Admin_2 Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 hi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 hello Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin_2 Posted June 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 hello Thanks, was feeling lonely in here. Hey...wait! You ruined it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Is the bar open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin_2 Posted June 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Is the bar open? yep, come on in...first round is on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandorea Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Is the bar open? it's open til tomorrow. Want a martini with a little umbrella in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 It could get really long.... Like if someone... oh I don't know... CUT AND PASTED ENTIRE PAGES OF RANDOM WIKIPEDIA INTO IT!!!! :twisted: :twisted: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a 2004 American comedy film, directed by Adam McKay and starring Will Ferrell. The film, which was also written by Ferrell and McKay, is a tongue-in-cheek take on the culture of the 1970s, particularly the then-new Action News format. It portrays a San Diego TV station where Ferrell's title character clashes with his new female counterpart (Christina Applegate). This film is number 100 on Bravo's 100 funniest movies, and 113 on Empire's 500 Greatest Movies of All Time. The film made $28.4 million in its opening weekend, and $89.3 million worldwide in its total theatrical run. A companion film assembled from outtakes and abandoned subplots, titled Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight-to-DVD in late 2004. In May 2008, it was confirmed that a sequel to Anchorman was in the planning stages,[1] but in April 2010, it was announced that the sequel was scrapped.[2] Contents [hide] * 1 Plot * 2 Characters o 2.1 Cameos o 2.2 Narration * 3 Production * 4 Reception * 5 Unrated version * 6 Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie * 7 Sequel * 8 See also * 9 References * 10 External links [edit] Plot In 1970s San Diego, Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is the anchorman for KVWN-TV Channel 4 Evening News. He works alongside his friends and news team, lead field reporter and fashion oriented Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sportscaster Champion "Champ" Kind (David Koechner), and chief meteorologist the mildly retarded Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). After a successful day of work, the team is notified by their boss, Ed Harken (Fred Willard), that their station has again maintained its long-held status as the highest-rated news program in town, leading them to throw a wild party. The next day, Ed informs the team that he has been forced by the network to hire Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), a female news reporter from Asheville, North Carolina. The team is then told that Ling-Wong, a famous panda at the San Diego Zoo is pregnant, and that the station is going to make this its main story. The news team attempts to seduce Veronica using various inept and arrogant flirting techniques, which all fail. Ron ends up asking her out under the guise of helping out a new co-worker, which she accepts. During their date, Ron woos Veronica by playing jazz flute in his friend Tino's (Fred Armisen) club. Veronica goes back on her policy of not dating co-workers and sleeps with Ron. The next day, despite agreeing with Veronica to keep the relationship discreet, Ron loudly announces that he is dating Veronica. One day, as Ron is heading to work, he throws a burrito out his car window, hitting a motorcyclist (Jack Black) in the head, which causes him to crash. Furious, the motorcyclist retaliates by punting Ron's dog Baxter off a bridge. A horribly saddened and incoherent Ron calls Brian from a pay phone to tell him what happened, while Brian tells Ron to rush to the studio to prevent Ed from putting Veronica on the air, since Ron is late. Despite Ron's efforts to arrive early, Veronica goes on air. After Ron arrives, he has an argument with Veronica about the situation and they break up. The next day, Veronica is made co-anchor, much to the entire news team's displeasure. The co-anchors soon become fierce rivals and bitter enemies. Since they want to be popular, the Channel 4 News Team look for a clothes shop, but thanks to Brick, they end up in an alleyway. Just then, the Evening News Team taunts them causing the Channel 4 News Team to fight them. Before they were about to fight, Channel 2 News, Public News Team and Spanish Language News come over with weapons. The five news team start to have a battle with a man on fire, men on horses catching Brian in a net, Brick killing one rider with a trident, the public news anchor (Tim Robbins) chopping the Channel 2 News anchor's arm off with a blade and Wes Mantooth attempting to stab Ron with a knife but gets a whack on the forehead with a table leg. The battle is ended because of the police and all of the news teams flee leaving their weapons. Back at the studio, Ron told Brick about finding a safehouse or a relative closeby because he might be wanted for murder. While in a restaurant celebrating Veronica's success, one of Veronica's co-workers tells her that Ron will read anything that's written on the teleprompter. Later, Veronica sneaks into the station and changes the words in Ron's teleprompter. The next day, instead of Ron delivering his signature, "You stay classy, San Diego," Ron closes the broadcast with, "Go **** yourself, San Diego." After hearing this, an angry mob gathers outside the studio and Ed is forced to fire Ron. Veronica sees she has gone too far and attempts to apologize, but Ron dismisses her while being led through the mob by security. Three months later Ron is unemployed, has no friends, and is a slovenly drunk, while Veronica has become very famous. When it's announced that Ling-Wong the panda is about to give birth, all the San Diego news teams head for the zoo to cover the story. In an attempt to sabotage her, the public news anchor pushes Veronica into the Kodiak bear habitat. When Ed can't find Veronica, he calls the bar where Ron spends most of his time and reluctantly asks him to return. Ron then summons the rest of his team by blowing the "News Horn", however, they were all standing a foot away playing pool. Baxter hears this call and follows the voice to find Ron. Once at the zoo, Ron jumps into the bear pen to save Veronica; this attracts everyone else in the