BBC Three
« Previous | Main | Next »

60seconds Sam: The Cannabis Factsheet

Weed, ganja, hash, pot, dope, grass, marijuana...the sheer number of nicknames this drug has should give you a pretty good idea about how common it is. In fact, the latest government figures show that cannabis - despite being illegal - is used by around one in six 16-24 year olds.

But how much do you actually know about it? Do you know what it does to the brain? Why do some people end up hooked? Well, as part of BBC Three's Dangerous Pleasures Season, we're taking a unique look at exactly how cannabis affects the body. With a little help from the latest CGI, How Drugs Work: Cannabis follows its journey through the body from the very moment it's smoked or eaten.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.


So, how much do we know about cannabis? What exactly is it?
The drug's produced from parts of the cannabis plant, which is grown all over the world. It comes in two main forms:
  • Hash is a solid lump made from the resin of the plant.
  • Grass is the dried leaves and flowering parts of the plant.

What are the risks?
Getting stoned isn't necessarily the harmless pastime that some people think it is. Cannabis can lead to paranoia and anxiety, and experts reckon using skunk is riskier because it has higher levels of tetrahydrocannabino (THC).
  • THC can lower blood pressure, making the heart beat faster and increasing the risk of a heart attack.
  • Anyone with a history of mental illness is at a greater risk of developing a serious psychotic condition, like schizophrenia.
  • Heavy use can lead to dependence on the drug, which makes quitting harder - sleep problems, mood swings and loss of appetite are just some of the withdrawal symptoms.

What are some of the effects?
The main active ingredient is tetrahydrocannabino (THC). It goes straight to the brain, resulting in a so-called 'buzz':
  • Many users say it helps them chill out, leaving them happy and relaxed.
  • Some of those questioned in How Drugs Work: Cannabis claimed it heightened their senses.
  • The drug is also thought to have medical benefits, mainly pain relief . Some scientists also say it can help relieve nausea in cancer patients who are having chemotherapy.
You can find out more about cannabis and its effects on Radio 1's The Surgery website.

What about the law?
It's illegal to have or sell the drug in Britain. Two years ago, cannabis was upgraded from Class C to Class B. Ministers said they had to make the change because of worries about its impact on mental health. It means getting caught with cannabis carries some serious penalties, including unlimited fines:
  • Possession - up to a maximum of five years in prison.
  • Supply - if you sell it, or even give it away to your mates, you face up to 14 years in prison.

There's more information on cannabis, as well as help and advice, on the following websites: Find out more about the How Drugs Work series:
Journalist Sam Naz presents the 60seconds news bulletins on BBC Three

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 2.

    The BBC exploration of cannabis in "how drugs work" bears hallmarks of political correctness and came across as preaching in support of a hidden, moral agenda to the young, nervous and unsure, despite the overlay of up-beat music and techno-effects. One wonders about the sincerity of the program makers.

    Abattoir science blended suspiciously with empty platitude as the vehicle of "knowledge". So how much are we supposed to learn from pictures of human innards and brain dendrites juxtaposed with a commentary that includes vacuous or loaded notions such as "buzz" and "herbal terrorism"?

    Tests for mental illness and intelligence reflected the ambitions revealed in the clinical model of human behaviour to suppose that anything that doesn't fit in with everyday experience is either pathological or impairment. Inebbriated smokers are badgered by "scientists" to the point of paranoia. Altered states and visons are interpreted as pathological hallucinations, an inability to cope with everyday tasks while inebbriated is, well, come-on guys, hardly unexpected but surely not the point?

    So yes, we were being preached at in a modern way. What's particularly galling is being aware of the possibility that the program makers themselves might smoke, and may have abandoned their own common-sense view of the drug in order to say the correct thing.

    The show of bringing us knowledge about cannabis is very, very, uconvincing - to say the least, but no doubt there will be people swayed by the programs cynical attempt to portray the morally correct, fausty, politically sanctioned position in this modern, up-beat format. Just who sponsored the moral thrust of this program? do tell.

  • Comment number 3.

    Your program on Cannabis is yet another program highlighting the negative affects of the drug on a small persentage of people that take it.
    I and the vast majority of users do not suffer these problems and only experience a very positive effect.
    I personally have been using cannabis on and off for over 20yrs as my recreational drug of choice, I can take it of leave it.
    I'm a successful business man and in very good health which flies in the face of your evidence!
    It seems unfair that cannabis users face possible jail yet alcohole is legal and negatively effects a vastly higher number of people!

  • Comment number 4.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 5.

    to end this programme with an idiot saying if everyone smoked cannibas then there would be no wars just shows how ignorant you all are

  • Comment number 6.

    Well this was an interesting program full of inaccurate facts,
    Scare mungery at its best. well done the BBC for another rubbish
    program, Watch Run From The Cure instead just google it and watch.
    Learn the TRUTH ! Don't say NO ! Until you KNOW ?

  • Comment number 7.

    Hi, I thought to pop in just to congratulate you for this new comedy...it was just hilarious and full of sarcasm the episode of today. I'm looking forward for the next episode !

  • Comment number 8.

    This documentary is rubbish, alot of it was mis-explained and biased against cannabis.

    I used to LOVE BBC documentarys and watch them on a very regular basis but now I don't think I am going to trust them untill they start making HONEST documentarys.

    This show has made me loose my faith in anything the BBC has to say purely because it shows how much they are mis-informing the nation.

  • Comment number 9.

    I was looking forward to this program, but once again was disappointed at some of the inaccuracies.
    Skunk is not 'genetically enginneered', it is selectively bred. Pollen from a desirable male plant is used to pollinate a desirable female plant, producing seeds which are then grown out. The process is repeated, discarding plants with undesirable qualities/traits. Exactly the same principle as used for breeding everything from tomatoes and roses, to cattle, horses and dogs.

  • Comment number 10.

    Legalise the herb!

    I Ride home on two miles on my bmx every night. I have never hallucinated or got paranoid that police have been following me. My attendance in school has not dropped, my grades have not dropped.

    Why is this drug illegal or even a class B drug.
    I believe its more than just health risks, but the money that the government fails to claim on tax because it is done without the establishing realizing weather it is legal or not.

    Keeping police on the on the streets spends the money and police time that could be used to tackle bigger issues, like rape, murder and theft.

  • Comment number 11.

    I was looking forward to this show, hoping for a reasonably balanced debate, but alas no. I stopped paying it attention after laughing at the phrase "herbal terrorist".

