Video - Julie Myerson- on cannabis addicted son- watch her squirm.

[cannabis-sam]

A new entry has been added to File Archive

Description:
Julie myerson talking shite about cannabis.

In an interview reminiscent of a Vick Pollard sketch.

To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit Julie Myerson- on cannabis addicted son- watch her squirm.
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.

[Highland.habit]

They asked her to come on talksport last week, to debate her book, but she declined, she was ripped to shreds in her absence.

Her son was out of it, on weed, have you ever heard anything so ludicriuos. She changed the locks on the house and then wrote a book about it so she could cash in on hers sons 'weed' use.

Absolutely nuts.

Nice avatar btw. C-S, did yu see 1st look last night, another belting series from the 'Shameless' crew..

[waytoofertile]

My comment didn't transfer to this thread from youtube and I'm not gonna rewrite it except to say this nutter obviously thinks 'the pen is mightier than the blunt' in this case.

At least as she said "I bought him some clothes and a sandwich.....awww! June Cleaver the bitch is not.

[Nature Boy]

What an ignorant old cow. Incredible how someone could believe propaganda to the extent that they alienate their own child. Her motives are questionable. Is she genuinely acting in the interests of her son or is she a money-grabbing media whore? Whichever it is, she's made a complete fool of herself. It's such a damn shame that people will buy this book now and continue to line her snobby pockets.

[cannabis-sam]

Apperently she documented her childrens lives in the guardian for years, and caused them much embarressment at school.

Does it not seem sensible to assume that her shitty upbringing probably contributed to the anger and the bad behavior, and the cannabis use was a result of her crappy parenting rather than the evil addictive skunk.

She's the new debra bell (who also isn't bad looking, why are all these anti drugs mums such milfs?)

[sandoz1943]

Thanks for providing a link for the interview. I do not use cannabis but support those who do. I was very difficult to watch this libelous attack on such a benign substance unfold. Can't imagine what would have happened if her son had been using heroin or crack. I have never heard of anyone giving blow jobs on the corner or beating up thier grandmother to cop a joint. I feel very sorry for her son. How sad parents are willing to throw away thier children and sell them out just to ride the media band wagon. Another sad example of people swilling the Kool - Aid and proof that smoking cannabis is not victimless.

[SmokeRings]

Money truly is the root of all evil. SWIMs been saying that a lot lately. It can even turn a mother against her own children. SWIM is familiar w/this type of mother, as hers shipped her off to live w/her father 20 years ago. Julie Myerson had children, doesn't mean she is maternal. She's like SWIMs mother in that she had them probably because it was "expected", even though she doesn't have a maternal bone in her body. Jake OBVIOUSLY started using to dull her out, who wouldn't?! Skunk's a VERY DANGEROUS kind of marijuana? Seriously, SWIMs laughing her ass off right now. People are so damned ignorant.
Julie Myerson needs to be slipped some brownies cooked with some special butter, chill that bitch out!

[shekes]

This is one stupid, selfish, insincere and extremely annoying bitch.

Cannabis IS illegal. How did it help her son?
Does she hope that after the reclassification they will lock him up and she'll have material for another book not having to spend any of the proceeds on him?

Maybe better to control reproduction.

[beena]

Julie Myerson is totally misled, misinformed and has handled this issue with all the nous of a daily mail/tabloid reader reactionary bullshitter.
She says she has/had the permission of her son to write and publish this book but that seems debateable.
Regardless of that she has done him irreversible damage by publishing this information about his life choices: if he goes for a job now or in the future any prospective employer is going to know him and judge him.
Myerson seems ignorant about cannabis: she is treating cannabis like a class A drug and her son accordingly. SWIM has battled for 10 years with an addiction to crack-cocaine and heroin. Thank god she has reasonable, intelligent and loving parents. SWIM doesn't live with her parents out of choice but doesn't think they would have gone to such extremes over her problems, and we're talking about much more serious drugs than the ones Myerson's son is involved in. I think the woman needs to get a life.

