UK: Brett Watch - Mary Brett, Skunk Nonsense

[namkha]

I suggested to Twigs a while back that we should start a special thread dedicated to keep track of the lies Mary Brett has been spreading about cannabis and "skunk".

Mary Brett has the ear of many influential people in government and the media in the UK. Together with The Independent and the BBC (with its shamefully misleading reporting of the drugs issue) her organisation Cannabis Skunk Sense has managed to raise "skunk psychosis" to the level of an unquestioned "fact of life" in British public discourse.

Mary Brett's CanSS propaganda machine suffered a major set-back on June 23rd when Minister Anne Milton released a statement of the government's position on cannabis and mental health. The UK government doesn't buy "skunk psychosis" or "cannabis psychosis". This is in line with the findings of the ACMD in 2008, and all of the most up-to-date research into cannabis and mental health.

But sadly, despite this, Mary Brett has won the public argument. In the minds of most British people "skunk" causes long-term psychosis.

Steve Rolles of Transform recently wrote that "I think its fine to critique what Mary says (if you think its important – personally I think it isn't)".

Steve and Transform, great as their work is, could not be more wrong.

Skunk psychosis is not just a lie. As a "meme" it perpetuates and reinforces the idea that it is reasonable and justified to persecute and imprison cannabis users.

The right to make an informed choice about what we put in our own bodies in is a fundamental human liberty.

The "war on drugs" has allowed for unprecedented government interference in the private decisions and activities of individuals. The state should not have such powers to intrude in our lives. And now that it does, is there any going back?

"Skunk psychosis", by spreading fear and misunderstanding, is just another way by which government tyranny over our personal liberty can come to seem natural, normal and something we take for granted.

Tyranny isn't natural or normal. Cannabis is.

We have to win the argument. The truth is the last thing we have. If they take that from us, then we really are lost.

Post everything you see up on here and we can all get on her case...

Edited June 28, 2011 by namkha

[namkha]

"...think of the children!"

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/cannabis-and-children.htm

All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cannabis and Children

To inform members of both Houses of Parliament and, using sound scientific and medical evidence, to raise awareness and stimulate debate about the impact of cannabis on children and young people.

BENEFITS RECEIVED BY GROUP FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT

Cannabis Skunk Sense, a charity, acts as the group’s secretariat.

http://www.cannabisskunksense.co.uk

Chair Charles Walker (Con) charles.walker.mp@parliament.uk 0207 219 0338

Vice-Chairs George Howarth (Lab) george.howarth.mp@parliament.uk 020 7219 6902

Treasurer Robert Buckland (Con), Russell Brown (Lab) robert.buckland.mp@parliament.uk 01793 533393, russell@russellbrownmp.com 01776 705254

Secretary Nic Dakin (Lab) nic.dakin.mp@parliament.uk 01724 842000

other members

Graham Brady – Con

Christopher Chope – Con

Dr Julian Lewis – Con

David T. C. Davies – Con

David Amess – Con

Andrew Rosindell – Con

Robert Buckland – Con

Brian Binley – Con

Ian Liddell-Grainger – Con

Laura Sandys – Con

members from opposition party

Teresa Pearce

Gordon Banks

Natascha Engel

John Robertson

Frank Roy

Jim Dobbin

Kate Hoey

George Howarth

Russell Brown

Nic Dakin

Edited June 28, 2011 by namkha

[namkha]

does anyone know if it is possible to challenge Cannabis Skunk Sense's charitable status on the grounds that they are using distorted information with no basis in scientific facts?

I will be putting a stock letter up on here which I hope people can copy and paste and send as an e-mail to the politicians above. I will put the other e-mail addresses up here later.

I will be getting on the hack's cases later - e.g. Rentoul and Rosie Boycott at The Independent.

[druidude]

Top work Namkha,

As you so rightly say this cannabis psychosis meme is alive and kicking even against the science based evidence.

It seems that emotion no matter how misplaced seems to shape peoples reality rather than the reality of the science. Its what they would like reality to be rather than what it actually is. This is dangerous because they are then able infect other people with there distorted view of the world.

[ninorc]

Mary Brett is incredibly influential, behind the scenes, and a great example of what a highly-motivated lobbyist can achieve within our system, so long as they are pushing against an open door. MPs are delighted to be served a selection of factoids with which to close out conversations about Prohibition, which is obviously an abject failure. Mary provides them. So, an advocate for legalisation finds himself in debate with an MP, who seems quite rational until the slot is being wound up, when the MP suddenly says, "Smoking cannabis makes kids three times more likely to go potty and that's a clinically-proven FACT!" It isn't, but refuting it takes analysis of the 'clinical study' that's being alluded to, plus an explanation of context/questioning of assumptions. All that takes time and time is what the media diesn't give you. However, Mary Brett has plenty of time since her retirement from a school in Watford where she taught biology and she pursues her hobby of spreading disinformation about cannabis with remarkable effectiveness.

[Terra-ist]

Who the fuck do these people think they are, these people havent been elected to replace the findings of the goverments own scientific advisors with their own fear based cultural prejudice, how the fuck do they get away with sitting in parliament pushing shite that flys in the face of the goverments own scientists and awarded for such with charitable status, can you think of any other domain where this sort of behaviour would be even tolerated, nevermind granted charitable status.

The fact that this 'charity' exist tells me that we as a 'society' are a million miles from any sort of rational debate on this subject, all these people need to do is rollout the old what about the children? gambit and thats it.You can forget about any sort of liberty for the six million tokers of this country. Just heard on the news this morning about how child safety trumps everything else including patient/doctor confidentiality.

