# Head shops and legal high/drugs



## RMCF (27 Jan 2010)

I have listened to a lot of debate on the radio recently (both Joe Duffy and Matt Cooper shows) about these shops and how their legal drugs have affected both individuals and the community in general (with anti social behaviour), and interesting to see that the owner of one has been shot and seriously injured in Derry today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8484013.stm

Is this taking it too far?

After all, they are still legal. The Govs makes tax off them just like alcohol and cigarettes.

Train of thought is that these legal highs are taking money away from the real drug lords and they aren't happy. Wouldn't be surprised if we see similar shootings in Ireland in the future (thats if the hardcore drug men don't already own the head shops).


----------



## MOB (27 Jan 2010)

RMCF said:


> The Govs makes tax off them just like alcohol and cigarettes



Indeed it doesn't.  I don't think there is any excise on these products - just VAT.  The huge margins on these products mean that it would be feasible to slap a large excise duty on them - but that might be seen as in some way endorsing their continued sale, when the debate on the matter is very much in its infancy.  It's a tough call for the state.


----------



## RMCF (27 Jan 2010)

I shouldnt have used the word 'tax', I should have said theat Gov makes money off these things. If its VAT it comes thru, then its VAT.

But still *legal*, whatever way you look at it.


----------



## z107 (27 Jan 2010)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Do you think these drugs shouldn't be legal?
It'll be very hard task indeed to ban such drugs, because the labs slightly change the make up, and the whole legal process starts again.
It's possible to get 'high' on lots of chemicals, like glue, alcohol, thinners etc. We can never make all that stuff illegal.

As a side note, anyone that ever tried BZP (aka party XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX), would never again bother with head shops. Unless they're insane!


----------



## RMCF (27 Jan 2010)

The point I was trying to raise is that this subject has been getting a lot of media attention in Ireland recently and a shop owner has just got shot in IReland for selling these legal drugs.

Nothing more, nothing else.


----------



## gebbel (28 Jan 2010)

It seems there is growing opposition to them:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0127/head.html

Should they be banned? Probably. Some of the stuff they sell gets you high. Add a lot of alcohol and a few angry young men to this and what you get is trouble.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Jan 2010)

gebbel said:


> Some of the stuff they sell gets you high.


 
While this may be so,



gebbel said:


> Add a lot of alcohol and a few angry young men to this and what you get is trouble.


 
If you have alcohol and angry young men in the mix you may have trouble anyway, without adding in anything else that makes you high.

Ive noticed a couple of these shops in my local area recently, have never gone into one (although I do WANT to go in and have a nose around but the misted out glass on the window puts me off, Im half afraid if I go in Ill come out a strung out heroin addict - except on some legal stuff and not heroin - ok joking, but you know what I mean )

Ive not spoken to anyone who has tried anything from any of them except something called 'smoke' which (i think) is a legal substitute for hash and the consensus on that seems to be that its fine, its legal and its not a big deal - I never asked if there were any nasty after effects etc...

The people who did tell me about 'smoke' said that they preferred to go the legal high route as it saved them meeting dodgy characters in dark alleyways to get some illegal stuff for what they considered a harmless activity - a couple of spliffs while watching a movie. 

I would think that if the dodgy characters in dark alleyways are losing business because of these head shops there is certainly a danger that they would retaliate against the owners of these shops.


----------



## Latrade (28 Jan 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Ive not spoken to anyone who has tried anything from any of them except something called 'smoke' which (i think) is a legal substitute for hash and the consensus on that seems to be that its fine, its legal and its not a big deal - I never asked if there were any nasty after effects etc...


 
It's hard to gauge as I don't know the extent of media "concern" or media hyperbole.

The one aspect for me is the lack of regulation. Things may well be sold as a "legal" high, but there's no regulation of their safety or effect. I think that's a genuine concern. 

The other aspect that is also of concern is the front line workers within drug rehab, etc and their increasing concern at the numbers of people they're dealing with who are suffering effects and ill health as a result of these legal highs. The problem is without any form of study we don't know proportional numbers etc. 

