recoup this would be to increase the cost of the drugs. Increased cost would lead to illegal supply of these drugs via the internet or dealers making the whole system pointless.

Misanthrope

Who are we going to listen to here?Some Dr. O Gara with his fancy shmancy medical degree and scientifical codology, or names we can trust like Ahern and Harney.Who does O Gara think he is,disagreeing with the finest politicking minds in the country?We voted Mary Harney in, all proper democratical like.

If O Gara wants to crack the whip let him be on the ballot.I can't trust anyone who is not a politician.


God bless and protect Mary Harney.She's like our own Queen.

DarkJager

Maybe Mary should also have a look at the amount of drug seizures and drug related murders since the ban came in? For all the moral guardian bull**** the likes of liveline and the rest were forcing down our throats, I hope they now realise they got it dreadfully wrong. Nothing to do but laugh as we descend back in to good old Ireland.

F-Stop

Terry wrote: »

I don't see how Harney and Ahern are to blame for the idiocy of the average drug user.

I don't know about that, they drive me to drink. The idiocy part I don't know about, I never voted for them.

Prof.Badass

Terry wrote: »

I don't see how Harney and Ahern are to blame for the idiocy of the average drug user.

Not that I'm for cocaine use, but cocaine has been relatively* safe for decades. Now when people buy coke they could be getting this nasty headshop ****e aswell/instead.
If someone ends up in hospital due to snorting naphyrone when they thought it was cocaine, it's not entirely their own fault.
Especially when you consider how relatively benign adulterants used to be before these research chemicals came about.

On another note, I'm happy that people are back smoking weed instead of jwh-018.

*compared to some of the ****e being sold as "alternatives".

Terry

Misanthrope wrote: »

Who are we going to listen to here?Some Dr. O Gara with his fancy shmancy medical degree and scientifical codology, or names we can trust like Ahern and Harney.Who does O Gara think he is,disagreeing with the finest politicking minds in the country?We voted Mary Harney in, all proper democratical like.

If O Gara wants to crack the whip let him be on the ballot.I can't trust anyone who is not a politician.


God bless and protect Mary Harney.She's like our own Queen.

Did you read the quote properly, or did you just read the bits you wanted to see?

Another specialist, Dr Colin O'Gara, a consultant psychiatrist working in addiction services at St John of God Hospital in Dublin, says the advent of the drugs caused serious problems, but the recent ban on head shops hasn't even reducing the problem.

Just look over the emboldened part again (ignoring the grammatical error).

Terry

DarkJager wrote: »

Maybe Mary should also have a look at the amount of drug seizures and drug related murders since the ban came in? For all the moral guardian bull**** the likes of liveline and the rest were forcing down our throats, I hope they now realise they got it dreadfully wrong. Nothing to do but laugh as we descend back in to good old Ireland.

Supply and demand.

If people were to obey the laws of the land, and not ring their local, friendly dealer for their weekly fix, then perhaps there would be less people being shot.
But let's just blame the government for people not being able to be self-indulgent, and not being able to have some self control.

F-Stop wrote: »

I don't know about that, they drive me to drink. The idiocy part I don't know about, I never voted for them.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get what you are saying here.

---

I have to laugh. You have people calling drug addicts the scum of the earth, but then the same people are constantly calling for certain, or all, drugs to be legalised.
Then the old alcohol prohibition argument comes out, completely ignoring the fact that, by dosage, all illegal drugs are more potent than alcohol. Yes, even cannabis (one joint will get you stoned. One alcohlic drink will not get you drunk).
This is followed by the yeah, but Ireland is full of alcoholics. This isn't fair. I just want to get stoned argument. If you want to get stoned on a regular basis, then perhaps you have a problem and you should go to see an addiction councillor.
But cannabis is not addictive. It's psychologically addictive. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Up next is the taxation and regulation argument. More self-indulgent and can't see beyond your own selfishness crap.
Firstly, just like alcohol and tobacco, the government would tax other drugs to the hilt. Don't be so deluded as to think otherwise. Regulation can be bypassed. How many of you were able to get cans of beer when you were 15? I'd imagine that 100% of people who drank at that age didn't have much of a problem getting their naggin, flagon, 6 pack or alcopops. Do you honestly believe that there are people who would not go and buy some legal heroin/ E/ weed/ coke or whatever, and then cut it before selling it on?