[cannabis-sam]

Julie Myerson is totally misled, misinformed and has handled this issue with all the nous of a daily mail/tabloid reader reactionary bullshitter.
She says she has/had the permission of her son to write and publish this book but that seems debateable.
Regardless of that she has done him irreversible damage by publishing this information about his life choices: if he goes for a job now or in the future any prospective employer is going to know him and judge him.
Myerson seems ignorant about cannabis: she is treating cannabis like a class A drug and her son accordingly. SWIM has battled for 10 years with an addiction to crack-cocaine and heroin. Thank god she has reasonable, intelligent and loving parents. SWIM doesn't live with her parents out of choice but doesn't think they would have gone to such extremes over her problems, and we're talking about much more serious drugs than the ones Myerson's son is involved in. I think the woman needs to get a life.

Very true, people in the media seem to make a habit of, lumping all drugs together (except of course the harmless, friendly, advertised, socially acceptable, alcohol). She thinks drugs to her 'drugs' sum up images of drug addicts sleeping rough in a bus shelter. She obviously hasn't spent any time looking at the scientific evidence like I took the time to. I mean she wrote a fucking book about it, and goes around on her crusade like she knows everything about a drug, yet from what she says, she obviously hasn't read a single medical journal, or peer reviewed study because if she had she would of found that- cannabis even in it's seedless form (skunk) is not physically addictive. She probably even thinks it can kill you.

The rift between her son seems to go much deeper, reading his article (in the daily mail surprisingly) where he was saying that she's publicized his life unscrupulously to further her career, she banged it into his head that he was a "Skunk Addict", which he later realized he actually wasn't his overbearing mother had been so convinced beyond all evidence, she'd even convinced him.

She obviously has no concern for her kids, she's publicized his personal life without his consent. He should sue her.

Talking of skunk, SWIM was having conversations with an ex smoker who'd given up ten years ago or so (about 50 odd) anyway, this bloke said "well it's all different know it's all that skunk stuff, it's more dangerous now" SWIM replied, you know skunk is just sensi, you know seedless bud. To which he replied what that's all it is, I used to smoke temple balls and morrocan black back in the day I never had any sensi compare with that.

I think SWIM's experience shows that this skunk thing is a way of justifying the "few naughty spliffs at university" into it's a different drug, and to justify further criminalization and it sadly seems to have had some success.

I have posted a few times on how some cannabis could be more dangerous (I'll link it if anyones intrested) and how the risk of mental health problems could be slightly higher in some types of cannabis, because of low CBD levels. But she obviously is oblivious to this, because let's face. All Julie Myerson has done is read a few papers and become a self confessed expert on "skunk"

In my honest opinion Julie Myerson should fuck off.

Cannabis IS illegal. How did it help her son?
Does she hope that after the reclassification they will lock him up and she'll have material for another book not having to spend any of the proceeds on him?

I agree, she supports reclassification because she thinks it will stop kids smoking weed, well guess what, ms myerson, the average age of beggining to smoke is lower than it's ever been, thank you prohibition, it's never been so strong apperently, again thanks prohibition. and rates since the original prohibition seem to have gone up about %2000. How successful the law you support is. She is a fucking idiot. I thought there some jounralistic integrity left but apperently not, it's about selling, your books and selling your papers, with no concern for the truth, but for what sells.

This world sickens me.

[beena]

