BBC – State Funded Skunk Sensationalism (with no scientific support)


BBC launch scare monger campaign against ‘skunk’ cannabis after ITV shows the true side and harm that current drug policy of prohibition itself is causing – rather than cannabis.

BBC-BiasIn an article published online alongside a video filmed in Nottingham, aired on the 28th of October to promote BBC Inside Out, claims are made about the increased use of cannabis and concern expressed over the amount being smoked by young people. Here we have broken down each sentence that the BBC published and look over some of the blind-sighted statements made – or, for better use of a word, propaganda. It’s all bad, bad, bad, but not one mention of the medical side of cannabis. GW Pharmaceuticals are licensed to grow 300 tonnes a year.

Dangers of skunk must be reinforced warn health experts

28 October 2013 Last updated at 13:33 GMT

  • Skunk is the strong form of cannabis, high in the chemical THC, which has become increasingly popular with UK drug users.

Very true, “Skunk” is pretty much the British word for Sensimillia “cannabis without seed”. This means it produces more resin as it doesn’t have to put energy into reproducing seed. Not many people like smoking cannabis with seeds in. It’s oily, crackles, tastes and feels harsher to smoke – not to mention more harmful chemicals are inhaled when seeds are burned. There may be more ‘skunk’ on the market than regular, bush weed but that’s because people are making informed decisions and the market has adapted to that.

  • The drug is known to increase the risk of anxiety and paranoia amongst those who smoke it, resulting in an increasing number of referrals for mental health treatment.

It would be beneficial to support statements like this with actual statistics rather than just making the claim and expecting your readership to just believe you – because you are the BBC and you work under a Royal Charter which means you have to be unbiased. If cannabis was sold under a regulated framework consumers would be able to choose the strength and level of CBD:THC ratio that their cannabis had rather than being left to the hands of dealers that just want the money and don’t are about any potential negative outcomes.

  • The number of people in treatment for mental health problems after smoking cannabis has gone up by a third in the past six years in the UK.

Again, where are these figures coming from?

  • David Manley from the Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust says it is not unusual for him to meet young people who smoke 20-30 skunk joints each day.

Nottingham Council need to start providing more activities and better facilities for today’s youths. Young people typically get into drug habits when there is not much else to do to stimulate their minds. Invest in our youth and inspire their creative minds – don’t blame cannabis.

More worryingly it doesn’t take a GW Pharmaceuticals scientist to work out that smoking 20-30 joints a day would be a hell of a lot of cannabis. Where are all these youths getting it from? And how are they affording it? Quite simply – they aren’t (but don’t let the Tories make you think that it’s being paid for by benefit cheques)!

A 2013 study from the Centers for Disease Control in the United States found that a person with a mental illness was 70% more likely to smoke [tobacco] than a person without a mental disorder. Misdiagnosing cannabis use because of a raving nicotine addiction in an patient with an underlying mental health problem is not going to help them.

These youths quite clearly have a tobacco addiction (legally available – government sanctioned drug) as it has been culture in the UK to cut cannabis with tobacco. Why no one seems to batter an eye lid at the fact that some young people are smoking 30-40 cigarettes a day is beyond me. There is a legal age for buying tobacco in the UK and that is 18, only raised up from 16 in recent years. Teen use has been declining since 2006 and this is most likely due to sending out a stronger message by using Health Warning Labels and introducing the smoking ban in public and work places, rather than the threat of a criminal record as is the case with cannabis.

Action on Smoking and Health – Young People and Smoking (July 2013)

David Manley, according to the National Statistics on Smoking 2011 “Smoking was estimated to cost the NHS in the UK £5.2 billion in 2005/06” – I would be more worried about this.

“In 2010, it is estimated that almost one in five deaths in England of people over 35 years of age were due to smoking. Over a third of all deaths from respiratory diseases and almost three in ten of all deaths from cancers in this population are estimated to be caused by smoking. A higher proportion of smoking attributed deaths were seen for men (23%) compared to women (14%).”

Cannabis use has never resulted in death and even smoking cannabis (pure) has been shown to actually improve lung function and reduce cancer risks (Tashkin, et al, UCLA, 2005). Here is also an article by Pf. David Nutt outlining why the British Lung Foundations evidence against claiming cannabis is more harmful than tobacco is quite simply void of accuracy.