zoo to watch. The Channel 4 news team then jumps in to help Ron but is easily defeated. Just as the leader of the bears is about to rip Ron and Veronica apart, Baxter shows up and tells the bear the reasons to let them live and that he is a friend of his cousin. After Ron and Veronica reconcile, it's shown that in years to come, Brian becomes the host of a Fox reality show named Intercourse Island, Brick is George W. Bush's top political adviser, Champ is a commentator for the NFL before sexually harassing Terry Bradshaw, and Ron and Veronica are co-anchors for the CNN-esque World News Center. [edit] Characters * Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy: A five-time (local) Emmy Award-winning journalist, he is the main anchor for the KVWN Channel 4 News Team from 1964 to 1977. He is the protagonist of the film. Always confident and well-dressed, he is nevertheless ignorant, egotistical, misogynistic, and narcissistic, stating that he believes "diversity" to be some type of "old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era." It eventually is revealed that he knows almost nothing of the news or what makes it work, and is a success because he "reads the news quite very well." Despite this he remains the rock for the entire group. He develops an infatuation with newcomer Veronica Corningstone, initially having trouble wooing her with tried and true measures that allegedly won him many bimbo-type women in the past. He has a great fondness for a good glass of scotch whisky, poetry, and his good friend/pet dog Baxter, and plays a mean jazz flute. Beyond this, Burgundy has many self-proclaimed nicknames for his body parts. * Christina Applegate as Veronica Corningstone: From Asheville, North Carolina, she is hired to comply with newly instituted "diversity standards". In a voice-over, Corningstone implies she has previously been in this position at several other news stations. Corningstone has a strong ambition to become a network anchor and desires to be taken seriously in the male-dominated newsroom culture. Burgundy develops an infatuation for her, culminating in a love affair, which provides most of the conflict in the film. At the end of the film she becomes co-anchor with Ron for the first worldwide news network. Amy Poehler (of Saturday Night Live fame) was originally cast as Veronica before Applegate showed interest. * Paul Rudd as Brian Fantana: Fantana is the stylish one of the group and is a lustful field reporter for the Channel Four News Team. He is arrogant and narcissistic and absurdly overestimates his personal qualities. He has a nickname for his penis, "the Octagon" and he also nicknamed his testes, "James Westfall" and "Dr. Kenneth Noisewater". Fantana is a proud user of "Sex Panther" cologne. At the end of the film, it is explained that he goes on to host the Fox Network's Intercourse Island. Adam McKay comments on the DVD that though Fantana fancies himself as something of a ladies' man, he has in fact never slept with a woman. This is confirmed to be true in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. * David Koechner as Champion 'Champ' Kind: The sportscaster for the Channel Four News Team who seems to have hidden feelings for Ron Burgundy (despite stating that Burgundy "sounds like a gay" in a demeaning fashion when talking about Corningstone's feelings). These feelings and his homosexuality are more overt in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. He is the most chauvinistic member of the news team. At the end of the film, it is revealed that Kind, whose signature catchphrase is "Whammy!", ends up becoming an NFL commentator, but gets fired after being accused of sexual harassment by Terry Bradshaw. John C. Reilly was originally slated to play Champ but had to drop out due to work on The Aviator. * Steve Carell as Brick Tamland: The mentally-challenged weatherman for Channel Four News. He has a habit of stating unrequested or irrelevant information. Tamland is not bright, but good hearted and loyal. At one point in the film, Brick wonders what love is and upon questioning he states that he loves several objects in the room such as the carpet, a desk, and a lamp. He is polite and rarely late (which are the main reasons he is employed and well-liked), and enjoys a nice pair of slacks and eating ice cream. Tamland says that years later a doctor will tell him his I.Q. is 48, technically making him mentally retarded. Brick is quite the innocent (though badly influenced by the others). Co-star Paul Rudd commented in rehearsals found on the DVD that the thought that Brick may be mentally retarded would "never faze them", and that the other members of the news team would never berate or become annoyed with Brick because of his stupidity, but they would merely correct him if he made a mistake. Tamland does have a darker side, however. During the battle scene, Brick starts by pulling out a hand grenade (when asked where he got it, he replies "I don't know"). Later in the skirmish, he killed a man with a trident. After the battle, Ron advises Brick to "lay low for a while", and to "find a safe house or a relative close by" because Brick is "probably wanted for murder". He once held a celebrity golf tournament, but when asked whether he would hold it again, he remarked "No, too many people died last year." * Fred Willard as Ed Harken: The news director of the Channel Four News station. His youngest son, Chris, who does not appear in this film but does appear in Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, is apparently very ill-behaved. It is revealed that Chris (played by Justin Long) goes to a Catholic school and has shot a crossbow into a crowd while on LSD, was caught reading German pornography in school, and took the marching band hostage with a gun. * Chris Parnell as Garth Holladay: Ed's assistant at the Channel Four News station. Ron Burgundy was his hero, before he used foul language during a news broadcast. He is frequently ignored by the news team, even though his main job at the station appears to be keeping them out of trouble. * Vince Vaughn as Wes Mantooth (Uncredited): The lead anchor of the competing KQHS Channel 9 Evening News Team is Burgundy's chief rival. It is revealed early on that Mantooth is extremely sensitive about insults directed towards his mother, Dorothy Mantooth, whom he regards as a "saint." Mantooth is consistently irritated by his being second in the ratings, causing him to ultimately initiate an anchorman battle against Burgundy and three other news teams. He ultimately pulls Burgundy from a ladder out of the