Hard drugs are illegal for a reason. That reason is because they are far more potent than alcohol and tobacco. Most of them are far more addictive than alcohol. They can all, just like alcohol, cause psychotic episodes.
The pro-legalisation sites that many of seem so fond of only tell one side of the story. Do yourselves a favour and read both sides of the argument.

Terry

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Not that I'm for cocaine use, but cocaine has been relatively* safe for decades. Now when people buy coke they could be getting this nasty headshop ****e aswell/instead.
If someone ends up in hospital due to snorting naphyrone when they thought it was cocaine, it's not entirely their own fault.
Especially when you consider how relatively benign adulterants used to be before these research chemicals came about.

On another note, I'm happy that people are back smoking weed instead of jwh-018.

*compared to some of the ****e being sold as "alternatives".

It's their fault for being so stupid as to buy crap from some scumbag, and breaking the law in the process.

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

Supply and demand.

If people were to obey the laws of the land, and not ring their local, friendly dealer for their weekly fix, then perhaps there would be less people being shot.

Yes, demand.

The people are demanding alternative drugs. And you can't beat the people as they said of the Vietnamese when they fought for freedom.

I have to laugh. You have people calling drug addicts the scum of the earth, but then the same people are constantly calling for certain, or all, drugs to be legalised.

Some do, some don't.

Then the old alcohol prohibition argument comes out, completely ignoring the fact that, by dosage, all illegal drugs are more potent than alcohol. Yes, even cannabis (one joint will get you stoned. One alcohlic drink will not get you drunk).

I don't drink a whole lot. I can certainly feel the effects of one pint.

This is followed by the yeah, but Ireland is full of alcoholics. This isn't fair. I just want to get stoned argument. If you want to get stoned on a regular basis, then perhaps you have a problem and you should go to see an addiction councillor.

I get stoned on a regular basis. I live in Amsterdam where I frequent coffeeshops and see a lot of other people get stoned on a regular basis. Fully functioning adults, most of them. Why do I need to see a councillor?

But cannabis is not addictive. It's psychologically addictive. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Correct. And if psychological addiction is to be a basis for making things illegal then gambling, shopping for things you don't need, the internet etc. will have to be made illegal.

Up next is the taxation and regulation argument. More self-indulgent and can't see beyond your own selfishness crap.
Firstly, just like alcohol and tobacco, the government would tax other drugs to the hilt. Don't be so deluded as to think otherwise.

Well, of course. Instead of spending money on policing/incarceration etc. they'll make money on taxing it. That's an argument in favour, surely?

Regulation can be bypassed. How many of you were able to get cans of beer when you were 15? I'd imagine that 100% of people who drank at that age didn't have much of a problem getting their naggin, flagon, 6 pack or alcopops.

I'd imagine most kids can get their hands on any drug they want these days anyway, if they wanted them, their current illegality notwithstanding.

Do you honestly believe that there are people who would not go and buy some legal heroin/ E/ weed/ coke or whatever, and then cut it before selling it on?

Probably.

Hard drugs are illegal for a reason. That reason is because they are far more potent than alcohol and tobacco. Most of them are far more addictive than alcohol. They can all, just like alcohol, cause psychotic episodes.

And while drugs continue to be illegal the dealers keep coming up with more and more potent variations; crack/crystal meth/super strength skunk, which do cause problems and only serve to fuel the cause for prohibition thus ensuring the vicious cycle continues.

The pro-legalisation sites that many of seem so fond of only tell one side of the story.

Do yourselves a favour and read both sides of the argument.