    A shame, I was hoping for more, and this sets up the expectation that the rest of the Dangerous Pleasures series will be in the same vein (no pun intended).

  • Comment number 12.

    The government has only made this drug illegal because of tax. It all comes down to money, cigarettes and alcohol kill more people in the UK per year than cannabis. I myself or anyone else i know that smokes weed have never experienced paranoia or any other side affect. Cannabis will never be legal unless the government find a way to tax it, which i find appalling. People should be allowed to smoke this drug as long as the side affects are made known to the smoker, we should be allowed to make our own choices. If this drug is made legal to people over the age of 18 then why not? We are adults, who are the government to say what we can and cannot do? As long as we don't harm another human (which is impossible to do on weed, well for me anyway) then why can't we? We the public make britain what it is and we are never allowed to speak up, never allowed to make our own choices, the government makes all our choices, they are allowed to speak from every newspaper, television set and radio, their views are heard but we are never allowed to speak back. Britain is run by people that only care about money and what can benefit them, not us.

  • Comment number 13.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 14.

    There was some good information in this program but overall it was spoilt by the usual hyperbole delivery by the narrater especially those of terror and hijacking of the brain etc...

    There were a number of other issues which I would address.

    1/ During the part where the teens are eating the cannabis flap jacks and wandering through the park. In the background there is a sound recording of what is a 911 call so not a UK example of someone claiming to basically be dead already from eating a cannabis edible. This in fact is a 911 call made by an American policeman who was found guilty oftaking canabis from people he arrested and made cannabis edibles for himselfand his wife. The call was a result of them having a paranioa attack so its a fair example of that but it should have been highlighted as part of the corruption in the existing system if it was going to be used.

    2/ The professor from University College London doing the vapouriser tests at the end recommends using what she considers lower THC based products including Hash. Hashis in the UK is a very polluted product adulterated with Henna Wax, Boot Polish, Ketamine, Herion, A prescription drug with the street name DF's and many other substances.
    So I doubt these would give any health benefit other than to cause more serious problems from the adulterants.
    Alternatively the proper production method for real Hashish involves knocking the THC glands from the plant and pressing into a solid bock so where real Hashish is available and not adulterated substances Hashish is stronger in THC than most "herbal cannabis".

    Also on this part, why does the lady not think she is smoking skunk as in the generic term not strain specific when smoking Thai Weed. More than likely the Thai strain she buys has been grown indoors in the exact same set-up as growing the strain Skunk. The fact it tested lower is probably because
    a) The so called 20% THC on packet of seeds is as much marketing hype as claiming a 50% reduction in aging for a skin cream
    b) When actually grown by the grower depending on technique it would be lucky to hit 12% THC and if purchased wet the psychoactive transformation has not fully taken place further reducing the THC potency level.

    SO in fact where someone buys the real Skunk strain, is grown by an amature and then sold wet they would be lucky if they actually were receiving a dose of 2% THC

    3/ The last reall constant hype to be addressed is this constant referal to SKunk being gentical engineered. This portrays the impression of scientists in white suits splitting the cannabis seed gene before sticking it back together 50 times stronger. This is laughable, the only thing that has happened is enhancemnet through natural or genetic selection. This is where the offspring of a mating are selected based on desireable qualities. These are further interbred in order to promote these desirable qualities.

    The plants are kept female throughout growth but this is simply to maintain if possible potency. It is not possible indoors to grow real hash producing plants such as those grown on high mountain ranges such as the Kush region this is dueto the higher UV at altitude making the plant produce ,ore THC glands for UV protection. SO it is UV that increases the THC potency not the lack of breeding. Preventing the plant from pollination merely prevents the plant from directing its energy to seed production and using the glands produced in that process.

    Unless you spend hours cleaning seeds out of your bag of weed then you are probably smoking something grown indoors.

  • Comment number 15.

    Cannabis withdrawal
    At one time cannabis was considered a drug that had no withdrawal symptoms because users did not display symptoms similar to those withdrawing from alcohol or opiates. Contrary to this, experimental research supports reports of users who relate evidence of heavy cannabis use producing psychological and physical withdrawal symptoms.
    Kouri and Pope examined withdrawal symptoms over 28 days abstinence from cannabis, while Budney et al. looked at a time period of abstinence of 45 days.  Their study assessed withdrawal symptoms among chronic cannabis users who were assessed daily on various symptoms while on a hospital ward for 28 days. They rated mood, anxiety, depression and irritability and compared them to those of two control groups of abstinent former heavy cannabis users and non-users of cannabis. Chronic cannabis users showed decreases in mood and appetite and increases in irritability, anxiety, physical tension and physical symptoms and their scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scale increased. Both studies used urinalysis to ensure abstinence, and showed that withdrawal symptoms began within 1–3 days of abstinence and lasted for 10–14 days.  According to Budney et al., the withdrawal syndrome associated with cannabis use is similar to that for tobacco but of lesser magnitude than withdrawal from other drugs like opiates or alcohol. Significantly, evidence indicates that withdrawal symptoms are alleviated when cannabis users resume using cannabis after a period of abstinence.  And recent laboratory research has focused on the role of brain chemistry in cannabis dependence. As with other drugs such as heroin, cannabis increases the production of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with rewarding feelings. Budney et al. argue that the upkeep of this neurotransmitter may motivate people to use cannabis in an addictive way.
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

  • Comment number 16.

    Cannabis (Marijuana) is a green, brown, or grey mixture of dried, shredded leaves, stems, seeds, and flowers of the hemp plant. Marijuana has a chemical in it called tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as THC. All forms of marijuana are mind-altering (psychoactive). In other words, they change how the brain works. A lot of other chemicals are found in marijuana, too — about 400 of them, some of which are carcinogenic. Marijuana is addictive with more teens in treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined. Using marijuana can also lead to disturbed perceptions and thoughts, and marijuana use can worsen psychotic symptoms in people who have schizophrenia.
    Additionally, there are higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking among people who use marijuana when compared to people who don't use. Teens who started using marijuana before age 15 are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression in early adulthood.  A new study shows that smoking marijuana is associated with a 40% increase risk of psychosis, and the risk is greater among regular and frequent users.
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

  • Comment number 17.

    Your so out of date with medicinal cannabis please get your findings correct I am sick to death with all the lies that are portrayed over this plant the government are so behind the times you need to get better information on cannabis issues

  • Comment number 18.