bear pit, explaining that while he hates him he nonetheless respects him as a journalist. The character is loosely based on the CBC news anchor Peter Mansbridge. He serves as the main antagonist of the film. * Luke Wilson as Frank Vitchard: A competing news anchor whose station, Channel 2, is third in the ratings. During the film, he gets one arm chopped off in the anchorman battle by the lead anchor of the Public news team (Tim Robbins), and his other arm ripped off by a Kodiak Bear near the end of the film (which he deems "ri-goddamn-diculous"). During the climactic scene, he is seen (in an apparent goof) reporting for Channel 9. * Baxter: Ron's beloved dog. Burgundy's relationship with Baxter is almost one of equality, despite one party being a dog. Ron even calls him his 'little gentleman.' He has the uncanny ability to communicate with his master in English; in a scene Baxter barks at Ron, and Ron replies, "you know I don't speak Spanish, in English please." Later in the film, Baxter is punted off the towering San Diego-Coronado Bridge during an encounter between Ron and a biker (Jack Black) whom Ron hit with a burrito. Eventually, Baxter comes back at the end of the film and saves Ron and Veronica from the bears at the zoo by speaking to them about their cousin, Katow-jo, who he met in his time in the wilderness. He doesn't like Veronica, telling Ron that if she moves in he is 'not cool with that.' [edit] Cameos * Ben Stiller appears as Arturo Mendez (Spanish language channel news anchor) * Tim Robbins appears uncredited as the Public News anchor. * Danny Trejo appears as a bartender. * Jack Black plays the role of a motorcyclist whom Ron Burgundy hits with a burrito. * Neil Flynn, who plays the role of "Janitor" on the TV show Scrubs, also makes a cameo appearance in one of the deleted scenes as a police officer helping Ron to look for Baxter's body saddend. * Jerry Stiller can be seen very briefly, from a distance, sitting alone at the far end of the bar in the very beginning of the "Rocky's Bar Grill & Fine Dining" scene. * Judd Apatow, who produced the film, can be seen briefly as a news station employee during the scene in which Brian is attempting to seduce Veronica with the Sex Panther cologne. * Paul F. Tompkins is seen hosting the cat show competition. * Jay Johnston is briefly seen as part of the Eyewitness News Team during the anchorman gang fight. * Robin Antin is seen only for awhile when she is in the background in one of Ben Stillers Scenes. * Fred Armisen plays Tino, the owner of the restaurant that Ron frequents. * Adam McKay who directed the film, can be seen as one of the janitors hosing down Brian Fantana outside the TV centre and commenting on the smell of the Sex Panther cologne. * Seth Rogen appears as Scottie, the cameraman during the cat show competition. [edit] Narration The opening and closing scenes are narrated by veteran Chicago CBS (WBBM-TV) news anchor Bill Kurtis. Bill Kurtis, who currently hosts A&E's American Justice and Cold Case Files, is the winner of twenty Emmys. [edit] Production Although Anchorman is set in San Diego, the real San Diego appears only in brief aerial shots—modern shots that include many downtown buildings not yet built in the 1970s. According to the official production notes and "making of" documentary (both included on the DVD), Anchorman was actually filmed in Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach on sets which were dressed to look like San Diego in the 1970s. Notably, Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach are in the studio zone, while San Diego is not. [edit] Reception Anchorman was released on July 9, 2004 in 3,091 theaters and grossed US$ $28.4 million in its opening weekend. It went on to gross $85.3 million in North American and $5.3 million in the rest of the world for a worldwide total of $89.3 million, well above its $26 million budget.[3] The film was generally well-received by critics with a 65% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 63 metascore at Metacritic, and claimed by Ferrell to be "the best film, EVER!". Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "Most of the time... Anchorman works, and a lot of the time it's very funny".[4] Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers also gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "If you sense the presence of recycled jokes from Animal House onward, you'd be right. But you'd be wrong to discount the comic rapport Ferrell has with his cohorts, notably the priceless Fred Willard as the harried station manager".[5] In his review for Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman gave the film a "C+" rating and wrote, "Yet for a comedy set during the formative era of happy-talk news, Anchorman doesn't do enough to tweak the on-camera phoniness of dum-dum local journalism".[6] USA Today gave the film three out of four stars and Claudia Puig wrote, "That he can make his anchorman chauvinistic, deluded and ridiculous but still manage to give him some humanity is testimony to Ferrell's comic talents".[7] In her review for the Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis wrote, "Tightly directed by newcomer Adam McKay, a former head writer on Saturday Night Live who cooked up the screenplay with Ferrell, Anchorman never reaches the sublime heights of that modern comedy classic There's Something About Mary. Big deal — it's a hoot nonetheless and the scaled-down aspirations seem smart".[8] Empire magazine ranked Ron Burgundy #26 in their "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters" poll.[9] Empire also ranked Anchorman at number 113 in their poll of the 500 Greatest Films Ever. Entertainment Weekly ranked Burgundy #40 in their "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years" poll and Ferrell said, "He is my favorite character I've played, if I have to choose one ... Looking back, that makes it the most satisfying thing I've ever done".