# When will alcohol and tobacco be banned?



## z107 (11 May 2010)

Alcohol and tobacco are both still legal in Ireland, despite both products causing death and injury each year.
Mary Harney has succeeded in banning head shop products:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/harney-announces-criminal-ban-on-head-shop-products-457236.html

This was ban was carried out in a matter of weeks, so why are the Irish public still allowed to make their own decisions on alcohol and tobacco?

(Illegal drug dealers must be delighted by this news)


----------



## truthseeker (11 May 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> why are the Irish public still allowed to make their own decisions on alcohol and tobacco?


 
Because tobacco and alcohol generate massive revenue for the government.

The head shop ban is only on some products - still plenty of legal highs out there.


----------



## Maggs065 (11 May 2010)

You forgot chocolate, sweets, fizzy drinks, coffee,deodorants, household cleaners, tv's, buses, trains, automobiles......and so on.
Your list is far too restrictive!


----------



## z107 (11 May 2010)

From the article


> Minister Carey said.
> 
> "Young people who have been using these substances have died as a result."


Which of the substances have been responsible for deaths? Does anyone know of any deaths of from use of these products where alcohol hasn't been a factor?


----------



## truthseeker (11 May 2010)

Noticed that one myself umop3p!sdn, no doubt there is NO proof.

Its a victory for gangland, back to meeting shady characters in dark alleyways for REAL drugs.


----------



## Welfarite (11 May 2010)

Prohibition here we come; now that really worked in the U.S. didn't it?


----------



## z107 (11 May 2010)

Top Tip  for head shop owners:

Import gin that's been relabelled 'shower gel'.
That way the government will have to ban gin.

Do the same for other products.


----------



## The_Banker (11 May 2010)

Tobacco kills thousands in Ireland every year and there is no "high" from it. Even alcohol will make you drunk.
Tobacco was the biggest killer in the 20th Century (including the 2 World Wars) and still it is peddled because the tax take is so high. Every now and then there are a few government warnings about cigarettes and tobacco but if the government were to be truely honest, they have no interest in reducing peoples dependence on them.

Also, I would say that 99% of smokers start before they turn 18.


----------



## VOR (11 May 2010)

Make every thing legal and regulate it. Freedom of choice. There, I said it.


----------



## Vanilla (12 May 2010)

VOR said:


> Make every thing legal and regulate it. Freedom of choice. There, I said it.


 
I'd run with that as long as there was a specially formulated 'aptitude test' that people had to pass before they could exercise this freedom of choice. Some people are just too stupid to be allowed to choose for themselves.

Then those who didn't pass could have a microchip inserted behind their left ear which would be picked up by a scanner in the drug of choice shop.

And they could be allowed resit the test once a year. Maybe we could set up a state school that they could attend on saturdays to be taught reason and consequence. To be paid for,  but we could let them claim tax relief on the lower band. 

Damn, should have entered irelands call competition thingy.


----------



## Chocks away (12 May 2010)

Vanilla said:


> .................... To be paid for, but we could let them claim tax relief on the lower band. ............


 
Sage words indeed Vanilla. But surely we should have a hash tax. Let's say €0.10 per quarter. And a few cents on a packet of Rizlas. And a total ban drugs in the Dail.


----------



## VOR (12 May 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Some people are just too stupid to be allowed to choose for themselves.
> 
> Then those who didn't pass could have a microchip inserted behind their left ear which would be picked up by a scanner in the drug of choice shop.



I was thinking more along the lines of anybody  who is over 18 and who is not already intoxicated. You know the type of  regulation that applies to alcohol. But there's something in the microchip idea 

I am actually disappointed in Fine Gael over this whole thing. They are supposed to be the party of individual rights and responsibilities but FG campaigned outside headshops to take away those very same rights.


----------



## Betsy Og (12 May 2010)

hmmmm, this argument that many people break the law and get away with it so why not get rid of the law altogether - isnt the point that the law is a deterrant and that what is needed is enforcement not abandonment.

If we got rid of speed limits would the death toll drop? Many pay some heed to them and that saves lives. 