    Ok, maybe you might want to hear my perspective on this program moaning youths ;) I started smoking cannabis when I was 14-15, I have done every drug I could get my hands on since for the last 22 years and I'm a recovering heroin addict and was also labeled an acute-schizophrenic at 19 and have been on medications for the past 17 years. I live in a van in a car-park in the middle of London. Sounds terrible doesn't it. Yep. Artist, writer, musician all that crud. Anyway, I thought this program was an advancement in types of programs we used to get on live media (BBC etc.). The BBC can only repeat what the current doctrines of thought are; without inference of/or opinion and I thought both sides were shown quite well. My personal small point would be why don't they do tests to prove whether these supposed Psychoses are definite hallucinations; "she thinks she's telepathic with her boyfriend" - ok, we have a hypothesis; prove the "hallucination". Anyway my tip to youngsters is: don't waste too much time, get knowledge! ;)

  • Comment number 19.

    I was very disapionted with the documentry....i have been a "pot smoker" for 24 years and for the last 10 it has been high grade skunk.There is nothing wrong with me at all mentally or physicaly (slight chest infection)I am a mother of 3 and hold down an o.k job and am a good worker "people i work with would never kno" This year i decided to give up and im on day 6 so when i see your programe i thought great this might help......BUT WHERE do you get your " pot smokers" from and FACTS this did nothing to put me off just made me laugh surley if you are going to make a documentry on this you must show both sides or even a little reality on the subject i do agree young people shouldnt be smoking it...i would be glad to be an example for anyone because i do believe you need to show "NORMAL" everyday people who work pay bill live life and are happy.

  • Comment number 20.

    Just to add to my last post - I've wasted too much time with drugs and they're actually quite boring. Don't waste your time with them; it was funny to see that kids are still doing the same thing since my time and even back to the 60's! I think that guy with the black hair at the end should go into computing; do a degree in AI ;)

  • Comment number 21.

    In my opinion the program promoted the typical biased Eurocentric view of cannabis as the exotic ‘other’ drug , seductive yet dangerous, to be feared. As the narrator comments in the film ‘its first recorded use was in China five thousand years ago’ so it’s not as if it’s just arrived on the planet. I found the program littered with questionable facts, for example ‘skunk’ is much stronger than ‘normal’ weed when the evidence from the program showed that the tested cannabis was only seven percent with a medium ratio of CBN.
    As to the schitzhophrenric user, if he felt weird taking cannabis the first time he should have stopped, just as someone who’s allergic to peanuts needs to stop ingesting peanuts even if they do like peanut cookies.
    The program use’s clips from a film called ‘Reefer Madness’ and I feel the tone of this ‘documentary’ is in the same vein as this 1930’s sensationalised fictional film and panders to xenophobic attitudes to marijuana. This film just pushes the same agenda of a Western cultural- hegonomic system where the problems of alcohol are mostly ignored, but what do you expect from the bbc when they feature a soap which features a ‘drug den’ and where a character still use the very same drug that killed her son. If you’re in the dark about which soap I am referring to its Eastenders and the character is Carol. I bet she wished her son had a ‘whitey’, as described in the bbc documentary, instead of the alcohol poisoning which killed him. The drug den is the Vic.

  • Comment number 22.

    The program was quite interesting but the "scientists" seem to miss so much, one wonders if they are operating at maximum efficiency regarding their observational skills here are a few things they did not comment on.
    There was no mention of internalization or biofeedback. No mention of the chronological effect. It was not mentioned about the heightened senses but no mention of how acute the peripheral vision becomes nor the degree of increase in the minds dramatically increased environmental awareness. Some of their facts had small truths with inaccuracies. It was stated that the hippocampus makes one forget information but there is no recognition of the fact that stoned or not stoned, all information that is taken in by the mind is stored subconsciously from when we are born to when we pass and is only lost if there is permanent damage as a result of physical or chemical injury. There was no mention of how cannabis can improve the muscle tone of the body or the reflexes of the body. There was no mention that cannabis generally brings out mental stability that somebody will suffer from whether they take the drug or not. Why did the people that smoke it before many western cultures became aware of the drugs existence refer to the producers and sellers of the drug as, Going to speak to a person that runs a head shop? They did not take into account that many people take cannabis in circumstances that are alien to their "normal" environment and the result of non-peer pressure or peer pressure on the individuals actions the example being, it was stated that the girl was going outside to get high like she normally does before she was psychologically assessed. What was normal about that? She was being observed and filmed and going to be given a greater degree of observation than she was probably used to. In Science it is well known that intervention in a process often affects the results but it was not taken into account in this instance. . Some of the people that took part in the program were having a laugh and others were trying to use the program to put across information that was to justify their own ends. The information regarding its physical effects was totally correct but when it came to psychological effects it was interpreted incorrectly by these "scientists". One of the things not in the program was, when one hears politicians talk about drugs and you can see in their eyes and manner that they have used the drug in the past yet they condemn it and place users on the path to illegality and negative future prospects because of the politicians hippocracy.It is really annoying. I know a couple people who lost their employment because they were captured by the police having smoked cannabis for the first time and a couple of other people that have criminal records that prevent them gaining employment due to illegality of use. Is that morally acceptable?
    When is this Government going to legalize cannabis so that there is revenue to the public purse, the quality of the substance can be guaranteed and the criminals are cut out of the picture?

  • Comment number 23.

    It's been more than an hour since I sent my post (John Jones, [Personal details removed by Moderator]). It was polite and, I thought, insightful. Where is it?

  • Comment number 24.

    Ammendment re previous post.
    After effect it should read, " The "scentists" mentioned about the.....
    In fact, I will try to post my comment again to correct the incongrigruity and sense of my post.
    The program was quite interesting but the "scientists" seem to miss so much, one wonders if they are operating at maximum efficiency regarding their observational skills here are a few things they did not comment on.
    There was no mention of internalization or biofeedback. No mention of the chronological effect. The"scientists" mentioned about the heightened senses but no mention of how acute the peripheral vision becomes nor the degree of increase in the minds dramatically increased environmental awareness. Some of their facts had small truths with inaccuracies. It was stated that the hippocampus makes one forget information but there is no recognition of the fact that stoned or not stoned, all information that is taken in by the mind is stored subconsciously from when we are born to when we pass and is only lost if there is permanent damage as a result of physical or chemical injury. There was no mention of how cannabis can improve the muscle tone of the body or the reflexes of the body. There was no mention that cannabis generally brings out mental stability that somebody will suffer from whether they take the drug or not. Why did the people that smoke it before many western cultures became aware of the drugs existence refer to the producers and sellers of the drug as, Going to speak to a person that runs a head shop? They did not take into account that many people take cannabis in circumstances that are alien to their "normal" environment and the result of non-peer pressure or peer pressure on the individuals actions the example being, it was stated that the girl was going outside to get high like she normally does before she was psychologically assessed. What was normal about that? She was being observed and filmed and going to be given a greater degree of observation than she was probably used to. In Science it is well known that intervention in a process often affects the results but it was not taken into account in this instance. . Some of the people that took part in the program were having a laugh and others were trying to use the program to put across information that was to justify their own ends. The information regarding its physical effects was totally correct but when it came to psychological effects it was interpreted incorrectly by these "scientists". One of the things not in the program was, when one hears politicians talk about drugs and you can see in their eyes and manner that they have used the drug in the past yet they condemn it and place users on the path to illegality and negative future prospects because of the politicians hippocracy.It is really annoying. I know a couple people who lost their employment because they were captured by the police having smoked cannabis for the first time and a couple of other people that have criminal records that prevent them gaining employment due to illegality of use. Is that morally acceptable?
    When is this Government going to legalize cannabis so that there is revenue to the public purse, the quality of the substance can be guaranteed and the criminals are cut out of the picture?