From my experience as a person that travels around to many parts of the UK I can say that enforcement of youth tobacco consumption has never entered my radar but the number of youths I have seen smoking cigarettes in town centres is always the same.

There is no legal age for buying cannabis because no ID is required as there are no controls over the black market drugs trade. If the claims that cannabis is so harmful were true – wouldn’t you expect them to introduce measures to stop young people being able to get hold of it?

  • Peter Moyes, director of the Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership, wants a clearer message about the health dangers associated with skunk to be given to young people.

Stop lying to them and you might get a better response. Just a thought.

  • Inside Out’s Sarah Sturdey meets two young adults called Jackson, 18, and Jacob, 20, from Nottingham who explain why they smoke skunk despite the warnings.

Well done to Jackson and Jacob for standing and representing cannabis consumers where it counts. Prefering cannabis to alcohol is not uncommon and when giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee reviewing Drugs Policy, Pf David Nutt speaking for the Independent Scientific Council on Drugs, proposed that around 20% of people would switch to using cannabis from alcohol as their first choice of recreational drug were it to be legally regulated.

  • Inside Out is broadcast on Monday, 28 October at 19:30 GMT on BBC One East Midlands and nationwide on the iPlayer for seven days thereafter.

Or you can watch it here:

Most of the points I have made all pretty much explain the same thing – people who use cannabis quite often do so by making an informed decision. As adults we have decided that 18 is the age when you are better at making informed decisions and your body is ready for you to put consciousness altering substances such as alcohol, nicotine and hopefully, sooner rather than later, cannabis. In the United States of America, Washington and Colorado have legalized and are regulating the sale of cannabis to 21 year olds and above (the same as their legal drinking age).

Why do the BBC fail to give an informed, rational and balanced account of an issue that has so much global attention currently? Are they just bad at reporting or is there more of an agenda here, only feeding their audience a specific agenda and bias?

What do you think of the BBCs coverage on cannabis? On teen cannabis use? On teen tobacco use? Leave your comments below.

Nottingham Cannabis Club

13 thoughts on “BBC – State Funded Skunk Sensationalism (with no scientific support)

  1. “I am against Prohibition because it has set the cause of temperence back
    twenty years; because it has substituted an ineffective campaign of
    force for an effective campaign of education; because it has replaced
    comparatively uninjurious light wines and beers with the worst kind of
    hard liquor and bad liquor; because it has increased drinking not only
    among men but has extended drinking to women and even children.”
    William Randolph Hearst (initially a supporter of alcohol Prohibition,
    explaining his change of mind in), 1929

    “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
    Edmund Burke, 1791

    Substitute the word ‘cannabis’ for ‘liquor’, and ‘smoking’ for ‘drinking’, and it’s not hard to see that BBC Nottingham simply don’t know history, and are happy to see it endlessly repeated……

  2. Marajuana use is related to paranoia.. There are plenty of statistics to prove it. What they don’t identify though is that most paranoia is a result of fear of the police or fear of gangs and social paranoia occurs based on stigma associated with marajuana use. People are afraid of marajuana because they are afraid of the social connotations of marajuana, that is that it is related to other organised criminal activities. If we remove the stigma and the crime from marajuana there is no reason it can not be used safely and responsibly, if not more so.

    1. Of course the new crime will be the tax we have to pay on it and that it will be regulated by pharmaceutical companies.. This is the real crime

  3. The UK’s Misuse of Drugs Act, is an Act for
    the regulation and control of dangerous drugs; not the prohibition of
    drugs. Our government continue to claim
    that criminalising its citizens without any proper basis in law is, somehow,
    being done to protect people; protecting people being the true basis for and
    the intension of The UN Single Convention (aka UN Opiates Act ), on which the
    UK’s Misuse of Drugs Act is supposed to be based!

