Makes me glad I don’t have cable TV at all, just the Net.
1 Like
From the few videos I’ve seen of this woman’s show (do they call this the “news”?), my impression is that her only job is to stir up controversy and yell at people who disagree with whatever opinion she happens to have.
This is so far from what I’m used to seeing as current affairs programming that it’s unreal.
But really. Let’s say that man really went into a weed-induced psychosis and killed his wife. How is that relevant to any discussion of legal status? If people want weed legalized, it should be. So what if it “kind of, sometimes can be harmful to you”? I’m a socialist who believes in “big government”, but even I think that the job of the government shouldn’t be to make criminals out of people who take risks - it should be to regulate things and inform people in such a way that people are as safe as possible when they take those risks, maybe create permits or some such.
At least decriminalize drugs (and I do mean all drugs), for god’s sake. Making a criminal out of a person who uses, makes or sells a drug is like arresting people who use or own a motor-vehicle or have equipment that have been used to fix or make cars.
2 Likes
I notice you left out pleading “for the children”, which is good because I don’t think the human liver can take that much punishment.
11 Likes
There is zero - and I mean ZERO - credible evidence that cannabis does ANY harm whatsoever.
To quote the, unfortunately-monikered, eminent Professor Dr. David Nutt (and I may be paraphrasing slightly here) “The continued prohibition of cannabis, and subsequent criminalising of the sick and disabled who rely on it as an effective, side-effect-free, medicine, is both inhumane and inhuman”.
Dr. Nutt was, during the last ‘Labour’ government (quotes because they’re Labour in name only these days, there are a few Old Labourites still about, but they’re dying off. Tony Benn went in April last year, but Skinner shows no signs of tiring yet) head of the drugs ‘advisory’ panel. Quotes again because they’re not really there to advise the government on drugs at all, but are merely there in the capacity of yes-men. Dr. Nutt got kicked off because he dared to speak his own mind, not about weed, but about ecstasy (I believe he made the perfectly factual statement that more people die falling off horses every year than die taking ecstasy), but it was at the time when the reclassification of weed was being debated (I don’t think I need clarify Dr. Nutt’s positon).
It was almost decided to leave it at Class C, but then something happened and, suddenly, it was increased to B. I have my own theory that some big Pharma fat cat bunged Gordy a paper bag full of used twenties.
As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t trust CRUK; they have said in the past that weed is more harmful to health than cigs (and I thought I’d saved the article from their website where that statement was made, but can I fecking find it now…?!). You’d have thought, would you not, that a cancer research ‘charity’ (it, like so many ‘charities’ with a disease/organ/gland in their name, is a quango). It’s slogan is ‘Together we’ll beat cancer sooner’ so you’d have thought that they’d be excited that there was so much evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, that CBD was effective at killing some of the most aggressive forms - so why are they so keen to ensure that people believe it to be so deadly…? I get accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t see myself like that, I just see things that don’t smell right and I want to know why the feck they don’t smell right. It’s not a conspiracy - conspiracy theorists (usually) have some kind of an agenda; my only agenda (if you want to call is such) is to expose the truth. When you see kids dying of leukaemia before they’re old enough to start nursery, and you know that there’ve been kids in the US who’ve been cured of exactly the same form because they were able to use CBD oil, you tend to get a tad pissed off.
Furthermore, many folk use it as an analgesic; here in the UK, you can pick up a box of 32 paracetamol for around 80p - that’s MORE than enough to do someone in, should they be thinking like that. Combined with booze, you’d need considerably fewer. This is another thing that annoys me; one person dies from a drug classified under the MoDA, and it’s headline news, but you never hear about the thousands who die, or suffer severe long-term damage, from OTC drugs, do you…?! With the possible exception of heroin and cocaine, no prohibited drug is more lethal in OD than paracetamol (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).
I want to see the MoDA ripped up permanently. Bin it. DESTROY it! It criminalises the sick (and addiction IS an illness), and wastes billions of pounds per annum. Furthermore, it prevents addicts from seeking treatment for fear they’ll end up inside, prohibition doesn’t work. Full stop. Anyone claiming otherwise is deluded.
Instead, I’d introduce drugs ed in schools from Year 7. Accept that kids are going to want to try shit anyway, and let’s educate them on how to do so SAFELY. Those of us old enough to remember the disastrous ‘Just Say “No”’ campaign in the '80s know what effect that had on drug use amongst teenagers. Legalisation takes the edge of excitement off, there’s no real challenge in wanting to try something if it’s legal, is there…?
Okay, rant over. Think I’ve made my point. 
2 Likes
The Peter Principle (something they should teach in more B-schools): Managers rise to their level of incompetence.
Detective Holden: You’re in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down…
Nancy Grace: What one?
Detective Holden: What?
Nancy Grace: What desert?
Detective Holden: It doesn’t make any difference what desert, it’s completely hypothetical.
Nancy Grace: It does matter. I need to know what hydroponic strains I should be on the lookout for.
Detective Holden: You don’t know. Who knows? You look down and see an angiosperm, Nancy. It’s swaying in the breeze…
Nancy Grace: Angiosperm? What’s that?
Detective Holden: [irritated by Nancy’s interruptions] You know what a flowering plant is?
Nancy Grace: Of course!
Detective Holden: Same thing.
Nancy Grace: I’ve never seen a flower… But I understand what you mean.
Detective Holden: You reach down and pull the plant out of the ground, Nancy.
Nancy Grace: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Detective Holden: The angiosperm is dangling in your hands, its roots baking in the hot sun. Wishing for shade and earth, but it can’t get them. Not without your help. But you’re not helping.
Nancy Grace: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I’m not helping?
Detective Holden: I mean: you’re not helping! Why is that, Nancy?
Nancy Grace has become visibly shaken
Detective Holden: They’re just questions, Nancy. In answer to your query, they’re written down for me. It’s a test, designed to provoke an emotional response… Shall we continue?
8 Likes
Well, people who are already susceptible to schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, can (in rare cases) go into a psychosis when using cannabis (and I mean an actual psychotic break, not talking about “feeling a little paranoid”). But again, I stress, this happens to people who are already at risk or already have a psychotic disorder (I know a schizophrenic who had this happened to her); cannabis does not cause it, but it can possibly help trigger a psychotic break in certain people. There are typically multiple factors involved.
So what I’m saying is that if you know that you are genetically predisposed to psychotic disorders, it can be a good idea to use caution with cannabis. On the other hand, many people who do have such tendencies can use cannabis just fine. There are so many factors, and cannabis is just one of them; I want to stress that it certainly does not cause schizophrenia.
Here’s a good link about the issue, which supports the theory that there is a link between cannabis and psychosis, but no causal link has been found: Cannabis and psychosis: what is the link? - PubMed And a review implicating the same thing: [Cannabis and psychosis--a review] - PubMed
I am just saying this because there is no harm in recognizing the possible, even if rare, downsides of cannabis. For example, for some, it can cause feelings of anxiety - for others, it helps with anxiety. Personally, it used to help me a lot with it, but after a few years of on-and-off use, it’s now much likelier to make me feel anxious than it used to (90% of the times I smoke I feel perfectly fine, but I have to watch my set&setting and amount more carefully nowadays). But I have an anxiety disorder, so this is something which I already am very vulnerable to, being exemplified.
It’s similar (though not comparable) to how, while certain stimulants can cause a psychotic break if taken in large amounts, most of the time lack of sleep (not sleeping for days or weeks at a time) is the biggest contributing factor (other than already having a psychotic disorder). You can go into a psychosis just by not sleeping for a very long time, no drugs involved. And countless people use stimulants, both medically and recreationally, without ever going into psychosis. Everyone is different, so know thy self.
Quoted for truth. You’re right, it’s ridiculous. And it’s sad, because similar laws all across the world ruin lives everyday. Having been personally affected by this stupidity they call drug laws and seen so many others have their lives hindered, ruined and literally taken away, by pointless deaths that could’ve been prevented had drugs not been illegal. Right now these laws are only making sure that drug use is as dangerous as possible - inpurities. lack of information, lack of clean equipment, ridiculously high prices, all the result of illegality. And I know it’s even worse there in the States.
That would most certainly work. Netherlands has cannabis that’s practically legal, and yet it’s used less there than in the US and many other countries. When you take away the cool factor, you decrease the amount of usage among the curious, rebellious teens (who are less capable of good decision-making, who do not know their limits and who generally can act pretty stupid due to all the peer pressure, hormones etc). Same works with alcohol - if you make it a taboo, it’ll just make it more desirable to teens. Hell, the same works with sex, the result being teen pregnancy. Of course teens will want to have sex, drink alcohol, smoke cannabis, use other drugs and so on - making sure it’s done as safely as possibly does not have anything to do with condoning the behaviour.
But of course, you BoingBoingers know all this already. If only we could get through to those who so vehemently oppose cannabis and other drugs despite all the evidence that points to drug criminalization does not work! But I’m not holding my breath when even getting the permission to research legit medical uses for drugs is so god damn difficult (a good example is MDMA, where they have finally been able to make some progress - but that’s just one drug, there are hundreds of other possibilities for medical and recreational use).
Support MAPS! http://www.maps.org/
1 Like
I have an incredibly high tolerance for idiots at work, but not in the voluntary context of watching this. I got about three minutes in before I determined I’d seen enough. I’m in law enforcement, and my perspective is that the guy on the left is correct. This kind of thing is an anomaly. I would rather deal with stoned people than drunk people. I’ve broken up countless alcohol driven fights, never a “pot” fueled fight. The only weed related theft I’ve seen was cheetos. The only weed related violence I’ve seen is disputes over the street based pharmacutical trade, which would be eliminated if they just frikkin legalized it already, and I mean nationally.
7 Likes
No matter what subject Nancy Grace talks about I find it really hard to listen to her b/c she is so repugnant.
I made it to around 5 minutes. Love Zeni’s tweet!!! .
Like it on principle, hate it because there is now an image I can’t get out of my head.
Detective Holden: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about your fiancé.
Nancy Grace: My fiancé?
Detective Holden: Yeah.
Nancy Grace: Let me tell you about my fiancé…
5 Likes
According to a cursory googling, it would appear that the LD50 in rats for Acetaminophen and MDMA is 1944mg/kg and in the range of 90mg/kg to 300mg/kg respectively.
This doesn’t say anything about the statistics in humans though.
[Finishes two drinks]
2 Likes
She would flip that tortoise upside down and watch it disinterestedly for days.
4 Likes
Pot is way less harmful than alcohol. The most dangerous thing about it is that people forget things on it. Like forgetting that they are not safe to drive a car because they have been smoking and driving for years. Real people kill real people by doing stupid things on pot like driving. Not just stupid-entertaining things like trying to have a fact based discussion with Nancy Grace.
Cathy Jones of Canada’s tv show 22 Minutes has a hilarious series of parodies of Nancy (“the Panic Room with Betty Hope”). Check out some samples on youtube https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=panic+room+betty+hope
5 Likes
I’ll start worrying about the number of people stoned people kill while behind the wheel the day it even begins to approach the number of people drunk drivers kill.
1 Like
I think that Scott Adams took it to the next level with The Dilbert Principle. 
2 Likes
Wait, you mean this isn’t some sort of comedy routine? Man, I thought she was the next Stephen Colbert!