The last thing is that with even a basic knowledge you could root around in your mam's toiletries bag or the garden shed and find a 101 ways to get a high. The difference is that these products are not sold on the basis of being a legal "safe" high. 

We know the limits and dangers of alcohol and cigarettes. It's fair to say that you enter into those at your own informed risk. We know nothing of the nature and risks of these products.


----------



## ney001 (28 Jan 2010)

There were pictures in the paper of guys queuing at one shop at 1 in the morning to get something akin to cocaine. I cannot understand why off licenses have to close at 10 yet shops selling 'legal' drugs which contain god knows what can stay open - seems ridiculous to me.  They should surely be subject to the same laws as the off licenses.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Jan 2010)

Latrade said:


> It's hard to gauge as I don't know the extent of media "concern" or media hyperbole.


 
I saw a piece on tv earlier in the week that seemed to be full of doomsday warnings about the effects and how bad the chemicals were for the body etc...but what struck me was that it was all based on observation, they didnt speak to one person who had tried anything themselves, nor did they speak to one medical person who could confirm that they were seeing cases in hospitals as a result of usage nor did they speak to any front line drug rehab workers. Personally I felt it was a bit of a scaremongering piece with no hard evidence about anything (it was based on an ex junkies opinion of legal drugs and a youth worker who claimed that he had seen a young guy stoned for 3 days after the guy had tried 'something' from a head shop).

I agree gebbel, lack of regulation is a worry. 

Id be holding off any kind of opinion until I could form an opinion based on hard information and fact. Right now the sum total of my knowledge of this stuff is the reported experiences of a couple of neighbours about 'smoke', what I perceived as a scaremongering tv piece and the visual of a couple of these places opening locally with misted out glass.


----------



## Caveat (28 Jan 2010)

Latrade said:


> The one aspect for me is the lack of regulation. Things may well be sold as a "legal" high, but there's no regulation of their safety or effect. I think that's a genuine concern.


 
+1

Not a world of difference between buying this stuff and 'dodgy gear' off the street really.


----------



## SlurrySlump (28 Jan 2010)

What I got annoyed with is that the Government is going to set up a committee to look in to these shops. 
Drugs for animals have better regulation in this country.


----------



## Dicette (28 Jan 2010)

truthseeker said:


> nor did they speak to one medical person who could confirm that they were seeing cases in hospitals as a result of usage


 
There was a consultant from the Mercy hospital in Cork speaking on The Last Word (I think) last Thursday or Friday. He said that they have seen an increase in the number of people presenting themselves with issues relating to usage. He gave a figure for the number of cases that he had seen in the previous week - which I forget.

Two of his main concerns were mixing usage with alcohol and also the difficultly of treating patients when there is no knowledge of what these substances actually contain.


----------



## csirl (28 Jan 2010)

Prime Time did a piece on this issue this week. It is illegal to sell these products as drugs as they have not been certified for human consumption. Officially speaking, these shops sell expensive "bath salts" and "exotic plant food" (to quote the shop owner interviewed) which are not for human consumption.


----------



## Plek Trum (28 Jan 2010)

I saw an acquaintance go through hell one night after taking 'party pill's' (BZP) from these shops.  Man in question is educated, mature and wanted to see what the fuss was all about.  The end result was not pretty (panic attacks, anxiety, palpitations and could not sleep).  

I think everyone has the freedom of choice and if there are no negative repurcussions with these 'legal' shops then so be it.  Like alcohol and other acceptable substances (ciggarettes for example) , some people can handle it, some people can't.

My biggest concern with these shops is that there is a very naieve preconception that if they are legal then the effects must be safe / gentle  compared to illegal drugs.  This is not the case at all and people that are curious should be made aware of it.


----------



## z107 (28 Jan 2010)

> Not a world of difference between buying this stuff and 'dodgy gear' off the street really.


If I had to choose, I'd rather the dodgy street stuff. At least most of this has been thoroughly tried and tested.


