Why where ALL headshops products banned?

Spunge

F.U.B.A.R wrote: »

Also THERE IS NO DESTINCTION BETWEEN RECREATIONAL USERS AND ADDICTS!!!! You all on perpouse commit self harm with illegal substances! And before I'am givin the "its legal in..." speach its only legal for people with cronic painful ilness and injuries and either way it aint legal here!

citation needed

wonderfulname

F.U.B.A.R wrote: »

I didnt mind that they had a marjawana substitute but when you start making substitutes ecstacy heroin and cocaine you should be shot

Please elaborate on why making a chemical substitute for a natural product is any better than, or different to, making a chemical substitute for a chemical product, all they were attempting to replicate was the positives, and the negatives of one product bear no relevance to the negatives of a similar one, for example marijuana has a hell of a lot less negatives than its substitutes.

I really don't understand how in one post you can say you don't mind synthetic cannabinoids and then give out about the natural ones in another, how does that even make sense to you?

And there is no distinction between an addict and a casual user? So every drinker is an alcoholic?

Ray Palmer

F.U.B.A.R wrote: »

Also THERE IS NO DESTINCTION BETWEEN RECREATIONAL USERS AND ADDICTS!!!! You all on perpouse commit self harm with illegal substances! And before I'am givin the "its legal in..." speach its only legal for people with cronic painful ilness and injuries and either way it aint legal here!

Drug addicts are not nesseraly breaking the law. Lots of leagal susbstances people are addicted to such as codine. There is actually a massive difference between an addict and a user. The same way a person who drinks isn't an alcoholic. Substanced banned here are not only legal for people with cronic pain. You simply don't know what you are talking about

carlybabe1

Temptamperu wrote: »

Drugs legal or no are not the monster under the bed the media would portrya them as.

the media dont portray them as anything, they just report the stories of people who have fallen foul of them



Used correctly and not abused most drugs are about as harmful as alcohol which is pretty harmful

In fairness, you rarely, if ever , hear about the rampant alcoholic who mugged grannies or robbed houses for thier next drink, as opposed to fix

. But its not for some politician or corporate police man to tell me what to do with my body.

It kinda is, when what you choose to do with your body has a direct effect on society around you, as my above post indicates.

Dont get me wrong, Im all for "my body, my choice" BUT, when peoples houses/cars are being robbed, and normal decent people are walking around and get mugged then yeah, you deserve to get to be told you cant. You made the choice of takin the drugs, why should other people suffer as a result of your addiction.
There's NO excuse imo for addicts, if you choose to ignore the warnings (as in the poster above) when you DO (and you will) get addicted, then tough foookin ****, no-one elses problem if you decide to be a tiiit

AhSureTisGrand

carlybabe1 wrote: »

It kinda is, when what you choose to do with your body has a direct effect on society around you, as my above post indicates.

Dont get me wrong, Im all for "my body, my choice" BUT, when peoples houses/cars are being robbed, and normal decent people are walking around and get mugged then yeah, you deserve to get to be told you cant rob cars and mug people

Fixed

Stuxnet

They were all banned cos joe duffy said so !

still loads of Meow around where I live, 40E a gr. same head shop price !! minus the 21% for the govt

electrobanana

anyone got

FlutterinBantam

CorkMan wrote: »

I took some party pills from a headshop before, apparently they are the same as extasy. I got more sociable and talked to people who I normally wouldn't talk to. I later found out they are/almost very are the exact same as extacy only stronger. (I never once got drugs from a dealer, but I heard from a classmate extacy pills are very weak compared to before)

TBH I got a bit of a buzz alright, but that is all. I took 2 tablets around 6 months apart, they are not something that would "destroy lives". They are far from addictive, and they give you "something" that is different from having to intake Alcohol. There was no big withdrawals or anything, I am shocked TBH that they were banned, "The 2nd coming of Satan" they were portrayed as.

And TBH a lot of peoples sole argument for banning them is "people take them with other stuff and that is very bad". Well if people drank alcohol with paracetamol, anti-depressants, or the vast majority of medications then alcohol would be banned due to the casualties from mixing alcohol with these medications. The critics "they're fine by themselves, but terrible when mixed with "some other stuff", ban it all. We can't have our society being destroyed by these wretchets".

FlutterinBantam

iPwnage wrote: »

They were all banned cos joe duffy said so !

still loads of Meow around where I live, 40E a gr. same head shop price !! minus the 21% for the govt

Heh Heh , they were banned because John Q. taxpayer got sick of funding the detritus that they supplied to the A&E wards

:rolleyes:

wonderfulname

We read it the first time, calm down yeah?

FlutterinBantam

StickItU wrote: »

Yeah, yeah Joe's still a c*#t though!!

Maybe so pal, but the goons working the headshop gig ,and the gimps sloshing out their sheikels for pure shyte were cunts too.


John Q. cried 'stop' to that game ,and rightly so.;)


Enough wasters pulling on the tax dollah i would have thought?

DaveDaRave

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Heh Heh , they were banned because John Q. taxpayer got sick of funding the detritus that they supplied to the A&E wards

:rolleyes:

John Q Tax payer had little to do with the banning. It was only to protect "the children".