[10] [edit] Unrated version Ron's SportsCenter audition. In the unrated version of Anchorman, there are four minutes worth of additional scenes that were not shown in the theaters to secure the PG-13 rating instead of an R rating. Some of these found their way into Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. They are: * A scene where Ron imagines that he and Veronica are married and shows them making out in front of their children. * A scene showing Ron, on the air talking how he is proud of his 'mane' of pubic hair. * An alternate conversation after the party, where Champ Kind talks about pooping out a live squirrel. Then Brick Tamland tells Champ apologetically that he ate his chocolate squirrel. * The extended version of Ron being dragged out of the station into an angry mob after saying "Go **** yourself, San Diego," on the news. He says "****" many more times in this extended version. * Ron goes to Tino's (the restaurant where Ron took Veronica out and played jazz flute) after the incident and Tino forces him to eat "cat poop" before he brings him a steak. Ron eats some of the cat feces but is making such a scene that he is disturbing other restaurant patrons. [edit] Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie The film Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight to DVD in 2004, which includes alternate scenes containing much of the original plot.[11] [edit] Sequel On May 5, 2008, online sources reported that the director of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Adam McKay, announced that he and star Will Ferrell are currently developing an Anchorman sequel.[1] According to McKay, the second Anchorman would be released after Channel 3 Billion, another film by McKay that is described as "a science fiction/Brazil type comedy". The sequel, set to start production in a couple of years, is so far a go, as long as every member of the original cast is able to return. Steve Carell confirmed, in a recent interview with MTV, that he would reprise his role as Brick Tamland if the opportunity arose.[12] In an interview with ITV1's London Tonight in August 2008, Ferrell confirmed plans for a sequel but indicated it could take some time to happen. Furthermore, Ferrell confirmed that he still intended to make the film in May 2009 in an interview on Rove Live in Australia. Will Ferrell also indicated that it would be made around 2011 and is toying with the idea of setting it in the 1980s - a decade after the first. On March 23, 2010, Will Ferrell revealed it's now unlikely that a sequel to his comedy Anchorman will be made. The actor had been hoping to reprise his role as TV newscaster Ron Burgundy. But he's told Zoo Magazine it appears that getting the cast together will be too difficult. However, in an interview with Ryan Seacrest, Steve Carell stated that the making of the sequel is "highly likely"[13] On April 29, 2010, Writer/director Adam McKay twittered a message that the studio turned down a proposal to a sequel to the comedy, after McKay had confirmed that Will Ferrell, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would take paycuts. Plans were underway to start production in February.[14] His tweet read "So bummed. Paramount basically passed on Anchorman 2. Even after we cut our budget down. We tried."[15] [edit] See also * Anchorman: Music from the Motion Picture * Frat Pack [edit] References 1. ^ a b Fischer, Kenny (May 4, 2008). "Is Anchorman 2 Coming?". Collider. http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7788/tcid/1. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 2. ^ Davis, Erik (April 29, 2010). "Paramount Cancels 'Anchorman 2'". Cinematical. http://www.cinematical.com/2010/04/29/paramount-cancels-anchorman-2/?icid=main. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 3. ^ "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Box Office Mojo. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=anchorman.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-06. 4. ^ Ebert, Roger (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Chicago Sun-Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040709/REVIEWS/407090301/1023. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 5. ^ Travers, Peter (July 14, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/6298127/review/6298160/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 6. ^ Gleiberman, Owen (July 7, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,661411,00.html. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 7. ^ Puig, Claudia (July 8, 2004). "Tune in to Anchorman". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-07-08-anchorman_x.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 8. ^ Dargis, Manohla (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman". Los Angeles Times. http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dargis9jul09,2,588852.story. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 9. ^ "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters". Empire. http://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/default.asp?c=26. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 10. ^ Ferrell, Will (June 4/11, 2010). "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years". Entertainment Weekly: pp. 64. 11. ^ "Find The Film movie trivia". http://www.findthefilm.com/movies/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy.php. Retrieved June 21, 2009. 12. ^ Carroll, Larry (June 4, 2008). "Steve Carell Says He's "Absolutely" Down For Anchorman Sequel". MTV Movies Blog. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/04/steve-carell-says-hes-abolutely-down-for-anchorman-sequel/. Retrieved 2008-06-04. 13. ^ http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest 14. ^ http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/no-go-on-anchorman-2-for-paramount/ 15. ^ http://twitter.com/ghostpanther/status/13086799281 [edit] External links Search Wikiquote Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy * Official website * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at the Internet Movie Database * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Allmovie * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Rotten Tomatoes * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Metacritic * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Box Office Mojo [show] v • d • e Films directed by Adam McKay 2000s Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · Step Brothers (2008) 2010s The Other Guys (2010) [show] v • d • e Works of Judd Apatow Director The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Funny People (2009) Writer Heavyweights (1995) · Celtic Pride (1996) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Fun with **** and Jane (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Funny People (2009) Producer Heavyweights (1995) · The Cable Guy (1996) · Celtic Pride (1996) · Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie (2004) · Kicking & Screaming (2005) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · The TV Set (2006) · Knocked Up (2007) · Superbad (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · Drillbit Taylor (2008) · Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) · Step