  • Comment number 25.

    At 9:56pm on 06 Jan 2011, John Jones wrote:

    What's particularly galling is being aware of the possibility that the program makers themselves might smoke, and may have abandoned their own common-sense view of the drug in order to say the correct thing.

    - :D :D

  • Comment number 26.

    I agree with most posts here..... Yet another programme that was claiming to be informative on cannabis and yet delivered next to nothing. Maybe the producers of this documentry should sought REAL cannabis users!
    I have constantly smoked cannabis in every form for just over 26 yrs and could certainly offer a much better insight.

  • Comment number 27.

    Before my comments are portrayed as moaning youth I am in my forties hold a degree along with professional accreditation. I use cannabis for recreational purposes but also enjoy a medical side effect for a neurological condition. I have smoked, vapourised and eaten cannabis for 30 odd years have never wanted to do herion and been confronted with the same systemic problems any other UK cannabis user has where a dealer tries to up sell you claiming they have no cannabis but how about this brown powder. As I say that is a systemic problem which makes the existing system a gateway not the drug itself. Have also never tried sniffing glue or a multitude of any other drugs, the only opiates I take are prescribed and that took a lot of convincing on behalf of the doctor.

    People can have addictive personalities thats why we have Gamblers anonymos, shopaholics, co dependant enablers etc.... if you let yourself you could be convinced you need a sip of water every ten minutes if you happen to have the right genetic makeup to be convinced of that. Its time that the effort was put into addressing the how and whats of addiction rather than picking out one or two examples that politically suit and at the same time giving weak willed people yet another excuse they can blame their life on.

    I would also agree what is the selection criteria for cannabis smokers who appear on television other than must make for good programming. The younger teens made the two problematic cases appear immature. At least she did tell the interviewer to stop because she was saying what she thought they wanted to hear. However I know plenty solicitors and other legal prfessionals who smoke cannabis, more likely you will meet them when in continental countries like the Nehterlands, Belgium, Portugal, Spain and Italy where people are not criminalised for choosing not to be another drone of the alcohol drug.

  • Comment number 28.

    I was hopeful that this show would give a new view on cannabis but was again disappointed with the same points from previous documentaries being repeated over and over again. These programs also always use similar test subjects and their ages, all between 15-30, I can't remember ever watching one of these documentaries interviewing older, more experienced cannabis users, why is that?
    When I read that it was to show "how it affects the body" I was hoping that this show would spend a greater amount of time, more than the 10 minutes at the end, on how the plant affects the physical body. The program only briefly mentions how the drug can help to relax us which helps MS sufferers. I'm sure it has also been prescribed to people suffering with arthritis and other conditions.
    This program seemed again to point to cannabis as a link with or catalyst for mental illness, and seemed to be trying to say the user who appreciated nature more or was paying more attention to their surroundings is a negative effect. There are many users who believe that it helps them open up to and deal with the spiritual side of life, and who use it while meditating.
    I still cannot understand why if police (who have probably smoked it at least once their life) find you in possession of this substance it carries a jail sentence of up to 14 years (in theory if they see you passing some to you're mate it could be seen as "supply"), whereas to use other substances that we know can kill you and are addictive, e.g. alcohol and cigarettes, is not only legal but in general encouraged to the point that if you don't drink you are in the minority.
    I am 30, smoke it regularly and have done since the age of 15, have been diagnosed with mental conditions, have had and still have what I believe are spiritual experiences, & have physical problems. My psychologist has said my case is "fascinating" due to the amount I smoke and experiences without having a relapse, I started like most people do, with friends, now I use it more to ease my muscular pain and meditate, maybe the next documentary should include me?!

  • Comment number 29.

    If Alisdair wants to spotlight me - I don't think I was blaming my condition or my life on Cannabis dude, don't you think you might be being a bit paranoid (Especially as this is a BBC3 column and not really aimed at over 40's?)? However, are you seriously trying to tell everyone reading this forum/blog that after all your good experiences on cannabis you never experimented with any other drug? and you've only had one dealer... ok.. A businessman and you fly to other countries..
    Bye Bye.

  • Comment number 30.

    BBC programmes have to get better incrementally you know... At least it did show that a great many people smoke it harmlessly! - Are you all too stoned to realise that if they made a programme beamed into the homes of all the British public that was purely pro-cannabis how many complaints they would get! I mean chill out! Mostly it made me want to spark up! And all you people trying to say that Skunk isn't stronger than the older forms; that's just utter lies!

  • Comment number 31.

    Another point I wanted to make besides congratulate you BBC for the comedy: where can I get the telephone number of the beautiful and smart lady shown in the "documentary" of today? Intelligent, sexy, well dressed and weed-smoker is a combination you don't see very often...

  • Comment number 32.

    I think that the mind is still comprehending something higher and perhaps unseen about the world when your younger than 16. And when you start smoking weed at this age, I think this awareness comes on too strongly. Perhaps it's that which can cause schizophrenia/psychosis/manic-depression - it happens to people that are intuitive and perceptive.. It's a shame I wish they could treat people better; like I said, I wish they could do some studies into the possible truths within the shared supposed "hallucinations" of psychosis/schizophrenia/etc.

  • Comment number 33.

