Law Student Sues Head Shops For Selling Him “Whip It” Cannisters

easywhip_2236_160568In California, Jason Starn has filed a lawsuit that could be a challenge before a jury. Starn would purchase nitrous oxide canisters, or Whip its, from a local head shop in Modesto. He was regularly using the “laughing gas” when he lost feeling below his rib cage. The numbness wore off eventually but he suffered a degeneration of his spinal cord related to his abuse of nitrous oxide. He now uses a walker and has sued three stores that sold him the gas. Starn, 35, was a schoolteacher in Modesto and a student attending the Humphreys College Laurence Drivon School of Law

Starn admits that he bought dozens of canisters from stores like Smoke Island, but not insists that stores should not have sold the gas to him. However, these canisters are also used by restaurants and others to whip creams. Yet, they are sold in head shops for obviously non-culinary purposes. The Plaintiffs’ lawyers are seeking purchase records to show such a pattern.

Starn used the product for over the next two months despite that fact that nitrous oxide depletes vitamin B-12 from the blood, which can lead to spinal cord problems. However, the dangers of such use is detailed on the Internet — raising the question of his own negligence and assumption of the risk. Moreover, the product is lawful to sell and is used by cafes, restaurants, and a variety of other businesses.

The question is whether head shops should be liable for the foreseeable misuse of a product of this kind. What do you think?

Starn is asking for an unspecified amount in general and punitive damages.

Source: SacBee

55 thoughts on “Law Student Sues Head Shops For Selling Him “Whip It” Cannisters

  1. Happy New Year everyone! Looks like an exciting year in US politics if one might use that term “exciting” ……

    I personally wish someone over there and here in Australia would succeed with a case such as this.

    Legally sold product being used in a way that creates social harm is a form of externality that everyone else bears the cost of eventually. Alcohol springs to mind.

    For example; we tried to prevent our local liquor retailer selling to my alcoholic brother, telling them clearly that he had a health problem and they were contributing to his illness. They just laughed at me at the time, but when we brought a case against them they declined to sell to him. We also gave his picture to all retailers in the area. DO NOT SELL TO THIS MAN – was the caption.

    At the same time we got him rehabilitation help, as obviously prohibition doesn’t work. He’s OK now.

    Unfortunately, at the time, we were just interested in getting my brother healthy. Sometimes I regret dropping the action as it would have sent a message to liquor retailers that they must take their actions more seriously, especially if they are AWARE the purchaser is an alcoholic.

  2. I am puzzled, and someone please help me with this one. First Question: why was he using it? The laughing gas? Second Question: if he knew the laughing gas has potential side affects, then, he still used it? Should we file a lawsuit again Pepsi, Coke , and entire soda industry due to the high risk of pancreatic cancer if one consumes more than 16 oz in a week? What about the link between red meat and heart disease? Should we sue the beef and pork industry? I think this lawsuit should be thrown out!

  3. I would say it might be a factor in the lawsuit if it could be shown the head shop offered the whip-its as for ingestion purposes. I believe that would convey some evidence to the plaintiff’s case.

    If one of the employees told the plaintiff he could get a buzz from using the whip-it, it would then show the intention of the head shop was to sell it for ingestion purposes.

    I don’t believe it is as widely known within the public forum that Nitrous Oxide depletes B12 from the blood and this can lead to nerve damage. Unlike the use of tobacco products where the knowledge is common. Furthermore, are there any warning labels on this product of the usage of it could case internal damage?

    It could be argued to some degree that a consumer purchasing this if encouraged to ingest it and not given any warnings as to its use (of which in this example might not be common knowledge) the retailer might have some degree of liability because the consumer might have an expectation of being sold a non-threatening product. Booze, Smokes, fatty foods, and the others that people have mentioend above have commonly known risks, I am not sure the Nitrous would be one that is commonly known.

    Slightly off topic but Nitrous Oxide and Xenon, which are not illegal to possess, are used as an anesthesia for medically recognized medical procedures. As such it can be regulated as to its administration into the body. They are not considered a food item or meant for human consumption. The administration of an anesthetic without proper credentials can be in most cases the crime of practicing medicine without a license. The trigger to its usage is if another person administers or causes to be administered an anesthesia for the purposes of initiating a hallucination or other biological change in the body. This does differ from examples such as sniffing glue which is not considered to be a medicine or anesthesia but might be regulated under differing laws.

