Why where ALL headshops products banned?

mackg

Temptamperu wrote: »

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

That's because cancer is so different to anything else, it's not caused by an external virus or bacteria it's a defect in our own cells so is much more difficult to specifically target.

bryaner

starbelgrade wrote: »

RTE basically brought about the political swing that saw the closing of headshops in Ireland... and the whole campaign was spearheaded by Joe Duffy & his horde of idiots - mostly uneducated dimwits from Dublin's working classes.

"Ah Joe... think of de childerins Joe"

I'd love to drop a boogie into Joe's tea an hour before liveline, now that would be entertainment..:D

Parsley

mackg wrote: »

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. Looking at the structure of it, it contains a benzene ring which are not something you really want what you ingest containing. Legalisation and control are the best way to get rid of scumbag dealers and dodgy cut with drain cleaner drugs.

emm... the vast majority of pharmaceutical compounds contain aromatic components, i.e. benzene-ring structures. pure benzene on its own you would not want to ingest, of course. Seems you've only got a leaving-cert level grasp of chemistry.

Logical Fallacy

<snip>

Mickeroo wrote: »

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

To be honest i haven't done any kind of drug in donkeys and don't plan on doing any at any time in the future so I don't really mind talking about what i have done in the past.

mackg

Parsley wrote: »

emm... the vast majority of pharmaceutical compounds contain aromatic components, i.e. benzene-ring structures. pure benzene on its own you would not want to ingest, of course. Seems you've only got a leaving-cert level grasp of chemistry.

of course you are right and that may be the silliest thing I have posted on boards.

Thingy

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

KeithM89_old

Several posts snipped and infracted. Asking/Mentioning ways to take drugs is against the AH charter.
See Here

wonderfulname

Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)
Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for marijuana haze–filled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually legalized cannabis — the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against the shops. The correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.
(See the world's most influential people in the 2009 TIME 100.)
The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use.
"I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries.
But there is a movement afoot in the U.S., in the legislatures of New York State, California and Massachusetts, to reconsider our overly punitive drug laws. Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress create a national commission, not unlike Portugal's, to deal with prison reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners.
At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.
"The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's "drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantities of drugs.
Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, like Kleiman, is skeptical. He conceded in a presentation at the Cato Institute that "it's fair to say that decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise." However, he notes that Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics — which tends to occur no matter what policies are in place — may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths.
The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz1Sz4YkfM4

So why did you randomly link that article?

Logical Fallacy

wonderfulname wrote: »

So why did you randomly link that article?

Because it shows that in some places a different action to the ones taken by the Irish Government can have better results.

I think it's relevant and can see why they would post it.

wonderfulname

It's relevant when discussing the case for the legalisation of marijuana and decriminalisation of personal usage and possession of currently illegal drugs but not in the context of headshops to be fair, although I was more trying to get a personal contribution from the poster than a justification for the link.

Overheal

Headshops were closed because of Joe Duffy and other propaganda, and because the Headshops were becoming the target of violence by out of work drug dealers, though that can't be proven. The commonfolk got terrified, and because of the acts of vandalism linked headshops to an increase in the crimerate (it was the polar opposite) and so the moratorium was passed, and the commonfolk rejoiced, as did the drug dealers. The commoners could get back to tending to their front gardens and the drug dealers could get back to dealing drugs away from the vulnerable eyes of the commonfolk.

Thingy

What is the difference to a random link compared to a random tongue in cheek comment such as

Because Its terrible, Joe.

(Sorry to Pick on you Richard Hillman).

The random link is my personal contribution rather than arguing some point of view I have based on this article at this moment.

Headshop drugs are now illegal and fall into the category of illegal drugs along with marijuana and Cocaine.

I am sorry you had to click on the link and copy and paste it onto the thread. Hope this explains my random link.

Helix

syklops wrote: »

I would agree with a lot of this, but, unfortunately, some dealers, cut their gear with stuff that is at best harmful, and at worst lethal to humans.

thats rubbish for the most part. it simply doesnt pay to kill your customers and even the most retarded of drug dealers will know that

mackg

Helix wrote: »

thats rubbish for the most part. it simply doesnt pay to kill your customers and even the most retarded of drug dealers will know that

True but for synthetic drugs like ecstacy there is no way to monitor the levels of possibly toxic impurities in the final product. To be fair I don't think I have ever heard of a case of something like this leading to a death. (feel free to correct me). I have heard stories of a particular dealer who liked to piss on hash before he sold it, charming.

Mr. Denton

Alden Warm Handshake wrote: »

Do the snobs and media care when a junkie dies...no...