    The possession, production and supply of Cannabis
    is deemed illegal because of the claim
    it has ‘no medical value’ and despite evidence to the contrary is considered a
    dangerous drug with ‘potential for harm and abuse’. The truth is that the UK
    resisted the inclusion of cannabis into UN Opiates Act; as having lost the
    cotton fields of Egypt it was considering a return to hemp production to
    safeguard employment in the cotton mills of Northern England. However an
    inducement was offered to supply twenty years of subsidised cotton from the USA
    to obtain the UK’s signature and the more inclusive Single Convention was drafted
    (The real reason for the shutdown of the UK clothing industry in 1983 was the
    end of this subsidy))

    The claim that keeping the possession,
    production and supply of cannabis illegal is to protect the public is farcical.
    How is allowing free reign to organised crime to pollute / contaminate the drug
    supply with dangerous adulterants in order to increase their profit, supposed
    to help protect anyone? Let alone the vulnerable! The words from Mr
    Cameron’s first speech in parliament
    “fresh thinking and a new approach” to drug policy comes to mind, as does his
    other statements “Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common
    denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after
    crackdown” and then there was “Drugs policy has been failing for decades”; As a member of the Home Affairs Select
    Committee he stated “that the government
    at the time should initiate a discussion at the United Nations to consider
    alternative ways, including the possibility of legalisation and regulation, to
    tackle the global drugs problem”; all of which glow as beacons of hypocrisy in
    the light of his recent claims over “very very toxic cannabis”. This leaves many of us wondering if some
    agency other than the elected government and its Prime Minister decide our
    nation’s drug policy.

    If cannabis has no medical value why was
    £10 million handed over to Dr Geoffrey Guy to establish his company G & W
    Pharmaceuticals (Guy &Watson Pharmaceuticals) and succour the seed stock of
    Hortipham NL? This company GW Phama (a
    small British Start up) is in fact part of Beyer Pharmaceuticals and produces
    30 tons of cannabis a year in the UK to make Sativex. Sativex the “medicine” made from
    cannabis the “drug of little or no medical value” with “potential for
    harm and abuse”.

    For anyone to ague that cannabis in its raw
    form is a dangerous and highly toxic class B drug of no medical value is now
    unsupportable, as is the argument that is extract are more dangerous and presumably
    even more toxic. The hypocrisy of this
    position is underlined by the fact that Sativex is currently being
    gerrymandered into schedule 4, part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act as a medicine
    of little or no known risk of harm or abuse. It is even more ridiculous to try to argue
    that by adding two forms of alcohol (substances with a known risk of abuse and
    harm) to these extracts of a class B drug metamorphosis’s them into a
    “medicine” of little or no known risk of harm or abuse” suitable for
    listing under schedule 4; unless it’s the Peppermint that nullifies the risks
    posed by all the other ingredients and is responsible for their conversion of

    This whole proposition is a lie and a clear
    example of gerrymandering, unsupportable in fact! It is now arguable that cannabis
    is legal or at least as legal as Aspirin!

    Unless Cannabis has taken on quantum
    properties it can not exist in more than one state.

    Earl Howe has confirmed that there is
    essentially no difference in the cannabis contained in Sativex and natural
    uncontaminated herbal cannabis. Both are cannabis, and cannabis is confirmed as
    the only ingredient of any medicinal value in the “Medicine” Sativex.

    Let’s look at Sativex and the feeble
    attempt to justify the government’s position that Sativex is a ‘different product’,
    its ridiculous! As is the claim it is a medicine of quantifiable ingredients,
    only 5 of the 83 ingredients being at a measured dose, which leaves 78
    cannabinoids at an unregulated, unquantifiable level. What is Sativex, it is whole plant extract
    mixed with two types of alcohol (substances of known harm and risk of abuse) infused
    with peppermint oil. Basically nothing more than ‘O’Shaughnessy tincture’ as
    was brought back from India by Sir William Brooke 0’Shuaghnessy in 1841 and was
    part of the British pharmacopeia until the inclusion of cannabis in the Single
    Convention. In the 1930’s over 2000 medical preparations of cannabis were
    available; all are now considered illegal.

    Now let us look at the origin of the seeds
    used, Hortipham its directors and their Licence to produce cannabis seed and
    conduct research. Several FOI request have been made of the Home Office in
    relation to the following, unfortunately the Home Office whilst admitting they
    have information pertaining to the questions raised claim that it would take
    them over the financial limit placed on supplying said information. In one
    reply and stated in the other that to do so may undermine the financial
    security of the company!

    One of Hortiphams directors is believed to
    be Robert Connell Clarke author of Marijuana Botany – a guide to breeding
    distinctive cannabis strains, a book that has ‘informed’ most other illegal/clandestine
    cannabis seed breeders worldwide.

