The Marketing of Cannabis Part 2: Bad Science


In the last article for ISMOKE Magazine, we took a belligerent look at the political and media marketing of conceptualised cannabis. With feedback a plenty from the article, we shall delve into the realms of Doctor Frankenstein’s lab for a summary of scientific anomalies.

I would like to fully stipulate that I am not a scientist; frankly, the eye for detail needed to become one is something I don’t possess. I once got told off by a science teacher for not working a tap properly, henceforth, my scientific days were over. How was I supposed to be the next Hawkins when I was unable to grasp the methodology of a good sturdy lab tap? Evidently, domestic tappage is something exceedingly different to our scientific brothers‘. It has been said, that in a lab; you don’t turn a tap on to get water, you turn them on to get the tears of Carl Sagan. And with that entire sentence of bullshit resting upon your mind, you now see why I am not cut out for science. I admit this, and it is not my shame to do so. Better men than me should take up the mantle of sorting the string theories from the woolly stories.

It is with no shame to bow down to those who have knowledge, humility maketh the man. I dare say Stephen Hawkin couldn’t play an Gibson Les Paul like I could. Moving on…

It is somewhat a curious practice in our modern age that anyone with a keyboard and google can proclaim to translate a scientific paper. Yes, I admit, having been involved in drug reform for a little while now; I cite, speak and delve into science – that is the nature of the beast. So, am I a hypocrite for waxing lyrical at hyperbole’s ugly cousin – propaganda? When ‘news’ papers push the boundaries and interpret science in a way that is reminiscent to a child with a Harry Potter polyjuice set, am I also a hypocrite for my own attempts at scientific interpretation?