  4. RWL if that was a serious question, you crack it into balloons, inhale it and get really, really euphorically high but only for about 60 seconds. That’s how you can go through so many. I had no idea about the spinal damage potential either!

  5. David – I don’t think it is anything like cigarettes as they only have the one use, nicotine delivery, while NO2 has legitimate uses.

    Not being into this sort of thing I was unaware of the side affects. I could see a joint & several including the manufacturer if there is no warning. Ultimately though if you are going to use something ‘off label’ the consequences have to belong to you unless you can show the manufacturer or retailer encouraged your off label use (IM-no legal training just seems like common sense – O)

  6. Anyone using whipit for other than its intended purpose should not be able to recover in my opinion…… The contributory negligence in many jurisdictions would be a bar to recovery as well as the assumption of risk……

  7. Hmmm, vewy interesting. I wonder if a law suit against the history channel is plausible under these factors. People tune to its shows to watch (as advertised) History. Then they are exposed to ancient aliens, big foot, crop circles, and Noahs ark.
    Is it the consumers fault, or networks fault for allowing this polluting of minds under the false label “History”.

    MTV channel at least has legal coverage for its BS reality shows.
    I believe about 10 years ago they changed the “M” from music, to “M’ for Moron.

  8. David Blauw contributed:
    MTV channel at least has legal coverage for its BS reality shows.
    I believe about 10 years ago they changed the “M” from music, to “M’ for Moron

    :) I watched a lot of MTV back in the early to mid 1980′, then later, maybe 1990 (?) or so the videos were sidelined greatly. Ruining it in my view.

    I used to lament to friends when we talked about it was “MTV’s first video was ‘Video Killed the Radio Star’, now MTV killed the Video Star.

  9. “How does he overcome the product misuse defense?”

    He’ll have to make the case that the headshop was winking and nodding at the use of the product, just as they do when they sell bongs under the guise of being waterpipes for tobacco.

  10. Of all products that present a danger when misused, a shovel is certainly one of them, proctologicly speaking at least.

    It would sure present a good example in courtroom theatrics i’d say.

  11. The California State Bar Association should take the misuse of drugs into consideration when he applies to be a member of the bar. We dont need a drug addict advising the public on matters of law and order. This person has a problem in that he is bound by his assertions in his lawsuit as to his own stupidity and addition to chemicals. He is “estopped to deny” these facts since he has pleaded them in his lawsuit. But then, California is a Pirate Territory and is likely to allow this person to practice law. No other state bar association would be dumb enough to admit him into the practice of law. I never heard of that law school before either. The name sounds like it was made up for a skit by Roseann Roseann ODanna on Saturday Night Live thirty years ago.

  12. Bron, The demonstration to the jury would be the senior partner defending Whipit “shoveling” a new associate. It’s done figuratively daily. We may have come up w/ a new term. You’ve heard of “fisting.” Well..shoveling would be “extreme fisting.” MAN, this thread took a rather anal left turn.

  13. This guy sets a new standard for “AirHead”.

    Went in dumb, come out dumb too, hustlin round Atlanta in his alligator shoes, ….. Califoooornia, Califooornia, they dont know their arse from a hole in the ground, … etc

  14. Idiots sue the makers of music players because they suffered hearing loss instead of turning their music down. Idiots sue fast food companies instead of eating unprocessed foods. Idiots become diabetic and sue soda makers instead of not drinking five sodas a day.

    This “lawsuit” belongs in the same garbage can as those against other companies. “Everybody’s a victim, and nobody is responsible” is not a way to run a society except to run it into the ground.

  15. If there’s no caution notice, they’re in for a bad time. Take it from one who has seen hundreds of them, sat through countless meetings about them, and has had to proofread and publish them. I’ve had to recycled tons of packaging and printed material when new notices have made the old inventory obsolete. This is no joke. It’s more than printing “No Cholesterol” on an apple bag!

  16. David Greewald:

    “He’ll have to make the case that the headshop was winking and nodding at the use of the product, just as they do when they sell bongs under the guise of being waterpipes for tobacco.”


    The Restatement of Torts (Third) states in §2 that a seller will be liable only if a plaintiff is harmed while using the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner and if the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable. Is the plaintiff’s possible criminal use of the product foreseeable? Must the owner of a lawful business foresee possible criminal uses to his product? How does that work with knife sellers like Cutco Cutlery? (Gun manufactures are statutorily protected, of course, from this type of suit by our government: the NRA … er … the Congress of the United States).

