• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Drugs Live: Cannabis on Trial - Channel 4 10PM

I found it quite unbalanced in places - jon snow was pushing a certain viewpoint and the program generally felt like it was all out pushing a simplistic hash=good, skunk=bad angle (they never heard of bubble hash and skuff? (or even old fashioned temple ball)). The woman who ran the research seemed a bit biased too when describing why she started it (saying she wanted to focus on problems associated with skunk use vs hash sounded a bit prejudicial - i'm sure the trials were sound, it just seemed like it was being spun and propagandised in places.

Then there was the story of how 'skunk' came about in america which was pretty accurate, except the small matter of calling all hybrid weed 'skunk' (i think if it was all skunk no1 there'd be no problem as it's pretty mellow) - also the misleading stuff about it all being about cbd not being present in 'skunk'. (all the original sativa strains they had before mixing them with afghani had no cbd if i recall)

Seemed like snow was trying to put a downer on all skunk use because he had a bad one, though this was counterbalanced to a degree by other contributors. I liked Nutt's leaving skunk where it was on the harm graph even after all that though. Overall i think it's valuable for the potential smoker to realise that strong weed can be well trippy and needs set and setting sorted - but it was never put into this sort of context (like giving people different doses and testing the relative effects, or just giving clear set/setting/dosage advice (like don't give jon snow that much!)). They wanted to focus in on the cbd thing for a stick to beat 'skunk' with, which ends up being a meaningless category with modern breeding. (just encouraging higher cbd strains won't help much as afaik the actual expressed ratio varies widely according to growing conditions (and we don't want to end up having govenrment processed dope like sativex)).
 
Last edited:
F.U.B.A.R. said:
These kind of programs lose all credibility by calling any decent weed 'skunk'. Skunk as a particular genotype is actually quite rare these days - why do none of these 'experts' realise this?
Click to expand...
Yeah that had me shouting at the TV. Its a totally outdated historic slang term in my eyes. If it hasn't got Skunk #1 in its immediate lineage it isn't skunk.

Also they didn't mention that buds have been bred to have high CBD like Charlotte's web.
 
my sister in law has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, everyone blames it on her smoking, but it does run in her family and it would only bring it on earlier if she was going to show any signs at all. our doctor smokes green all the time and she says same thing on if you have it running in the family would you be more liekly to get it. it does not cause it on its own. I like my doc last time we went to the wizard festival she spent the entire time on her arse with a bong in the hand loads of piccies bribery material lol
 
Didn't anyone else notice the stupifying lack of information or discussion on the health BENEFITS of cannabis? These benefits are so numerous now that to ignore such an angle smacks of propaganda to me.

It wasn't the worst drugs programme I ever saw but it left a hella lot to be desired.
 
The general uk media narrative on weed has been overwhelmingly negative for years. From my recollection it started when the Independent ran a campaign to legalise it in the 90s which caused a reactionary response by other parts of the media.

I do find it odd that canabis being a cause of mental health issues don't seem to be discussed in other countries.
 
The Skunk narrative is a walk down Nostalgia lane by the pink socked establishment, "Oh aren't the drugs awful now compared to what we had", awful show, Nutt has lost credibility by being associated with it, the ex Guard seems to like a smoke but.
 
F.U.B.A.R. said:
These kind of programs lose all credibility by calling any decent weed 'skunk'. Skunk as a particular genotype is actually quite rare these days - why do none of these 'experts' realise this?
Click to expand...

Having now watched this, I feel they explained that "skunk" is a colloquialism for high THC, low CBD weed reasonably well. Love it or hate it, it has come into common usage as meaning that.

As for the programme in general, I did think it was fairly balanced on the whole. Sure they didn't discuss the positives of CBD very much but for me at least they have highlighted the growing trend towards strong THC based weed. That's more of a problem than cannabis is in general & surely something that regulation could help reverse to an extent if it became decriminalized.
 
Chatative said:
I feel they explained that "skunk" is a colloquialism for high THC, low CBD weed reasonably well. Love it or hate it, it has come into common usage as meaning that.

Sure they didn't discuss the positives of CBD very much but for me at least they have highlighted the growing trend towards strong THC based weed. That's more of a problem than cannabis is in general & surely something that regulation could help reverse to an extent if it became decriminalized.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! The problem is not with cannabis alone. I believe decriminalizing is the only way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top