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?
All 'what' exactly demonstrates that this stuff should be banned?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?
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.
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.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?
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.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.
There is no informed decision behind buying these like there is with alcohol or tabacco.
This site is pretty good: http://www.erowid.org/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.
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?
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?
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...............
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".
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.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?