  17. We live in a “free” society. A free society comes with risks. If we want people to innovate and create new products, ideas, opportunities then (IMHO) we must require personal responsibility and not burden our society with compensating every dumb mistake.

    Should we require car companies to be responsible when a driver drives a car off the road? Certainly this is a predicable outcome of someone yanking the wheel of the car hard in one direction.

    We loose a bit of freedom and we loose a lot of potential future gain when we deny the personal responsibility aspect of this sort of thing.

    He choose to use the product in a manner not for which it was designed. Will we hold the grocery store responsible for the drowning of a person when they pour milk up their nose?

  18. California penal code 381b

    381b. Any person who possesses nitrous oxide or any substance

    containing nitrous oxide, with the intent to breathe, inhale, or

    ingest for the purpose of causing a condition of intoxication,

    elation, euphoria, dizziness, stupefaction, or dulling of the senses

    or for the purpose of, in any manner, changing, distorting, or

    disturbing the audio, visual, or mental processes, or who knowingly

    and with the intent to do so is under the influence of nitrous oxide

    or any material containing nitrous oxide is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    This section shall not apply to any person who is under the

    influence of nitrous oxide or any material containing nitrous oxide

    pursuant to an administration for the purpose of medical, surgical,

    or dental care by a person duly licensed to administer such an agent.

  19. Paul:

    Those are just silly cases. The point of product liability law is to protect the public from unscrupulous sellers who knowingly sell defective products. They don’t get to hide behind the “we didn’t know” defense if they should have known or the “its a free country” platitude defense. The public is entitled to protection from things they could not possibly know about or reasonably understand. The seller is the expert in his product and he/she/it gets paid handsomely for it. That position of power comes with some accountability — or is that only for the consumer in your view?

  20. Some guy drove his car off the fiscal cliff here at the beach. He is suing Honda. Or so he said when I questioned him at the bottom of the cliff on the beach. He had a can of that WhipIt in the back seat. Funny how all of these topics come together on New Years Day. I told him to blame the RepubliCons for the fiscal cliff even being there. He hid the WhipIt before the cops arrived. I did not know why at the time. That cliff is gonna costs the taxpayers some money if they dont put a warning sign up there on that road that leads to the edge. He said that he had a sore arm too. I guess he will blame that on the WhipIt. I’d blame it on the county for not having a warning sign about the fiscal cliff. The county commissioner who frequents the gas station was buying condoms for the wife and said that everyone had fair warning on Fox News of the fiscal cliff. I said that each driver had to be aware of road conditions whether they were fiscal or not. I looked up the word “fiscal” in the DogsRus dictionary and on the Dogalgue Machine dictionary and that cliff does not have anything to do with accounting. The times they are a-changing.

  21. If I owned a “Head Shop” I would put a DumbSchmuck Disclaimer poster on the front door and at the cash register. Something like the Peter Tosh lyrics. ” Cigarette smoking is dangerous, .. hazad to ya health.. so legalize marijuana, oh uu uu uuoo. ” Have the music blaring. Then I would hire a zombie to do the sweeping and mopping around the store and tell the customers that this is what happens if you use the products for their intended purpose. I would make em sign a waiver on the bottom of the receipt at the cash register. I would include language that said that I was in law school and fully cognizant of my failings in matters of mind over matters.

    What is the name of that law school again? Maybe they need to start with lower case letter and then have upper case letter to make the name current and jive. Like; hUmphrey’s College DriveOn! School of Law. Maybe it was named after Hubert Humphrey. Or Humphry Bogart. California. Pirate Territory. One never knows.

  22. On a related topic, how can anyone justify this notion of “foreseeable product misuse” by an adult in this case. I certainly can understand the concept in a situation involving a child or other person with less than developed mental faculties, but I see no reason for its existence in the case of a fully developed adult. How can anyone –except maybe the appellate courts of Michigan* — conclude misuse of a product to get high is a foreseeable consequence of the product? It’s madness masquerading as good public policy.

    *Crowther v. Ross Chemical & Manufacturing Co., 42 Mich. App. 426 (1972).

  23. “How can anyone –except maybe the appellate courts of Michigan* — conclude misuse of a product to get high is a foreseeable consequence of the product?”

    You’re talking about two different things. 1. Is it in fact foreseeable that a consumer would misuse a particular product and 2. should the product manufacturer have legal liability for the foreseeable misuse of a product.