> I saw an acquaintance go through hell one night after taking 'party pill's' (BZP) from these shops. Man in question is educated, mature and wanted to see what the fuss was all about. The end result was not pretty (panic attacks, anxiety, palpitations and could not sleep).


Your acquaintance got off lightly if it was only one night.

I couldn't sleep for three days, felt like throwing up and wanting to urinate the whole time. Longest three days of my life. BZP seems to slow down time as well. Four hours in, I started hallucinating. Like the worst hangover you've ever had, but you can't sleep it off. I can't see what the positives were
I seriously underestimated it, and thought it was going to be like caffeine tablets. Anyway, it put me off for life.

Tip: always do your research!

Someone else mentioned


> Should they be banned? Probably. Some of the stuff they sell gets you high. Add a lot of alcohol and a few angry young men to this and what you get is trouble.


Never mix alcohol with any of this stuff, and never take more than the 'recommended' dose. In fact, never take BZP!

I still don't think these shops should be banned - maybe just regulate them, and inform people of the dangers. People will still buy the stuff, but it's better if they know what they're letting themselves in for.


----------



## Caveat (28 Jan 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Tip: always do your research!


 
Indeed.  Not being smart, but did you not realise the possibility of these affects? BZP hasn't been exactly obscure in terms of adverse publicity & controversy.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Jan 2010)

Caveat said:


> Indeed. Not being smart, but did you not realise the possibility of these affects? BZP hasn't been exactly obscure in terms of adverse publicity & controversy.


 
Perhaps I just move in more sedate circles these days compared to my glorious wild youth, but Id never even heard of BZP until I read this thread. 

Mind you, Id be far more interested in a high that makes me lazy and mellow than one thats supposed to wake me all the way up anyway so perhaps it just goes below my radar


----------



## z107 (28 Jan 2010)

> Indeed. Not being smart, but did you not realise the possibility of these affects? BZP hasn't been exactly obscure in terms of adverse publicity & controversy.


It was a good while ago when I took this, and BZP was obscure. It was only really known in New Zealand. It was still legal back then, maybe because no one had heard of it.
I didn't realise that you could legally get such potent drugs. My past experience of legal highs was sawdust type crap with no effect. 
As far as I was concerned, they were just like caffeine tablets, maybe with taurine or something in them. I've always done the research on erowid whenever trying something new like poppers or laughing gas.

It was stupid of me to take it without doing full research. I blame no one but me, and wouldn't want them to be made illegal, despite my experience. I still believe people should have the choice whether or not to take them. (Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy though!)


----------



## carpedeum (28 Jan 2010)

It is typical of this country that these shops can trade "legal high" drugs, but, St John's Wort was banned, Aspirin and similar maintenance drugs have to be prescribed and are then sold at exorbitant prices and access to morning after XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is made difficult.

Being cynical, why don't organisations like SPUC and Youth Defence, who, purport to protect the unborn show the same manic meglomaniacal concern for the born youth?


----------



## Latrade (29 Jan 2010)

carpedeum said:


> It is typical of this country that these shops can trade "legal high" drugs, but, St John's Wort was banned, Aspirin and similar maintenance drugs have to be prescribed and are then sold at exorbitant prices and access to morning after XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is made difficult.
> 
> Being cynical, why don't organisations like SPUC and Youth Defence, who, purport to protect the unborn show the same manic meglomaniacal concern for the born youth?


 
I got Aspirin just the other day without prescription and STW was made prescription only on the basis that repeated tests showed that not one of the claims of the health shops could be substaniated and that it actually interefered with other medication.

Besides which, all this demonstrates is that the stuff for sale in the Head Shops should be banned until we know more about them. I don't see why any product sold as having any health effect (including suppliments and herbal stuff) shouldn't have to go through a process of testing to verify their claims and safety.


----------



## z107 (29 Jan 2010)

> Besides which, all this demonstrates is that the stuff for sale in the Head Shops should be banned until we know more about them


All 'what' exactly demonstrates that this stuff should be banned?

How much of these legal highs have you been forced to take? If you don't want them, don't buy them. Please don't force the rest of us to live in a nanny state.