Most people that take drugs have seen both sides of the story yet are still in favour of legalisation of either some or all drugs.

Wertz

Terry wrote: »

(one joint will get you stoned. One alcohlic drink will not get you drunk).

Bullsh*t.

One joint might get you "stoned"....but then several joints get you stoned.
Like one pint might get you tipsy...but several might make you drunk.

You know the big difference there? No matter how much someone's had to smoke, they can still get up and go to work the next morning (when there's work to go to)...on the other hand how much time and productivity in the workplace are lost in this country every year by people pulling sickies, sleeping in the jacks at work or geenerally doing as little as they can with their massive hangovers and comparing notes on how sh*t faced they were last night. I know I missed my share in my younger days.


Terry you have a prejudice against anyone that can't see it from your narrow "I love drink, drink should be enough for anyone" attitude....and this nonsense about something being illegal being oh so wrong simply because it's illegal is delusional.
What difference is there in someone wanting to alter their mind with one substance, over someone wanting to alter their mind with another?

We're just treading old ground here, not getting anywhere...a lot like our collective drug policies...

Terry wrote:

Do you honestly believe that there are people who would not go and buy some legal heroin/ E/ weed/ coke or whatever, and then cut it before selling it on?

You see that bit I actually agree with you on...which is why you go town on anyone caught doing it...
Legalistation would be fraught with problems....but the current system is fraught with probelms, is costing millions and is having f*ck all effect, or at least not the one that those in power think it is...

starbelgrade

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Not that I'm for cocaine use, but cocaine has been relatively* safe for decades. Now when people buy coke they could be getting this nasty headshop ****e aswell/instead.


On another note, I'm happy that people are back smoking weed instead of jwh-018.

*compared to some of the ****e being sold as "alternatives".

Coke has been cut with all sorts of nasty sh*t since it's introduction in Ireland. It is almost impossible to get pure cocaine unless you are very close to one of the main dealers in the country (or hide it up your ass on a trip back from Columbia).

A lot of the grass here is also sprayed with glass particles to give it more weight & make it look crystalised, though relatively speaking, this is fairly harmless.

There was an opportunity with the headshops to provide safe, legal alternatives to street drugs, but it wasn't taken.

Personally, I'd rather see the lot decriminalised, but the blanket ban of headshop products was just another step backwards for our drugs policies.

Misanthrope

Terry wrote: »

Did you read the quote properly, or did you just read the bits you wanted to see?



Just look over the emboldened part again (ignoring the grammatical error).

He said the head shop ban wasn't working.I would construe that as a critique of the ban.Do you think he's backing them up?As a friend of the man I have a pretty good idea what he thinks about this,hence my tongue in cheek response.

Maybe you need to have a read back.

Elevator

I don't drink musc either and can back up the previous poster that one pint can definately hit me good

also one pint is enough to have you over the limit to drive safely

Terry

King Felix wrote: »

Yes, demand.

The people are demanding alternative drugs. And you can't beat the people as they said of the Vietnamese when they fought for freedom.


Some do, some don't.
I don't drink a whole lot. I can certainly feel the effects of one pint.
I get stoned on a regular basis. I live in Amsterdam where I frequent coffeeshops and see a lot of other people get stoned on a regular basis. Fully functioning adults, most of them. Why do I need to see a councillor?
Correct. And if psychological addiction is to be a basis for making things illegal then gambling, shopping for things you don't need, the internet etc. will have to be made illegal.

Well, of course. Instead of spending money on policing/incarceration etc. they'll make money on taxing it. That's an argument in favour, surely?I'd imagine most kids can get their hands on any drug they want these days anyway, if they wanted them, their current illegality notwithstanding. Probably.

And while drugs continue to be illegal the dealers keep coming up with more and more potent variations; crack/crystal meth/super strength skunk, which do cause problems and only serve to fuel the cause for prohibition thus ensuring the vicious cycle continues.
Most people that take drugs have seen both sides of the story yet are still in favour of legalisation of either some or all drugs.