    In addition to what I wrote earlier, I would agree with many other people who have said to legalize it. Not because I think everyone should be smoking it but because we should have the freedom to choose to use something that has grown naturally and used for thousands of years. The government should have no right to imprison us for things that do not harm others. If they did legalize it it would be safer as you wouldn't have to go to "dealers" and it could be more sociable like Holland, and the quality of the plant can be monitored to make sure there are no "impurities" like you may find in the Hash bought from the street.

    How much of the paranoia that they talk about comes from the fact that it is illegal? If we felt free to use it would users feel paranoid?

    So far we know very little about it, so a lot more research needs to be done, but it needs to be with an open mind looking for the benefits of use as well as side affects, a lot of other medications have side affects too.

    Before they label certain experiences "psychotic" or "schizophrenic" surely we need to really know more about what is possible spiritually before telling someone it's a "hallucination" or a "delusion".

    And if cannabis helps us be more natural and connect with the spiritual then more education is needed on, and how to deal with, the spiritual side of life.

  • Comment number 34.

    Just to add to my earlier post,

    If the powers that be did legalise cannabis/hash they would be able to make it available through chemists or like holland, specialised shops, it would enable the buyers and the sellers to know the quality of the product and it could be taxed and sold at a price which could hit the black market where it hurts and make selling it illegally not worth their while, the taxed income would be enormous!

    The police recieve around £50million a year for drug education and around £500million for fighting drug crime, think how much we could save!

    As a nation we could save millions each year by imposing the same regulations on booze!

    There are more people addicted to prescription drugs than all other drugs combined, what does the govenment plan to do about it, nothing!

    A large case of double standards!

  • Comment number 35.

    Dean, it's probably because the government are happy for these people to be addicted to prescription drugs.

    Years ago I met with Dr.'s who, after a crisis team was called by my family because they couldn't deal with me using it, the Dr. wanted me to stop smoking weed and go on prescription drugs. I told them I would stop smoking, but would not take their medication, and said you as a Dr. help me with my experiences that are causing me problems. They said NO!!! They refused to help unless I took their drugs!

    I ended up taking the prescription for 3 years, and didn't feel it was helping, so stopped it without asking the Dr, as I never saw the same consultant more than twice, I didn't think they were in a position to keep me sedated, which is basically what an anti-psychotic pill does. If I hadn't stopped taking their sedatives, they'd probably still have me on them.

    If they legalise it, not only could they make loads of money from sales & tax, they would save loads of money and police hours by not having to bother with users and dealers. They would probably save the NHS loads of time and money too as people would feel more comfortable about using it, and when using it, I don't know if they've done any studies on the psychological effects of using it legally and readily available compared with it being illegal and having to find dealers.

    Straight away the country would have less "criminals". The more laws there are, the more offenders there are, is using a plant really criminal activity? It is possible there may still be dealers as well as people growing their own.

    Instead of people being forced to smoke at home, away from society or try to hide it, they can go down the local and meet other smokers, maybe known as a hical! (couldn't resist!)

    It would probably have to be a bit like Holland with no smoking out in the streets, to be fair (especially to the non-smokers) it wouldn't be nice to be smelling skunk along every high street as it is potent, though breathing in bus exhaust fumes isn't what I would call pleasant either.

  • Comment number 36.

    as one of the users filmed for this documentary i was initially optimistic about it...finally, i thought, i would get a chance to air my views on the subject and perhaps include some real scientific fact. pioneer seemed legit, i was expecting (and was promised) a balanced, scientific view. many documentaries on the subject are heavily mediated and filled with hyperbole. sadly, High: How Drugs Work was no exception. the film made wild claims (i can't remember it exactly but...smoke in your system increases your chances of having a heart attack fivefold? really? did they get the work experience kid to write this?), missed out a LOT, claimed hypotheses as scientific evidence, and in my opinion grossly misrepresented me and my peers. as is always the case with films like this, they spread half-truths about "skunk" in an effort to make it seem scary and mysterious for the non-user. even during filming i made an effort to stress that high-grade cannabis is really not that big a deal. of course they missed it out. i'm losing faith in the BBC. i should have known they'd work to an agenda. it's 2011. phrases like "herbal terrorist" aren't going to get us anywhere.

    and for the record, they were quite obviously cookies, not flapjacks. why would they even lie about that?

  • Comment number 37.

    Like most of your commentators, I found this programme very poor. The notion that cannabis is addictive is absurd, and presenting people who choose to spend far too much time smoking it as though they suffer in the same way as those addicted to alcohol or heroin is deceitful.

    On this subject, as with the smoking ban and its appalling effects on the licensed trade in the UK the BBC is not to be trusted. It is time "message" was entirely removed from editorial policy and a critical approach taken to official propaganda.

  • Comment number 38.

    I hope that the other programmes will be more scientifically rigorous than the cannabis one. I have studied addiction and neuroscience, and read a number of scientific papers on cannabis, as well as using it myself. I'm glad that it was stated that only one in ten people experience various problems. This compares well with many legal drugs as well as foods and chemicals in everyday use.

    I was not impressed by the suggestion that the intelligent observation made by a female participant to the effect that the interviewer ('researcher'?) was asking very leading questions was a sign of paranoia! I had noted the problem myself while viewing. People are particularly suggestible after using cannabis, so asking them if they are hearing voices is likely to actually bring about the phenomenon. A similar thing occurs with LSD; for example, you can get people to see a certain colour simply by saying the name of the colour.

    I wonder whether participants were shown the programme before it was broadcast, and given the opportunity to correct any errors. I would have been very annoyed if I were that woman who was so misrepresented.

  • Comment number 39.

    Coming from a personal background of being told that drugs are bad and cause damage to your health... Well yes some do.

    But after studying Cannabis for two years, discovering that no deaths can be linked to the cause of Marijuana. I don't see any of this within the show, I saw great CGI and dialogue explaining that it will cause this, and can lead to this. But where was the sections of 'this did happen', we can prove it kills.

    But within this show although they stated that constant abuse could cause major effects, they didn't mention it in comparison to any of the biggest legal two (Tobacco and Alcohol). People get addicted to alcohol and if abused, your body becomes more tolerant of it and then you need to consume more. And we all know tobacco is one of the biggest killers and we can show proof of these two.

    I know and understand that it's aiming at making people aware of the dangers we are doing to our selves. But if we look at every legal and illegal drug, we can find flaws with them all.

    Now a pothead myself of 1 and a bit years at the age of 24, but way before I began smoking or even drinking. I never knew what to do with myself, doctors, constantly asking me to go onto anti depressants and I've seen friends on them and it has made their lives worst, but I've seen some and it does work. I never wanted to take a medical compound, with side effects that can be alot worst than what a bit of THC can cause. I don't suffer from anxiety anymore, I create better work, I feel better in general, yeah I'm a more of a slob, but that's through choice. I never smoke when I've just woken up. Or before work, just as a relaxant, like many of you who go home and want a beer, just to relax at the end of the day.

