Since 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 Potseeds.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.
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/hi/england/west_midlands/8474532.stm
Do people elsewhere in the country not suffer from MS?
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.