Talking (even more bollocks) About Cannabis

We’ve been looking for a worthy adversery in the void ever since the Ukippers stopped biting and unfortunately Debra Bell ain’t one.

That said while she continues to spout unscientific drivel on her lame website we’ll continue to expose her for the ignorant hypocrite she is.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, Debra Bell is a bored housewife writer who wrote a diary of her son’s experiences with cannabis to get her through the grinding monotony of another wasted day warn other parents about the evils of killer skunk.

Shamefully broadcasting her son’s personal life around the world in a bid to stave off the feelings of self-doubt and hopelessness raise awareness about cannabis, Debra has enjoyed a ripple of publicity after the noble drug warriors of the Daily Express took up her plight.

Recently she was asked to speak at the recent ACMD review into cannabis classification and is very clear in her view that cannabis users should face stiffer penalties and that cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B drug.

Debra thinks a criminal record and presumably a spell inside will help kids who get into trouble after toking on too many fat ones.

In her earnest quest for salvation Debra now claims to have set up a charity patroned by tory shadow chief whip Baroness Anelay. However in the small print it becomes clear that she has not set up a charity at all, merely a campaign group.

Debra is soliciting for funds and as her esteemed husband, a barrister, will likely tell her, claiming to be a charity when you are not is a criminal offence.*

We’ve informed the Charity Commission of her actions.

Elsewhere on her site Debra warns that cannabis use can trigger personality change. This seems particularly true in the case of her son, who as we revealed said of his mother:

“Frequently my parents will sit me down and tell me what they think is wrong with me, which is usually considerable. Add to this that my mum is the kind that thinks MSN messenger is ‘disgusting and pornographic’ and when I arrived on my book return day at school wearing irregular trousers, as I had somehow lost my others in a friend’s bedroom she screamed at me in front all my friends.”

William also said that cannabis was something he loved.

Poor William recently appears to have undergone a Damascene conversion and a piece written by William now states his opinion on the evils of Killer Skunk. Interestingly Debra notes in her cannabis diaries:

“I almost wonder now whether he was doing this so that I would agree to give him money.”

For once we wholeheartedly agree, particularly as her diaries reveal William was still using cannabis several weeks later.

Still, this doesn’t stop her from dishonestly using William’s insincere diatribe as propaganda to support her noble cause. After all she’s used every other aspect of her son’s personal life in her campaign which reeks of self-promotion rather than any genuine understanding of the issues.

William’s original statement can still be read here, or here just in case Debra’s getting all deletey on us we’ve kindly reproduced it here.

One thing that has disappeared is the link on the front page of her site to her blog. One of Debra’s posts attracting 34 comments, all but one from other parents and cannabis users pointing out the inaccuracies of her position. Debra is repeatedly asked to defend her position but sadly never does. Instead the blog is disappeared, although not being the sharpest tool she’s only removed the link and the blog still can be read here.

And just in case she decides to delete the blog then lucky void readers can also catch up on the comments here.

So fraudulently claiming to be a charity, exploiting her son’s personal problems to further her own agenda, failure to answer her critics, providing dishonest health advice and attempted censorship seem to be stock in trade for our Debra.

The mental health charities SANE and Addaction, who appear to back her campaign, must be wondering who they’ve got into bed with. So for that matter must be her husband.

*void disclaimer: Talking About Cannabis does not appear on the Charity Commission’s online register and in her campaign notes she talks of forming a ‘company’. If she has in fact establsihed a charity we will of course withdraw our remarks and lobby the Charity Commission as to why it thinks that spreading factually incorrect information about cannabis to the nation’s youth constitutes an identifiable public benefit as required by law.

About these ads

18 responses to “Talking (even more bollocks) About Cannabis

  1. You really don’t like our Debs, do you Johnny!

    Well, I have long held the distinction of having been ignored by Cliff Richard, now I’ve been ignored by Debs as well at the ACMD conference.

    TAC is a limited company and also a charity, which is legal. As it’s been explained in a post on a cannabis forum TAC will have formed what’s known as a ‘Company Limited By Guarantee’ which means that it’s a non-profit company formed as a corporation for purposes other than generating a profit, and in which no part of the organization’s income is distributed to its directors or officers.A Company Limited by Guarantee means that an organisation becomes incorporated as a legal entity in its own right – ie,it has a separate legal existence from its members – and by forming a company in this way,TAC have made it easier for themselves to seek grants and sponsorship. Also,a non-profits company receives the same limited liability protection as do for-profit companies. This means that directors or trustees are not personally responsible for the debts and liabilities of the nonprofits organisation.