Denial and diversion in every counter argument there.

Wertz wrote: »

Bullsh*t.

One joint might get you "stoned"....but then several joints get you stoned.
Like one pint might get you tipsy...but several might make you drunk.

You know the big difference there? No matter how much someone's had to smoke, they can still get up and go to work the next morning (when there's work to go to)...on the other hand how much time and productivity in the workplace are lost in this country every year by people pulling sickies, sleeping in the jacks at work or geenerally doing as little as they can with their massive hangovers and comparing notes on how sh*t faced they were last night. I know I missed my share in my younger days.


Terry you have a prejudice against anyone that can't see it from your narrow "I love drink, drink should be enough for anyone" attitude....and this nonsense about something being illegal being oh so wrong simply because it's illegal is delusional.
What difference is there in someone wanting to alter their mind with one substance, over someone wanting to alter their mind with another?

We're just treading old ground here, not getting anywhere...a lot like our collective drug policies...

More joints will get you higher.
Maybe one joint is enough for you. That's fair enough. However, most people will not stop at one joint.
Then there's the mixing it with alcohol or other drugs. Yeah, it happens, and it's not on a small scale either.

I remember drinking a flagon of cider when I was 17. Then I bumped into a friend and he rolled a joint. The mixture of the two made me puke. At the time I blamed the cider. I was too naive to realise that it was the combination of both which made me sick. Much like mixing drinks will make you sick or give you a worse hangover than you would normally have. Then again, that's over-indulgence. Something that anyone using any form of drug will quite regularly do.

Now you can live in denial all you want, but you and I, and most other rational and sane people, know that cannabis is far more potent than alcohol.

If one drink has more of an effect on you than one joint, then perhaps you are smoking too much weed. Just as much as anyone who needs more than Two or Three drinks to get a buzz is over indulging in alcohol.

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

Denial and diversion in every counter argument there.

All of them?

Where or what exactly?

mikom

Terry wrote: »

there.
More joints will get you higher.

Arghh........ people, people, please learn the difference between a high and a stone.

charlemont

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Personal abuse will result in infractions/bans.

thanks for the pre-warning. i was about to let rip, even on this street where i live, drug dealing went up since the head shop ban, from some of the comments i read, i guess ireland will never change, lock up your kids and put alarms on your houses...because its going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better...

think about this......YOU DONT SEE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE (YOUNG OR OLD) GETTING SICK AND WRECKED EVERY DAY FROM ALCOHOL THAT IS BADLY PRODUCED, MIXED WITH UNKNOWN CHEMICALS, UNKNOWN PERCENTAGE ETC...

mikom

charlemont wrote: »

ALCOHOL THAT IS BADLY PRODUCED, MIXED WITH UNKNOWN CHEMICALS, UNKNOWN PERCENTAGE ETC...

Sounds like a fat frog......

bleg

charlemont wrote: »

think about this......YOU DONT SEE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE (YOUNG OR OLD) GETTING SICK AND WRECKED EVERY DAY FROM ALCOHOL THAT IS BADLY PRODUCED, MIXED WITH UNKNOWN CHEMICALS, UNKNOWN PERCENTAGE ETC...

Because it's quality controlled and regulated. It also costs a **** load. See my post.

bleg

mikom wrote: »

Arghh........ people, people, please learn the difference between a high and a stone.

So, Towelie should have said "you wana get stoned?"

genericguy

read up on the results of portugal's reformation of drug laws terry. i pretty much never disagree with you on a single issue except this, but there is absolutely no argument for alcohol being legal over weed - the simple fact is ireland would take any avenue at all that would generate tax at this stage, but the drinks industry would go tits up due to the expense of having a few pints in a club vs having a fantastic time in a coffee shop, and a shítload of members of the fianna fail party are publicans and the vintners association runs the country.

Prof.Badass

Terry wrote: »

It's their fault for being so stupid as to buy crap from some scumbag, and breaking the law in the process.

Is breaking the law stupid?

