Head shops and legal high/drugs

[Latrade]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Latrade]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.