Brothers (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Year One (2009) · Funny People (2009) · Get Him to the Greek (2010) Television The Ben Stiller Show (1992–1993) · The Critic (1994–1995) · The Larry Sanders Show (1993–1998) · Freaks and Geeks (1999–2000) · Undeclared (2001–2002) Related articles Apatow Productions · Casting in films [show] v • d • e Mediocre American Man Trilogy Films Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy • Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby Direct-to-video Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorman:_The_Legend_of_Ron_Burgundy" Categories: American films | English-language films | 2004 films | 2000s comedy films | American comedy films | Films set in San Diego, California | Films set in the 1970s | Films about television | Films set in California | Directorial debut films | Films directed by Adam McKay | Films shot in Los Angeles, California | Films shot in San Diego | DreamWorks films | Apatow Productions Personal tools * New features * Log in / create account Namespaces * Article * Discussion Variants Views * Read * Edit * View history Actions Search Search Navigation * Main page * Contents * Featured content * Current events * Random article Interaction * About Wikipedia * Community portal * Recent changes * Contact Wikipedia * Donate to Wikipedia * Help Toolbox * What links here * Related changes * Upload file * Special pages * Permanent link * Cite this page Print/export * Create a book * Download as PDF * Printable version Languages * Dansk * Deutsch * Français * Italiano * Nederlands * 日本語 * Polski * Português * Simple English * Suomi * Svenska * This page was last modified on 18 June 2010 at 22:37. * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. * Contact us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 AND THEN QUOTED HIMSELF!!!! :twisted: :twisted: It could get really long....Like if someone... oh I don't know... CUT AND PASTED ENTIRE PAGES OF RANDOM WIKIPEDIA INTO IT!!!! :twisted: :twisted: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a 2004 American comedy film, directed by Adam McKay and starring Will Ferrell. The film, which was also written by Ferrell and McKay, is a tongue-in-cheek take on the culture of the 1970s, particularly the then-new Action News format. It portrays a San Diego TV station where Ferrell's title character clashes with his new female counterpart (Christina Applegate). This film is number 100 on Bravo's 100 funniest movies, and 113 on Empire's 500 Greatest Movies of All Time. The film made $28.4 million in its opening weekend, and $89.3 million worldwide in its total theatrical run. A companion film assembled from outtakes and abandoned subplots, titled Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight-to-DVD in late 2004. In May 2008, it was confirmed that a sequel to Anchorman was in the planning stages,[1] but in April 2010, it was announced that the sequel was scrapped.[2] Contents [hide] * 1 Plot * 2 Characters o 2.1 Cameos o 2.2 Narration * 3 Production * 4 Reception * 5 Unrated version * 6 Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie * 7 Sequel * 8 See also * 9 References * 10 External links [edit] Plot In 1970s San Diego, Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is the anchorman for KVWN-TV Channel 4 Evening News. He works alongside his friends and news team, lead field reporter and fashion oriented Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sportscaster Champion "Champ" Kind (David Koechner), and chief meteorologist the mildly retarded Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). After a successful day of work, the team is notified by their boss, Ed Harken (Fred Willard), that their station has again maintained its long-held status as the highest-rated news program in town, leading them to throw a wild party. The next day, Ed informs the team that he has been forced by the network to hire Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), a female news reporter from Asheville, North Carolina. The team is then told that Ling-Wong, a famous panda at the San Diego Zoo is pregnant, and that the station is going to make this its main story. The news team attempts to seduce Veronica using various inept and arrogant flirting techniques, which all fail. Ron ends up asking her out under the guise of helping out a new co-worker, which she accepts. During their date, Ron woos Veronica by playing jazz flute in his friend Tino's (Fred Armisen) club. Veronica goes back on her policy of not dating co-workers and sleeps with Ron. The next day, despite agreeing with Veronica to keep the relationship discreet, Ron loudly announces that he is dating Veronica. One day, as Ron is heading to work, he throws a burrito out his car window, hitting a motorcyclist (Jack Black) in the head, which causes him to crash. Furious, the motorcyclist retaliates by punting Ron's dog Baxter off a bridge. A horribly saddened and incoherent Ron calls Brian from a pay phone to tell him what happened, while Brian tells Ron to rush to the studio to prevent Ed from putting Veronica on the air, since Ron is late. Despite Ron's efforts to arrive early, Veronica goes on air. After Ron arrives, he has an argument with Veronica about the situation and they break up. The next day, Veronica is made co-anchor, much to the entire news team's displeasure. The co-anchors soon become fierce rivals and bitter enemies. Since they want to be popular, the Channel 4 News Team look for a clothes shop, but thanks to Brick, they end up in an alleyway. Just then, the Evening News Team taunts them causing the Channel 4 News Team to fight them. Before they were about to fight, Channel 2 News, Public News Team and Spanish Language News come over with weapons. The five news team start to have a battle with a man on fire, men on horses catching Brian in a net, Brick killing one rider with a trident, the public news anchor (Tim Robbins) chopping the Channel 2 News anchor's arm off with a blade and Wes Mantooth attempting to stab Ron with a knife but gets a whack on the forehead with a table leg. The battle is ended because of the police and all of the news teams flee leaving their weapons. Back at the studio, Ron told Brick about finding a safehouse or a relative closeby because he might be wanted for murder. While in a restaurant celebrating Veronica's success, one of Veronica's co-workers tells her that Ron will read anything that's written on the teleprompter. Later, Veronica sneaks into the station and changes the words in Ron's teleprompter. The next day, instead