    With respect to 1, that seems beyond reasonable argument that in some cases, that “yes” it is foreseeable that a consumer would misuse a product. For example, with this whip it product, do you really believe that the manufacturer and the head shops that sold it could not have reasonably foreseen that some people would misuse the product? Heck, as you point out, California even has a law against it. So, the legislature in fact foresaw this misuse. There’s no way, as a factual question, that the manufacturer and retailers did not in fact foresee or should have foreseen that some people would misuse this product.

    I suspect your beef is really with 2. I can see reasonable people disagreeing on whether a manufacturer or seller *should* be liable to someone who foreseeably misuses a product. the Restatement does impose some liability in certain cases and I agree with that rule.

  24. “. . . watching a lawyer use a shovel as a suppository would make for good theatre.”

    They do it all the time, only with someone else’s arse,

  25. After seeing the California Penal Code provision someone posted above, I would say that schmucko has just confessed to a crime by filing his lawsuit over the product being sold by the Headshop. He regret going to lawschool and learning his trade so well from that headshop lawschool. What was that name again? Humphrey’s School of Lame Brains?

  26. Waldo:

    “With respect to 1, that seems beyond reasonable argument that in some cases, that “yes” it is foreseeable that a consumer would misuse a product.”


    True enough, except that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a purchaser violating the law as the basis for the misuse. How can a seller foresee that a purchaser will commit a criminal act? Can’t he assume his purchasers will follow the law? We presume the law to be followed in most every other instance, but in this situation we say, “No, Mr. Seller, you must assume that a person with normal faculties will violate the law with your product to the tune of a felony.” That silliness, in an of itself, should bar recovery on public policy grounds since it rewards law breakers with access to the courts.

  27. The question of foreseeable the misuse of such a product could probably be held against the head shop, but should more likely be held against the company selling the product. This sort of case is comparable to a suit against Advil or other asprin products that are used to create methamphetamine. There are specific precautions that convenience stores take to prevent people from buying too much at once, such as showing your ID and being entered into nationwide system. However, at other convenience stores there definitely is a legal purpose for selling advil, even in massive quantities so they take the necessary steps to dissuade illegal activity. However, there is a legal reason for asprin companies to sell to CVS. I think it is fairly foreseeable for most people that a company would have no legal reason to sell these canisters to head shops. I mean the term “whip it” itself is slang for the illegal drug use, other companies name their legal products something else related to whipped cream or air duster, which they are actually legally used for. I think the company has more power to avoid such purchases and health risks from people who are buying “whip its” and suffering the consequences.
    However, this man is definitely negligent to a certain degree because the assumption of the risk is pretty obvious- maybe not his particular injury, but other immediate effects should be pretty well known simply because this act is considered illegal drug use. However, since the company pretty much condones this act I still think they should be held liable even though he shouldn’t be able to recover. Just by looking at the box alone it looks like a teenage girl, smiling with trippy colors in the background. Its pretty clear shes not about to dust her room…

  28. ASDOC:

    A few clarifications might be in order:

    It’s called “Whip It” because it is used in making whipped cream. We don’t know how the shop got the product whether through direct purchase or via a distributor.

    Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are sometimes used to make methamphetimine and are controlled by federal law. Remedies with these ingredients are stocked behind the counter and you have to sign an acknowledgment that possession in sufficient quantities is a federal crime.

    Contributory negligence and assumption of the risk are distinct concepts but may have some overlap in the area of comparative negligence. Contributory negligence so as to bar recovery implies conduct below the standard of care expected of every person which is the proximate cause of the injury complained about. Assumption of risk usually involves notions of contract or acceptance of certain risks attendant to the activity or product which absolve the seller of the duty to warn or create a safe product for foreseeable users. The person assuming the risk may well be acting prudently under the circumstances as in the case of a person carefully setting explosive charges in mining but there are inherent risks in the activity itself which the person voluntarily and knowingly assumes. Otherwise there would be no mining with explosives. A boxer in the ring assumes the risk of injury in the activity lest we have no sport of boxing since every loser would sue every winner for battery.

    In our case here, assumption of risk is but one defense. Contributory negligence will not apply to totally bar recovery since California is a comparative negligence state but it could reduce any award.

    The main objection I have is simply the propriety of allowing a person abusing a legal product in violation of applicable criminal law to recover for injuries.

  29. “The main objection I have is simply the propriety of allowing a person abusing a legal product in violation of applicable criminal law to recover for injuries.”

  30. Mespo,
    Thanks for including the california penal code earlier. I have not seen the word Stupification for a long time, even though I was in that condition way too many times in college!
    It would be interesting to see how far this action gets and if there is any comparitive negligence applied to the head shop.

  31. i just spent the last hour watching scenes from airplane and naked gun.

    better than watching movies about gladiators.

  32. I saw this on the news. The story included an interview with this moron. With all due respect (which after seeing and listening to this guy = .0001%), his theory of recovery does not make sense.

    Plaintiff’s Case:

    1) Head shops are NOT selling nitrous for cooking, they are selling cartridges for customers to ingest and get high.

    2) Buying for use as the retailer intended (to get high), like most products plaintiff contends where a hazard is evident and foreseeable, the seller has a duty to warn purchasers (here that inhaling nitrous oxide could lead to physical and mental injury. Plaintiff alleges the smoke shops are liable for damages for failing to warn him about the harm.


    – I see this case getting kicked out on a demurrer — with prejudice, meaning the complaint cannot be “fixed” and refiled. (A demurrer is usually filed at the beginning of a case, in response to a served complaint. To demur challenges the legal sufficiency of the filed complaint. In plain speaking a defendant is saying “I have read the complaint and say ‘so what’ because plaintiff has not plead a valid claim.”)

    – The demurrer is properly sustained because in California POSSESSION of nitrous oxide for recreational use or abuse is prohibited and qualifies as a misdemeanor.

    – IMO it is a legal impossibility to plead a defendant liable for failing to warn a plaintiff about the consequences that may flow from plaintiff’s CRIMINAL conduct, or damages suffered from his commission of a crime.

    Bottom line:

    Regardless of the sellers’ intent or actions, the plaintiff cannot hold the smoke shops liable for damages that flow from his independent criminal POSSESSION of nitrous oxide.

    Note: “Possession” is an operative word in this California Penal Code section. It does NOT matter HOW plaintiff got the nitrous oxide cartridges. That he possesses them with an intent for illegal use, that’s the crime. Yes, intent in this regard is normally difficult to prove, but in the Complaint this moron admitted to the elements of the crime. LOL.

  33. WH,

    Please explain…. Do you drive a safer car…. Eat for the most part safer food… Live in a house that isn’t falling down when you closed the door… Please explain…. How lawyers are killing the country…..

    How about…. Unscrupulous business people are killing the country…. You wanna hear something funny…. A place close to where I live there is oil and gas….. It’s a small community…. But very rich people that make a lot of money off of the oil and gas business…. Guess what….. Thy don’t want drilling in there neighborhood….. I wonder why……

  34. It is called “whip-it!” Lower case first letters and an exclamation point. If it was called “snort-it!” then I would agree that it was sold for snorting and not whipping. One whips cream to make it stand up on top of the pumpkin pie. The dumb teacher, law student, schmucko, bought it from a head shop to snort it. He went in there to buy legal things that one can abuse to get high. Can we sell him some mercury? I dont oppose people going to Walmart and buying cigarettes right next to the drug department. “Winston tastes good. like a cigarette should” according to Walter Cronkite back in the early 60’s. In his Memoirs he makes a joke of getting chastized for correcting the grammar on the air when he interposeed “as a cigarette should” for the lame phrase handed to him by his bosess paid by the tobacco company to do the ad during the broadcast. So millions of kids get the message that its ok to smoke. Those that did and those that survived to this day can chimine in here and comment on the “whip-it” snorters of the world. If the head shop can be sued then Walmart should be sued and depleted of their resources. Walmart is intentionally selling a product for its intended use when the world knows that the product gives you cancer, heart disease or emphysema (The Hat Trick) when used in its intended use. So, went in dumb, come out dumb too in that num nut named law school in California should sue Walmart as well because num nut is probably a smoker. He is probably also a former pincipal. You know the old saw: Those who can, do. Those who cant, teach. Those who cant teach, teach teachers.

  35. About two years ago, I decided I wanted to make my own whipped cream, as the commercial products contain sugar and other ingredients that I didn’t want. I discovered the lovely Whip It tool that makes whipped cream that looks just like Ready Whip. I found the Whip It at a restaurant supply store. When I checked out, the nice man at the cash register pulled out a box of nitrous oxide containers telling me that I would need them to use the Whip It. I hadn’t known that before and thought it was curious that he kept them hidden under his counter instead of on the shelf with the Whip It, but I soon lost interest in the question. I went back several times to restock. One of the primary reasons I used the home made delicacy was for my coffee. I just loved whipped cream in my coffee. Well, over the course of about a year, it seems that the enchanting whipped cream was making me put on a few pounds. I closed up shop and have worked my way down to unwhipped half-and-half. Not significantly better for my waistline but much better for my pocket book. The nitrous oxide canisters are expensive.

