Reefer madness V3 and the Daily Mail sets the record straight!

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record (or these days I suppose it would be a corrupt MP3 file) the UKCIA position on cannabis is that it isn’t for kids. There is enough of a suggestion of evidence to advise children and young people under the age of about 15 not to get stoned, the best advice really is to leave it out till 18 or older. That’s not really specific cannabis advice, it goes for all drugs.

The reason for such advice is the fact that young brains are growing and developing. Brains don’t just grow, they grow in response to learned experiences and providing the brain with distorted experiences may cause it to develop in a distorted way. Taking drugs is one way – but not the only way – to run the risk of messing things up.

Thus the issue of cannabis and mental health and the outlandish claims which had been made by some  eventually distilled themselves from the old “cannabis makes you mad”argument of “Reefer madness” to being a child protection issue worthy of being taken seriously. These days the genuine concern is centred around children using cannabis – something even the government plays lip service to. The only reason for mentioning all this is to underline that UKCIA takes the issue of cannabis and mental health together with child protection seriously.

But this maturing of the argument hasn’t stopped the “cannabis makes you mad” campaign  so beloved of the drug warriors, they’ve just changed their argument. No longer does cannabis cause severe mental illness, which was the claim that caused so much concern a few years ago, these days cannabis makes teenagers rebel. Shock horror.

It’s as if in days gone by teenagers were all just smaller versions of their parents; they were model offspring and non ever kicked against parental authority. What rubbish! Of course, teenagers have always caused anguish for parents, they’ve grown their hair long or else shaved it all off, worn scruffy clothes, corrupted the language, slept with each other and such like. It’s hardly news, or it shouldn’t be.

Thing is though, these days we’ve got the dreaded skunk to blame for little Cupcake’s non-conformity, it’s not hormones anymore, it’s drug addiction.

Where all this is going is a comment on a new book from Julie Myerson who tells her version of events from a couple of years ago in her book “The Lost Child”. The Observer – a newspaper which used to be one of the “quality” papers – carried a review last week which was seriously lacking in objectivity and, in more than one important sense, accuracy. Reprinting Myerson’s side of the story without criticism it stated:

Their beloved son was falling further and further into the world of drugs – smoking the addictive and powerful form of cannabis known on the street as “skunk”.

Right, so now “Skunk” is not only 30 times stronger than cannabis used to be, it’s also now “addictive”. Let’s be clear about this, whatever the truth of the added dangers of high THC cannabis, addiction isn’t one of them. OK, lets be more specific, it’s no more addictive than any other form of cannabis – which means it isn’t very addictive. Of course, cannabis can be psychologically addictive as can many things and this can be difficult to break, but it is not addiction in the heroin or crack cocaine sense. You do not get “skunk” addicts lurking in dark shadows mugging people. Skunk is quite simply not an addictive form of cannabis.

This claim that her kid was an addict and that “skunk” is somehow an addictive form of cannabis  has been printed as a fact – as if it were a given truth. The fact that it was The Observer that produced this unacceptable and sloppy bit of cod journalism makes it all the worse.

Interesting also is the claim that the kid was “falling further and further into the world of drugs” because he was smoking this dreaded “skunk”. Yet there is no suggestion he was taking anything else, he doesn’t seem to have been a ket head or an acid freak, there was no hint of sharps. He was only smoking a bit of weed – albeit the dreaded “skunk” variety. He doesn’t actually seem to have “fallen” very far.

Prompted by his occasionally violent and abusive behaviour, the Myersons eventually took the ultimate sanction. They offered him the choice of improving his behaviour or leaving the house. When he failed to listen, they followed through. They changed the locks on the front door and told the 17-year-old he was no longer welcome.

“Occasional violent and abusive behaviour”, well we only have their word for what this means, but in all honestly teenagers of that sort of age are a bit like that from time to time. Surely everyone remembers rows with parents, slamming doors and so on? Now this seems to have happened in a relatively short time frame as well, a year or so at most. They certainly didn’t put up with it for long and rather than seeking help for their child, they threw him out – penniless – onto the streets of London to fend for himself.

Something to know about these parents is that they are very intolerant of drugs.  As the review puts it

She describes their parental style as “upfront”, with regular family discussions around the table.

Intolerant is probably more accurate than “upfront”.

The review claims that

The homeless teenager was taken in by the parents of one of his school friends and he has not returned to live with his mother and father.

and it goes on to claim that

The Myersons’ son, who now works in the music industry, has read a draft of the book and his mother said that he has been generous enough to understand her need to write about the trauma.

There’s nothing worse than cut and paste journalism like this, where one side of a story is reproduced without – apparently – any checking being done whatsoever.

So it was with not a little shock and aw to see the other side of the story printed in – of all papers – the Daily Mail. There’s something very wrong with the world when the Observer prints the reefer madness hype and the Mail sets the record straight, but that’s what’s happened.

My ‘insane’ mother kicked me out because of drugs… and then cashed in with a novel about it” was the headline of a story from the young person’s point of view.

This all happened a couple of years ago and the kid who was chucked out to fend for himself is now 20 and in employment – quite something for an “addict” forced to live on the street. His name is Jake Myerson and is articulate enough to put his own side of the story.

The son of author Julie Myerson has branded her ‘slightly insane’ and ‘naive’ for calling him a drug addict.