Are we going to ban plant food and alcohol too?


----------



## Latrade (29 Jan 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> All 'what' exactly demonstrates that this stuff should be banned?
> 
> How much of these legal highs have you been forced to take? If you don't want them, don't buy them. Please don't force the rest of us to live in a nanny state.
> 
> Are we going to ban plant food and alcohol too?


 
And when the legal highs backfire because they're unsafe, then those who chose to live outside the "nanny state" don't:

1. Seek any kind of medical help or social assistance on my nanny state Euro
2. Start trying to sue whoever they can because "no body told me it was bad".

Note my point was that they should be banned until we know more. And if they're ok, duty the heck out of them and off you go.


----------



## csirl (29 Jan 2010)

> Besides which, all this demonstrates is that the stuff for sale in the Head Shops should be banned until we know more about them. I don't see why any product sold as having any health effect (including suppliments and herbal stuff) shouldn't have to go through a process of testing to verify their claims and safety.


 
As I mentioned in my post earlier, the stuff sold in head shops is sold on the basis that it is not for human consumption - this is the loophole they exploit. Officially they are selling bath salts and plant food not drugs. Most of these products are illegal to sell for human consumption.


----------



## z107 (29 Jan 2010)

> And when the legal highs backfire because they're unsafe, then those who chose to live outside the "nanny state" don't:
> 
> 1. Seek any kind of medical help or social assistance on my nanny state Euro
> 2. Start trying to sue whoever they can because "no body told me it was bad".
> ...


The problem is that we don't know everything about most drugs and their interactions, prescribed, illegal or whatever. Having a nanny state means that people don't think for themselves. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it safe, and because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's unsafe. 
As for the social assistance - lol! I'm not 'entitled' to any social assistance (I live in Ireland), so why can't I buy whatever drugs I like?


----------



## Latrade (29 Jan 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> The problem is that we don't know everything about most drugs and their interactions, prescribed, illegal or whatever. Having a nanny state means that people don't think for themselves. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it safe, and because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's unsafe.
> As for the social assistance - lol! I'm not 'entitled' to any social assistance (I live in Ireland), so why can't I buy whatever drugs I like?


 
We know a fair bit, it's not always listened to (see UK and their reaction to the Drug Report), but we know or have good ideas of safe limits, reactions etc. That's why medication is tested, that's why actual illness and casualties from prescription medication is extremely low and rare.

The issue here is we don't know anything about these and they're being sold. As csirl points out they're sold within a loop hole, but let's close the loop hole and see that there is some scrutiny of the the effects and even doses. Maybe they are ok, maybe they're not. If they're going to be available and used we should know.

As i say, if they're ok I've problem with people going off an using them. 

And please, what social assistance does the state forbid you from having access to?


----------



## z107 (29 Jan 2010)

> We know a fair bit, it's not always listened to (see UK and their reaction to the Drug Report), but we know or have good ideas of safe limits, reactions etc. That's why medication is tested, that's why actual illness and casualties from prescription medication is extremely low and rare.


Do we know all the different interactions? Has every drug been tested in combination with every other drug? Have they tested drugs on everyone, or just a sample of people? There are a huge number factors, and not all have been tested. Drugs are commonly withdrawn from the market, when unforeseen effects happen.
Unfortunately casualties from non-prescription, legal drugs (such as alcohol and cigarettes) are common.

There really isn't much point in continuing this argument. You seem to want a large amount of government control. I would rather very little government control. Neither of us is wrong or right. (Nanny state Vs people thinking for themselves)

With regards social assistance - I can access it, but I also have to  pay for it in full. No one is subsidising it for me.


----------



## MOB (29 Jan 2010)

The thought did occur to me that perhaps an appropriate legal remedy against these guys would be for some disgruntled client to sue on the basis that he had indeed put the bath salts into his bath and that the product had no discernible effect on the bath water...............


