Why where ALL headshops products banned?

My name is URL

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Don't agree, the stuff in the headshops was muck for sure but it's not my place, or anyone elses for that matter, to tell another adult what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

I would ensure that the owners of the shops fully informed the customers concerning the health risks (or complete lack of knowledge of such) and then let them make up their own minds.

The thing is though, that the stuff goes through a whole chain of supply without anyone really knowing for sure the effect that it might have on people because there is so little regulation, so it would be near impossible for a shop to genuinely inform customers about the dangers. And completely impossible to enforce a rule which is based on virtually nothing.

I'm all for the legalisation of stuff that has been scientifically tested and has had its adverse effects recorded and reported. I wouldn't go into a pharmacy and expect all of the drugs to be available without any documentation or assurance that the stuff was safe to ingest. It would be completely irresponsible for any business to operate like that, and would lead to even more irresponsibility. People should be responsible.. that means making informed decisions about things.

Laisurg

The main reason that headshops were banned was that a lot of teenagers were taking their products, one of my cousins took quite a bit of their stuff when he was 15 (he's perfectly fine and it never did him any harm) and he managed to go in and buy it in a few of their shops and wasn't asked for any id and he did not look 18 at all or even 16 for that matter i went with him once and saw this first hand (this was a fair few years ago and i was 17 at the time so i didn't really care).

The stuff was also not really tested to see if it was safe as far as i know so that sets off alarm bells for a lot of people and rightly so, i don't think it should of been completely banned but if the shops had been run slightly better they may not have been shut down.

That synthetic weed they sold was bloody strong as well, far stronger than any weed I've smoked to this day, I still have no idea though if it was completely safe or not, although it's not really comparable to cannabis as it felt very different than being stoned.

starbelgrade

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Can't see that mixture making a superior boot...sound like the kind of thing that would fall apart in the rain.

Do you use a kind of varnish on them?

No. I just avoid going out when it rains.

Temptamperu

My name is URL wrote: »

The thing is though, that the stuff goes through a whole chain of supply without anyone really knowing for sure the effect that it might have on people because there is so little regulation, so it would be near impossible for a shop to genuinely inform customers about the dangers. And completely impossible to enforce a rule which is based on virtually nothing.

I'm all for the legalisation of stuff that has been scientifically tested and has had its adverse effects recorded and reported. I wouldn't go into a pharmacy and expect all of the drugs to be available without any documentation or assurance that the stuff was safe to ingest. It would be completely irresponsible for any business to operate like that, and would lead to even more irresponsibility. People should be responsible.. that means making informed decisions about things.

And yet the pharmicuticule companies get around laws everyday and not a word is said. My chemist cant tell me that my medication causes diabetes because they dont know what they are giving me. Its true that these headshops had no Health and safety section but thats whats needed in thes situations and that will only come with legalisation.

El_Drago

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Look, the only people who thing legal highs are the same as MDMA are people who have never done MDMA.

In many cases they could be far worse.

For example,the difference between MDMA and MDA,an MDMA metabolite,is a carbon and 3 hydrogen atoms.MDA can itself be taken as a drug and is far more potent than MDMA and is directly toxic to the neurons in the brain.The point is that a very subtle difference to the chemical structure can both significantly enhance a substances potency and increase its toxicology profile.Altering the chemical structure slightly is precisely how these legal highs are made legal.

Another example off the top of my head is codeine,morphine and heroin.Although all 3 are remarkably similar in structure and target the exact same receptor to mediate their effects,they have very different addictive and analgesic (painkilling) profiles.

wonderfulname

OP - that was the medias spin on it, if you look into what was being sold in head shops, its pretty stupid that any of us were taking them. You're talking chemicals with mind altering effects that went through zero testing, had no method of report back on any side effects, and were so new that we have no concept of what the long term health consequences could be, that includes the cannabis substitutes, which contrary to what was on the back of the pack were not all natural.

You would have been considerably better off getting illegal highs, at least we know the pros and cons where they are concerned, at least if, god forbid, you wound up in hospital they would know what to do with you, they would have a fair idea of what you had ingested, even if it was down to something used to bulk up the end product, indeed if the illegal drug market were taken out of the hands of scum I could confidentially say that they are considerably safer than their alternatives.

starbelgrade

El_Drago wrote: »

In many cases they could be far worse.

For example,the difference between MDMA and MDA,an MDMA metabolite,is a carbon and 3 hydrogen atoms.MDA can itself be taken as a drug and is far more potent than MDMA and is directly toxic to the neurons in the brain.The point is that a very subtle difference to the chemical structure can both significantly enhance a substances potency and increase its toxicology profile.Altering the chemical structure slightly is precisely how these legal highs are made legal.

Another example off the top of my head is codeine,morphine and heroin.Although all 3 are remarkably similar in structure and target the exact same receptor to mediate their effects,they have very different addictive and analgesic (painkilling) profiles.