    But I was glad to see that they actually mentioned CBD, which most of you know is an (Anti-Psychotic), but to those who don't know much, it was nice to finally see CBD getting some recognition.

    Then we go to the whole, it makes you stupid and lazy. That kid getting those grades, was a highlight, but the one thing I do agree with is that it affects youngsters going through puberty and we need to try and keep it out of the hand of youths.

    I talk to many people about this topic and people usually reply, 'but if we sell it behind the counter kids can still get there hands on it'. This is true, but the same goes for alcohol, cigarettes. I know kids at my school, whose parents bought them their cigs and seen them give them alcohol. Even older brothers and sisters aswell.

    But what would you rather have, a clean supply of dope that is regulated, taxed and legalised for all use (Medically and recreationally). Or get it off the street corner, which more often then not, you don't know what you're getting, which also put you in an area, were cocaine and heroin is just as easy to get.

    Overall, I don't know wether this was aimed to keep the prohibition of marijuana. Or to relook at this plant and try and save it from a misconception, that many of the world to believe is true. I'm tired of reading that a woman with MS has been arrested again for marijuana posession. Or seeing two drunks fighting and merely being seperated by the police and let go without charge, but to see someone who is harmless, being arrested for smoking a joint.

    I would like to think that Marijuana will be legalised within my lifetime, but if not. Ehh, who cares, we can still get it anyway...

  • Comment number 40.

    This program was a shame! They had left out so many important scientific studies of cannabis including Dr. Manuel Guzmán 2002 study, at the Complutense University of Madrid had demonstrated that THC and a synthetic cannabinoid induced a remarkable regression of malignant gliomas in rats, completely destroying the tumours in a third of the treated animals. So they seemed to ignore any THC Cancer studies! This news is not new anyway as the very first experiment that documented THC’s anti-tumor effects took place in the UNITED STATES in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the request of the government. The study results were published in a Washington Post feature shortly before government officials banished the study and refused follow-up research (although they secretly committed millions during the nineties in a study by the National Toxicology Program that proved the same results, once again and were banished, So you see that was many years ago! Why is no one picking up on this!?
    Many people are now discovering this news for themselves ( thanks to the internet ) People Like
    Rick Simpson , Dr Melamede and many more are helping people with Cancer!
    Your program was supposed to be about the effects of THC on your body! This is so close to my heart because i lost my best friend to Cancer in 2002! Thats just one person it could have saved! Think how many more! Please Google THC and Cancer as well as Rick Simpson's Oil on You Tube! All this info is freely available.
    Why would you show some teenagers getting stoned in a forrest? with CGI to make it look more damaging to our health! Words like herbal terrorist sounds very one sided and non scientific!
    Ive smoked everyday for 15 years no ill health.

  • Comment number 41.

    The only decent part of this program as mentioned above was the CBD studies ! The program still did not go into what this part of the plant can do as well as so many cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids.
    All i do is Vaporise and smoke it but i still have more important info regarding effect on our body!
    Sack the Director and all of its researchers! BBC what a let down!

  • Comment number 42.

    Another poor documentary on ganja from the BBC. Full of misinformation, too many to list. "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High" is the best documentary on cannabis, google/youtube it.

    Last nights effort was laughable. Imogen for starters was feeling the effects of a tobacco hit, see how much tobacco was in that in spliff? Her herb looked crap as well. As for the lad who was "addicted to cannabis", he was suffering tobacco withdrawl, he even filled his bong with tobacco from a cigarette.

    Surely the effects of smoking tobacco need to be taken into account. I reckon there are more people with mental health problems who smoke tobacco than people who smoke pure weed. Tobachoe is an evil drug if ever there was one.

    As for the girl who was given pure thc....please. She would not of been able to speak for a good few hours.

  • Comment number 43.

    What about the scientific studies that have proven that THC shrinks tumours the study was done by Harvard university in 2007 its on the web for anyone to see. I also recommend the documentary ‘run form the cure’ there is more to the banning of cannabis and the prevention of proper scientific studies regarding it’s medical use. If a plant could cure cancer at next to no cost how much does the pharmaceutical industry have to lose? Think about it! It is the financial profits of the this industry that is also at work to prevent the legalisation of cannabis. Get informed people spread the word lets save lives and change the world with this one amazing plant. P.S. I don’t smoke cannabis just in case you think I am some crazy pothead.

  • Comment number 44.

    did the moderators really need to remove my comment? i'm totally not happy about this. bite me.

    "censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. it is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime"

  • Comment number 45.

    Massive negative/Propagandist slant utilizing a sensationalist agenda which fits neatly into the same category as films such as "Reefer Madness", "Marijuana Monsters" and other poorly informed and constructed disinformation productions. It also reveals a complete lack of understanding within the scientific community in Britain, who have been hobbled by an international political conspiracy spanning hundreds of years.

    I was dismayed and highly annoyed by the ridiculously scant information regarding cannabidiol and its relationship with THC... Anybody would think it plays only a small part in the experience of using cannabis for whatever reasons, medical or recreational. This program spent about 3 minutes in mentioning cannabidiol which in my opinion is pathetic and irresponsible to say the least.

    The demographic of interviewees and apparent target audience was also restricted, poorly chosen and biased to say the least, reflecting only a minority within a minority and excluding a more wider ranging social spectrum of users.

    As for the CGI.. well you can dress a pooh up to not look like a pooh, but underneath its still a pooh..

    Get your facts straight people and give us something truly informative next time.

  • Comment number 46.

    After watching this program and coming here 2 vent my frustration i was pleased to see it wasn't just me who doesn't want to put with this sort of propoganda. Whilst most of the 'facts' were inaccurate, they were also presented in a biased and unbalanced way.

    When they boys were in the forest after having some weed flapjacks, the narrator notes how they're 'lucky' that the muffins they're having for munchies don't contain weed, as they would 'risk' getting higher and higher...The risk being?

    The programme probably annoyed me the most due to its vast underestimation of its audience and the simplicity in which it made points



  • Comment number 47.

    I was actually on this program (Mike) and I must say apart from a few bits it was a sad effort, uninformed and poorly executed. They also managed to put words in my mouth saying that me and my mates think that inhaling for up to 15 seconds gets us higher.... it actually shows us inhaling for about 5 seconds while saying those, nullifying the point! The show seemed really eager in parts to make weed sound bad, there was definitely a hidden agenda somewhere.