    The other Director is David Watson aka Sam
    the Skunkman aka Sam Selezny, the Man who first introduced Skunk cannabis to

    It has been publicly claimed that David
    Watson was a ‘junior member’ of the Sacred Seed Collective, Santa Cruz, California, when it was raided by the DEA
    in 1985.

    Sam Selezny was the name on the passport he
    used when he ‘apparently’ fled the USA’s Drug Enforcement Agency to avoid
    criminal prosecution; carrying with him the dubiously obtained Cannabis
    genetics (250,000 cannabis seeds) and the research of the Sacred
    Seed Collective.

    Sometime after his arrival in Holland a
    ‘licence’ for research was obtained from the Dutch Department of Health. ‘Sam
    the skunk man’ was born; as David Watson was known to the criminal underworld
    of Holland’s cannabis growers and cannabis seed producers, of which he was the
    major player. One who used his ‘licence’
    to provide seeds to most of the cannabis seed companies in the Netherlands for almost
    three decades. He was the only seed
    breeder who could guarantee the safety of the crop due to his ‘licence’ other
    breeders, his contemporaries being routinely arrested and their crops

    Prior’ to the UK Governments financing of GW Pharmaceuticals a French
    pharmaceutical company looking to make cannabis based medicine was trying to
    find the directors of Hortipharm due to them having a ‘licence’ and contacted
    the Dutch Authorities, who knew nothing of the licence and launched an inquiry. No individual or Department would admit to
    providing this ‘licence and deciding it was apparently fraudulently
    obtained. It was withdrawn by the Dutch
    Government halting all seed production in the Netherlands as a consequence.

    I believe it is illegal to make a cannabis
    based medicine using seeds from a non licensed company; Hortipharms dubiously
    obtained licence was withdrawn long before GW Pharmaceuticals bought into their
    seed stock making this medicine an ‘illegal’ product. It is also illegal for government to gift
    public money to any company having more than a 80% market share, G.W (Guy
    &Watson?) Pharmaceuticals have a 100% monopoly backed up by criminal
    sanctions against any competition.

    Much has been made of the Cannabis causes
    psychosis hypothesis and the Keele University was asked by the Government and
    the Advisory Counsel on the Misuse of Drugs to conduct a study into the reality;
    This involved 600,000 UK citizens aged 15-47 (the at risk group), it was
    conducted during the decade that it was claimed saw a 30 times increase in
    strengths of ‘skunk’ types of cannabis, the same decade as it was claimed saw a
    huge increase in the numbers of young people using this ‘new’ cannabis. The results were then compared with the
    preceding two decades to identify and confirm the rise in the percentage of the
    population suffering from psychosis. The
    results showed a drop in the percentage of the population suffering
    psychosis. This study was then marked
    for academic access only and has never been referred to by any politician
    since; it has to all intents and purposes been buried, its facts not supporting
    the hypothesis. The reality is that like
    alcohol those prepossessed to psychosis should avoid its use, it does not make
    ordinary people psychotic.

    Vested interests over the business’s run by
    our political elite are the real reasons behind resisting any change in the
    drug laws. They have investments in
    alcohol, tobacco, prisons and the justice machinery. Add that to the fact that legalising drugs
    will bring into sharp perspective the 40 odd years of lies and deception that
    they have used to keep them illegal, this they will resist as they will never
    admit their lies!!! The UK Government are to put it blatantly engaged in an
    attempt to privatise and illegally monopolise the medical cannabis industry here in the UK and
    beyond, they are hand in glove with GW pharmaceuticals who are ‘housed’ at
    Porton Down. Our government is willing
    to allow citizens of all the countries that signed the Schengen agreement to
    consume natural cannabis as a medicine in the UK yet criminalise UK residents
    to protect commercial interest; such blatant hypocrisy and double dealing/double
    standards could only come from British parliamentarians.

  4. I had already made a very informed complaint to the BBC and I would encourage others to do the same and express their views. I will most likely be releasing my complaint and subsequent responce… when i get one.

  5. Im dumbfounded by this complete nonsense, This exactly what REGULATION will sort out, Underage smoking of the substance. Somebody needs to do a proper video on this and Medical values.

Comments are closed.