Many dont want to buy drugs from criminals but are happy to pay excise duty on a pint (alcohol doesnt NECESSARILY harm you - only if you go overboard and become addicted). With our experience of alcohol do you really think we'd have a better country if anyone could drop in to a head shop (or whatever distribution network you'd advocate) and fire up their crack pipe????

Smokers are fools, drug buyers are tools, drinkers need to keep their heads on ... there, I said it.


----------



## shnaek (12 May 2010)

Betsy Og said:


> - isnt the point that the law is a deterrant



Only to the law abiding. Prime time reports and documentaries on criminals (along with newspaper articles etc.) conclusively show that criminals don't give a damn about the law. Look at the pictures in the papers of criminals with their middle fingers raised - that's what they think of the law.

Funnily enough, many bankers and politicians have the same attitude towards the law...


----------



## johnd (12 May 2010)

Some city councillor was on this morning about how those addicted to headshop products are going to manage now without them. That's something the governmernt or those calling for their closure did not consider.


----------



## Welfarite (12 May 2010)

Did ye see the report that skin cancer cases have increased dramatically (70% or something), mainly in the 60-70 age group. These were people who were ignorant of the effects of the sun on fair skin when sunbathing in the 1960s/1970s. I remmeber people using cooking oil as a tanning agent in the 70s! I eckon we should ban sunbathing altogether, or ban the sun. Where is Mary H when you need her, she was on the right lines with the sunbeds thing!

Bring back the Nannystate, I say, and save us from ourselves!


----------



## secman (12 May 2010)

johnd said:


> Some city councillor was on this morning about how those addicted to headshop products are going to manage now without them. That's something the governmernt or those calling for their closure did not consider.


 
Typical, people go off and screw them up on this **** and then EXPECT us to sort them out cos they "are sick" . Moaning........... I'm sick.........no treatment centres.........no help...........no ****. 

Rant almost over.............................


secman


----------



## z107 (12 May 2010)

> Typical, people go off and screw them up on this **** and then EXPECT us to sort them out cos they "are sick" . Moaning........... I'm sick.........no treatment centres.........no help...........no ****.


The same thing happens with fags and booze. So when are they going to be banned?


----------



## johnd (12 May 2010)

Too many TD's are publicians and tobacco companies are, I presume, generous to political parties at election time so the answer is? Never


----------



## johnd (12 May 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> The same thing happens with fags and booze. So when are they going to be banned?



Too many politicans are publicians and cigarette companies are, I presume, generous to political parties at election time so the answer is? Never


----------



## Tomodinhio (12 May 2010)

johnd said:


> Too many politicans are publicians and cigarette companies are, I presume, generous to political parties at election time so the answer is? Never



I can see where your coming from, but then why was there a smoking ban brought in. This must of really ****ed of the publicians and cigarette companies. Also the hugh amount of tax placed on these items hardly serves the publicians and cigarette companies. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. Alcohol and tobacco are socially acceptable ways of unwinding and relaxing, tobacco is currently losing its soical acceptance. Legals Highs or Highs of any kind are not tollerated by society in general, maybe in time this will change just like our attitudes to tobacco are changing. 

However i am sure new drugs are being developed by whoever supplies the head stores and the problem will soon be back. I just hope the new drugs they develope will not be as addictive or destroying as the likes of crystal meyth or heroine.


----------



## z107 (12 May 2010)

> . I just hope the new drugs they develope will not be as addictive or destroying as the likes of crystal meyth or heroine.


Were the banned drugs addictive? BZP has a very low addiction rate, 2% or something. (Anyone that takes BZP more than once must be insane anyway!)


----------



## Tomodinhio (12 May 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Were the banned drugs addictive? BZP has a very low addiction rate, 2% or something. (Anyone that takes BZP more than once must be insane anyway!)



No i dont think they where addictive, but definatly messed you up big time. But whos to say what these people develope next wont be highly addictive and destructive. I mean lets be honest with ourselves I dont think these people give a damn what health affects their drugs have on people as long as they buy them.


----------



## z107 (12 May 2010)

> No i dont think they where addictive, but definatly messed you up big time. But whos to say what these people develope next wont be highly addictive and destructive. I mean lets be honest with ourselves I dont think these people give a damn what health affects their drugs have on people as long as they buy them.