    Anyway, I enjoyed my contribution to the show and hope I turned a few heads. If not, I hope some of you are keen enough to watch a real, informed and balanced documentary called 'The Union: The Business Behind Getting High' - Google it, it's well worth it.

    If only this program was filmed for Channel 4!

  • Comment number 48.

    To be honest as someone who took part in the programme , It wasn't portrayed as fairly as we were told it was going to be. The 15 seconds 'holding in time' is a load of rubbish as my friends and I filmed were shown to hold it in for 5 seconds max .. no one holds it in for 15 seconds!
    I think this programme is trying to continue to keep the public thinking negative things about cannabis , and this documentary does a good job of saying things to scare the viewers which aren't even factual; just spoken by the extremely condescending narrator. This documentary continues to 'inform' like the audience are ignorant to the drug. Hopefully real cannabis users like myself and my friends used in the program will see through this stereotypical documentary.
    Plus the 'scientific' experiments were hardly scientific.. I think you should use scientists who actually know what they are talking about and get your facts right before making a very mediocre documentary.

    Tobacco and cigarettes are SO much worse for god's sake ! Its hardly a serious documentary when terms such as 'herbal terrorist' are used

  • Comment number 49.

    complete cobblers.Like everything else in life everything including tobacco,weed and alcohol is good for you in moderation.Thats the problem with people not doing things moderately resulting in addiction and adverse results.Alcohol,smoking,heroin,all class A drugs or even good old stress are worse for you than weed if done moderately.I am a social smoker who does it when among good friends in the right place.I have never had an adverse effect from weed but i have seen many who have but only if they are drinking alcohol at the same time.No one has ever got violent on weed or gone home and beat the missus up unless they mix it with booze.The world would be a much happier and safer place if all the politicians world wide and religious leaders smoked weed moderately.

  • Comment number 50.

    Don't judge the masses on the minority. Ask any smoker and they will confirm that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. you are more in control of yourself, less violent, more relaxed. But everybody drinks and nobody bats an eyelid. The worse part being that it is PROVEN that alcohol damages the body in so many ways. Yet in this programme they barely prove any side effects of cannabis, unless in small cases where an individual has had an emotional past and uses the drug to escape emotions they don't want to face. Much like alcoholics. Everybody that drinks is not an alcoholic, everybody that smokes cannabis is not what you see on this programme. There was not one accurate portrayal of a typical smoker.

  • Comment number 51.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 52.

    I felt angry when i read all the negative views that were posted about a very interesting and factually correct programme. I currently work with young people who suffer from psychosis and schizophrenia and can see how it can turn a whole life upside down. I did not feel the programme makers were biased or preaching about not using cannabis, quite the oppersite, they were presenting what the reaserch has already found. The message is clear and simple, for many people smoking cannabis is an enjoyable experience but for some people who are vulnerable to psychosis it can trigger distressing symptoms which can sometimes lead onto a full blown psychotic illness which subsequently can take months to recover from.
    I feel that as a society we have moved away from preaching to our young people and are instead presenting them with facts, sometimes uncomfortable facts, which then enables them to make informed choices. Something which this programme did fantasically well. Therefore i encourage viewers to approach it, not with the view that it is there to preach and ridicule, but mearly to present you with proven facts and research so that if you do happen to be the unlucky one who does become unwell after smoking cannabis you cannot say "well no one warned me about that....."

  • Comment number 53.

    I am a retired research scientist with pschological and spiritual evidence of the subjective effects of cannabis and I think every one is missing the point when it comes to mental health problems associated with the drug. What 'mainstream' fails to see, is that once we are masters of our minds and emotions (which takes practice), psychosis becomes an illusion.
    Rather than educating the public on the effects of drug use, maybe the media has a responsibility to educate society about 'reality' and how everyone can experience an elevated stage of consciousness without the use of drugs in the first place.

  • Comment number 54.

    It's actually ridiculous that it is still illegal here in the UK. We could solve our current debt and economy problems with ease if we were to follow a few simple steps.

    I came across this post: 'Growable Gold: How To Save The Economy' - http://www.sickchirpse.com/2011/01/10/growable-gold-how-to-save-the-economy/ - which discusses the pros of making it legal, it's a great read if you have a spare ten minutes, I personally don't see an arguement against it.

  • Comment number 55.

    This programme was meant for one thing and that was to get viewers, which it probably did! The most important part of this natural plant is the fact that it can cure cancer and other terrible diseases. There have been many scientific studies done over the years Dr Guzman’s study that proved THC shrinks tumours for one. Rick Simpson has proved and will prove to anyone who wants to listen that hemp and in particular the essential oil is the most amazing cure all plant known to man. No Scientist, Doctor, Politician or anybody on this planet can dispute that fact. CBD, which is probably one of the most important parts of this plant, has the opposite effect to THC and can help the mentally ill. Cannabis like all drugs has different effects on different individuals. If you don’t believe me then read the back of any over the counter medicine and see the part where it says possible side effects some are very shocking! If cannabis is ingested as an oil as prescribed by Rick Simpson there will be small if any side effects except for the positive ones. This plant has killed nobody and I mean nobody not one recorded death not one person has died from smoking or ingesting cannabis if they had don’t you think it would be all over the news like ecstasy was. Please watch ‘Run From The Cure’ and please someone at the BBC make a documentary about Rick Simpson and the truth behind the healing properties of cannabis. The illegality of cannabis is a government lead genocide on the sick they are keeping the planets cure for so many deadly diseases away from all of us. This is not about smoking and getting high smoking cannabis is the worst way in which to take this amazing plant high quality oil or vaporising are the only ways to administer this medicine effectively and please make sure you know exactly what you are taking there is information on all strains of cannabis including THC and CBD levels. I do hope that this gets to be seen and that you all can spread the word.

  • Comment number 56.

    Poorly researched and trotting out the same old stereotypes verging on hyperbole, told me absolutly nothing about how it works.
    Shoddy tabloid journalism - reefer madness for the noughties.
    1/10

  • Comment number 57.