    I’m wondering if I should sue the Restaurant Supply store or where I eventually ended up buying my canisters. I suppose it could be argued that I knew whipped cream has a high fat content prior to my experiment. However, I’d like to think that after losing the feeling in my rib cage that I would reconsider using the canisters for the other activity.

    As an epilogue, I have a huge amount of the canisters left over. I’m concerned that in the event that I croak before I can dispose of them properly, my family will spend quite a bit of effort pondering the question of why I would have these in my pantry. Oh, well, a girl has to have a few secrets.

  36. Kathy…

    I would toss those canisters immediately, if not sooner, instantly, as if by magic. Unless you don’t mind your legacy being a local news story:

    “DEA investigators allowed us to ride-along on a local bust of a suspected nitrous oxide dealer, a woman named Kathy T. The DEA said where the suspect went wrong is using the product too.

    Authorities raided Kathy T’s condo last night. The DEA posed in Kathy T’s kitchen, next to a cabinet containing a significantly large cache of neatly stacked unspent nitrous oxide canisters. The DEA said dealing is suspected in that there were two canisters per baggie.

    Being led away in handcuffs a portly Miss T screamed something about whip cream in her coffee is a delicacy. The DEA told us that was a typical cover story, and nitrous dealers are known to hide canisters in the kitchen. The DEA said the smart ones keep a Whip It! tool next to the canisters.

    Joe Ratyouout, a local restaurant supply manager, said he became suspicious of Kathy T because in his words “I get twos kinds of people in heres, people who are in the business, and those buying lots of nitrous oxide canisters. Asked why he sold the canisters to Kathy T, Mr. Ratyouout said ‘She seemed like such a nice girl.’

    Kathy T’s mother concurred: ‘She is a good girl, I don’t know where we went wrong. In high school she worked as a desserts maker at Sizzler. She would come home talking on her cell phone about how she can’t resist the siren song of the silver master. I can only hope the Judge has mercy on her soul.'”

  37. Michael, Thanks for making my day. You might have steered away from the “portly” reference. I guess that’s what I get for hoarding whipped cream paraphernalia.

  38. To all of you ignorant people out there that actually believe that these “Gray Area Headshops” aren’t aware and know perfectly well that the only reason people buy nitrous oxide, Whip-Its, (which btw is only one brand name of many from Europe. happens to be the most popular is all.) from them is pure and simple…to get high or achieve an altered state. Tell me then if these “headshop” owners only sell nitrous for the purpose of making whipped cream, which is exactly what they all say, then why is it that they don’t sell anything whatsoever to make whipped cream huh? Oh, but wait folks it gets better. I know for a fact that the only thing that they do sell along with the nitrous chargers are devices called “crackers” which serve only one purpose and that is to crack the charger. And just as you are on your way out of the shop guess wha they do in my hometown? They ask you in a real concerning voice, “Hey you sure you got a balloon? Here just take one on the house.” Normally a balloon by itself means nothing. And the same with the cracker, which btw literally has but one purpose, however when you combine all three items: 1. The nitrous chargers. 2. The cracker and finally, and in my opinion the smoking gun number 3. the Balloon/s. Now I’am not a lawyer but have worked at a headshop and believe me they not only know that people are buying them solely on getting high but when they also push the other paraphrenalia which is needed to do them how can you people honestly say that the retailers have no liability at all? Yes it is true that man was acting on his own and nobody made him do the nitrous. But what I don’t think that some of you people get is that how serious and super popular these things are. They sell like hot-cakes and owners aren’t stupid. Now I wonder if that man who is suing these shops would’ve still done it if there was a warning on the box saying: This product has been linked to spinal cord disease. The thing is this is a totally unique case. Because unlike beer and cigs this stuff has no business being sold especially when you consider that it’s the new thing that the “cool kids” do and how many more people must get paralyzed before they are outlawed. And if you still think these headshops bear no blame the U.S. Govt. thinks otherwise. Besides the state of N.Y. banning them; now the Feds are starting to raid shops selling this poison in southern cali. Please respond because I would love to hear it.

Comments are closed.