of Ron delivering his signature, "You stay classy, San Diego," Ron closes the broadcast with, "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego." After hearing this, an angry mob gathers outside the studio and Ed is forced to fire Ron. Veronica sees she has gone too far and attempts to apologize, but Ron dismisses her while being led through the mob by security. Three months later Ron is unemployed, has no friends, and is a slovenly drunk, while Veronica has become very famous. When it's announced that Ling-Wong the panda is about to give birth, all the San Diego news teams head for the zoo to cover the story. In an attempt to sabotage her, the public news anchor pushes Veronica into the Kodiak bear habitat. When Ed can't find Veronica, he calls the bar where Ron spends most of his time and reluctantly asks him to return. Ron then summons the rest of his team by blowing the "News Horn", however, they were all standing a foot away playing pool. Baxter hears this call and follows the voice to find Ron. Once at the zoo, Ron jumps into the bear pen to save Veronica; this attracts everyone else in the zoo to watch. The Channel 4 news team then jumps in to help Ron but is easily defeated. Just as the leader of the bears is about to rip Ron and Veronica apart, Baxter shows up and tells the bear the reasons to let them live and that he is a friend of his cousin. After Ron and Veronica reconcile, it's shown that in years to come, Brian becomes the host of a Fox reality show named Intercourse Island, Brick is George W. Bush's top political adviser, Champ is a commentator for the NFL before sexually harassing Terry Bradshaw, and Ron and Veronica are co-anchors for the CNN-esque World News Center. [edit] Characters * Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy: A five-time (local) Emmy Award-winning journalist, he is the main anchor for the KVWN Channel 4 News Team from 1964 to 1977. He is the protagonist of the film. Always confident and well-dressed, he is nevertheless ignorant, egotistical, misogynistic, and narcissistic, stating that he believes "diversity" to be some type of "old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era." It eventually is revealed that he knows almost nothing of the news or what makes it work, and is a success because he "reads the news quite very well." Despite this he remains the rock for the entire group. He develops an infatuation with newcomer Veronica Corningstone, initially having trouble wooing her with tried and true measures that allegedly won him many bimbo-type women in the past. He has a great fondness for a good glass of scotch whisky, poetry, and his good friend/pet dog Baxter, and plays a mean jazz flute. Beyond this, Burgundy has many self-proclaimed nicknames for his body parts. * Christina Applegate as Veronica Corningstone: From Asheville, North Carolina, she is hired to comply with newly instituted "diversity standards". In a voice-over, Corningstone implies she has previously been in this position at several other news stations. Corningstone has a strong ambition to become a network anchor and desires to be taken seriously in the male-dominated newsroom culture. Burgundy develops an infatuation for her, culminating in a love affair, which provides most of the conflict in the film. At the end of the film she becomes co-anchor with Ron for the first worldwide news network. Amy Poehler (of Saturday Night Live fame) was originally cast as Veronica before Applegate showed interest. * Paul Rudd as Brian Fantana: Fantana is the stylish one of the group and is a lustful field reporter for the Channel Four News Team. He is arrogant and narcissistic and absurdly overestimates his personal qualities. He has a nickname for his penis, "the Octagon" and he also nicknamed his testes, "James Westfall" and "Dr. Kenneth Noisewater". Fantana is a proud user of "Sex Panther" cologne. At the end of the film, it is explained that he goes on to host the Fox Network's Intercourse Island. Adam McKay comments on the DVD that though Fantana fancies himself as something of a ladies' man, he has in fact never slept with a woman. This is confirmed to be true in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. * David Koechner as Champion 'Champ' Kind: The sportscaster for the Channel Four News Team who seems to have hidden feelings for Ron Burgundy (despite stating that Burgundy "sounds like a gay" in a demeaning fashion when talking about Corningstone's feelings). These feelings and his homosexuality are more overt in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. He is the most chauvinistic member of the news team. At the end of the film, it is revealed that Kind, whose signature catchphrase is "Whammy!", ends up becoming an NFL commentator, but gets fired after being accused of sexual harassment by Terry Bradshaw. John C. Reilly was originally slated to play Champ but had to drop out due to work on The Aviator. * Steve Carell as Brick Tamland: The mentally-challenged weatherman for Channel Four News. He has a habit of stating unrequested or irrelevant information. Tamland is not bright, but good hearted and loyal. At one point in the film, Brick wonders what love is and upon questioning he states that he loves several objects in the room such as the carpet, a desk, and a lamp. He is polite and rarely late (which are the main reasons he is employed and well-liked), and enjoys a nice pair of slacks and eating ice cream. Tamland says that years later a doctor will tell him his I.Q. is 48, technically making him mentally retarded. Brick is quite the innocent (though badly influenced by the others). Co-star Paul Rudd commented in rehearsals found on the DVD that the thought that Brick may be mentally retarded would "never faze them", and that the other members of the news team would never berate or become annoyed with Brick because of his stupidity, but they would merely correct him if he made a mistake. Tamland does have a darker side, however. During the battle scene, Brick starts by pulling out a hand grenade (when asked where he got it, he replies "I don't know"). Later in the skirmish, he killed a man with a trident. After the battle, Ron advises Brick to "lay low for a while", and to "find a safe house or a relative close by" because Brick is "probably wanted for murder". He once held a celebrity golf tournament, but when asked whether he would hold it again, he remarked "No, too many people died last year." * Fred Willard as Ed Harken: The news director of the Channel Four News station. His youngest son, Chris, who does not appear in this film but does appear in Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, is apparently very ill-behaved. It is revealed that Chris (played by Justin Long) goes to a Catholic school and has shot a crossbow into a crowd while on LSD, was caught reading German pornography in school, and took the marching band hostage with a gun. * Chris Parnell as Garth Holladay: Ed's assistant at the Channel Four News station. Ron Burgundy was his hero, before he used foul language during a news broadcast. He is frequently ignored by the news team, even though his main job at the station appears to be keeping them out of trouble. * Vince Vaughn as Wes Mantooth (Uncredited): The lead anchor of the competing KQHS Channel 9 Evening News Team is Burgundy's chief rival. It is revealed early on that Mantooth is extremely sensitive about insults directed towards his mother, Dorothy Mantooth, whom he regards as a "saint." Mantooth is consistently irritated by his being second in the ratings, causing him to ultimately initiate an anchorman battle against Burgundy and three other news teams. He ultimately pulls Burgundy from a ladder out of the bear pit, explaining that while he hates him he nonetheless respects him as a journalist. The character is loosely based on the CBC news anchor Peter Mansbridge. He serves as the main antagonist of the film. * Luke Wilson as Frank Vitchard: A competing news anchor whose station, Channel 2, is third in the ratings. During the film, he gets one arm chopped off in the anchorman battle by the lead anchor of the Public news team (Tim Robbins), and his other arm ripped off by a Kodiak Bear near the end of the film (which he deems "ri-goddamn-diculous"). During the climactic scene, he is seen (in an apparent goof) reporting for Channel 9. * Baxter: Ron's beloved dog. Burgundy's relationship with Baxter is almost one of equality, despite one party being a dog. Ron even calls him his 'little gentleman.' He has the uncanny ability to communicate with his master in English; in a scene Baxter barks at Ron, and Ron replies, "you know I don't speak Spanish, in English please." Later in the film, Baxter is punted off the towering San Diego-Coronado Bridge during an encounter between Ron and a biker (Jack Black) whom Ron hit with a burrito. Eventually, Baxter comes back at the end of the film and saves Ron and Veronica from the bears at the zoo by speaking to them about their cousin, Katow-jo, who he met in his time in the wilderness. He doesn't like Veronica, telling Ron that if she moves in he is 'not cool with that.' [edit] Cameos * Ben Stiller appears as Arturo Mendez (Spanish language channel news anchor) * Tim Robbins appears uncredited as the Public News anchor. * Danny Trejo appears as a bartender. * Jack Black plays the role of a motorcyclist whom Ron Burgundy hits with a burrito. * Neil Flynn, who plays the role of "Janitor" on the TV show Scrubs, also makes a cameo appearance in one of the deleted scenes as a police officer helping Ron to look for Baxter's body saddend. * Jerry Stiller can be seen very briefly, from a distance, sitting alone at the far end of the bar in the very beginning of the "Rocky's Bar Grill & Fine Dining" scene. * Judd Apatow, who produced the film, can be seen briefly as a news station employee during the scene in which Brian is attempting to seduce Veronica with the Sex Panther cologne. * Paul F. Tompkins is seen hosting the cat show competition. * Jay Johnston is briefly seen as part of the Eyewitness News Team during the anchorman gang fight. * Robin Antin is seen only for awhile when she is in the background in one of Ben Stillers Scenes. * Fred Armisen plays Tino, the owner of the restaurant that Ron frequents. * Adam McKay who directed the film, can be seen as one of the janitors hosing down Brian Fantana outside the TV centre and commenting on the smell of the Sex Panther cologne. * Seth Rogen appears as Scottie, the cameraman during the cat show competition. [edit] Narration The opening and closing scenes are narrated by veteran Chicago CBS (WBBM-TV) news anchor Bill Kurtis. Bill Kurtis, who currently hosts A&E's American Justice and Cold Case Files, is the winner of twenty Emmys. [edit] Production Although Anchorman is set in San Diego, the real San Diego appears only in brief aerial shots—modern shots that include many downtown buildings not yet built in the 1970s. According to the official production notes and "making of" documentary (both included on the DVD), Anchorman was actually filmed in Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach on sets which were dressed to look like San Diego in the 1970s. Notably, Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach are in the studio zone, while San Diego is not. [edit] Reception Anchorman was released on July 9, 2004 in 3,091 theaters and grossed US$ $28.4 million in its opening weekend. It went on to gross $85.3 million in North American and $5.3 million in the rest of the world for a worldwide total of $89.3 million, well above its $26 million budget.[3] The film was generally well-received by critics with a 65% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 63 metascore at Metacritic, and claimed by Ferrell to be "the best film, EVER!". Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "Most of the time... Anchorman works, and a lot of the time it's very funny".[4] Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers also gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "If you sense the presence of recycled jokes from Animal House onward, you'd be right. But you'd be wrong to discount the comic rapport Ferrell has with his cohorts, notably the priceless Fred Willard as the harried station manager".[5] In his review for Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman gave the film a "C+" rating and wrote, "Yet for a comedy set during the formative era of happy-talk news, Anchorman doesn't do enough to tweak the on-camera phoniness of dum-dum local journalism".[6] USA Today gave the film three out of four stars and Claudia Puig wrote, "That he can make his anchorman chauvinistic, deluded and ridiculous but still manage to give him some humanity is testimony to Ferrell's comic talents".[7] In her review for the Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis wrote, "Tightly directed by newcomer Adam McKay, a former head writer on Saturday Night Live who cooked up the screenplay with Ferrell, Anchorman never reaches the sublime heights of that modern comedy classic There's Something About Mary. Big deal — it's a hoot nonetheless and the scaled-down aspirations seem smart".