^ Another good point (I think), that someone made to me the other day regarding reclassification/(de)criminalisation is that if cannabis was legalised then the authorities would have more control over the output, sources of distribution and ultimately the purity of the product. If the government were to legalise natural forms of cannabis, hashish and weed, whilst adulterated forms of so-called super-strain cannabis, 'skunk', etc remained illegal then it is surely reasonable to assume that the majority of smokers or potential smokers would choose the governement regulated, legal varieties. This would be an effective way of ensuring the millions of people who do choose to indulge in cannabis use (and lets face it the older, established forms of cannabis are generally regarded as fairly harmless, certainly better for you than alcohol, which wrecks millions of lives and costs the taxpayer billions every year in health care), and will do so whether it is legal or not, will be buying and using a product that is relatively safe, and the governement could make billions of revenue through taxation, taking the profits out of the hands of unscrupulous dealers.
It's a win-win situation. The key points i've considered, to summarise my argument are:
1) Legalisation of natural (non-enhanced) varieties of cannabis would effectively limit the spread of skunk use in this country. If hash (for example) was available to buy over-the-counter then the majority of smokers would opt for this i'm sure as the buyer would prefer to know what they are getting is a natural (unadulterated) product and they can do so without risk of getting arrested and possibly a criminal record and without having to deal with undesirable individuals (in the form of street drug-dealers).
2) If cannabis, in the form mentioned, was legalised then penalties for possession of or dealing in the sale and distribution of 'skunk' could be higher and therefore create and effective deterrent for both likely buyers/users of the drug and likely sellers/dealers of the drug. Again, this would encourage more potential cannabis users to opt for the legalised, safer varieties.
3) The sale of cannabis could be organised and controlled effectively by legitimate sources: a legal age to buy it (as with alcohol - although I don't necessarily agree with this), rules for the sale of it (who can sell it and where -enables the government to monitor the distribution of the drug), taxation - the goverment could make serious money from the sale of the drug which could, in turn, be pumped back into the economy or put to good use in public services, such as health or education, purety - the drug produced and sold would be natural so people would know exactly what they're getting.
4) This would make a clear distinction between the cannabis that has been around for years and which scientists have never been able to make a substantial connection to it causing health problems (physical or mental) apart from finding it beneficial in the treatment of some physical ailments (such as Multiple Schlerosis - MS), and the newer strains of cannabis, like skunk, that are really an unknown quantity at this stage but perhaps, as some initial research proposes, may be negatively linked to mental health issues.
5) If cannabis is a gateway drug, then it must be acknowledged that part of the problem is it's illegality because this introduces people (often young teenagers) to individuals and a world that they may never have otherwise been exposed too. Often dealers selling cannabis will sell other drugs (or at least know where to get them), sometimes they actively push these drugs on to their customers (it's a business after all). If cannabis was legal and distributed in a safe, organised way then it lifts a whole group of people out of criminalisation. I don't think the power of this should be ignored. Once a person is labelled a 'criminal' by society for buying and using cannabis then it is much easier for them to continue down that road of gradually buying and using harder, stronger, more dangerous and potentially deadly drugs.