    As one of the subjects featured in the programme ('teen' in the woods, wearing the brown jumper) i found it extremely interesting to see just how heavily these types of documentaries are mediated. I felt as if I and others were used to benefit the BBC as a means to an end. Whilst being filmed I tried to remain as articulate and as interesting as possible, showing a constant support for cannabis and its highly positive advantages, both medically and creatively. Instead they chose to show a bunch of shots of us crossing a ditch (which was in fact far larger than the narrator gave it credit for) and eating some muffins. Frankly, they made us and, as a result, the whole stoner community look like idiots; the ends that the BBC was looking. I felt completely misrepresented, for example the narrators like "things have taken a turn for the worst", quick, cut to some shots of them looking round the forest and lets say they're paranoid. We were just having a bit of fun exploring a place we'd never been, whilst we were high, it was completely harmless but, these documentary makers have a knack for making even the most positive side of things sinister. I'm sure all of the other subjects included in the doc will agree with me that they feel a certain amount of shame being a part of this hyperbolic filled propaganda fest, although, i could have been portrayed in a much worse light. [edited by Moderator]

  • Comment number 58.

    I watched this show with little hope that it would be a balanced and fair appraisal of cannabis. I was not expecting such a propaganda fest.
    The only other thing i have to say is about the star of the show.
    Imogen was brilliant and if someone could put me in touch so i could ask her on a date,i would be most grateful.

  • Comment number 59.

    So much sarcasm, anger and vitriol! I found this programme very interesting and the exaggerated responses to it among these comments seem very revealing. Well done for making such an uncomfortable mix when there isn't a simple purely positive or purely negative account to be given.

  • Comment number 60.

    There is so much anger over this program because cannabis, a completely natural plant that is also a proven medicine is illegal and a processed liquid like alcohol is completely legal. Programs like this do nothing to dispel the terrible myths and propaganda that has been banded about since slavery, when it was said that cannabis drove the slaves crazy and violent. If you were persecuted by the government for growing a plant that you just consumed yourself for medical reasons you might feel angry too. I hope that medicine from this plant becomes common place then maybe you will understand why people are so angry.

  • Comment number 61.

    Please update this hour long episode of propaganda.... I was excited to see how this series would develop with the other episodes, which I found to be a very good example of a mediocre and horrid thing. After this one though I am afraid to see the false negative perspective on cannabis and other things you will probably make that MAPS works sooooooo hard to be able to study (such as LSD to overcome the debilitation of news of a very near impending death)

    Something that was left out that should be added are the JWH chemical compounds that are flooding the UK's easy access research chem market. This is a synthetic cannabanoid compound that cost less, we know less about, and is possible more toxic! This dosnt stop anyone from useing it though and most likely there is some dirty dealer lacing it on to bud to make it seem like super dank "SKUNK"

    One thing that needs to be cleared up though SKUNK IS A INDICA BASED CANNABIS STRAIN!!!! WHAT THEY DESCRIBE IN THIS VIDEO IS HYDROPONIC GROWING SYSTEMS! WHEN DONE RIGHT THEY RULE AND CREATE POTENT BUDS... WHEN WRONG BAAAAD NUTES ARE LEFT BEHIND. Nowadays nutes are directly fed rather than their raw shells found in nature, but to get that there are chemicals used a lot of times. Bad growers don't flush their plant leading to residual toxins from their nutrients and a bad smoke. It is not a MASSIVE THC% that's bad.... The makers just want the good bud fro themselves :D Indoor even done right can also have a high CBD (and other 40+cannabanoids) percentage, but the most important thing is that it is flushed with clean water for a week to get all the last of the toxic nutrients out of the plant and soil!

    You may have asked whats Indica? Well Indica along with Sativa are the two main crosses of strains that create the many strains nowadays; such as OG kush, hindu kush, skunk, and white widow whereas sativas have a naturally higher amounts of CBD than indicas, which are mainly THC. The cross blend of these two (and rhudarallis for auto flowering) makes the variation of strains and variety of high. Although the longer the plant is kept the more the THC degrades into one of the many cannabinoids so many many things play into the THC-->cannabanoid ration, but they are right to say higher rated cannabanoid buds are less physically intoxicating and more sobering.

    Also BRITTISH PEOPLE MIX WEED AND TOBBACCO A LOT!!!!! I only do it when I roll a blunt (weed rolled into tobacco) and it affects the weed a LOT as well as the addiction potential. Cannabis alone in my experiences does not have an emotional drain, but just affects falling to sleep (not staying asleep) as well as making it tricky to get food down although, it dosn't prevent it.

    All and all I recommend anyone who actually read all this to check out Wikipedia and get their own info as well as CANORML to see California medical actions as well as find some dispensaries with websites to really learn info about bud history and see quality bud pics! DO NOT BUY INTO THIS BRITISH PROPAGANDA YOUR INTERNET IS NOT RESTRICTED TO YOUR COUNTRY!!!!

  • Comment number 62.

    I forgot to mention this but thai stick usually refers to bud dipped in opium.... I wonder how many different drugs they were actually shooting this episode!

  • Comment number 63.

    Well... Like every serious person with thinking aptitudes I was anticipating this program with a lot of curiosity. More about, how they will approach the subject, I hope they will do real studies, real deep research on effect on different aspects, not just on for say, mathematical skills or some aspect of memory that WE KNOW SINCE 40 years that are affected(and in which ways) by weed. It should not be used for that precisely anyway! But they put the skyzo guy and a weird already non representative girl. The least credible of all scientific speakers has got the most earing time... I don't know what to say BBC. There is a lot of research all over the world going on... Still, we learn nothing with this program, and it doesn't seems even serious!(choice of words, choice of studies, they had not even took a look outside their own localities, which is incredible for a mini documentary that pretend to be serious on a worldwide subject like cannabis usage). The worst is the title "How drugs works"... So pretentious in is form as the documentary is so simple, so biased and reduced. I think that the right title should be "A certain view on drugs". I am NOT a cannabis user but the topic interest me a lot, still i am more serious about the subject than that. I've lost 56 minutes and 58 seconds of my life... Thank you BBC :(

  • Comment number 64.

    Lazy journalism, inaccurate facts, government propaganda.

    "Fail"

    http://www.tdpf.org.uk/

  • Comment number 65.

    i started smoking canabis at 12 by 18 i was having panic attacks every day. paranoid, didnt even want to go out im now 39 and guess what IM STILL HAVING PANIC ATTACKS just like you i thought smoking canabis is great, relaxing, chilled out and happy i wish i could honestly say canabis is safe but trueth is its not theres still alot of research that needs to be done.

  • Comment number 66.

    Emotive debate as always... simple question:
    Does prohibition help or hinder the issue?

  • Comment number 67.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 68.

    My comment has been removed!

 

More from this blog...

Categories

These are some of the popular topics this blog covers.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.