Can I get high legally? Bizarre BBC3 documentary

[sgurrman]

Documentary in which George Lamb dives into the world of legal party pills and herbal highs.

Legal highs are sold openly and legally in shops across the UK and on the internet. There are thousands of different pills, powders and herbs that promise the same effects as illegal drugs, but for much less hassle - no arrests for possession and no backstreet dealers to visit.


Lamb sets out to discover why they are legal and whether this means they can also be called safe. He meets people who take them, a man who sells them and a doctor who says they are potentially more dangerous than class A drugs. He travels to Guernsey, where most of the young people he meets have tried them, and finally decides to try one for himself.


They might be legal and easily accessible, but should they be used? This film presents all the information needed to make a decision.

Next on: Friday, 22:30 on BBC Three

Last night there was a programme on BBC3 purporting to investigate legal highs. It was fronted by George 'I-used-to-be-in-the-music-business-so-I-know-about-drugs' Lamb. We saw him go to Camden Lock to buy some legal highs, try to meet internet wholesalers, get together with some users of legal highs, visit Guernsey (where legal highs were all the rage, but now have apparently been banned - hey, how can you ban all legal highs?), have a chat on Skype with the legal high dude from New Zealand(sorry, can't remember his name), and take a hit of salvia from a big, smart-looking bong.


The message the programme was trying to make was clear: there's loads of stuff out there, easy to get hold of, some of it we don't even know what it contains, and nobody knows the long-term effects. Clearly a programme to engender panic in Middle Britain - 'your kids are out there possibly having a good time, and are in grave danger' -, one of the UK media's favourite activities. It's also the sort of thing governments like to hear: we've messed up the economy, nobody believes a word we say, but let's show what jolly good chaps we really are by banning these legal highs.

I think some good points have already been made in this thread that are relevant to the programme. It did not, of course, ask the question as to why the market for these products has developed in the first place, the answer being that people of nearly all times and cultures have searched out mind-alteration; and it is a situation provoked by current mad drug laws. The objection that many of these legal highs have not been researched as to their long-term effects (as if this data, if available, would lead to a more rational state of affairs) is invalidated by the fact that there are in existence LSD, psilocybin, MDMA etc, which HAVE been pretty thoroughly researched, and shown to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, yet find themselves in the list of Class A substances. The programme unwittingly highlighted its bias towards the consumerist, alcohol-based culture by screening at least one interview in a pub, surrounded by people happily guzzling that highly dangerous and potentially addictive legal high, alcohol. Which is all jolly good fun, it would seem.

The format of the programme was reminiscent of one a couple of years ago on the cocaine trade, presented by a guy who used to be bass guitarist in Blur, I think (sorry, my memory's crap, and those 90's bands never held much interest for me). The ploy is clearly to get someone from that cool music industry to do it, to give the programme some sort of credibility, rather than some Tory politician or academic boffin. That particular programme included Blurman sucking up to Alvaro Uribe, generalissimo of the most-recently annexed state of the U.S.A., aka Colombia. Again completely missing the point that, if it wasn't for current drugs laws, Colombia wouldn't be so riddled with cocaine-related crime.

I'm pleased with myself, having managed to put several pretty rational pargraphs together. But basically the legal highs programme was a bunch of shit, a nasty bit of propaganda on behalf of the mainstream. Unfortunately, there still exist people around the world who look at the BBC with respect, but I should like to inform them that the BBC is as biased and selective as most other mass media organisations. It's OK for animal documentaries and the weather forecast, but for more serious stuff I'd stick with Chillin'will on Drugs Forum (I'm not joking there...)

Reputation Comments on this post:

	great narrative on the BBC program. Please upload it to the video archive.
	Well-argued post - not the least bit sorry I missed this programme.
	Superb post. Like a medical technician dissecting a body with precision.
	Very good summary of the documentary, especially pointing out the irony of them slating legal highs while in a place sel...
	very well written post. cogent points. entertaining read. good propaganda for our side.
	Superbly worded critique of the usual fear-mongering programs we are used to seeing.
	Fantastic post, i very much agree with all your points. A great review.

[Alfa]

please add the program to the video archive.

[baron samedi]

How does SWIM do this SWIAlfa? Never done it before.

