Daily Mail Editor Paul Dacre And Cannabis: The Terrible Truth
‘The hypocrisy of the Mail editor is the norm’
The hypocrisy, apparent psychopathy and undeclared interests of the Mail editor are the norm in the modern political class, argues David Shayler.
These days, when trying to get at the truth, I advise people to absorb the mainstream media then think the exact opposite. That way, they will come closer to reality than if they had not read mainstream publications at all.
Some people think I'm joking when I advise this. Yet this week, a prime example of just such an article came along.
'Cannabis: the terrible truth', screamed the front page of Wednesday's Daily Mail in that way that only the Wail can. It then listed six bullets points to justify its sensationalist headline, rehashing the usual alarmist nonsense designed to appeal to a certain type of mother in middle England.
They are all easily refutable.
First, these are the results of substances being made illegal in the first place – not the results of drug taking itself. If we were to accept the point that marijuana leads to harder drugs – which I do not -- surely this is a compelling argument for legalising it. Only while it remains illegal are youngsters also exposed to other drugs that are genuinely dangerous, like cocaine. (By the way, all the research shows that tobacco is the 'entry drug' to experimenting with other substances).
Second, the paper is authored by an interested party, Professor Wayne Hall, an adviser to the World 'Health' Organisation. It enthusiastically promotes 'treatments' developed by 'Big Pharma', including vaccines that have caused sterility and death, particularly in women, when research shows people would be better off with cheap, natural preventative tonics and medicines, like marijuana. (How many people have been killed by cannabis in history? 0. How many people have developed cervical cancer after having the so-called anti-HPV vaccine in the last few years? At least 64 in the US alone).
It is clearly not in the interests of these institutions that people use cannabis and other substances to prevent and cure, for example, cancer, when their backers have so heavily invested in long-term treatments or repeated vaccines. The Daily Mail and its editor, Paul Dacre do not raise this obvious conflict of interest. But then again, that is probably because the Mail shares the very same conflict of interest. It receives funds from Big Pharma in the form of advertising.
The article even raises that old chestnut that cannabis causes schizophrenia and other psychoses. It contradicts a 20-year study carried out at Harvard University's prestigious Institute of Psychiatric Studies, published earlier this year. It established that psychosis was much more likely hereditary than caused by cannabis.
So, teenagers the next time your mother goes on at you about weed and your perceived irregular behaviour tell her it's more likely you got it off her than as a result of the weed!
This idea is though obviously refuted by the application of reason, something that is entirely alien to Dacre's Mail. If schizophrenia was caused by cannabis, we should expect to see a commensurate growth in the number of cases of the syndrome as cannabis consumption has increased 22-fold since the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act made it illegal (but not unlawful). Rates of schizophrenia in the general population remain unchanged in the last forty years.
As already stated, cannabis is a proven medicine. Those who take it regularly are not therefore 'dependent' –as the WHO-backed report and the Mail claim – but self-medicating to counter-act the effects of a society which poisons its people and pollutes their air and water, inducing stress and therefore depression, cancer and other ailments in those who live under its exploitative conditions.
The report also admits something that is beyond any reasonable dispute: alcohol is addictive and causes mental problems. So why isn't it banned? Why does the Daily Mail still carry adverts for this vile and toxic substance which wrecks hundreds of thousands of lives every year? The answer is obvious to those in-the-know: because it is the ultimate drug of the dark side. Rather than expanding awareness in the way magic mushrooms or marijuana do, it reverts us to animal consciousness and all the violence, unwanted pregnancies and injury to ourselves and others that brings.
The real truth is that Paul Dacre went to a posh fee-paying school. Despite this expensive education, he was still unable to secure a place at Oxbridge. Since then he has borne this chip on his shoulder with all the grace of a baby hippo dancing the death scene in the ballet Swan Lake.
He thinks nothing of supporting a complaint to the BBC about the joke: 'The Tories put the 'n' in 'cuts'' – on the grounds is refers to the 'offensive' word 'cunt'. But thinks nothing of calling his staff 'cunts' or running the joke 'Scott 'Foo' Quinnel'. At the same time, the foul-mouthed editor constantly uses his tawdry rag to berate the EU, while being all too happy to trouser the loot from that self-same institution in the form of £100,000s a year in agricultural subsidies.
This creates another undeclared interest. If cannabis/hemp were legal then people could grow it without being harassed. By supplying themsleves with a sustainable cheap foodstuff (and fuel), they could easily extricate themselves from Babylon and stop funding the insane subsidisation of food which Dacre – who already earns £1.75million a year without bonuses as Mail Group editor – is all too content to benefit from.
At the same time, Dacre lacks the wisdom or compassion to consider the consequences of his actions. His support for the prohibition of drugs fills the coffers of organised crime and terrorism to the tune of a conservatively estimated half a trillion dollars a year (based on 2003 UN estimates of $320billion a year). That's an awful lot of money in the hands of the kind of people who intimidate, torture and murder.
But then again, the Dacre Mail has uncritically supported the Zionists' War on Terra, more or less unquestioningly accepting the official story of 9/11, and promoting moves towards WWIII by running a front-page story that Vladimir Putin was behind the downing flight MH17. In both cases, the Mail's reporting conveys the exact opposite to what the scrutinised evidence actually demonstrates.
This doesn't happen in a vacuum, Paul. In the real world, your uncritical dissemination of this propaganda contributes to the creation of war, causing extreme harm, loss and injury to those who are often not in a position to defend themselves.
At the same time, I invite you to look into the face of every poor man or woman driven half-mad with starvation and remember that your support for anti-cannabis legislation causes what will be their inevitable deaths because it forbids them to grow the plant which provides perfect nutrition for a human being. Twenty million people a year die of starvation every year while around 800million suffer chronic hunger. What's it like being partly responsible for these easily avoidable deaths, Paul? And why aren't their deaths rightly categorised as 'murder'?
Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence of their own evil, the psychopath will never admit he or she is wrong. Or indeed apologise for the harm and suffering they have helped cause to men and women across the planet. Yet Dacre displays the self-same comic lack of self-knowledge when he claims that cannabis makes people psychotic! The words 'pot' (!), 'kettle' and 'black' come to mind, along with the spiritual adage: 'Spot it. You got it!'
If he were a bigger man with a bigger heart, he would take heeds of the words in this article and try to make amends for his crimes against humanity. Instead – like so many in the current political class – he will no doubt prefer to continue peddle propaganda which works in his own (undeclared) interests and defrauds mankind, rather than face up to the terrible truth of his own dark soul and his contribution to the war society we now live in.
How do I know this? Because I have already – on many occasions – offered to brief him on the truth of the world that – any reasonable man knows – we now live in. He has so far declined to take up my kind offer. Perhaps it is time I was more insistent and 'doorstepped' him at home. Then he really would have no excuse for continuing to promote the exact opposite of the truth.