I will start by saying I am not a big TV watcher generally, but I decided to
switch on for BBC2 ‘s Horizon programme, Cannabis: The Evil Weed?
shown on Tuesday 3rd February. After previously seeing some interesting and
informed arguments about mental health related illnesses I felt relatively
confident of more of the same. The sub heading asked ‘Can cannabis cause
schizophrenia? Is it addictive? Or is it an undervalued medicine?’ I sat back
with an interest waiting to discover the results of their findings.
A few minutes of historic fact fumbling at the start of the show took the
viewer to a remote mountain region in Kazakhstan being described as the
birthplace of the cannabis plant. Other theories about the origins of Cannabis
were briefly touched on and I began to wonder at what point they would mention
Hemp and the numerous values of the plant.
http://www.rso.cornell.edu/hempsociety/index.htmlI found it incredible to hear Cannabis being described as being on the
planet for over 4,ooo years and yet the historical information provided lasted
around eight minutes.
There was a swift change of pace as the direction now seemed to focus on the
condemnation of the use of the drug detailing the potential dangers to anyone
who uses it. I started to see clearly how the BBC were beginning to push their
agenda and the voice of the government was clear and strong in their anti
cannabis stance. There seemed to be no effort to mention the benefical effects
of using the drug as a medicine to treat an array of illnesses. With so much
information readily available the researchers would have had an easy task in
bringing the information to light.
http://www.medicalmarijuanablog.com/I agree with the viewpoint that regular cannabis use in young adults between
the ages of 10-15 could potentially lead to schizophrenia or psychosis. I also
hold the opinion that the same age bracket regularly using alcohol could cause
liver damage or lead to alcoholism. If this age bracket is exposed to such
things when the body is still developing, their powers of resistance are far
less than if they were in their late teens or older. The risks would most
likely be greater and far more harmful as a result. This seemed a valid point
to mention, but obviously not where the BBC wanted to take the argument. After
all a legal drug can surely not be placed in comparative terms with a dirty
harmful illegal one like cannabis. The picture was becoming increasingly
darker.
The true effects of the drug were wheeled out via the stories of three
individuals who have all apparently smoked cannabis at some point. There was
the token pro smoker who was as articulate in his representation of his usage
as a deaf mute in a karaoke competition. The depth of his argument for it was
to say smoking a joint was like getting into a warm bath and that it was better
than sex. He explained that he would get home from work smoke a joint and feel
relaxed, smoke another and feel more relaxed and then another and….you get the
smoky image.
Next came a man who was seemingly a victim to the drug; a long term addict
who was trapped in a life he hated because he started smoking cannabis years
ago and was the only one of his friends who could not give it up. He described
his life as being like groundhog day; getting up and smoking a joint after a
morning cuppa, with the process continuing through the day and then more of the
same at night with a few glasses of wine. He declared that he would sometimes
go out for a walk but his life was ultimately the same each day. Questions came
to me as I wondered, does he work? How can he afford to smoke weed day and
night with the addition of wine each night too?
My suspicions were already raised when it became evident this guy was more
likely a paid actor rather than the victim he was being represented as. It
showed him smoking a joint which after seventeen years of smoking all day every
day and night was the most pathetic looking joint I have ever seen. Clearly
this was not the technique of a long term pot smoker, but someone asked to
‘skin up’ on camera before smoking with a sad, forlorn expression on his face.
A few moments later and he turned to face the camera for the poignant scene
where he stated he would feel better if the camera crew left his home so he
could ‘skin up’ and smoke a joint. He asked if they could come back in half an
hour and he would be better then. A moment later he was laid down on the sofa
smoking a joint anyway. Clearly this was done for dramatic effect. This all
came after he had been filmed rolling and smoking another joint.
It seems unlikely he was suffering anything of the condition he whinged
about. If he really was addicted and couldn’t face the prospect of the real
world or how to cope in it as he stated. Why would he not seek medical help? If
he was not working he would have to at least sign on once a fortnight to
receive state benefit. I doubt he would have been able to con a penny out of
the pot if he wasn’t looking for work over a seventeen year period. If he was
on incapacity or disability living allowance he would have been found out
easily if his excuse for not being able to work was a cannabis addiction. He
would have been laughed out of the place. With the prospect of receiving no
state benefit how else would he be able to fund regular drug use? The only
possibility left open would be that he may well be dealing cannabis himself,
which if that is true it begs the question should he be biting the hand that
feeds him?
The last story detailed a young man who began smoking the drug at an early
age and a few years later began to hear voices which caused wide ranging
behavioural changes in his personality. His parents commented there was no
history of mental illness in the family so they could only attribute his
condition to his cannabis use. Medical professionals had prescribed a vast
array of pills to try to control his psychosis while telling him he would most
likely be taking the medication for the rest of his life. A great example of
how to throw a large dose of fear into the patient who has gone against the
wishes of the system by taking one of the drugs not peddled by the government
under the socially accepted bracket of good legal drugs.
In truth the programme ran as an anti drugs party political broadcast
representing only one real aspect of the argument. It seems some one sided
opinions can be aired on the BBC network when the message is beneficial to the
rich and greedy. It makes a mockery of the BBC’s excuse for not airing an
emergency appeal for Gaza on 28th January ‘on the grounds that it would
jeopardise their neutrality’ when this kind of propaganda is allowed to be
shown. A few days after that appeal was refused to be aired and the
advertisements began to run for Red Nose Day, an entire night of impartiality
when a host of celebrities help to raise money for an appeal shown exclusively
on BBC.
The controversy surrounding the BBC continues to emerge, but it is not the
comedic offerings of over paid celebrities to be blamed for the content;
instead the bosses who decide which causes or arguments to back, based on which
brings the highest financial reward. The BBC sadly continues to behave like a
cheap whore catering to every demand of their biggest punter, the
government every time a sweaty wad of cash is flashed before them.