[Alfa]

Adding a video to the file archive

[Synchronium]

I intend to write a large post about why that was a terrible program pretty soon. I'll also include the video.

[hatstands]

Originally Posted by sgurrman

Last night there was a programme on BBC3 purporting to investigate legal highs. It was fronted by George 'I-used-to-be-in-the-music-business-so-I-know-about-drugs' Lamb. We saw him go to Camden Lock to buy some legal highs, try to meet internet wholesalers, get together with some users of legal highs, visit Guernsey (where legal highs were all the rage, but now have apparently been banned - hey, how can you ban all legal highs?), have a chat on Skype with the legal high dude from New Zealand(sorry, can't remember his name), and take a hit of salvia from a big, smart-looking bong.

The message the programme was trying to make was clear: there's loads of stuff out there, easy to get hold of, some of it we don't even know what it contains, and nobody knows the long-term effects. Clearly a programme to engender panic in Middle Britain - 'your kids are out there possibly having a good time, and are in grave danger' -, one of the UK media's favourite activities. It's also the sort of thing governments like to hear: we've messed up the economy, nobody believes a word we say, but let's show what jolly good chaps we really are by banning these legal highs.

I think some good points have already been made in this thread that are relevant to the programme. It did not, of course, ask the question as to why the market for these products has developed in the first place, the answer being that people of nearly all times and cultures have searched out mind-alteration; and it is a situation provoked by current mad drug laws. The objection that many of these legal highs have not been researched as to their long-term effects (as if this data, if available, would lead to a more rational state of affairs) is invalidated by the fact that there are in existence LSD, psilocybin, MDMA etc, which HAVE been pretty thoroughly researched, and shown to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, yet find themselves in the list of Class A substances. The programme unwittingly highlighted its bias towards the consumerist, alcohol-based culture by screening at least one interview in a pub, surrounded by people happily guzzling that highly dangerous and potentially addictive legal high, alcohol. Which is all jolly good fun, it would seem.

The format of the programme was reminiscent of one a couple of years ago on the cocaine trade, presented by a guy who used to be bass guitarist in Blur, I think (sorry, my memory's crap, and those 90's bands never held much interest for me). The ploy is clearly to get someone from that cool music industry to do it, to give the programme some sort of credibility, rather than some Tory politician or academic boffin. That particular programme included Blurman sucking up to Alvaro Uribe, generalissimo of the most-recently annexed state of the U.S.A., aka Colombia. Again completely missing the point that, if it wasn't for current drugs laws, Colombia wouldn't be so riddled with cocaine-related crime.

I'm pleased with myself, having managed to put several pretty rational pargraphs together. But basically the legal highs programme was a bunch of shit, a nasty bit of propaganda on behalf of the mainstream. Unfortunately, there still exist people around the world who look at the BBC with respect, but I should like to inform them that the BBC is as biased and selective as most other mass media organisations. It's OK for animal documentaries and the weather forecast, but for more serious stuff I'd stick with Chillin'will on Drugs Forum (I'm not joking there...)

Nice post,
Aye, this was just a bit of fluff made by BBC3, I'm sure someone from the production company posted on this forum in the mephedone section a while ago asking for people to talk to them about it.

DOes anyone know where that footage came from Lamb showed the "psychonaut", of those people who were using homemade chemicals to get high? It seemed unfair to juxtapose this clearly old footage to infer that mephedrone and/or similar substances had caused these effects. But SWIM is curious as to what happened to these poor folks.

[Synchronium]

Originally Posted by hatstands

But SWIM is curious as to what happened to these poor folks.

The only synthetic "drug" I know about that causes rapid-onset Parkinsonian symptoms is MPTP, a by-product of MPPP production should the chemist not pay attention to heat or pH. MPTP is broken down by MAOs into MPP+ which selectively kills dopamine neurones, hence the symptoms.

MPPP is a synthetic opiate, so presumably they would have injected it.

If anyone knows otherwise, please fill us in.

[baron samedi]

Yes, that's the program SWIM meant, thanks SWIAlfa.
SWIM only saw the last 20 minutes, where they were discussing Salvia, RC's and the ways in which a compound like MDMA can be continually adjusted to stay ahead of the lawmakers.
It's not this sort of program that SWIM objects to, rather the fact that they always focus on the dangers of "legals", rather than having a mature discussion about whether or not prohibition of psychoactives is counter-productive. Obviously, those in the media and public who know little about these things will automatically jump to the conclusion, that banning them and criminalizing their use is the obvious solution. Surely, treating them in the same way as alcohol and tobacco, and regulating the industry is a far safer, less harmful way of dealing with this anomaly.

