Go GO BBC!!!!

These sort of programs make me laugh, why did this woman want to put herself through this anyway? Just because she says this and that about it, that doesn't mean it will necessarily put her kids off it. I hated the fact that my mum smoked when I was younger & I knew full well the effects that smoking has on your body and yet I still took up smoking (gear & cigs) and I still smoke now but only gear.

As for it making you "psychotic" etc, I think you've got to be slightly unhinged already and a massive toker if it sends you totally over the edge, I myself like many others I'm sure have had a few moments of intense paranoia over the 7 years that I've been smoking it but hey-ho, I still keep smoking it and I'm not in the funny farm yet and I've not committed murder (afaik!) whilst "under the influence".
 
Irrespective of the BBC's perceived bias (I admit I'm not sure how much of it is real and how much is a result of opposite bias on the part of some of those commenting - I suspect some of both), the editorial quality of the BBC has certainly gone down the pan, and the recent re-organisation hasn't changed that. A shame really.

Even so, I can't believe the BBC thought it was a good idea to put people through something known to have at least potentially harmful effects 'just because'.
 
To be fair, the interview of this lady on the Breakfast News this morning wasn't "Gosh, I was awfully disturbed by the whole affair" or "I'll never sleep with the light off again"

She just said that cannabis these days isn't what it was in the 60s and has a much higher amount of THC which has a possible link with getting all paranoid after a quick puff.

It did however, miss the point entirely as to what to do about it if you or your child starts smoking it.

I used to smoke a silly amount and stopped for a long time after it gave me panic attacks. Now the quality is so bad anyway in the UK, I refuse to buy it.
 
Thanks for your responses people!

I still after having considered the article and the subsequent show, cannot see what anyone is going to gain from this. In some areas they are just stating the absolute obvious: 'stronger than in the 60s'... well no st sherlock, it's probably similar for almost everything else. Even, for example, wine has gotten stronger in terms of %. I imagine in 1960 it was rare to find 14% wine or more. (unless fortified).

The idea of making an attempt to inform people on this issue is going in line with guess who's education-pap-policies. It is nice that they want to inform people, but OcUK:


"To what extent does publicity add to a worsening social endemic?" Discuss. Interpret this title however you like and put as much or as little consideration into your answers as you see fit.

Opinions/responses much appreciated!
 
What's the problem with this? What are you all complaining about?

Woman tries cannabis. Has a bad trip. Tells us about it. Problem?

The article even seems reasonable balanced: it's pointed out that there are potentially useful medicinal properties to it.


Maybe I'm just dumb or naive, but I can't see why you're all saying it's biased.:confused:
 
p4radox said:
What's the problem with this? What are you all complaining about?
Click to expand...
It's extremely sensationalist and doesn't mention that some people just naturally have a bad reaction.

The same can be said of any drug, even legal/prescription ones. It's simply down to biology and chemistry.

I had a terrible time with a drug called escilatopram once. Maybe I should contact the BBC to get this extremely helpful medication banned, despite the millions of users it does not affect negatively. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Is this the same allegedly "government-supporting" BBC that was blasted, abused, accused and generally threatened by the Blair administration for exposing the lies which dragged us into Iraq?

Edited to add the reporter's conclusion:


However, she said a sober public debate was needed about cannabis, as there was growing evidence that it had potentially useful medical applications.

"This is a complex plant, it can do an awful amount of harm, but it can also do an awful amount of good," she said.

"On one hand you have people who think it is the spawn of the devil, and then you have people who think it's fantastic, so nobody ever gets to sit down and actually talk constructively about what we should do with the problem."
​

So at the end of it all, she says that there needs to be a debate about it, because its potential benefits are important and valuable. She tried it; she had a bad trip; she didn't like it. Despite this, she argues fairly that it shouldn't be just written off as an illegal drug, but must be considered as a potential medical treatment.

I am struggling to find the alleged government-supporting sensationalism in all of this.

:confused:
 
Last edited:
Ulfhedjinn said:
It's extremely sensationalist and doesn't mention that some people just naturally have a bad reaction.

The same can be said of any drug, even legal/prescription ones. It's simply down to biology and chemistry.

I had a terrible time with a drug called escilatopram once. Maybe I should contact the BBC to get this extremely helpful medication banned, despite the millions of users it does not affect negatively. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But at the same time it doesn't say that everyone who takes it will have a bad trip. To me, it seems like a well-balanced article.
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
But it doesn't present that side of the discussion whatsoever, only the negative.
Click to expand...

Because she was speaking purely from personal experience, which was made very clear from the start.

If she'd had a good trip, people would be complaining that "it doesn't present the bad side of the discussion whatsoever, only the positive".
 
Read it analytically please. It is clear from the wording and the tone that it does indeed convey a pejorative bias. IRRESPECTIVE of the half-baked conclusion at the end.
 
Because the negative was the only thing that happened to this woman?

I'm a bit curious to how that article proves their "government-supporting" line too, considering how Labour have put themselves on almost every side of the cannabis debate during their term in power.
 
Evangelion said:
Because she was speaking purely from personal experience, which was made very clear from the start.