You've just highlighted a problem here. This is exactly what will happen. The labs will create more of these drugs, and when they get made illegal, the whole process starts again. There are a huge number of various chemical compounds to mess about with. The less history that a drug has, the less information we have about its effects.

Banning these drugs are obviously not the solution. What a pitty that those that make the decisions don't do some research, and instead pander to the media.


----------



## MrMan (12 May 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> You've just highlighted a problem here. This is exactly what will happen. The labs will create more of these drugs, and when they get made illegal, the whole process starts again. There are a huge number of various chemical compounds to mess about with. The less history that a drug has, the less information we have about its effects.
> 
> Banning these drugs are obviously not the solution. What a pitty that those that make the decisions don't do some research, and instead pander to the media.


Isn't it better to do your research and if you are happy with the results then legalise it? It makes sense to only allow a product onto the market if the product is deemed safe in moderation. If these highs are shown to be safe in moderation then there is a case, but there is too little known yet. If we have legal highs are we not treating our kids as guinea pigs?


----------



## z107 (12 May 2010)

MrMan - no drug can be deemed 100% safe. What does 'moderation' mean?



> Isn't it better to do your research and if you are happy with the results then legalise it? It makes sense to only allow a product onto the market if the product is deemed safe in moderation.


Why then is tobacco and alcohol legal? We all know that smoking definitely kills. 
Why ban head shop drugs, but not drugs that we know for definite are dangerous, are addictive and have been marketed towards young people for decades?


----------



## Betsy Og (12 May 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Why ban head shop drugs, but not drugs that we know for definite are dangerous, are addictive and have been marketed towards young people for decades?


 
One point often made re a tobacco ban is that it would cause undue hardship to old people who were addicted before it became the health issues became common knowledge (though you'd imagine than anybody who thought about it could have guessed that inhaling smoke into your lungs was always going to be harmful). Whats the excuse for anyone who started in the last 25 years??

On the economic argument - ok we get the tax but look at all the health costs the state bears for cancer and heart disease linked to smoking. For those who say "its my life, my choices", I say fine but follow it through and pay for your own mess. Its not 100% profit for the state.

Is there a case for legalisation of low strength "oral" spamspamspam? - we can hardly try to stamp out tobacco smoking which legalising other smoking. Apparently an appropriate strength hash cookie is low risk, low addiction level etc. In my book thats equivalent to drinking a pint. Maybe that would strike the balance of cutting the illegal demand for a product without introducing a public health risk. 

Re strength of marajuana/spamspamspam etc, I gather the 60's stuff wasnt nearly as strong as modern variants and maybe there is a "safe" level that could be allowed. I'm not convinced on the gateway drug argument, or that if that the point that a hash cookie would be any more a gateway drung than a pint of beer. I do however note that many mental health experts have a big issue with the effects of spamspamspam use - maybe thats down to strength of product or overuse.


----------



## johnd (12 May 2010)

Tomodinhio said:


> I can see where your coming from, but then why was there a smoking ban brought in. This must of really ****ed of the publicians and cigarette companies. Also the hugh amount of tax placed on these items hardly serves the publicians and cigarette companies. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. Alcohol and tobacco are socially acceptable ways of unwinding and relaxing, tobacco is currently losing its soical acceptance. Legals Highs or Highs of any kind are not tollerated by society in general, maybe in time this will change just like our attitudes to tobacco are changing.
> 
> However i am sure new drugs are being developed by whoever supplies the head stores and the problem will soon be back. I just hope the new drugs they develope will not be as addictive or destroying as the likes of crystal meyth or heroine.



I'n not complaining about headshops being put out of busineess,  just that I believe alcohol does much more damage to society than any of these legal highs. Then, when these highs are banned we have people complaining that those addicted are have nowhere to go and demanding treatment be provided!


----------



## Latrade (13 May 2010)

johnd said:


> I'n not complaining about headshops being put out of busineess, just that I believe alcohol does much more damage to society than any of these legal highs. Then, when these highs are banned we have people complaining that those addicted are have nowhere to go and demanding treatment be provided!


 
The only problem here is we're not in a position to compare directly. Like statistics on how harmful illegal drugs are when compared to alcohol and tobacco. We know how much alcohol and tobacco is sold, we know directly how big an impact this has on a saturday night in A&E or in the cancer wards. We don't have the same knowledge of the headshop products or illegal drugs.