Digging the science bit dude!

mackg

<snip>

Sticky_Fingers

My name is URL wrote: »

The thing is though, that the stuff goes through a whole chain of supply without anyone really knowing for sure the effect that it might have on people because there is so little regulation, so it would be near impossible for a shop to genuinely inform customers about the dangers. And completely impossible to enforce a rule which is based on virtually nothing.

If there is no information available to provide then this should be told to the customer. As long as they are fully aware that they are taking a completely untested substance and are willing to effectively become guinea pigs then thats their informed choice.

Of course all this would be moot if the government would stop being such a bunch of chicken sh1ts and nanny staters and let people have access to the real stuff.

El_Drago

Temptamperu wrote: »

And yet the pharmicuticule companies get around laws everyday and not a word is said. My chemist cant tell me that my medication causes diabetes because they dont know what they are giving me. Its true that these headshops had no Health and safety section but thats whats needed in thes situations and that will only come with legalisation.

If you mean that you're chemist can't tell you that your medication "doesn't" cause diabetes then you're right,no they can't.However, what you're chemist can guarantee is that your medicine underwent approx. 12 years of rigorous testing before it was even eligible to be approved by the Irish Medicines Board.More than can be said for any legal high.

Mickeroo

LighterGuy wrote: »

Its just there is a stigma with heavy drugs ... people stealing etc. Obviously the government doesnt want to make legal a herbal version out of fears of the same outcome.

You couldn't get versions of any of the hard drugs as far as I know. Ecstasy's not a class-A drug, it wasn't like there was synthesised versions of crack or heroin onsale and certainly nothing addictive to my knowledge. I can also assure you none of the drugs in those places were herbal, usually a cocktail of chemicals.

Quite frankly they'd be much better off selling the real stuff than that crap, at least the effects of the likes of MDMA and that are well researched.

Mickeroo

mackg wrote: »

:eek: This sounds rather interesting, I will have to look into it further. Never thought of mixing mushrooms with other stuff. Did you take them all in one go at the start like you would with mushies or did you take them gradually 1 by one or 2 by 2 like with e?

Lads I wouldn't talk so openly about that stuff on a public website for all to see. Just sayin....:pac:

Temptamperu

El_Drago wrote: »

If you mean that you're chemist can't tell you that your medication "doesn't" cause diabetes then you're right,no they can't.However, what you're chemist can guarantee is that your medicine underwent approx. 12 years of rigorous testing before it was even eligible to be approved by the Irish Medicines Board.More than can be said for any legal high.

Bollox if any medication went on as much trial as marijuana it would all be illegal. have you never read the list of side effects that comes with prescribed medication it dosent come close to some of the illegals out there.

Sticky_Fingers

Mickeroo wrote: »

You couldn't get versions of any of the hard drugs as far as I know. Ecstasy's not a class-A drug, it wasn't like there was synthesised versions of crack or heroin onsale and certainly nothing addictive to my knowledge. I can also assure you none of the drugs in those places were herbal, usually a cocktail of chemicals.

Quite frankly they'd be much better off selling the real stuff than that crap, at least the effects of the likes of MDMA and that are well researched.

You can synthesis a heroin analogue called krokodil, truly horrific stuff.
Link to thread here

Mickeroo

Temptamperu wrote: »

Bollox if any medication went on as much trial as marijuana it would all be illegal. have you never read the list of side effects that comes with prescribed medication it dosent come close to some of the illegals out there.

Pretty sure that's why it's prescribed though, and it's usually possible side effects not definite. If they get rid of your ailment whats the big deal anyway?

mackg

El_Drago wrote: »

In many cases they could be far worse.

For example,the difference between MDMA and MDA,an MDMA metabolite,is a carbon and 3 hydrogen atoms.MDA can itself be taken as a drug and is far more potent than MDMA and is directly toxic to the neurons in the brain.The point is that a very subtle difference to the chemical structure can both significantly enhance a substances potency and increase its toxicology profile.Altering the chemical structure slightly is precisely how these legal highs are made legal.

Another example off the top of my head is codeine,morphine and heroin.Although all 3 are remarkably similar in structure and target the exact same receptor to mediate their effects,they have very different addictive and analgesic (painkilling) profiles.

The compound that was used in the legal pills was BZP 1 benzylpiperazine
or other compounds of the same family. They didn't get around the laws in the way you mentioned although what you said is bang on. Legalisation and control are the best way to get rid of scumbag dealers and dodgy cut with drain cleaner drugs.

Edited to remove stupidity

El_Drago

Temptamperu wrote: »

Bollox if any medication went on as much trial as marijuana it would all be illegal. have you never read the list of side effects that comes with prescribed medication it dosent come close to some of the illegals out there.