----------



## Latrade (29 Jan 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Do we know all the different interactions? Has every drug been tested in combination with every other drug? Have they tested drugs on everyone, or just a sample of people? There are a huge number factors, and not all have been tested. Drugs are commonly withdrawn from the market, when unforeseen effects happen.
> Unfortunately casualties from non-prescription, legal drugs (such as alcohol and cigarettes) are common.
> 
> There really isn't much point in continuing this argument. You seem to want a large amount of government control. I would rather very little government control. Neither of us is wrong or right. (Nanny state Vs people thinking for themselves)
> ...


 
It's a massive leap to say that my view that these products should be withdrawn until we have a greater knowledge of their effects is in someway indicative of wanting a New World Order. 

You prove the whole point with your statement on prescription drugs. No you can't test for everything, but we can test within good limitations. And when problems are found they are withdrawl, ergo: the system works.

There is no comparisson here between these products and alcohol or cigarettes because both have a huge body of research and both or taxed in order to firstly try and deter people and secondly to try and make some 
provision for the eventual societal impacts of people who don't take note of the warnings consume either excessively.

There is no free will or thought with the products under discussion because we have no idea what they may do. There is no informed decision behind buying these like there is with alcohol or tabacco.

Standing up for some research isn't the same as me handing over my liberty to the Masons or whatever Cabal is going to run the world once we take a pragmatic approach to reviewing a few people looking at easy ways to get off their faces and whether or not this means they can stew in their own fugue at no risk to anyone or whether there are greater societal impacts on their health and other factors.


----------



## truthseeker (29 Jan 2010)

Latrade said:


> There is no informed decision behind buying these like there is with alcohol or tabacco.


 
Should we also ban other ordinary items not sold for human consumption but used to get high, glue, aerosols, metholated spirits etc....

As csirl pointed out, the loophole being exploited is that the products are not for human consumption. If someone wants to buy something not for human consumption and then consume it surely thats their own business?


----------



## z107 (29 Jan 2010)

> There is no free will or thought with the products under discussion because we have no idea what they may do. There is no informed decision behind buying these like there is with alcohol or tabacco.


This site is pretty good: http://www.erowid.org/
Wikipedia also has good articles on these products.


----------



## Latrade (29 Jan 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Should we also ban other ordinary items not sold for human consumption but used to get high, glue, aerosols, metholated spirits etc....
> 
> As csirl pointed out, the loophole being exploited is that the products are not for human consumption. If someone wants to buy something not for human consumption and then consume it surely thats their own business?


 
No but they are controlled to some extent through the retailers and warnings.

The difference here is that the retailers are exploiting a loophole. B&Q don't sell glue with a nudge and wink "it's not for human consumption" because 99.9% of glue purchased there is for sticking stuff together.

In this case the whole basis of the shops is paraphernalia for using certain, and largely illegal, substances and then products specifically designated as "Legal Highs". Not sold as bath salts or foot rubs or whatever but as Legal Highs. 

If B&Q had a sign outside with "Over 18s Only" and "Legal Highs: Glues, Solvents, Meths" then I'd agree with you.


----------



## truthseeker (29 Jan 2010)

Latrade said:


> In this case the whole basis of the shops is paraphernalia for using certain, and largely illegal, substances and then products specifically designated as "Legal Highs". Not sold as bath salts or foot rubs or whatever but as Legal Highs.


 

What kind of paraphenalia do they sell? (Im assuming bongs, long cigarette papers etc... which also have perfectly legit legal uses).

Do they advertise the stuff in the shop as a legal high? Or do they advertise it as a bath salt and do the nudge nudge bit if someone asks about it?


----------



## MANTO (29 Jan 2010)

There's a shop on Talbot street that advertise as 'Legal Highs'.


----------



## Latrade (29 Jan 2010)

truthseeker said:


> What kind of paraphenalia do they sell? (Im assuming bongs, long cigarette papers etc... which also have perfectly legit legal uses).
> 
> Do they advertise the stuff in the shop as a legal high? Or do they advertise it as a bath salt and do the nudge nudge bit if someone asks about it?


 
I can't speak for all the shops, but each one I have seen around town and my area uses the term Legal High. In fact I don't recall any mention of bath salts.