Yes, more people are killed by alcohol and tobacco combined each year than all illegal drugs and headshop products, but then much more people use those two products than illegal products.

I'm actually for the legalisation of products, one to decimate the criminal side, two the tax intake, three think of the boost to the pharmachem industry and jobs and four strength and purity can be controlled making them safer. 

The caveat is we can't trust everyone to be sensible about using them and that's a social taboo we have to work on. Is getting so stoned you can't move from the couch or can't stop laughing or eating any less problematic on health and society than binge drinking?


----------



## MrMan (13 May 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> MrMan - no drug can be deemed 100% safe. What does 'moderation' mean?
> 
> 
> Why then is tobacco and alcohol legal? We all know that smoking definitely kills.
> Why ban head shop drugs, but not drugs that we know for definite are dangerous, are addictive and have been marketed towards young people for decades?



If I have a glass of wine tonight that is moderation and no harm will come to me. If I take a pill, who knows what will happen? 
Drink and tobacco are already legal so there is a case for you and others to look into regarding making them illegal, but any new drugs should surely be examined in extreme detail before being allowed onto the market?
Its not a case of taking sweets off both children because one of them was naughty just to keep the peace, we need to examine the latest information and work with that.


----------



## Welfarite (13 May 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> MrMan - no drug can be deemed 100% safe. What does 'moderation' mean?
> 
> 
> Why then is tobacco and alcohol legal? We all know that smoking definitely kills.
> Why ban head shop drugs, but not drugs that we know for definite are dangerous, are addictive and have been marketed towards young people for decades?


 
What is your point here? You are proposing to ban alcohol and tobacco as 'no drug in 100% safe' and 'smoking definitely kills'. Following on that logic, transport should be banned as our roads/rail/airspace are 'dangerous'. Neither should we cross the road or go tow ork for our own health and safety. And if smoking definitely kills, we should lso avoid hospitals in case we get MRSA which 'definitely' kills too! We should ban newspapers and television so that our young people cannot be targetted by the evil marketing people!


----------



## Latrade (13 May 2010)

Welfarite said:


> What is your point here? You are proposing to ban alcohol and tobacco as 'no drug in 100% safe' and 'smoking definitely kills'.


 
I don't think it unreasonable to make the point about alcohol and tobacco. It largely boils down to the criteria under which substances are made illegal, if the same criteria was applied to alcohol or tabacco, they would be banned.

Again, it isn't an unreasonable question to ask if that is the criteria for criminalising a substance or behaviour, why isn't it applied in all circumstances?


----------



## truthseeker (13 May 2010)

Welfarite said:


> What is your point here? You are proposing to ban alcohol and tobacco as 'no drug in 100% safe' and 'smoking definitely kills'. Following on that logic, transport should be banned as our roads/rail/airspace are 'dangerous'. Neither should we cross the road or go tow ork for our own health and safety. And if smoking definitely kills, we should lso avoid hospitals in case we get MRSA which 'definitely' kills too! We should ban newspapers and television so that our young people cannot be targetted by the evil marketing people!


 
This is a strawman and makes no logical sense. Transport is not an addictive substance, nor is crossing the road, going to work, attending hospitals, newspapers or television.

None of these comparisons relate to the point that umop3p!sdn actually raised. 

Latrade has put it very succintly - alcohol and tobacco are legal, drugs and now head shop substances are not - why? 
If there is a criteria for criminalising these products then why is it not being applied to other addictive substances? 
There cannot possibly be any long term studies with reliable data available re the effects of the head shop substances - they simply have not been around long enough. 

What is the criteria that has been applied in this case, and why is that criteria limited to head shop substances?


----------



## MrMan (13 May 2010)

truthseeker said:


> This is a strawman and makes no logical sense. Transport is not an addictive substance, nor is crossing the road, going to work, attending hospitals, newspapers or television.
> 
> None of these comparisons relate to the point that umop3p!sdn actually raised.
> 
> ...




And therin lies the reason why they shouldn't be legalised yet.


