Where does the media find its pro-cannabis pundits?

I've watched more than a few TV debates about the merits/evils of marijuana over the years.

One thing I've noticed throughout is that the pro-cannabis spokespeople and advocates for legalisation almost always look like a bunch of freaks. Why is that? Why does the boom mic always swing over to the cross-eyed weirdo with weathered skin like old saddle-leather, ill-fitting clothes, and unfeasible hair. He'll have an unfortunate facial twitch, and will mumble in slurred halting tones "I've been smoking it for 30 years and it hasn't done me any harm".

He's probably a great guy, with an interesting tale to tell about each and every one of his missing teeth, but as a front man for the cause, he's worse than useless. I'm sitting at home with my head in my hands, thinking ferkrissakes can't someone get up there who can dress sharp, use a comb, speak in sentences, and make a real, compelling case for ending the sensless, ill-informed, prohibition that's blighted cannabis production and enjoyment for almost 80 goddam fucking years now.

What's really needed in Britain is for some media heavy-hitters to start banging the drum in earnest:

<pipe dream>
Jeremy Paxman: "I get really wound up trying to squeeze answers out of some of these slimy politicians I interview on Newsnight. Rather than risk driving home in an agitated state, I like to chill with a couple of reefers before getting into the car."

Kate Adie: "When you're reporting from a war-zone, dodging shells and snipers from dawn till dusk, a little assistance is sometimes needed when trying to relax at the end of the day. I like to sling a big chunk of the locally produced hashish onto a water pipe and toke myself into oblivion, personally."

Trevor McDonald: "I'd be the first to admit that I've covered some rather depressing stories on 'Tonight with Trevor McDonald'. Do they get to me? Sometimes, but when that happens I cook myself up a nice pork stew laced with righteous bud from the foothills of the Blue Mountain. That tends to put it all in perspective."

</pipedream>

Dream on!

 

Mostly, yeah. Hypocritical, too.

Britains populist papers are a lost cause at the moment. They'll just follow the mindless herd.

The Economist, one of Britain's most influential and least read newspapers continues to pursue its credo of "legalise, control, discourage" with regard to all drugs.

Every few years, ever since the Mick Jagger 'break a butterfly on a wheel' thing back in the sixties, one or other 'quality' British paper has run a thoughtful editorial about legalising the weed. They'll sometimes whip up a list of 'high-profile' signatories and supporters, but these are always authors of books no-one's read, architects of buildings no-one likes, fellows of this and that royal college, people whose opinion makes about as much of a ripple as a snowflake landing on a frozen pond in the overall scheme of things. Who cares?

How about if JK Rowling came out batting for the weed? That might stir up the debate a bit.