Again, yes those things do have legitimate uses, but it's the context they're sold under here with the main heading of "Legal High".


----------



## UFC (29 Jan 2010)

If you want to get drugs, you can get drugs. It doesn't matter if they're legal or not.

We need to just grow up and start regulating the drugs industry. It'd guarantee quality and seriously inconvenience the gangsters.

To the people who think this will make us a nation of druggies: with proper education this won't happen, for example Dutch among lowest spamspamspam users in Europe


----------



## Caveat (29 Jan 2010)

MOB said:


> The thought did occur to me that perhaps an appropriate legal remedy against these guys would be for some disgruntled client to sue on the basis that he had indeed put the bath salts into his bath and that the product had no discernible effect on the bath water...............


 
Ooooh ever the legal angle


----------



## truthseeker (29 Jan 2010)

Latrade said:


> I can't speak for all the shops, but each one I have seen around town and my area uses the term Legal High. In fact I don't recall any mention of bath salts.
> 
> Again, yes those things do have legitimate uses, but it's the context they're sold under here with the main heading of "Legal High".


 
Then Im confused. I thought the issue here was that they were being sold as bath salts (or whatever) with a nudge nudge wink wink, and marked 'not for human consumption' - thereby exploiting a legal loophole.

However - if they are being sold as Legal Highs then surely that would indicate they ARE fit for human consumption and not exploiting a legal loophole etc...?


----------



## delgirl (30 Jan 2010)

We have one of these shops in our small town, only 14,000 people. It's very unwelcome and there have been a number of protests held outside the shop and numerous complaints to TD's and Gardai.

The thing that bothers me most about them is they defend themselves by saying they only sell to over 18's or over 21's in some cases.

This is a blatent lie, which I discovered after sitting in my car across the road from our local Head Shop while waiting to pick someone up.

The boys going into the shop were between 14 and 16. The were all carrying plastic bottles of Coke and 7Up - possibly to mix whatever they were buying in order to drink it?

They all went off down an alley and emerged some 10 - 15 minutes later screaming and shouting their heads off. This was 4 O'Clock in the afternoon!

Pedestrians on the street were afraid of them and crossed the road to avoid them. I locked my car doors and watched in the wing mirror. They were so high, if they had come closer I would have driven around the block to avoid possible damage to my car.

The government has vast legal resources at its disposal, but doesn't seem to have the will to tackle this issue. Something has to be done to stop these legal dealers.


----------



## DavyJones (30 Jan 2010)

delgirl said:


> We have one of these shops in our small town, only 14,000 people. It's very unwelcome and there have been a number of protests held outside the shop and numerous complaints to TD's and Gardai.
> 
> .




Sounds like a scene from Father Ted "Carefull Now"

Reading through this thread you can tell the people who have experimented and those who haven't.

I have smoked some of that legal smoke and it's pretty tame, I think they should be sue'd for discribing it as a high, it clearly isn't.

nearly tried the BZP, that kind of thing never appealed to me. These things will probably be banned, all it will take is for one person to react badly and through themself off a building.


----------



## mathepac (30 Jan 2010)

UFC said:


> ... To the people who think this will make us a nation of druggies: with proper education this won't happen, for example Dutch among lowest spamspamspam users in Europe


I think your post and the Reuters report you link to are very misleading.

Nowhere in the Reuters report does it mention "proper education", whatever that means, and its impact on drug use. However it does say that "spamspamspam use in  Europe ... has  recently stabilised and is beginning to show signs of decline, ... owing to several national campaigns to curb and treat use  of the drug." If, as the Reuters report implies, spamspamspam is a "soft drug", why have several European governments ploughed so much time and effort into "national campaigns  to curb and treat use  of the drug."? Does Reuters possess greater expertise or insight into this area than national governments, or indeed the "national experts" with whom the EMCDDA has "close collaboration"?

The Reuters report goes on to say that "Nearly a fifth of  the 228 coffee shops in the Dutch capital of Amsterdam ... are scheduled to be shut down because they are too close  to schools." Why? Is coffee harmful to school-children?


----------