----------



## johnd (13 May 2010)

Latrade said:


> T
> 
> 
> The caveat is we can't trust everyone to be sensible about using them and that's a social taboo we have to work on. Is getting so stoned you can't move from the couch or can't stop laughing or eating any less problematic on health and society than binge drinking?



At least is you are too stoned to get up off the couch or can't stop laughing the only person you hurting, apart from your family, is yourself. You're  not likely to be able to kick someone head in in that state. With alcohol it seems to be is a nightly event


----------



## z107 (13 May 2010)

I'd just like to point out that I actually don't want to ban anything!
I just wrote this thread to illustrate a point. (see latrade's post above)

I thought people would have copped on to that.


----------



## Latrade (13 May 2010)

MrMan said:


> And therin lies the reason why they shouldn't be legalised yet.


 
Agreed, and herin lies the conundrum. 

First, let's be honest and say the banning of these products is less about public health and more about public ratings and polls. However, that being said, I do feel they shouldn't be available until there is a demonstration they are not harmful. 

But to what extent is harm classified? Addiction? Mental and Physical harm? Again, the point of the thread is that you couldn't come up with a defined criteria to assess without concluding alcohol and tabacco should also be banned.

The only area I've not seen open data on is the potential for harm by going over a prescribed limit. So for a casual user if I have 5 pints instead of 4, what's the additional risk to my health. In that case very little. For a casual user if I have 2 sachets of bath salts instead of 1, what's the risk? We don't know, but potentially on that criteria alcohol may still be legalised, but it would also be joined by some current illegal substances.

There is no way of making the decision that has been made without asking a legitimate question on alcohol and tabacco.


----------



## Latrade (13 May 2010)

johnd said:


> At least is you are too stoned to get up off the couch or can't stop laughing the only person you hurting, apart from your family, is yourself. You're not likely to be able to kick someone head in in that state. With alcohol it seems to be is a nightly event


 
In my own experience it depends on the person. I've never become in any way violent or aggressive with alcohol. Most of my friends are the same, one or two get a bit "odd" when they drink cider over beer or say whiskey, but they're mature enough to avoid it.

In the same way many people would become passive with cannibis, but that isn't always the case. It's down to the personality of the individual and how the intoxicant affects them. 

However, with cannibis, if it were legalised we'd have the increased tax intake from the duty plus increased sales in munchies at 3 am which in turn would boost retail and those retailers that are opne 24hrs in turn meaning they have to employ mor staff working nights which would inturn give people more money to spend due to all the overtime.


----------



## johnd (13 May 2010)

Latrade said:


> However, with cannibis, if it were legalised we'd have the increased tax intake from the duty plus increased sales in munchies at 3 am which in turn would boost retail and those retailers that are opne 24hrs in turn meaning they have to employ mor staff working nights which would inturn give people more money to spend due to all the overtime.



Are you sure you are not on something yourself? given your flights of fancy - no offence meant

 Its back to the over the counter medicines so  - watch pharamacy profits soar!


----------



## mathepac (13 May 2010)

Maybe the optimum solution is to ban nothing  but to have new regulations regarding age, licensing, distribution channels, etc, by  making a new licence available to citizens who wish to “turn on, tune in and drop out”.

This “Junkie’s Licence” would be issued to people who attend  training and education courses aimed at informing them of the effects and possible consequences of using a particular substance or group of substances.

The citizen, having attended the training and education has a decision to make, either to:


 Stop using the substance(s)
 Sign an application for the free “Junkie’s Licence” in order to continue using
 Source their junk in an unregulated market-place
  The consequences of being found in possession or under the influence of a controlled substance without an appropriate  licence is summary execution by the new Substance Training, Licencing, Supervision and Enforcement Quango [note to Biffo : that’s probably four quangos, each with its own expensive PS CEO, management team, unique leased premises, IT and other infrastructure requirements, board of directors and maybe even its own new junior minister].

The application form for a “Junkie’s Licence” could be worded as follows :

_“I, the under-signed, hereby acknowledge that I have attended the training and education courses in relation to the the health, legal and other effects and consequences of using (please delete as apropriate) [alcohol, tobacco, spamspamspam, tranquilisers, slimming tablets, opiates, cocaine, volatile inhalants, etc. Etc.]