SWIM is not just sounding off either, as a recovering crack and heroin addict (SWIM had a habit for the best part of a decade), she has some experience/knowledge of what she is talking about. Had SWIM been offered cocaine (for example) at the age of 14 or 15 she would have been horrified and appalled, but cannabis did not seem such a big deal. Through her use of this drug she fell in with a crowd of other users and some of those users were a little older and more experienced than herself. Some of those people also dabbled in amphetamines (speed), later she had friends that raved (no pun intended) about ecstacy and some were taking LSD at the weekends. Because of it's illegality (and SWIM has to admit that having to be secretive and disceet about buying and using the drug - hiding her use from her parents, teachers
(at school) and more obviously the police - was part of the attraction at that age), SWIM almost found herself thrown together with other 'users' at school: they became her friends, her likely allies. They were people she might otherwise not have associated with but it was almost like cannabis users sniffed each-other out!
They felt a certain kinship, loyalty and respect for each-other. More so than any other drug that SWIM has taken or been involved with there was a real and thriving cannabis culture that one bought into when buying the drug.
It wasn't just about putting up pictures of cannabis leaves or Bob Marley on her wall either, or wearing a cannabis-leaf Beanie or neckless, it's hard to describe really (SWIM wouldn't be able to do so and do it enough justice anyway), but there was a sort of ethos; an attitude to life and a palpable affinity towards other cannabis-smokers ... it's almost tribal I think.
In fact SWIM refused to try ecstacy when a lot of her friends were doing it. She was shocked when a friend told her she'd tried heroin and warned her friend of the 'evil' nature of the drug and addictive qualities. She tried a little speed but wasn't crazy about it; she tried acid (twice) and didn't like it.
It wasn't until university, when SWIM was away from home and with new and exciting people who seemed far more worldly than SWIM and her former friends and who regularly took ecstacy and cocaine at the weekends without any visible negative effects (they were intelligent, likeable people who, after all - being enrolled at university - were on a path to success), that SWIM took a gamble and tried ecstacy.
Another reason for this (and this is the only thing she has to say as to why cannabis is partly to blame for her future addictions to class A drugs), was that cannabis had stopped working for her: the euphoric feelings and the socially-relaxed and carefree attitude that cannabis smoking created for SWIM was replaced with social awkwardness, paranoia and anxiety. SWIM had stopped smoking cannabis about 6 months before university but really she hadn't been enjoying it for up to a year prior. But SWIM still longed to be able to smoke it and get the old feelings back because she still felt part of that culture. At university ecstacy was the new cannabis - by that SWIM means everybody seemed to be doing it and SWIM felt a sort of belonging to a new social group by her involvement with that drug.
To cut a long story short: cocaine followed ecstacy and that opened the doorway to crack-cocaine and (much) later heroin.
BUT SWIM feels she must stress that out of the group of friends she grew up with and smoked cannabis with as a teenager apart from SWIM only a couple of others have ended up following the same path as SWIM (coincidentally both of those individuals were exposed to these other drugs at university!). Sadly, one of those friends died as a result of heroin use. The majority of the others though have either completely given up all drug-use or still smoke cannabis but are successful individuals with no visible negative side effects (no mental or physical impairment caused by cannabis in their lives so far), a few have dabbled with ecstacy or speed but again don't really do anything else (certainly not to the degree or extent that SWIM has).

Just to go back to the Meyerson story, I think Cannabis - Sam has really nailed this one and got the size of the woman. I've been reading up about her and the more I read the more I see she quite a shameless media manipulator and has used her children as page-fodder to fill up her columns and articles over the years with no thought of getting their consent or about the possible harmful effects of her actions.
I would even go so far as to say that if skunk is the dangerous addictive drug that she believes it to be and if her son is to be classed as an addict with all the stereotypes and labelling that goes with it then perhaps she should take a step back and think about who caused him to turn to that drug? I mean, junkies are supposed to abuse drugs (as opposed to use drugs and control or manage your use) because they have emotional issues in their past that have not been dealt with. Junkies are usually portrayed as running from some problem and thus straight into the arms of an addictive drug or unscrupulous drug-dealers (SWIM is not necessarily agreeing 100% with this analysis), so maybe Meyerson's son was running from having a mother who is more interested in book or media sales than her own childrens wellbeing and who is happy to splatter all aspects of their lives over the front pages of the daily newspapers. If I had a mother like this god knows what state I would be in .... and god help Mrs. Meyerson if her son ever does develop a real problem to a really dangerous and addictive drug. She is blessed with a healthy, intelligent, creative and hithertoo seemingly happy son whose life she has destroyed by kicking him out of the familial home at the tender age of 17 and now telling the whole world who he is and what he does. She has increased his chances of getting a criminal record now (the police will know his face and know there is a chance he will be in possession of cannabis if they stop him so an easy arrest for them) and decreased the chances of him getting a job. I would say he now has pretty good reasons to turn to harder drugs ... the worrying thing is that if he does I can just picture Meyerson rubbing her hands with glee as she writes 'The Lost Child: Part Two'. This woman sickens me.

[cannabis-sam]