The same it would seem applys in debate, i mean these people know this, it is how the human brain is wired, it is how the brain was wired when we slithered out of the primordial sludge as lizards and such like, all they have to do is appeal to this part of the brain.Game over.Charitable status, support from media, demonisation of the other.Nevermind the science.

[namkha]

I did a little research into charities a while ago

charities have plenty of paperwork, but they are not difficult things to start

as for challenging their charitable status on the grounds that they are using incorrect and misleading information, I have no idea

I think Derek has put time into going through some of Mary's "facts" over at UKCIA, so that's a start

Edited June 28, 2011 by namkha

[JimmyPage]

Personally, I think the best way to deal with the Bretts, and Bells of this world is to treat them as an irrelevance, and to concentrate more on the positive stories from the rest of the world (mainly the US). Eventually these characters are going to have to explain why the rest of the world is wrong. I look forward to it.

[ninorc]

Personally, I think the best way to deal with the Bretts, and Bells of this world is to treat them as an irrelevance,

Well, that would save the work of refuting their part-baked science, but unfortunately they're winning while politicians and the Daily Mail want to believe them.

[namkha]

Personally, I think the best way to deal with the Bretts, and Bells of this world is to treat them as an irrelevance

hey Jimmy

I'd love to ignore Mary Brett, problem is, in reality Brett isn't an irrelevance

Tranform have been busily ignoring CanSS propanda, and meanwhile she's dragged public perceptions of cannabis in the UK back to where the US was in the '30s

difference is the deranged "niggers" and "wetbacks" now lurk within every British teenager, waiting to be ignited by a single puff of "skunk"

Edited June 29, 2011 by namkha

[digger 1649]

in my experience people will agree with everything to be said,

regarding the dangers of prohibition,

they'll even agree with the idea that its prohibition causing

the majority of damage to the 'kids' but then continue

to hold the opinion drugs should remain illegal.

if brett and bell are so keen to be celebrities,

they should go toe to toe in a celebrity death match.

lets see who's thinking about the kids the most !

nob heads.

[Derek23]

Mary Brett is dangerous for sure and certainly cannot be ignored for all the reasons covered above.

But without wanting to reopen the "skunk makes you mad" debate she is wrapping the rope around her own neck and asking us to pull it.

She is building an argument based on the need to protect young people from a new menace, this 2000% stronger skunk weed that's being sold in the playgrounds

If what she claims is to be believed and that cannabis has mutated into something it didn't used to be then it has only done so since its been subjected to the regime Brett promotes. Brett's argument is clear; in all of the 5000 years of recorded history of mankind's involvement with cannabis it remained a safe, almost benign substance only to mutate in the last 10 - 20 years into its new GM modified deadly form. If there were any truth in what she claims, clearly something has happened in recent years to bring this change about; that change, of course, is prohibition.

Secondly what to do about it? If politicians want to buy into what she's claiming then they should do something about it. Fact is because of prohibition and Brett's chosen regime, they can't do anything at all, zilch, yadayada. This is the old control and regulate argument we've had so much fun talking about over the years and its her Achilles heel. Right now the plod are running around like headless chickens pulling up any cannabis plants they can find, some may be the deadly skunk strains, but many will be the hippy dippy types. Some may have been destined for the school playground, but much would have been on its way to adults who aren't at risk.

We will never win an argument based on the facts or otherwise she is claiming, as Ninorc says it takes time and the media doesn't give us that. What we have to do is akin to judo - to use the enemies weight and strength against them. I agree this is a narrow path to follow but it is the obvious one: Call her bluff.

Derek

edit spleeos

Edited June 29, 2011 by Derek23

[Boojum]

The problem with this fucking bitch (apologies for using bad language and personal insults, in a real world situation it would immediately render everything I have to say null and void cos I'm swearing, but this isn't the real world and I've been up all night drinking, but I hope I still havea point if I can remember it ). Oh, yeah, the problem is that she is seen as a legitimate voice, so what she says is accepted (especially since it's what the people she's talking to want to hear.). So, as has been said by better, wiser, more sensible people than me is that she really can't be ignored. She MUST be challenged. I think a good initial challenge is the excellent article Ben Goldacre wrote about the nonsense of stronger cannabis (that I believe Namkha posted recently), it's this kind of thing that needs to be not just posted and reposted here on UK420 - it's preaching to the converted. It's this kind of thing that needs to be sent to every newspaper that prints the 'stronger cannabis' bullshit, to everyone's MP. Shit, this is a dumb idea but perhaps someone should even write to Ben Goldacre to see what he thinks about the current nonsense from Mary Brett et al - he seems like a pretty sensible bloke, with a media profile, it couldn't hurt. Or maybe I'm just really drunk and should shut up. Sorry.

[FAI]

......the problem is that she is seen as a legitimate voice, so what she says is accepted (especially since it's what the people she's talking to want to hear.).........

....She MUST be challenged.

Spot on that Booj. Sadly.

[Macca]

Personally, I think the best way to deal with the Bretts, and Bells of this world is to treat them as an irrelevance, and to concentrate more on the positive stories from the rest of the world (mainly the US). Eventually these characters are going to have to explain why the rest of the world is wrong. I look forward to it.

Ignoring an itch doesn't always cause it to disappear, sometimes you need to scratch the fucker till it bleeds.