I acknowledge that I fully understand the above course and its content and am now in a position to make a fully informed decision to continue using the above named substance(s) and I hereby apply for my official user’s licence._ _

I understand this licence allows me to purchase these substances for personal use from duly authorised retailers  and to have them in my possession. I understand that the licence also allows me to be under the influence of these substances, but not in a public place and that my behaviour while under the influence of the substance(s) must never impact on other citizens._ _

Upon the grant of my licence, I absolve the State and my health insurer from any responsibility to treat me or intervene on my behalf for any conditions, either psychological, physiological or legal, that may arise consequential to my use of the substances(s)._ _

Signed ………………………”_ 

Mammy and Daddy can apply for Tommy and Suzy’s licence if Tommy and Suzy are under 18.

The Duly Authorised Retailers could be the current legal drug-dealing outlets (bars, supermarkets, corner shops, filling stations, chemists, hardware and DIY shops, etc.) who can only sell to people producing a valid  “Junkie’s Licence”. Outlets licenced for “on-site consumption” can only release clients if they are no longer intoxicated (objectively tested by breath / blood / urine sample); thus they must provide in-house medical and other emergency services from their own resources, with these costs recoverable either directly from their clientele or through product pricing.

At a stroke the “War on Drugs” ends, everything is available through a simple licencing process, the sellers have to deal with the consequences of their sales directly, the general public has protection from drunks and other junkies, the licence-holders are free to legally kill themselves, each other or the product vendors and are never allowed out "high" in public on pain of death.

The savings for the Health Service and the State generally are potentially huge.


----------



## Vanilla (13 May 2010)

Excellent and well thought out post, mathepac.

As a bonus it will aid the natural selection of the species, ensuring that junkies die out more quickly. Maybe mandatory implantation of contraceptive devices to be issued along with the licences?


----------



## truthseeker (13 May 2010)

MrMan said:


> And therin lies the reason why they shouldn't be legalised yet.


 
But you could be criminalising a substance that may do no harm? Surely it would make more sense to subject the substances to rigorous testing before making ANY decision about the legality of it?

It seems to me that if anything purports to give people a high - its jumped on and banned due to a knee jerk reaction. 
Meanwhile alcohol fuels violence and aggression every day and night of the week.


----------



## johnd (13 May 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Excellent and well thought out post, mathepac.
> 
> As a bonus it will aid the natural selection of the species, ensuring that junkies die out more quickly. Maybe mandatory implantation of contraceptive devices to be issued along with the licences?



Junkies already die out more quickly - it would just be another goldmine for lawyers, more people going to prison for not having licences leading to more prison overcrowding, more bunkbeds, more prison governers resigning, more early releases and more crime... where would it all end?


----------



## Vanilla (13 May 2010)

johnd said:


> Junkies already die out more quickly - it would just be another goldmine for lawyers...



Yes, go on, go on.


----------



## mathepac (13 May 2010)

johnd said:


> ... more people going to prison for not having  licences leading to more prison overcrowding, more bunkbeds, more prison  governers resigning, more early releases and more crime...


No, read my proposal again.


mathepac said:


> ... The consequences of being found in possession or under the influence of a controlled substance without an appropriate  licence is summary execution ...


This would lead to an increase in the demand for coffins, wood, more forestation projects and a greener island.

The Four Gold Mines could then shrink to become the Three Gold Mines (sorry Vanilla )


----------



## Purple (13 May 2010)

Great idea mathepac. 
We could also have tourist licences which would cost a fortune. Only Irish citizens and those legally resident iin the country for more then two years would be allowed to get the free ones... where's the down side?


----------



## Betsy Og (13 May 2010)

Sure the civil liberties crowd would go ballistic with summary execution, could you not tone it down to chain gang community work - scrubbing graffiti off walls, unblocking sewers, painting & securing derelict houses, that type of thing....


----------



## Purple (13 May 2010)

Betsy Og said:


> Sure the civil liberties crowd would go ballistic with summary execution, could you not tone it down to chain gang community work - scrubbing graffiti off walls, unblocking sewers, painting & securing derelict houses, that type of thing....