^ Another good point (I think), that someone made to me the other day regarding reclassification/(de)criminalisation is that if cannabis was legalised then the authorities would have more control over the output, sources of distribution and ultimately the purity of the product. If the government were to legalise natural forms of cannabis, hashish and weed, whilst adulterated forms of so-called super-strain cannabis, 'skunk', etc remained illegal then it is surely reasonable to assume that the majority of smokers or potential smokers would choose the governement regulated, legal varieties. This would be an effective way of ensuring the millions of people who do choose to indulge in cannabis use (and lets face it the older, established forms of cannabis are generally regarded as fairly harmless, certainly better for you than alcohol, which wrecks millions of lives and costs the taxpayer billions every year in health care), and will do so whether it is legal or not, will be buying and using a product that is relatively safe, and the governement could make billions of revenue through taxation, taking the profits out of the hands of unscrupulous dealers.
It's a win-win situation. The key points i've considered, to summarise my argument are:
1) Legalisation of natural (non-enhanced) varieties of cannabis would effectively limit the spread of skunk use in this country. If hash (for example) was available to buy over-the-counter then the majority of smokers would opt for this i'm sure as the buyer would prefer to know what they are getting is a natural (unadulterated) product and they can do so without risk of getting arrested and possibly a criminal record and without having to deal with undesirable individuals (in the form of street drug-dealers).
2) If cannabis, in the form mentioned, was legalised then penalties for possession of or dealing in the sale and distribution of 'skunk' could be higher and therefore create and effective deterrent for both likely buyers/users of the drug and likely sellers/dealers of the drug. Again, this would encourage more potential cannabis users to opt for the legalised, safer varieties.
3) The sale of cannabis could be organised and controlled effectively by legitimate sources: a legal age to buy it (as with alcohol - although I don't necessarily agree with this), rules for the sale of it (who can sell it and where -enables the government to monitor the distribution of the drug), taxation - the goverment could make serious money from the sale of the drug which could, in turn, be pumped back into the economy or put to good use in public services, such as health or education, purety - the drug produced and sold would be natural so people would know exactly what they're getting.
4) This would make a clear distinction between the cannabis that has been around for years and which scientists have never been able to make a substantial connection to it causing health problems (physical or mental) apart from finding it beneficial in the treatment of some physical ailments (such as Multiple Schlerosis - MS), and the newer strains of cannabis, like skunk, that are really an unknown quantity at this stage but perhaps, as some initial research proposes, may be negatively linked to mental health issues.
5) If cannabis is a gateway drug, then it must be acknowledged that part of the problem is it's illegality because this introduces people (often young teenagers) to individuals and a world that they may never have otherwise been exposed too. Often dealers selling cannabis will sell other drugs (or at least know where to get them), sometimes they actively push these drugs on to their customers (it's a business after all). If cannabis was legal and distributed in a safe, organised way then it lifts a whole group of people out of criminalisation. I don't think the power of this should be ignored. Once a person is labelled a 'criminal' by society for buying and using cannabis then it is much easier for them to continue down that road of gradually buying and using harder, stronger, more dangerous and potentially deadly drugs.

Now about skunk I posted this somewhere else but it's relative to what you said so without sounding like I'm up my own arse here is one of my posts regarding skunk:

Skunk is a blanket term for all sensimillia bud(unpollinated cannabis flowers although the issue of strength is bullshit, there is evidence that some of the newer hybrids have high levels of THC and low levels of CBD; which is an anti-psychotic which seems to counteract the damaging effects of THC and this is what the media have twigged on to, it's not an issue of strength more an issue of a more damaging chemical make up. Although the evidence is inconclusive and the make of cannabis is alot more complex than just CBD and THC and the balance of afformentioned compounds. Of course it's not just sensimillia that can have low levels of CBD, there is some hashish and cannabis oil can have very high levels of THC and very low levels of CBD.

Basically what I'm saying is because of the unregulated market prohibition creates, there are loads of different strains that have very varying make ups of cannabinoids, some of these cannabinoids seem to have more negative effects than others.

In a regulated market you would see strains with high levels of CBD only or with a health warning on strains that had low CBD content. Cannabis is on of the more complicated drugs because it's a plant rather than one single chemical and inside the plant there is a huge variation in chemical make up, so without testing the user does not know what he's getting.

People seem to have it in their heads that skunk is not normal cannabis and hashish is weaker, well in a regulated market hash would be ALOT stronger than most hash in the UK currently is. It will be the same as skunk at minumum and upto 3-4 times stronger than the strongest skunk about today and thats what is so extremely misleading when the media bang on about skunk

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good explanation!