Pre-1993 should homosexuals have said "hmmm.....maybe I should supress my urges because to do otherwise would be against the law. I know I'm not harming others but the authorities know best :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:".

I'm not saying drug use is wise, nor am I saying that all drug users are noble freedom-fighters, just that the illegality of certain drugs is not reason enough to condemn their use. In fact it shouldn't make any difference at all.

And as for buying crap, as I said up untill recently the idea of cocaine being cut with chemicals of significant short-term danger was fanciful one. Yes, there have been a few isolated incidents of drugs being cut with nasty stuff, but on the whole the cutting agents were generally not dangerous. To take a more extreme example: Those people in germany who got lead poisining from smoking weed. Do you really think they actually deserved what happened to them? Out of all the millions of weed smokers in the world over the centuries, something new and totally unexpected happened to them. How are people supposed to take into account risks they don't know exist?

To me it's like saying anyone with a house less than 50 metres below sea level deserves to get killed in a tsunami. Strong words, and easy to say from behind a computer screen. But imagine confronting the families of tsunami victims and saying "no, i feel no sympathy. you should have known better living so close to the sea.".... I don't think people truely mean what they say a lot of the time.....

Terry

King Felix wrote: »

All of them?

Where or what exactly?

Ok. Here's the deal.
I'm fighting a losing battle. I've been through this a hundred times before, and I know that most people won't listen to me, even though I am more than aware of the addictive properties of drugs.
FFS, I'm a junkie and an alcoholic. I know what it's like to be addicted to drugs. It's not a nice way to live your life, and I try to quit every day, but constantly fail (my own weakness, and nobody else is to blame).
Legalising drugs will not cure addiction. I know this because I'm addicted to legal drugs.

It cracks me up when I see people rambling on about the benefits of certain drugs, while completely ignoring the harmful effects of long term use.
Just like alcohol, most people would not smoke weed every night of the week. Those who do will eventually succumb to the long term effects of it though. To deny that people would not over-indulge in weed is to deny the fact that greed is a very predominant trait in humans.

In your post have basically denied that drugs are both harmful and addictive in some of your points.
In others you have diverted the point of the harmful qualities of illegal drugs by saying that legal drugs are equally as bad or worse.
Both are far from the truth

Where do you stop at legalisation?
Would you just legalise cannibas, or would you go the whole hog and throw in heroin, Crystal meth, Coke, PCP and the like?

Wertz

Terry wrote: »

More joints will get you higher.
Maybe one joint is enough for you. That's fair enough. However, most people will not stop at one joint.
Then there's the mixing it with alcohol or other drugs. Yeah, it happens, and it's not on a small scale either.

Sure they will...same as more booze will get you merrier. Habits and tolerances not withstanding, everyone has their own limits....with alcohol, I personally find it very moreish...as in "Wahey, I'm well on it now, time to get the VnRBs in!", drink to the wee hours and then spend the next two days regretting it and usually regretting what I did/said whilst pissed.
One joint is fine, another is nice, another great...stoned and even more stoned...to the point where you fall asleep or get bored and decide to go and do something else...and maybe have another spliff later.

I mix them myself...sometimes it's grand, sometimes it isn't...depends how much of one or other you've had and a whole lot of other factors...I tend to try and avoid it if I'm very drunk and haven't had a smoke yet...since it just sends you into a tailspin. On the other hand a few smokes before starting drinking and I'm fine...takes less to get drunk (not necessarily a bad thing)...and I'm less lilkely to be the beligerent eejit roaring in the street and making a nuisance afterwards

Terry wrote:

Now you can live in denial all you want, but you and I, and most other rational and sane people, know that cannabis is far more potent than alcohol.

If one drink has more of an effect on you than one joint, then perhaps you are smoking too much weed. Just as much as anyone who needs more than Two or Three drinks to get a buzz is over indulging in alcohol.

