Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

free_phil_spector wrote:You should read the story and then you wouldn't be so quick to jump on the 'bash the british press' bandwagon - it was a coroner who ruled she died of cannabis poisoning.

Yeah I've read it, a "coroner sherrif" none-the-less!

I still call shenanigans. Come on dude its a load of shite

Edit...think his name is Sherrif....that's a new one.

I know it's a load of shite, but it's not the media who are to blame on this occasion.

free_phil_spector wrote:I know it's a load of shite, but it's not the media who are to blame on this occasion.

I dunno I think the media should have challenged the report before publishing this bullshit. It only proves most reporters/news agencies are as clueless as that quack coroner about cannabis.

This is fucking stupid and really pisses me off. I can't believe the media blatantly brainwash people with this bullshit and people actually believe it.

The media is just as much to blame as much as the coroners here.

1: Look at the wording used in the article: "Suggested, believed, thought, more likely, probability"
2: There is absolutely no evidence. The coroners are simply blaming cannabis because they can't find any other logical cause of death.
3: She smoked half a joint but had medium to high levels in here blood?!?
4: Most smokers know that it's virtually impossible to kill yourself with cannabis.

Read this: http://norml-uk.org/2014/01/daily-mail- ... r-hussein/

Fuck the daily mail

The media in this instance are simply reporting a hearing in a coroner's court. You might disagree with what was said in that court but that's not the media's fault for (accurately) reporting those proceedings. It's the same if someone is found not guilty in a criminal court - if you think the verdict was bollocks and he was bang to rights, you don't blame the media for reporting his acquittal do you?

In short, it's not the media's fault the coroner made this ruling so stop blaming them for reporting it!

free_phil_spector wrote:The media in this instance are simply reporting a hearing in a coroner's court. You might disagree with what was said in that court but that's not the media's fault for (accurately) reporting those proceedings. It's the same if someone is found not guilty in a criminal court - if you think the verdict was bollocks and he was bang to rights, you don't blame the media for reporting his acquittal do you?

In short, it's not the media's fault the coroner made this ruling so stop blaming them for reporting it!

Do you see this article on BBC or other more reputable UK media sources?

Just look at how this article is worded. How can you not blame the journalist for publishing such a bullshit article with very selective wording?

Just look at the title, or URL for for the article. Utter bullshit.

cgarr04 wrote:
Do you see this article on BBC or other more reputable UK media sources?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-25968093

Whilst this case is definitely not one of the most egregious media misrepresentations (look at, eg, the Iraq oil-grabbing deception for one of the biggies), it is still an example of a media organ attempting to generate fear of something in support of the agenda of the media owners: modern 'journalism' study courses state explicitly that journalists WILL BE REQUIRED to 'reflect the political views of their employer'. [source: I know someone currently studying for a journalism degree at uni. when she told me the above i winced in recognition but was not surprised...

The mass media are, by definition, organs of deception. For this reason I have zero empathy (though some sympathy) with journos that write shit. I therefore approve of any instance in which people working in the media come to know that they are hated, absolutely fucking hated, for their various and frequent abuses of their high profile positions of authority that cause at least confusion re the 'facts' of a case and at worst cause listeners to be willing to condemn folks in foreign countries (usually brown people) to death.

ln order to escape the above criticism, the journalist (whose mission in life is, of course, to bring the truth to the public) would have only needed to do a little research of their own and add a paragraph to this report saying something like: "the pathologist / coroner's conclusion that the death was caused by cannabis will likely be questioned by cannabis legalisation campigners as it is THE FIRST EVER DEATH 'OFFICIALLY' ATTRIBUTED to cannabis." Of course, the journo would then need editorial approval which he/she would NOT receive if the wording in any way conflicted with the paper's agenda...

Lying / misrepresenting matters to do with weed is the friggin LEAST of what these institutions do and is indicative of the wider media unreliability.


Stop watching TV - Stop reading the newspapers - Stop listening to the radio 'news' - you will STILL absorb the gist of the mainstream 'programming' (from other people, email pre-login screens etc) which you can contrast / compare with the results of your research on independent news sources...

Here endeth the 'lecture'!

No, not really in my opinion. If I were the family of the deceased I would ask for another post mortem. A verdict that basically seems to say "We found a small amount of cannabis in her system, therefore that killed her" seems incompetent at best. I think a bit more digging needs to be done around this story because it just screams "WRONG" at me.

From Vice:
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/nope-sti ... etwitteruk

I suppose with the momentum the push for legalization is gaining we can expect to suddenly see anti-cannibis propaganda like the daily mail article popping up from the naysayer ninnies.