Or they could be executed via firing squad. We could sell places internationally, I’m sure there’s a few God fearing good old boys who’d get on a plane and part with a few thousand dollars for the chance to strike down a sinner. Think of what it would do for the hotel industry. We could televise it and sell sponsorship... it just keeps on getting better!


----------



## mathepac (13 May 2010)

Betsy Og said:


> Sure the civil liberties crowd would go ballistic with summary execution, ...


The first avenue in protecting the State from this type of left-wing nonsense is to classify objections from anyone who hasn't experienced the punishment at first hand as illegal. The Summary Execution Ombusman's Objections Office [Biffo: please note, I'm trying hard here] would take care of this by ensuring that civil libertarian Trotskyite types  were summarily executed before they broke the law by pursuing illegal objections.


Betsy Og said:


> ... could you not tone it down to chain  gang community work - scrubbing graffiti off walls, unblocking sewers,  painting & securing derelict houses, that type of thing....


Possibly, but this proposition creates a management overhead that summary execution eliminates; call me biased if you must, but I like the simplicity and finality of my original proposal.


----------



## truthseeker (13 May 2010)

Purple said:


> Or they could be executed via firing squad. We could sell places internationally, I’m sure there’s a few God fearing good old boys who’d get on a plane and part with a few thousand dollars for the chance to strike down a sinner. Think of what it would do for the hotel industry. We could televise it and sell sponsorship... it just keeps on getting better!


 
Youre missing a massive revenue generating opportunity here - game parks populated with junkies as game, very very expensive to stay in and hunt the sinners.

Would we allow the hunters to take away trophy heads? Arms full of track marks might be more appropriate.


----------



## MrMan (13 May 2010)

truthseeker said:


> But you could be criminalising a substance that may do no harm? Surely it would make more sense to subject the substances to rigorous testing before making ANY decision about the legality of it?
> 
> It seems to me that if anything purports to give people a high - its jumped on and banned due to a knee jerk reaction.
> Meanwhile alcohol fuels violence and aggression every day and night of the week.




So it could be harmful, therefore let people try it out while we do tests, or it could be harmful, lets do tests before we let people try it out. 

Doesn't the latter make more sense?


----------



## truthseeker (14 May 2010)

MrMan said:


> So it could be harmful, therefore let people try it out while we do tests, or it could be harmful, lets do tests before we let people try it out.
> 
> Doesn't the latter make more sense?


 
Sorry MrMan - you completely misunderstood me, I am making exactly the same point as you - lets do the tests before making ANY decisions (meaning no sale until it passes the tests) - but what has actually happened is that there have been no tests at all and a move to illegal status. I agree the stuff shouldnt have been on sale to begin with without proper testing, but its madness to just ban it now - with no criteria bar media frenzy.


----------



## MrMan (14 May 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Sorry MrMan - you completely misunderstood me, I am making exactly the same point as you - lets do the tests before making ANY decisions (meaning no sale until it passes the tests) - but what has actually happened is that there have been no tests at all and a move to illegal status. I agree the stuff shouldnt have been on sale to begin with without proper testing, but its madness to just ban it now - with no criteria bar media frenzy.


 
So we agree, mark the time and date!


----------



## truthseeker (14 May 2010)

MrMan said:


> So we agree, mark the time and date!


 
Must be all that head shop stuff has worked its way out of my system by now - I can see the light


----------



## Welfarite (14 May 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Surely it would make more sense to subject the substances to rigorous testing before making ANY decision about the legality of it?
> 
> It seems to me that if anything purports to give people a high - its jumped on and banned due to a knee jerk reaction.


 
And then we have a potential cure for cancer being subject to 10 years testing befoe being 'legalised' ...


----------



## Complainer (14 May 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Youre missing a massive revenue generating opportunity here - game parks populated with junkies as game, very very expensive to stay in and hunt the sinners.
> 
> Would we allow the hunters to take away trophy heads? Arms full of track marks might be more appropriate.


This is quite offensive (along with many of the earlier posts) to anyone who has seen family or friends dealing with addiction issues. John Lonergan's comment during the week as to why most of his inmates came from 2 or 3 areas of central/north Dublin springs to mind.

The head shop owners mistake was to open shops in 'nice' areas like Clontorf. If they had stuck to Capel St, no-one would have bothered them.


----------

