How to spot a liar.

We, collectively, are the most heavily marketed generation in history. Literally everything we see, hear and most of what we touch and smell is marketing. Some of the things marketers say are true, most of it is smoke, mirrors and lies.

Nowhere is the marketing more intense than in politics. The lies come like a blizzard from all sides.

Here is an article that exemplifies how media companies lie in service to a political agenda.

EXCLUSIVE: How California's legal cannabis dream became a public health nightmare: It's a class B drug in the UK - but in the US state it's led to spiralling addiction, psychotic illnesses and hospitals facing a deluge of poisonings

Reading through this missive from the Daily Mail, the misdirection and outright lying fairly leap off the page. Despite an official effort that began in the 1930s and continues today in the United States, there is no provable medical evidence for major harms caused by cannabis.

1. It has never been proven addictive. The reverse is in fact the case, there  is no evidence that cannabis is physically addictive. Heavy users cut from their supply do not experience physical withdrawal symptoms.
   
2. It has never been proven to have a fatal dose. People routinely ingest ridiculously large doses of cannabis with no evident toxicity at all.
   
3. It has never been proven to cause mental illness, although there is evidence to suggest it may make certain individuals who already have mental illness worse. I use the word "may" advisedly, as there still is no proof of the effect and no delineated mechanism by which such an effect might work. There are merely associations and correlations, no clinical proof.

Making the article a lie right off the bat.

Then there is the use of language. Reading the first couple of paragraphs, we come across the words 'genetically engineered cannabis' which is another lie. Nobody is doing GM cannabis. They are all doing selective breeding.

Then we get the kicker: TEENAGE ADDICITION!!!! They're coming for your chillllldren!

And I must admit, the way it's all sold, as some kind of divine health-giving elixir, certainly makes the idea of dabbling more palatable. But I am not here to partake. Because behind the shiny pots and serenely smiling assistants, a far more disturbing picture is emerging.

Over the past few years, doctors in California have begun to voice concerns about the repercussions of increasing cannabis use. In particular, how the laissez-faire approach is fuelling a surge in addiction and mental illness.

Many are particularly concerned about Los Angeles, where teenagers use the drug more often than in any other Californian city.

I spent a week travelling across LA and beyond, meeting emergency doctors in the eye of the storm, as well as devastated parents who say their families have been torn apart by cannabis.

So now we get the tear-jerker stories of the sweet young lad who was "addicted" to cannabis for four years before he was finally killed by an overdose.

Michelle Leopold, 57, from San Francisco, has fallen victim to the worst possible consequences of the normalisation of cannabis use. In 2019, her 18-year-old son Trevor (together, above) died after dabbling with prescription painkillers – and unwittingly taking a tablet of powerful opioid Fentanyl – following four years of addiction to cannabis

Yeah, not killed by cannabis then, eh? Fentanyl. But we're treated to the fantasy that the weed made him do it. 'If not for that deeeeemon weed, my boy would be alive today!' Sorry but no, probably not. Some other shit would have got him, likely booze. Although I understand meth is very popular among the permanent brain damage set these days. The streets of LA abound with burnouts doing the Meth Shuffle.

So, why all the abject, bald-faced lying and heart-string tugging? Politics. You have to go more than halfway through the article to find this:

Part of my journey followed in the footsteps of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who recently visited a number of LA's dispensaries on a 'fact finding mission'. He announced that a new group would be set up to look at the benefits of legalising cannabis in the UK,

Uh huh. All this because somebody at the Daily Mail doesn't like London Mayor Sadiq Khan. They're going to use this hot-button issue to make him look bad.

Now, I must say that I don't like London Mayor Sadiq Khan either. He's a socialist. He's looking at cannabis in hopes of getting himself a nice taxation cash-cow to milk. Extract some more shillings from the pockets of Britons and also profit from the brand-new companies and production facilities that will spring up. Odd that a socialist would be excited about starting a new industry, but once you realize it will be entirely encompassed and controlled by the government from seed to escaping smoke, it makes sense. It also represents a completely new bureaucracy, something socialists love.

Now, the truth of the matter is that we heard all these "blood in the streets!!!" scare stories in Canada, right up until Legalization Day, October 17th 2018. On the 19th and carrying forward to today, you don't see the word cannabis in the news at all. You do see it in the business pages as company after company goes under or gets bought out, but otherwise no.

Net effect of legalizing the Demon Weed in Canada? Nothing. Net effect of legalizing weed in California? Despite all the "experts" and scary stories, the net result is... nothing. The net effect of legalizing weed in Britain will be nothing as well. The Dutch stopped prosecuting weed offences in 1976 and nothing has happened for 40 years. It'll come and go, and no one will notice or care a damn.

What about London Mayor Sadiq Khan? Well, he's telling everyone that legalizing weed will be a boon to society, because of the health benefits of weed and all the lovely taxes they will get from the recreational side. Also lies. The fact is, from the Canadian experience, that there won't be much tax income from the recreational side because getting stoned on the weekend is not that much fun. The huge demand that all the boffins and factotums predicted just isn't there. The health benefits have been quite nice, mostly for old ladies and gentlemen who suffer from arthritis and so forth. Medical cannabis is mostly consumed by the over-50 set for aches and pains. Not really "boon to society" level stuff.

Who's the bigger liar? It doesn't matter. They're both lying, it doesn't make much sense for me to pick a side. For my money the biggest liars of all were the stupid sons of bitches who made cannabis illegal in the 1930s. That was some world class bullshit, piled high and deep.

But, do you notice a pattern, dear reader? None of this is actually about cannabis. All the bullshit is politics. Cannabis, the actual thing itself, is no big deal.