Yeah we've all made the mistake of smoking and drinking and getting sideswiped...as you say over indulgence...interesting that some people might never think about smoking a spliff and yet if it were offered to them after a few scoops they might have their inhibitions lowered enough to try it, then puke their guts out and blame the weed....in actual fact it's the drink that's making you sick (I've never gotten sick no matter how stoned I ever managed to get...puke my ring up plenty when I go OTT on booze on it's own though) Alcohol is treated like a poinson in the body...too much in your system and the reflexes kick in.

The odd thing with weed and drink is that there are tolerances built up...but I've seen proper alcoholics that tend to get very drunk on a small amount because their system is so awash with the stuff or their body is unable to process it faster than they can consume it, in a cumulative sense.
Some people will be tolerant to drink...say the people that have the few pints every other night....it's not that they're not affected...it's that they don't notice the effect...others might.
It doesn't work like that with weed really. Sometimes a spliff hits you strongly, sometimes you don't even notice the buzz...no two are alike and certainly no two strains are alike.

I'd feel perfectly safe cycling after a few joints . I'd feel a lot less safe after a few pints...and I mean safe as in not falling off or being hit by a car...aolchol has a terrible effect on balance and motor function, whilst dope just dulls the senses a bit but in some ways makes you more careful (paranoia).
I'm not making excuses for one over the other, they're two completely different drugs...but I can definitely "feel" every pint from the first mouthful...same way as I can feel every spliff from the first inhale.

The downsides: dope makes you...dopey, less sociable, less talkative...drink has the opposing effect...mixing the two within reason strikes a fine balance....over indulging in either or both is going to catch you out in the long run. Both of them cost way too much...one because it's taxed out the wazoo, the other because it's supply is limited through criminalisation.


BTW whever said glass added to weed isn't harmful, I'll beg to differ. Know of two people who had bad reactions to it...thankfully the glass was soon replaced with other crap...they apparently spray a type of oil on buds now after they've dried...it makes them wetter, heavier and obviously makes more for the dealers. Got caught out a few times with it. Still better than soapbar though. Funny the way california and Holland don't have this problem with aldulterants when it costs a smiliar price per gram in those places as here...

Wertz

charlemont wrote: »

YOU DONT SEE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE (YOUNG OR OLD) GETTING SICK AND WRECKED EVERY DAY FROM ALCOHOL

Not trying to quote you out of context here but ...umm, yes you do. Go to any town/city centre on a weekend night.

But once again, it's socially accepted as all being part of having a good time and keeping the publicans/drinks companies in clover. You don't have to cut it with crap for it to have that effect...it does it all on it's own...

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

In your post have basically denied that drugs are both harmful and addictive in some of your points.

I didn't say those things. You're taking them as implicit in my argument. I finished by saying that most people who've taken drugs have seen both sides of the story. I've used drugs in form another since the age of 13, all of 21 years ago, and am well aware of the harmful effects of drug abuse. That aside I still view criminalisation as the worst aspect of the drug problem.

In others you have diverted the point of the harmful qualities of illegal drugs by saying that legal drugs are equally as bad or worse.

No, I didn't, Terry.

Where do you stop at legalisation?
Would you just legalise cannibas, or would you go the whole hog and throw in heroin, Crystal meth, Coke, PCP and the like?

A hard one. Certainly cannabis.

MDMA, GHB and LSD/psylocybin for those who've completed an educational course in their proper use.

The harder drugs like heroin and coke should be legally available too, but with heavier regulation. I don't know what form that would take.

Drugs like PCP, meth, most of the headshop drugs, crack (though that's a hard one as it's so easily made from coke) I wouldn't allow at all.

All the money saved from policing/taxing should be put in to rehabilitation, education and improving the slum conditions that lead to a lot of drug use in the first place.

I know there'd be losts of holes and leaks but the current situation is beyond ridiculous.

Misanthrope

Terry wrote: »

Now you can live in denial all you want, but you and I, and most other rational and sane people, know that cannabis is far more potent than alcohol.
.