Could you clarify the bit in bold?Are you trying to say that the side effects of prescribed medication are far less than illegal drugs?
There isn't a medication out there that doesn't have side effects.For a drug to get approved it's about the balance being tipped in favour of improving the patients' condition rather than making it worse.For example, a cancer patient wouldn't think twice about taking medication that would improve their chances of survival if dizzyness was the most serious listed side effect.Yet,not many people would take medication for anything if it was carcinogenic,not that it would be approved either.

Buceph

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ecstasy's not a class-A drug,

You are correct. Ecstasy is not a "class-A" drug. In fact no drugs in Ireland are. As far as the law goes all drugs are as illegal as each other (until you start getting into medications.) I think only cannabis has a different status, and that's only a recommendation on sentencing.

Mickeroo

Buceph wrote: »

You are correct. Ecstasy is not a "class-A" drug. In fact no drugs in Ireland are. As far as the law goes all drugs are as illegal as each other (until you start getting into medications.) I think only cannabis has a different status, and that's only a recommendation on sentencing.

Thought that was a world wide thing!

Didn't they also pass something recently where people entering the country with possesion of medicinal marijuana were now allowed to keep it?

Temptamperu

El_Drago wrote: »

Could you clarify the bit in bold?Are you trying to say that the side effects of prescribed medication are far less than illegal drugs?
There isn't a medication out there that doesn't have side effects.For a drug to get approved it's about the balance being tipped in favour of improving the patients' condition rather than making it worse.For example, a cancer patient wouldn't think twice about taking medication that would improve their chances of survival if dizzyness was the most serious listed side effect.Yet,not many people would take medication for anything if it was carcinogenic,not that it would be approved either.

But Dizzyness isnt the only side effect you see the side effects on any cancer patient. They look like corpses not because the cancer but the cure if thats what you can call it.

Buceph

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thought that was a world wide thing!

Didn't they also pass something recently where people entering the country with possesion of medicinal marijuana were now allowed to keep it?

Nah, Class-A's and all that is the British system.


I think the medical marijuana thing was an advisory document by an EU Lawyer who gives them to the EU court on human rights saying what his interpretation would be (the court is free to ignore it, but it carries some weight as a recommendation.) He basically said if someone gets a prescription for something in one EU country, that person should be free to take that medication anywhere in the EU. So if you were prescribed marijuana in Amsterdam, you're free to come back to Ireland with your pockets full of weed as long as it was part of the prescription.

I don't know if there's a case before the court at the moment, and they're due to rule on it. I think there was though because it said this could come into effect at some point in the next few years. So it might happen. Although there could still be law changes and the like at EU or even national levelm, should the court rule that way, as I'd presume the member states would go a bit mental at being told every ****er who can fly to the Dam can now bring back a suitcase of primo Afghan Kush.

mackg

Temptamperu wrote: »

But Dizzyness isnt the only side effect you see the side effects on any cancer patient. They look like corpses not because the cancer but the cure if thats what you can call it.

That was just an example the side effects of chemo are still better than cancer at the end of the day.

Mickeroo

Temptamperu wrote: »

But Dizzyness isnt the only side effect you see the side effects on any cancer patient. They look like corpses not because the cancer but the cure if thats what you can call it.

THere is no cure for cancer to the best of my knowledge.

wonderfulname

Sounds like chemo, which isn't medication but anyway.

Temptamperu

mackg wrote: »

That was just an example the side effects of chemo are still better than cancer at the end of the day.

Just a bit Mac, its whatever poison kills you first when it comes to cancer and its treatment.

Mickeroo

Temptamperu wrote: »

Just a bit Mac, its whatever poison kills you first when it comes to cancer and its treatment.

So we shouldn't be worried about cancer, we should be worried about the treatment we'll get if we're unlucky enough to contract it? Right.

mackg

Temptamperu wrote: »

Just a bit Mac, its whatever poison kills you first when it comes to cancer and its treatment.

No doubt it's a dreadful thing to go through.

El_Drago

Temptamperu wrote: »

But Dizzyness isnt the only side effect you see the side effects on any cancer patient. They look like corpses not because the cancer but the cure if thats what you can call it.

I was using dizzyness merely as an example. Without getting off topic, the point I was trying to get across was that medication will only get approved if the benefits are deemed to be far greater than the side effects seen during the rigorous testing stages of the drug development process.

Temptamperu

Mickeroo wrote: »

So we shouldn't be worried about cancer, we should be worried about the treatment we'll get if we're unlucky enough to contract it? Right.

Your damn right at the minute we hack and slash through the dark when it comes to cancer.

El_Drago

Temptamperu wrote: »

Just a bit Mac, its whatever poison kills you first when it comes to cancer and its treatment.

Try explaining that to someone who has been told than they've only 6 months to live until a new drug on the block increases their lifespan by a year.It's only a year to you and I but it's like an extra life to many in that position.