SWIM's cheating a bit here by adding his post about this program from another thread, but felt it would be more suitable in this thread.
Agree with pretty much everything else said in this thread. The footage of people displaying Parkinsons symptoms was disturbing, not least because there was no real explanation as to what these people had taken.
Very disappointing bit of work from the BBC's point of view particularly as it never attempted (in the 20 mins that SWIM saw) to explain why the legal highs market has exploded over the past few years i.e. PROHIBITION!

[baron samedi]

Trouble is, there is more and more publicity about "legal highs" in the UK, which isn't doing the scene any good. There was a program on TV last night, doing a (pretty negative) expose of the whole thing.

[candy_flipping]

Swim thought that 'documentary' was a load of crap tbh. It showed some chavvy teenagers getting 'monged off spice'- swim learnt some new words tho :P. Did anyone else find it hilarious how he had doctor there while he was doing salvia; George lamb really annoyed swim. Albeit it did reinforce in swims mind to keep away from the newer drugs: as can be seen with mephrodone.

Swim is pretty sure that footage they showed of parkonism was due to MPTP- if swim can remember is actually a herbicide called cyperquat as well.

[baron samedi]

What did it say which scared SWIY about mephedrone? He did not see it all at the time.

[candy_flipping]

nothing much tbh just the fact we have 20 years of knowledge about the effects of MDMA and LSD, but we don't even know the pharmacology of these new drugs or what are the active compounds in these drugs. Swim is actually only doing methylone out of the legals highs at the moment.

[starboy]

Hi

My name is Matt Bowden, the crew interviewed me via Skype from New Zealand one day for this thing, they seemed like they understood what substance use was all about and conceded that prohibition is an inferior policy model to regulated supply but perhaps wanted to paint a conservative air over it all for poilitical reasons or whatever.

Did anybody manage to get the thing online so I can see what they used from our chat and what they didn't?

I found it tricky as an interview they seemed like they had made up their mind already by the time they got to talking to New Zealand and wanted to make everything fit with their story by the time they got to me. I think you have some really conservative old people up there in the UK with real out of date values and it might help if you had a few more folks trained up in media ready to step up and make informed comment to balance it out a bit.

That's my view from down here anyway.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Nice to hear from someone in the documentary, your views are much appreciated

[Synesthesiac]

This article is hilarious and pretty much sums up my opinions on this documentary: Can I Get High Legally? - Humerous review of BBC3's recent "legal highs" documentary

[sgurrman]

Thanks for your post Starboy. I think you did your best on the programme, especially, if I recall, with your arguments about how some of the 'legal highs' might not be 100% harm-free (what is?), but they are a damn sight safer than lots of other stuff people might be doing. Your points could not really be disagreed with; this being the case, the presenter said 'Hmmm', then moved on to some other scene!

Your comment about the media is interesting. It is probably true that there are loads of extremely conservative people (with strong vested interests in the status quo, I may add) in the media in the UK. The media has a lot to answer for: it is the main former of public opinion, and has been the major panic-developer ever since the days it decided that everyone who took LSD jumped out of windows or ended up in the local psychiatric unit. Unfortunately, UK is a very OLD country, where traditions and establishments are deeply ingrained. Attitudes change slowly. There is an advantage in a 'newer' country like New Zealand, I think - greater flexibility and possibilities for more rapid change.

[bushman]

Originally Posted by sgurrman

Thanks for your post Starboy. I think you did your best on the programme, especially, if I recall, with your arguments about how some of the 'legal highs' might not be 100% harm-free (what is?), but they are a damn sight safer than lots of other stuff people might be doing. Your points could not really be disagreed with; this being the case, the presenter said 'Hmmm', then moved on to some other scene!

I used to think G. Lamb was a decent bloke with his own opinions but, after watching this, I feel that he was used as a tool for propaganda. I also feel it was a waste of time interviewing Starboy when the programme had already taken a "drugs are bad" point of view, it seemed like his main aim was to extract every negative aspect of legal highs.