    I think the one thing you can be sure of with our Debs is that she’s sorted legally. Love her or loath her, she has sound legal advice and she’s very single minded and determined. Whether that’s a strength or a weakness, we’ll see.

    Edited to add TAC plc details can be seen here and are thus in the public domain. They are:

    Address: 4 OAKCROFT ROAD, LEWISHAM, LONDON, SE13 7ED
    Type: Private Limited company without share capital
    Incorporation Date: 24-01-2008
    Status: Unknown

    Derek

  2. derek i beg to differ

    it is an offence to call yourself a charity unless you are registered with the charity commission which they are not

    seems our Debra’s slipped up here

  3. you’re right though, she has really narked me off :)

  4. Hmmm… Reminds me of rat park ;)

  5. Ok, so I just dropped by… but… um… Is Deb insinuating that any person over the age of 10 hasn’t tried pot, skank, dope, chronic, mary jane and cannot make up his/her own mind?

    What I don’t get is why she narked you off….

  6. Maybe not-for-profit but you can still pay yourself fat wages.

  7. Rethink specifically does not support TAC’s stance. Get your facts right. RETHINK is campaigning for it NOT to be moved to class B but for money to be spend on raising awareness of specific mental health risks.

  8. Here

    http://www.rethink.org/get_involved/donate_now/spring_appeal_2008.html

    “The Facts: Cannabis users under 15 years of age are four times more likely to experience psychosis. Cannabis use is detrimental to the mental health of people who already have severe mental illness.

    The Problem: One in four people think cannabis is better for you than coffee. However the effect of mental illness can destroy a young person, their family relationships, their friends, their education, their future.

    The Crisis: Our Government is about to waste yet more money simply reclassifying cannabis instead of warning people about the dangers – only with your help can we stop them.”

    I support RETHINK in demanding it not to be moved ot B and money sepnt on a health information campaign. I would also like cannabis users to contribute to health infomration in a positive way to discourage (not punish) children’s use.

    Come on Void – you can write well – lets see you come up with something.

    Helen Sello http://www.cannabis-hm.net

  9. ok fair’s fair, she bigs up Rethink on her website but it seems the affection is not reciprocated

    so we’ll change that to Addaction

    “The Facts: Cannabis users under 15 years of age are four times more likely to experience psychosis. Cannabis use is detrimental to the mental health of people who already have severe mental illness.”

    fact might be a bit strong a word don’t you think?

  10. Pingback: Yet More Bollocks About Cannabis « the void

  11. It looks like Debbie’s gone and deleted her little Blog.

    Keep up the good work Johnny.

  12. Pingback: Another blog bites the dust « the void

  13. Pingback: Talking About Cannabis No Longer a Charity! « the void

  14. If you really want to disprove the detrimental effect of cannabis use on human relationships, the best way is to engage calmly and rationally in a well-thought out debate, rather than launch into the character and personality assassination of those who, on the bases of their experiences, hold a different view. Aggressiveness merely proves the point of the effect of cannabis upon the mind.
    If you claim that Debra Bells holds unscientific opinions, then you should provide the correct ones. Merely dismissing something out of hand is not enough.

    Stay calm. Reason lucidly. Engage properly with the issues raised. Remember, if you lose your temper, you lose the argument. Note how you feel AFTER the blissful effect of cannabis has worn off. I have tried it twice. When I woke up, I wanted to cry. I knew the “weed” wasn’t good for me. I started eating fresh spinach and citrous fruit salad instead. This is “cool” too!

  15. Those who want cannabis illegal have to explain to us why their solution has been such a total failure for 40 years. How long can we afford them to be so ineffectual?

    Then they have to explain why American Prohibition was a failure – and promise us it didn’t create a vast problem of organised crime that still blights the US.

    Then they have to tell us how much this trade is worth (none of them know the answer – but it seems to be at least £6 billion a year and is overtaking tobacco).

    Then they have to tell us whether they want the profits of this trade (ie nearly all of it) spent on hospitals or spent onfast women and slow horses. Or, best of all, whether they approve of it being spent on guns.

    (Let’s not further addle their brains explaining that an illegal trade is guaranteed to push the market towards skunk, more and more concentrated and dangerous forms).

    Needless to say, the Drug Warriors will only spit hatred when you ask such quesetions. Why? Because they’re addicted to this atrocious “War On Drugs” – it supports their careers and pays their mortgages. Yes, that’s right, the mortgies are actually much nastier than the druggies – and their legal “solutions” cause far more damage to people’s lives than the chemicals themselves!

  16. Pingback: Talking (Even More Bollocks) About Cannabis | Disinformation

  17. Pingback: BBC Breakfast Watch: Tweaking Shatner’s Bassoon « Shades of Caruso

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s