If she'd had a good trip, people would be complaining that "it doesn't present the bad side of the discussion whatsoever, only the positive".
Click to expand...

Weebull said:
Because the negative was the only thing that happened to this woman?
Click to expand...
I know it was just about one person's experience with cannabis but you have to ask why the BBC chose this one, exceptionally bad experience instead of a good one and why they didn't bother to indicate at all that cannabis is generally not bad for people.

This article and the account it is based on have obviously been selected carefuly. It's not rounded enough.

Like I said; It'd be like me reporting my horrific experience with the prescription drug escilatopram and mentioning absolutely nothing of the benefits or how the vast majority of people don't have issues on it.
 
Last edited:
Ulfhedjinn said:
I know it was just about one person's experience with cannabis but you have to ask why the BBC chose this one, exceptionally bad experience instead of a good one and why they didn't bother to indicate at all that cannabis is generally not bad for people.

This article and the account it is based on have obviously been selected carefuly. It's not rounded enough.

Like I said; It'd be like me reporting my horrific experience with the prescription drug escilatopram and mentioning absolutely nothing of the benefits or how the vast majority of people don't have issues on it.
Click to expand...

They didn't "choose" this experience over any others; they commissioned one of their reporters to try skunk for a month and report her experience. Which she did. And her experience was a bad one, so that's what they showed.

It wasn't supposed to be a "this happens to everyone who smokes weed" thing. It was specifically about one person's experience of a month on skunk.

So it wasn't "selected carefully" at all. It was the fair and accurate report of one person's experience. Which, again, was made very clear at the start. Didn't you read the article?


A mother-of-three who smoked cannabis for a month as part of a BBC documentary has described how the drug left her paranoid and frightened.

She said that the effects of a powerful version of the drug called "skunk" were "absolutely horrendous", though not long-lasting.

Nicky Taylor, from Kidderminster, took part in the experiment in Amsterdam, where the drug is legal. She also became psychotic after an injection of an active ingredient of cannabis.
​
 
I think that in response to your comment Evangelion, I think that's a bit immature to say that edit: not the post above mine but at te top of this page. Why? Because the BBC are obviously not going to present this in a totally good light are they? Then we'd have people up in arms over the glorification of cannabis and harmful substances would we not?
The only possible way for them to deal with this is to put it in a negative light with about 30 seconds dedication to 'rounding' the article with some cant about possible good effects. Then by idiotic logic, they are not biased and present it 'openly and honestly' do they not?
 
Evangelion said:
So it wasn't "selected carefully" at all. It was the fair and accurate report of one person's experience. Which, again, was made very clear at the start. Didn't you read the article?
Click to expand...
So let's say I did report my experience of escilatopram to the BBC and got a nice, long article that did not make one mention of how effective the drug is for millions of people in treating depression and how a very negligible percentage of patients get negative side effects.

Would you say that this is good reporting? I would hope not, but you tell me.
 
Voltar said:
I think that in response to your comment Evangelion, I think that's a bit immature to say that edit: not the post above mine but at te top of this page. Why? Because the BBC are obviously not going to present this in a totally good light are they? Then we'd have people up in arms over the glorification of cannabis and harmful substances would we not?

The only possible way for them to deal with this is to put it in a negative light with about 30 seconds dedication to 'rounding' the article with some cant about possible good effects. Then by idiotic logic, they are not biased and present it 'openly and honestly' do they not?
Click to expand...

Can I have that in rational English, please? Something that actually addresses the facts would also be nice.

Go back and read the article. Then read the woman's conclusion. Take notice of the fact that she does not damn marijuana to hell, but, on the contrary, says that its use needs to be debated because it has potentially beneficial medical uses.

If that's not open and honest, what is it?
 
I don't think the BBC are biased with respect to drugs. If you watched the Horzon documentaty on drugs recently you'd find that they were completely impartial with respect to the danger posed by various legal and illegal drugs.

Personally, I think you're trying too hard to find something wrong with the article. From what I've seen before, if the reporter had had an awesome time and loved it they'd still have reported it candidly. The article is completely balanced and presents both the negatives and potential postivies of the drug.
 
Last edited:
Ulfhedjinn said:
So let's say I did report my experience of escilatopram to the BBC and got a nice, long article that did not make one mention of how effective the drug is for millions of people in treating depression and how a very negligible percentage of patients get negative side effects.

Would you say that this is good reporting? I would hope not, but you tell me.
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples with oranges. Read the article.

This was an experiment to see how one person would cope with a month on skunk. That one person spent a month on skunk, and that one person had a bad experience. That one person then reported her personal experience to be a bad one. At no time did she claim that her experience was representative of the majority.

Then, at the end of the article, she said that we need a proper debate on marijuana because of its potential benefits.

So, to summarise: "I tried skunk for a month, and hated it. However, we cannot rule out the use of marijuana entirely, because its medical benefits could be invaluable". Sounds pretty balanced to me.

But you're upset because she didn't come out and say "By the way, some people have a bloody good trip, and in fact spend most of their lives as perfectly happy potheads"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom