Your browser is no longer supported.

Please upgrade to a modern browser.

Top Menu

5% Discount on Legal Highs, Salvia Divinorum and Everything Else From The Coffeesh0p

Some More Excellent Editing By The BBC

By John Clarke

ChargeSince we watched and reviewed that BBC doc­u­ment­ary Can I Get High Legally? a while back, you may remem­ber Matt Bowden, one of the people inter­viewed, had some much more inter­est­ing points to make than those they actu­ally showed in the doc­u­ment­ary. Chris from Pot​seeds​.co​.uk said a similar thing — they spent about three hours talking about all sorts of inter­est­ing stuff, which was edited down to a couple of sen­tences on Salvia divinorum and a joke about Horny Goat Weed.

I’ve recently been in touch with “Sam” (not his real name), the user of research chem­ic­als inter­viewed at the end of the program, and it’s no sur­prise that the same thing happened to him too. He com­men­ted on our review saying “What a fucking farse. I sat there an hour giving them a detailed inter­view about the state of affairs in the industry and they cut it down to fuck all and made me look like a fool.” Since every research chem­ical user I’ve spoken to (exclud­ing those only inter­ested in mephed­rone) have all been at least reas­on­ably intel­li­gent, and at least two other pro-drugs inter­views were heavily edited, it seemed highly likely that Sam was telling the truth.

Once again, its down to me to report the full story. Here’s Sam’s recol­lec­tion of the events:

They asked me about my drug history.  I explained about using can­nabis since I was 13 and research chem­ic­als, which I informed them I started research­ing at the age of 16, before con­sum­ing 2C-B at age 18, using correct safety pre­cau­tions. They then asked me to list the research chem­ic­als I had taken, then cut them down to only the legal list (which they got wrong).

They asked who I exper­i­mented with. I told them gen­er­ally if one of us found an inter­est­ing chem­ical we would explore it with the same group of 8 to 10 friends.

He asked what I gained from using these sub­stance. I explained that these chem­ic­als give me an insight on a per­cep­tion of this world which only a few thou­sand people in the whole world will have exper­i­enced. It’s a little piece of insight. Or out­sight!

All the drugs shown in the inter­view were their own which they had ordered. They ask me to explain how they were similar. After showing the sub­stances to me they remarked about the purity of the mephed­rone (75%). I explained this was prob­ably a retailer issue as most major man­u­fac­tur­ers produce quality chem­ic­als. Our 2C-B HCL tested at 98.9%. I remarked about Dutch bacon being 90% water from certain man­u­fac­tur­ers yet they didn’t com­plain…

Why did I not want to be seen? As this is a doc­u­ment­ary on national TV and me being about to gradu­ate, it may spoil my career if someone were to recog­nise me act­ively pro­mot­ing these activ­it­ies. Admis­sion to illegal activ­ity on national TV would guar­an­tee me prob­lems even if I chose to con­tinue them.

I explained the age old idea of the gov­ern­ment con­trolling these drugs prop­erly and using the pro­ceeds to better our world. The problem with drugs is pro­pa­ganda and the use of them as a weapon or as a tool for control and dom­in­a­tion (some places vary with this). Wanting to get high is natural and every­one does it in their own way. We have been put into a pos­i­tion where we are forced to pick from only a spe­cific list of intox­ic­ants based on what’s socially accept­able, dic­tated by upbring­ing, reli­gion and cor­por­ate med­dling.

These drugs should be made under quality con­trolled con­di­tions, taxed and used sens­ibly. We as a whole need to open our eyes.

I think we now have over­whelm­ing evid­ence that this doc­u­ment­ary was far from bal­anced, and inten­tion­ally mis­lead­ing. They just did such a bad job of it, it was pain­fully obvious from the begin­ning..

2 Responses to Some More Excellent Editing By The BBC

  1. Doobz says:

    It is fairly obvious that the BBC display a certain lack of impar­ti­al­ity, and it isn’t just in the drug arena.
    Noticed this story and wondered why it is deemed to be worthy only of the local news.
    http://​news​.bbc​.co​.uk/​1​/​h​i​/​e​n​g​l​a​n​d​/​w​e​s​t​_​m​i​d​l​a​n​d​s​/​8​4​7​4​5​3​2​.​stm

    Do people else­where in the country not suffer from MS?

  2. Bonsai says:

    I just watched this doc­u­ment­ary after check­ing out your review and wow. So biased and idiotic. The editing was so obvious. It came across as a bunch of fear-mon­ger­ing instead of a real and honest ana­lysis of legal drugs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: