UK - How Drugs Work: Cannabis

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
TV Pixie

Submitted by Liam Tucker on 07/01/2011 - 12:41

http://tvpixie.com/tv-news/2011/01/07/how-drugs-work-cannabis

For those in the UK able to view IPlayer, this is the series page of the programme being reviewed here.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xcfjl


When you chuff on a fattie (and I don’t mean break wind on the morbidly obese), the chemical ‘acts like a herbal terrorist, hijacking the brain’ according to this effort, shown last night on BBC Three.

Strong and faintly ridiculous words indeed – and coming from a particularly weak documentary. Words weren’t its forte in any sense, with its using the term ‘skunk’ as a catch-all for any and every high grade bud on the market being a clear indication that the writers weren’t really looking to educate, but simply to regurgitate common misconception at an audience presumed ignorant.

To clear things up, skunk is a name that can only accurately be applied to a few strains of high-grade bud. There are countless other names for strains of the same kind of class – among them kush, cheese and haze – but ‘skunk’ is the name used by critics, presumably because it smells of wee.

When participants smoked cannabis in this slightly tawdry show, the graphics team sprang into action with third rate CGI, attempting to show what happens to the body when THC is absorbed into the system, while the faceless narrator became suddenly psychic and told us about their internal breakdowns.

What may have seemed like four stoned, teenage lads attempting to jump a small ditch and having a laugh whilst about it became a quartet of feckless dope-fiends hallucinating that a tiny trench was an enormous chasm, as the show had it. An office worker, having smoked a joint upon returning home, then began to organise her belongings for a move. The fact she fancied another joint as a reward for doing the mindless task was taken to be a sign of impending addiction. When the aforementioned lads later fancied a snack, we were told that smokers ‘seek out food whether they’re hungry or not’, conjuring images of hooded teens burgling houses for Bakewell tarts, which is quite far removed from the reality.

It was a strange and melodramatic approach, as for the most-part the participants were adjusted, studenty types or young professionals, whose experiences were distorted by the script into negative areas. But when they needed someone to describe the hell of cannabis addiction, they turned to Chris, clearly a rung below the others on the desperation scale and only able to access soapbar, on the evidence we saw – a highly polluted hash that’s contaminated with all manner of rubbish. His addiction (or was it dependency? Or habit? We were never accurately told) was documented for us in a section so brief it only lasted one night and got a five minute sequence, in which he got a bit mardy and asked his girlfriend to stop filming him.

What really galled by this point was just how bad the science involved was. Without any qualification, the narrator told us that ‘skunk is responsible for rising rates in addiction’, which is a bit like saying not that espresso is responsible for high rates of caffeine addiction (which is enough of a problem to prove in itself), but that a specific brand of espresso is to blame. By the time a girl was psychometrically tested after a massive vaporizer hit and had her answers wilfully misconstrued, it felt like we were on the end of a comedic sting.

But sadly, this was trying desperately hard to be the real deal. And when you consider it ended up being a lazy, tabloid slab of misinformation, you have to conclude that there’s nothing remotely funny about that.
 
Last edited:
And it looks like there is more to come...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xckv8

As part of the Dangerous Pleasures season, this three-part series looks at the biological process behind three of the most commonly used recreational drugs - cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy.
Using groundbreaking CGI this episode follows the effect of ecstasy on the human body. Over the past 30 years ecstasy has become one of the world's most notorious drugs. No other illegal substance has had such an effect on fashion, music and how we party. This film follows two recreational ecstasy users over one night .Through graphic effects the viewer is taken on a journey deep inside the human body and the programme explains exactly how this powerful substance takes effect on the user's vital organs. Through the tour of the human body, we learn about the fascinating and often surprising scientific reasons for how these drugs work and also the damage they can cause.
The programme features interviews with toxicologists, neuro-scientists and medical pharmacologists who explain what actually happens in your body when you indulge, exploding a few myths in the process.
With access to cutting edge research at the University of Chicago, we find out how ecstasy creates empathy in the user and how this could one day lead to the drug being used as a life-saving prescription medicine for use in therapy.
The series also follows young people who use drugs recreationally and interviews former users who tell their cautionary tales. Whilst ecstasy is an enjoyable high for some, there are those for whom ecstasy is agony and the film tells their story too - a young woman who had to have a liver transplant after using the drug and a father whose 18-year-old daughter died from drinking too much water after taking ecstasy.
Part of the Dangerous Pleasures season on BBC Three.
 
Deffo sounds like a dub artist lyric. Wib wob wub wub " herbal terroist, hijacking the brain" wib wob wub wub and so on
 
When you chuff on a fattie (and I don’t mean break wind on the morbidly obese)

This is fucking hilarious I loled So hard.
 
Marijuana is a natural radical who employs terror as a political weapon... increase the war budgets!
 
You think this week was bad, "...and a father whose 18-year-old daughter died from drinking too much water after taking ecstasy."

I wonder who that might be???
 
In this bullshit 'documentary' they portray a standard little bit of paranoia as a psychotic episode. Fuckin' LOLZ

Paranoia is a psychotic symptom.. especially when the reasons you are paranoid are formulated out of non-meaningful things that your mind has linked together out of nowhere.
 
groundbreaking cgi my ass.

So i watched teh whole documentary. Gotta love how they get a bunch of noobs to represent weed. LULAWHiTEE S WHEN U FAinT M8
 
Last edited:
Paranoia is a psychotic symptom.. especially when the reasons you are paranoid are formulated out of non-meaningful things that your mind has linked together out of nowhere.

But where do you draw the boundary between caution and paranoia?

Seems like they're pushing the line a bit too far in one direction just to put the words 'weed' and 'psychosis' together in the same sentence.
 
^ Through out the programme they regularly mention that a certain type of person with certain genes are more vulnerable to psychotic like syptoms (1 being paranoia..) but most people are fine with it.. The guy that had been researchin it for years was even on there saying it would be great to pin prick everyone going into a festival so we can advise the 10% that are more prone to negative affects to maybe stay away from it while the other 90% can get high and love it. Also.. that girl was showing psychotic syptoms.. she thought she was having a telepathetic conversation with her boyfriend "parallel with the one she was having with the doc"..

It was also saying that cannabis makes people more creative and helps people with word recall (while on it).. theories being that alot of outside information is instantly filtered out as not being relevant so your mind can get on with things in your mind.. if that makes sense.

Maybe the show didn't have the ideal stoners on it (or whatever kinda stoners you guys wanted to see) but the kind of people they showed exist in great numbers. It had people that were completely fine with it, no negative affects, going to uni and getting on with their lifes etc, aswell as the people that may have had some sort of problem with it (although the girl that "showed psychotic like syptoms" was only like that on high THC and low CBD.. on her normal stuff she was fine..)..

I think everyone here is looking so hard for drug misinformation and "drugs are evil propoganda" they missed alot of points that that programme made. It didn't seem too biased ATALL.
 
Last edited:
The new episode about ecstasy was screened last night and is on IPlayer now.


I thought the cannabis episode was kind of biased so my expectations were low. All in all I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, there was a bit about Leah Betts, but that was only to illustrate how it is possible to die of water intoxication, not some moralising campaign.

The ecstasy users I think expressed their point of views quite well and were not shown as being losers. They came across (when not messy on E) as quite well adjusted and happy with life.

Also showed a couple who used E for therapy successfully.
 
Just finished watching the MDMA episode (02). Not all that bad.. like still leaning towards 'it's bad n can kill you', but lots of positive info made its way in as well, I'd say more good than bad.

Glad to see it made out as medicine more so than poison.
 
^ I thought it was worse than the cannabis one..

When talking about about leah betts it failed to mention how much water she drank and instead blamed it on MDMA's water retaining (anti-diuretic) affect.

Admittedly i didn't see the last half..
 
^ I thought it was worse than the cannabis one..

When talking about about leah betts it failed to mention how much water she drank and instead blamed it on MDMA's water retaining (anti-diuretic) affect.

Admittedly i didn't see the last half..

From Wikipedia (the para seems well referenced)...

An inquest determined that her death was actually not directly due to ecstasy consumption, but rather the result of the large quantity of water she had consumed, apparently in observation of an advisory warning commonly given to ravers to drink water to avoid dehydration resulting from the exertion of dancing continuously for hours. Leah had been at home with friends and had not been dancing, yet consumed about 7 litres (15 pints) of water in less than 90 minutes, resulting in water intoxication and hyponatremia (low sodium levels; in this case due to the dilution of blood), which in turn led to serious swelling of the brain (cerebral oedema), irreparably damaging it. However, SIADH caused by the ecstasy, reducing Betts' ability to urinate, may have exacerbated her hyponatremia. At the inquest it was stated by renowned anti-drug campaigner and toxicologist Professor John Henry (known briefly by the nickname "Mr E"), who had previously warned the public of the danger of ecstasy causing death by dehydration[10], "If Leah had taken the drug alone she might well have survived. If she had drunk the amount of water alone she would have survived."[2]

Though SIADH was also a factor, I think you're right in that the programme's failure to mention how much water she drank was one big "glaring omission" with a flashing light on the top since the sheer amount of water was probably the greater of the two factors.
 
Top