Go GO BBC!!!!

Written in perfectly rational English. Or if you prefer I'll put it into tetrameter.

It does address those given facts
journalism cannot give praise
to certain illicit products
lest it incur the great wrath of
the omnipotent commissar.


That better? And I haven't put any side to what I'm saying. Nor have I given my opinion on the subject matter.
A news site cannot portray that which is illicit as being good or beneficial: it contradicts and undermines the current legislation. Thus, this woman's 'conclusion' comes across as contrived. Think about it.

However, it's nice to have an open debate with someone taking the opposing stance.
 
I've seen a more of these kind of things recently. (studies, looking in to medicinal use etc.)

And it's about time.. the more of an understanding people (scientists, government, the populous) can get about a subject the better. It's an education. Compared, to say alchohol (or nearly any other widely taken drug), the amount of research and HARD FACTS available about the effects, abuse, etc is terrible.

There is much mis-information and propaganda (in both directions, pro, anti).
 
Evangelion said:
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.
Click to expand...
If they did that exact same experiment with me and the drug escilatopram it would've been exactly the same. I would've had a horrible time on it and reported as such, but if they just happened to leave out how good the drug actually was for millions and millions of people I would have been offended.

Evangelion said:
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"?
Click to expand...
No I'm upset because the BBC didn't say that, it can very easily lead people to believe that the article is unbalanced. This thread is proof enough of that.
 
Whether or not people think it's biased or not - who cares? Everybody(even Organisations etc) accuses the BBC of bias all the time (usually based on whether they agree or not)

The point is people are now talking about it, and raising awarenesss of the drug (and it's uses/effects) . This is A Good Thing.
 
'Raising awareness' is a big favourite amongst the reds atm as well as in the Cameron camp.
It is indeed an undeniably good thing to 'raise awareness' and 'educate' people. Just the way that they approach it is unfortunately not. Good intentions don't produce good results necessarily.
 
It's on BBC3 now btw.

Her first time she'd ever tried weed she smoked an entire fairly strong joint (or it looked it) in about 15mins, completely against what the woman at the counter said (take one or two drags in the first 10 mins - she took 25 :| )

edit: 0.1 grams is pretty small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom