Thanks guys. They seem to particularly target this thread for some reason, so I'll close now.
The Catalonians need to get over themselves.
Would you also agree that the Spanish government should stop sentencing political leaders it finds troublesome to very long jail terms?
The drawn-out inclusion of the Wolf sequence was badly misjudged. His local company went belly-up in January and the man’s past is well-documented. Why waste airtime giving him a platform like this? The production company had eight months to fix this, or to at least inform us about the conflict between this person’s business and interpersonal skills. Poor show.
Quite. He should never have been given the platform. I'm sure they wanted him for colour, but it was a terrible editorial choice.
An opportunity sadly lost.
There's talk of a Part 3 focused specifically on our options, which would help.
In their (partial) defence, much of the material was assembled late last year and early this year (I was interviewed last November), so it would have been well into production when the Cabinet paper came out in May.
So I've heard. But that was four months ago. TV documentaries often get fiddled with right up till the week of broadcast, so they could have done it.
There’s still an urgent need for discussion around the proposed rules and whether we’re getting those right, but the general lack of evidence for increased use in places where cannabis has been legalized suggests we may be worrying too much.
I really want to hear – and I guess be part of – the regulatory and licensing discussion. As California is showing, that makes a huge difference to outcomes and the nature of the business. I need to read up a bit more on how Washington state did it – from what I hear, it does seem like Seattle is the place in the US where the whole thing has integrated best.
It is 1994! I've added a line to clarify which is the original Planet text.
I’d love to know what the Drug Foundation said in 1994. Was the ED Ross Henderson? He would have said something sensible, I’m sure.
It was indeed Ross Henderson. And he sensibly said:
If you go to prison, a lot of people there are in for cultivation of cannabis and supply. If you go to the East Coast, you’ll fund a hell of a lot of people doing it to support their families. So what would you do?”
“Our approach is really clear.. We would start by making sure people are really well informed on the subject of cannabis. The first part of that is really the health effects and we would focus intensively on that. With the current status of the drug, it’s very hard to get across the level of health effects. In terms of cannabis use, people really need to know.
“Some educators believe that the only message you should put across is that it’s bad, bad, bad, don’t go anywhere near it, which doesn’t work for someone already using it. And it’s a great pity, because it undermines people’s ability to take notice of health issues around cannabis. It’s so dangerous because people need to be aware of the carcinogenics that are actually in cannabis.”
Okay, not all of it was sensible, but the belief at the time was clearly that cannabis was seriously carcinogenic. The doctor’s piece also cited a whole bunch of stuff – lung and jaw cancers, a link to childhood leukaemia – that no one really credits now.
Corollary 1: different survey techniques / data sources will capture different clusters with different levels of success (resulting in different overall demographic profiles for ethnicity, income, and range of medical conditions cited).
There wasn't really a survey technique possible here, it was just a matter of letting people know, in the first place via existing MC networks on Facebook etc. So what we might be getting a picture of is the medicinal cannabis community, as such. Plus my audience :-)