Can you quote me some sources with empirical data to prove this garbage you just wrote.You clearly have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to how Cannabinols interact with the human system.It is an entirely different chemical process.
How did you become so bold as to speak for most other rational and sane people on an issue that can only be clarified through scientific process.

You obviously have not read the Shafer Report or any other comprehensive studies on the matter.
Nixon commissioned the Shafer Report only to find it told him the opposite to what he wanted to hear.So he tried to sweep it under the rug.
If you haven't already swept your copy under a rug or into a fire,I suggest you break it out and give it a read over,because it scientifically rubbishes your above statement.

Any luck with those sources and data from 'other rational and sane people', who 'know that cannabis is far more potent than alcohol.'Bring it on.

Terry

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Is breaking the law stupid?

Pre-1993 should homosexuals have said "hmmm.....maybe I should supress my urges because to do otherwise would be against the law. I know I'm not harming others but the authorities know best :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:".

Hmm. A natural act between two people and the unnatural act of inhaling smoke from a burning plant. I can see the correlation there. <insert several roll eye emoticons to denote sarcasm/>
Unless you're telling me that sex between two people of the same gender is not natural, I fail to see what you are getting at here.

I'm not saying drug use is wise, nor am I saying that all drug users are noble freedom-fighters, just that the illegality of certain drugs is not reason enough to condemn their use. In fact it shouldn't make any difference at all.

No, it's not wise at all. It is also wise to condemn the use.
The chance of overdosing or having a psychotic episode on the majority of illegal drugs is very high. You only need to look at amount of people who end up in A&E through alcohol related crap to see that legalising other drugs would just lead to a massive increase in the already overpacked waiting rooms.

I'm not denying that there are people who are capable of using certain drugs without dire consequences, but the majority of people on this planet are self-indulgent idiots, and they need legislation to prevent them from killing themselves.

And as for buying crap, as I said up untill recently the idea of cocaine being cut with chemicals of significant short-term danger was fanciful one. Yes, there have been a few isolated incidents of drugs being cut with nasty stuff, but on the whole the cutting agents were generally not dangerous. What about those people in germany who got lead poisining from smoking weed. Do you really think they actually deserved what happened to them? Out of all the millions of weed smokers in the world, something new and totally unexpected happened to them.

To me it's like saying anyone with a house less than 50 metres below sea level deserves to get killed in a tsunami. Strong words, and easy to say from behind a computer screen. Imagine confronting the families of tsunami victims and saying "no, i feel no sympathy. you should have known better living so close to the sea."......

I'd question the reasoning of people living in tornado alley in the U.S., or those living on the coast in Southern California. I actually have done in the past. The answer is usually that they live there due to economic reasons. You can't really argue against that.
However, comparing people who live in areas likely to be flooded or blown away by hurricanes is not even close to those who choose to consume illegal drugs. Why you would even think there is a comparison is beyond my comprehension.

Buying crap from a scumbag and then later calling his other customers "scumbags" never fails to make me laugh.
As for the Germans who got lead poisoning from buying illegal products, they really shouldn't have broken the law.

Prof.Badass

Elevator wrote: »

I don't drink musc either and can back up the previous poster that one pint can definately hit me good

This is a silly offshoot argument that is completely pointless. Don't even indulge him with it. Whether or not 1 joint will get you high depends completely on how much weed you put in it and how much of it you smoke. Taking 1 or 2 small drags from a weak joint will not get you high (which is a lot of people's first attempt at smoking weed).

One thing I do know though:

1 naggin will get you drunk.

starbelgrade wrote: »

Coke has been cut with all sorts of nasty sh*t since it's introduction in Ireland. It is almost impossible to get pure cocaine unless you are very close to one of the main dealers in the country (or hide it up your ass on a trip back from Columbia).

Just because what is being sold as cocaine in this country isn't pure, doesn't mean that it contains truely dangerous substances. Most cutting agents are relatively benign, at least in the short-term.