The fact that he smoked salvia as his only "legal high" was astonishing too. There is no way the effects of salvia can be called a "high", nor is salvia (correct me if I'm wrong) used for recreation or as a party drug. Should have done a bit more research, man!

[b3ni]

Originally Posted by starboy

Did anybody manage to get the thing online so I can see what they used from our chat and what they didn't?

Hi, it's still on BBC iplayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._High_Legally/

[port 21]

That REALLY annoyed me. The generalisations he made infuriated me. "just because they are legal, we assume they are safe". NO WE DONT. YOU DO.

Swim is thinking thank f*ck for forums such as this where people can express unbiased opinions and share experiences to allow a swimmer to make an informed decision. Swim feels this applies to illicit substances also, and agreed with the doctors view that it may be advisable to steer clear of legals in favour of illegals, as they have been more thoroughly tested, for lack of a better word.
Swim feels that generally, most people (non users) absorb information from the media far better than from actual users. I think a balance needs to be reached, but it never will.
Its sad that people such as George seem to ignore opinions and explanations, and is set in his ways.
I do admire the fact that he toked some salvia, but to be honest, its not really what he's researching, the documentary begins with a gig, has various rave footage throughout, and ends at a gig. Who's tokin salvia at Random Concept, Download or Clubs? Very few...
Im also disapointed he was prepared to give the 3 guys samples of pills before analyzing the contents.

Also, this was filmed in 09, and i swear BZP has been illegal for quite a while?

I pretty much zoned out at the beginning when he said:
"i was in the music industry"
and
"how much do we know about these so called, legal highs"

This mockery of a doc really annoyed me! Gr.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Spot on in your first statement about the assumptions as to our knowledge and understanding re drugs.

[MrG]

Well written post by the OP there and spot on. I too watched the documentary and was not surprised by its biase.

Matt, your point about how the introduction of BZP based party pills had created a reduction in local Methamphetamine use was, again unsurprisingly, largely ignored. They did, after all, simply want to do a cheap documentary where they can mug people up for supplying "the kids" with drugs their parents know nothing about. The constant reference to these substances as being as easily available as sweets was not accidental.

But then again the BBC just wanted to target the kind of people for whom the word "euphoria" is frightening.

P.s. with regards to the footage of the Parkinsons sufferers, I know that it was as a result of ingesting something that they had made which had been synthed incorrectly. I can't for the life of me remember exactly what but I do know that it apparently toasted their Dopaminergic system leaving them in that state.

[Synesthesiac]

Originally Posted by MrG

P.s. with regards to the footage of the Parkinsons sufferers, I know that it was as a result of ingesting something that they had made which had been synthed incorrectly. I can't for the life of me remember exactly what but I do know that it apparently toasted their Dopaminergic system leaving them in that state.

It was a one off bad synthesis by people making MPPP, an opioid analgesic.

"The drug was first synthesised for recreational purposes by a graduate student named Barry Kidston. Kidston had apparently studied a 1947 paper by Albert Ziering.[1] By reversing the ester of the meperidine skeleton, a drug approaching the potency of morphine was produced. However, the intermediate tertiary alcohol is liable to dehydration in acidic conditions if the reaction temperature rises above -30°C, and since Kidston did not realize this and esterified the intermediate with propionic anhydride at room temperature, MPTP was formed as a major impurity.[2]

1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium (MPP+), a metabolite of MPTP, causes rapid onset of irreversible symptoms similar to Parkinson's Disease.[3][4] MPTP is metabolized to the neurotoxin MPP+ by the enzyme MAO-B, which is expressed in neurons. This selectively kills brain tissue in the area of the brain called the substantia nigra and causes Parkinsonian symptoms.[5]"

Surprising Clue to Parkinson's: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...141542,00.html

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Thanks Syn, that is exactly the case used as an example in the program.
	Thanks for that, interesting read and good source :)

[baron samedi]

SWIM has nothing but sympathy for the poor people shown in the clips. Pretty immoral that they twisted the real story about what happened to them, but hey, anything goes in the "war on drugs"

[Valseedian]

he probably did this as an easy write-off to experiment with legal highs.
I know of a journalist who's written off 5 grams of meph as 'research materials'...