Although she’s clearly sane enough to realise she can make a few quid out of her book, “callous” would seem a more accurate description.

Jake sets the record straight on a number of claims made by the Observer: Far from being taken in by “parents of one of his school friends” as the Observer claimed, Jake says he

moved into a squat

Which is actually what happens to a lot of young people living rough in London. If you’ve never seen the squat scene in London let’s just say it would open you’re eyes somewhat. But he made good, never returning home and, by the sound of it and quite understandably, glad to be free of his “slightly insane” parents.

Perhaps most interestingly though he claims

‘I did see a copy of the book and I said: “Is there any way to stop you publishing this?” and she said no and has taken that as some sort of tacit agreement.

‘It is definitely not an agreement.’

He needs to take legal advice to see if he can sue for defamation of character or something.

He goes on to talk of his drug use:

He said of his drug use: ‘It is not as bad as that at all. Basically my parents are very naive and got caught up in the whole U.S. anti-drugs thing.

‘There is a very big difference between smoking a spliff and being a drug addict. They are very naive people and slightly insane.

It does seem that way to be honest, they also seem to have no sense of loyalty, being willing to abandon their own flesh and blood like this and then to cash in on it in such a callous way.

Strangely for the Mail, the website comments section has been allowed to operate and contains a lot of support for Jake. Of the 119 comments (as of now) only as minority are from the usual stereotype hang ’em and flog ’em Mail reader.

I hope the parents – especially the mother Julie Myerson – can live with her conscience, but more than that hopefully Jake will be able to sue and take his cut of the profits.  But whatever the final outcome, reefer madness has descended to a new level of highly objectionable stupidity.

About UKCIA

UKCIA is a cannabis law reform site dedicated to ending the prohibition of cannabis. As an illegal drug, cannabis is not a controlled substance - it varies greatly in strength and purity, it's sold by unaccountable people from unknown venues with no over sight by the authorities. There is no recourse to the law for users and the most vulnerable are therefore placed at the greatest risk. There can be no measures such as age limits on sales and no way to properly monitor or study the trade, let alone introduce proper regulation. Cannabis must be legalised, as an illegal substance it is very dangerous to the users and society at large.

3 thoughts on “Reefer madness V3 and the Daily Mail sets the record straight!

  1. Something very similar to this case happened to my friend’s brother. It seems he had some kind of mental breakdown and his parents blamed “Drugs”. He was a regular user of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis but they chose cannabis as the cause of all his problems. It always seemed to me that the family thought there was less stigma attached to becoming a helpless drug addict than to admitting that a family member had mental illness (which effects 1 in 10 of the population as a a whole and does not disproportionately effect cannabis users).
    Maybe with “drugs” you get more sympathy and there are many people (the “pushers”, “users” etc in his social group) that can be blamed for the problems. With just simply accepting mental illness it suggests things such as hereditary causes, bad parenting and things closer to home. It is not clear whether the case that prompted this book ever had a medical diagnosis that verified cannabis was a causal factor in the illness or even if the illness was exactly as described in the book. It seems people are not too forensic about these things if “drugs” are to blame.
    After all everyone knows how bad drugs are don’t they – just like all those who proverbially admired the emperor’s fine clothes (see the excellent book by Jack Herer – “The Emperor wears no clothes”). The burden of proof is very low for the media in these cases – they are even willing to fight contradictory evidence from the experts to keep the myths alive. As always substitute the word cannabis for alcohol (even more likely to cause or aggravate mental health problems) and see if the hysteria still makes sense or if it is likely people would come to the same conclusions.

  2. The Tobackgo Angle Again– 2 comments

    1. Nowhere any discussion of the dosage issue

    The major media falsehood is absence of any reference to the fact that if you smoke a “spliff” (see quote above) or even a major part of one, you will confront issues of overdose not of cannabinol, but of carbon monoxide, heat shock, and 421 combustion toxins which could be largely avoided by burning at minimum temperature (long-stemmed one-hitter) or using a VAPOURISER. The tobackgo-captive press avoids, to date, ever reminding anyone that there is any alternative to the hot burning overdose “cigarette” smoking mystique which helps the industry make money. Big Tobackgo fears cannabis, especially high-THC strains, because it helps train many smokers to miniaturize! Once the 700-mg.-bomb product standard goes, their industry profit margin is history, (along with the unprecedented 5.4-mil./yr. genocide).

    Even when publications no longer directly take cigarette advertising, they do advertise pubs and other places that sell cigarettes and many products– booze, coffee, cleansers, deodorants, mouthwash– that synergise with tobacco or cleanup after it. The cigarette drug “cocktail” even helps keep people awake while reading boring stupid newspapers.

    Thus they have a vested interest in denigrating cannabis any way they can, or, in the case of Jake, using quotes which keep the overdose “tradition” going even with cannabis.

    2. Just between us:

    “He needs to take legal advice to see if he can sue for deformation of character or something.”

    I wondered if you meant “defamation”, but both make sense one way or another.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    # This has been another service of R.A.D.I.O. = Riefer Anti-Defamation Information Organization, a semi-nonfictional semi-nonprofit society.

  3. >>
    I wondered if you meant “defamation”, but both make sense one way or another.
    >>

    Doh! The “deformation” I originally wrote was better artistically…

Comments are closed.