What''s happening now is that cocaine isn't being "cut", it's being replaced by entirely untested chemicals, some of them apparently quite dangerous in the short-term.

There was an opportunity with the headshops to provide safe, legal alternatives to street drugs, but it wasn't taken.

I wouldn't call any sort of research chemical "safe". Afaik quite a number of experts stated that if people had to do drugs, they'd probably be safer with the tried and tested street drugs over these complete unknowns.

starbelgrade

I can some this argument up in two sentences;

Towlie; "You wanna get high?"

Mr Mackey; "Drugs are bad, hmm'kay?"


/thread

Terry

We could argue this all night, so I'll just point out now that I'm always right.

Should any of you wish to indulge in the consumption of illegal drugs, then do so at your own peril. You are just being foolish. I can't stop you and nor can anyone else.
Just remember that you will be taking a massive risk with your health.

I'd offer you all some of the pills I'm addicted to, but they have a tendency to destroy your kidneys and **** with your short term memory. Not that this would stop some of you. After all, you're all only doing it short term and are immune to addiction.

Misanthrope

Terry wrote: »

Ok. Here's the deal.
.
FFS, I'm a junkie and an alcoholic. I know what it's like to be addicted to drugs. It's not a nice way to live your life, and I try to quit every day, but constantly fail (my own weakness, and nobody else is to blame).
Legalising drugs will not cure addiction. I know this because I'm addicted to legal drugs.

I think this is a lie.You are a junkie and an alcoholic?And a Boards.ie moderator who spends a lot of time on the web?Already you are nothing like any of the junkies or alcos I know.

Who pays for your broadband?I mean,being a fulltime junkie and alcoholic you obviously don't have a job......... or at least you won't when you tell us what and where your job is.How long have you been deceiving your employers?

How long have you been a junkie?And an alcoholic?At 17 years old you were relying on others to provide cannabis which you couldn't even handle a puff off.

You are in here pontificating to us all about breaking the law.If you are what you say you are you have broken it more than most of us, so what gives you the authority to lecture us on that which you violate

So tell me Terry, when you run out of sugar what do you go for and where do you get it.Do you even know what I'm on about?I doubt it

I think what's really going on here is you've taken an absolute pasting in this thread and are trying to spoof us now to cover up................... and I'm calling you out on it.I think it's BS.Anyone else in here smell it?

starbelgrade

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Just because what is being sold as cocaine in this country isn't pure, doesn't mean that it contains truely dangerous substances. Most cutting agents are relatively benign, at least in the short-term.

Your first sentence is true to an extent, but I know for a fact that a lot of cocaine gets cut with heroin or speed as it's far cheaper for dealers to source than cocaine. You'd be surprised at exactly how much is used sometimes.

They're using a lot of cutting agents these days that are untested chemicals for the exact same reason - they're cheap.

Basically, you're average dealer couldn't give a flying f*ck what the coke gets cut with, as long as people buy it & the profit margins are good. Most people wouldn't know the difference anyway, but if you think that coke is, or ever was cut with "benign" agents in this country, you're being naive in the extreme.

Misanthrope

Terry wrote: »

We could argue this all night, so I'll just point out now that I'm always right.

Should any of you wish to indulge in the consumption of illegal drugs, then do so at your own peril. You are just being foolish. I can't stop you and nor can anyone else.
Just remember that you will be taking a massive risk with your health.

I'd offer you all some of the pills I'm addicted to, but they have a tendency to destroy your kidneys and **** with your short term memory. Not that this would stop some of you. After all, you're all only doing it short term and are immune to addiction.

I thought you said you were a junkie.You're not too well up on the jargon.What pills are you hooked on tell me.And how long for.And who was the nasty man that got you on them?

Obviously we're talking rx here so I guess you must be stealing prescription pads and robbing surgeries and dispensaries.Or is you GP an 'evil' doctor who keeps you hooked.Stick his name up there with a scan of your latest rx, and I promise you he will be investigated thoroughly and most likely be off the registrar.

Then we can get you on the road to recovery.