They do when she has a lovely voice and equine features.

Mike 1972

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ecstasy's not a class-A drug.

In the UK it (MDMA) is
In Ireland there's no such thing

Helix wrote: »

it simply doesnt pay to kill your customers

Unless perhaps you are in the Undertaking business ?

Helix

mackg wrote: »

True but for synthetic drugs like ecstacy there is no way to monitor the levels of possibly toxic impurities in the final product.

you can get pill testers that tell you what's in the pills

theyre about a tenner iirc, and anyone who takes them should probably be using them

mackg

Helix wrote: »

you can get pill testers that tell you what's in the pills

theyre about a tenner iirc, and anyone who takes them should probably be using them

The tester kits seem to be useful with regards to ensuring that the pill is MDMA and not something else, they will also indicate what other chemicals are present but only in the absence of MDMA.

Sofiztikated

I'm just fecking annoyed that it's made it harder to pick up decent cigarette papers, interesting pipes and grinders.

Because I can manage what I do and don't want to take, the headshops never phased me. Never once did I have a gun put to my head nor was I forced to take anything I didn't want. In fact I got some decent advice about what certain products were.

But don't let that get in the way of a good scare.

mikemac

Joe Duffy whipping up outrage

The shops existed in Dublin city centre for quite a while. But when one opened in leafy Clontarf the residents were furious and demanded action. Some of this was due to their youth though if they have ever strolled down to Barcode over the years they wouldn't be impressed with their little darlings.
And some of it was fear the shops would be burned down by angry drug dealers, taking out the competition.

Joe Duffy will happily talk to the "salt of the Earth" Moore St sellers talking about selling cigarettes to put food on the table. And they can educate us all on the price of smuggled (da illegals) and the fake Chineese knock off version (da fake illegals).

But these are the common folk, Joe's own people. :cool:

mackg

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm just fecking annoyed that it's made it harder to pick up decent cigarette papers, interesting pipes and grinders.

Because I can manage what I do and don't want to take, the headshops never phased me. Never once did I have a gun put to my head nor was I forced to take anything I didn't want. In fact I got some decent advice about what certain products were.

But don't let that get in the way of a good scare.

Tell me about it my grinder makes a noise like nails on a blackboard these days:(.

Hopefully we can all look forward to Joe Duffy having his own Neil Prendeville moment somewhere down the line resulting in him being thrown from his high horse into the muck with the rest of us.:P

Lemsiper

Most products were not even banned, just the sale of them by Headshops. You can easily procure these still legal substances online, and at least then you are told the actual name and not given something christened with a mouthful of buzz words.

BOHtox

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

BOHtox wrote: »

But she was a rich and famous junkie

It wasn't specified how much money they had to have or how famous they had to have been in the original post.

hatrickpatrick

BEcause our government's answer to anything complicated is "Just ban it and pretend it never existed" rather than actually regulating it to sort the safe stuff from the dangerous stuff.

Rezident

You can still get it all in the UK so clearly it's not really dangerous. It's bizarre that in Ireland we rapidly ban this stuff and yet what Michael Fingleton and Sean Fitzpatrick et al did is seemingly perfectly legal.

Ireland confounds me - I wasn't allowed buy Nurofen Plus from the chemist recently because it was for a hangover but when I ask for it in Boots in the UK, there's no problem. If it's between the combined medical knowledge of the UK or Ireland, then I'm going to have to side with the UK on this one. So I just stock up on everything I need everytime I'm over in the UK.

The only ones losing out are the Irish Revenue, Irish retailers etc. just when we need the extra revenue most.

nomnomnom

Lemsiper wrote: »

Most products were not even banned, just the sale of them by Headshops. You can easily procure these still legal substances online, and at least then you are told the actual name and not given something christened with a mouthful of buzz words.

True , these are still going http://www.headshopireland.com

http://mephedronewholesale.com

generalmental

mackg wrote: »

Mushrooms. Actually now that I mention it I think it's getting to that time of year...:)

Still a bit too early for that my friend

ringadingding

I can't wait for the day when Joe Duffy ( and Jeremy Kyle for that matter) are caught with 2 underage prostitutes, a big tranny and an oz of coke in a hotel room.
If the indo or the mail are the ones to capture that picture, I'm a reader for life.

Mike 1972

CorkMan wrote: »

Why where ALL headshops products banned?

They werent !

Bob Marley t-shirts are still legal

generalmental

Laisurg wrote: »

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.

So tell me when you bought that half ounce of weed off "Rasher", did he give you your certificate of purity, or did he neglect to tell you that there MIGHT be some glass in it to make up the weght. But it will get ya mad outta it.