[8] Empire magazine ranked Ron Burgundy #26 in their "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters" poll.[9] Empire also ranked Anchorman at number 113 in their poll of the 500 Greatest Films Ever. Entertainment Weekly ranked Burgundy #40 in their "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years" poll and Ferrell said, "He is my favorite character I've played, if I have to choose one ... Looking back, that makes it the most satisfying thing I've ever done".[10] [edit] Unrated version Ron's SportsCenter audition. In the unrated version of Anchorman, there are four minutes worth of additional scenes that were not shown in the theaters to secure the PG-13 rating instead of an R rating. Some of these found their way into Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. They are: * A scene where Ron imagines that he and Veronica are married and shows them making out in front of their children. * A scene showing Ron, on the air talking how he is proud of his 'mane' of pubic hair. * An alternate conversation after the party, where Champ Kind talks about pooping out a live squirrel. Then Brick Tamland tells Champ apologetically that he ate his chocolate squirrel. * The extended version of Ron being dragged out of the station into an angry mob after saying "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego," on the news. He says "f*ck" many more times in this extended version. * Ron goes to Tino's (the restaurant where Ron took Veronica out and played jazz flute) after the incident and Tino forces him to eat "cat poop" before he brings him a steak. Ron eats some of the cat feces but is making such a scene that he is disturbing other restaurant patrons. [edit] Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie The film Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight to DVD in 2004, which includes alternate scenes containing much of the original plot.[11] [edit] Sequel On May 5, 2008, online sources reported that the director of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Adam McKay, announced that he and star Will Ferrell are currently developing an Anchorman sequel.[1] According to McKay, the second Anchorman would be released after Channel 3 Billion, another film by McKay that is described as "a science fiction/Brazil type comedy". The sequel, set to start production in a couple of years, is so far a go, as long as every member of the original cast is able to return. Steve Carell confirmed, in a recent interview with MTV, that he would reprise his role as Brick Tamland if the opportunity arose.[12] In an interview with ITV1's London Tonight in August 2008, Ferrell confirmed plans for a sequel but indicated it could take some time to happen. Furthermore, Ferrell confirmed that he still intended to make the film in May 2009 in an interview on Rove Live in Australia. Will Ferrell also indicated that it would be made around 2011 and is toying with the idea of setting it in the 1980s - a decade after the first. On March 23, 2010, Will Ferrell revealed it's now unlikely that a sequel to his comedy Anchorman will be made. The actor had been hoping to reprise his role as TV newscaster Ron Burgundy. But he's told Zoo Magazine it appears that getting the cast together will be too difficult. However, in an interview with Ryan Seacrest, Steve Carell stated that the making of the sequel is "highly likely"[13] On April 29, 2010, Writer/director Adam McKay twittered a message that the studio turned down a proposal to a sequel to the comedy, after McKay had confirmed that Will Ferrell, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would take paycuts. Plans were underway to start production in February.[14] His tweet read "So bummed. Paramount basically passed on Anchorman 2. Even after we cut our budget down. We tried."[15] [edit] See also * Anchorman: Music from the Motion Picture * Frat Pack [edit] References 1. ^ a b Fischer, Kenny (May 4, 2008). "Is Anchorman 2 Coming?". Collider. http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7788/tcid/1. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 2. ^ Davis, Erik (April 29, 2010). "Paramount Cancels 'Anchorman 2'". Cinematical. http://www.cinematical.com/2010/04/29/paramount-cancels-anchorman-2/?icid=main. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 3. ^ "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Box Office Mojo. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=anchorman.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-06. 4. ^ Ebert, Roger (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Chicago Sun-Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040709/REVIEWS/407090301/1023. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 5. ^ Travers, Peter (July 14, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/6298127/review/6298160/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 6. ^ Gleiberman, Owen (July 7, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,661411,00.html. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 7. ^ Puig, Claudia (July 8, 2004). "Tune in to Anchorman". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-07-08-anchorman_x.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 8. ^ Dargis, Manohla (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman". Los Angeles Times. http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dargis9jul09,2,588852.story. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 9. ^ "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters". Empire. http://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/default.asp?c=26. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 10. ^ Ferrell, Will (June 4/11, 2010). "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years". Entertainment Weekly: pp. 64. 11. ^ "Find The Film movie trivia". http://www.findthefilm.com/movies/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy.php. Retrieved June 21, 2009. 12. ^ Carroll, Larry (June 4, 2008). "Steve Carell Says He's "Absolutely" Down For Anchorman Sequel". MTV Movies Blog. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/04/steve-carell-says-hes-abolutely-down-for-anchorman-sequel/. Retrieved 2008-06-04. 13. ^ http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest 14. ^ http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/no-go-on-anchorman-2-for-paramount/ 15. ^ http://twitter.com/ghostpanther/status/13086799281 [edit] External links Search Wikiquote Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy * Official website * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at the Internet Movie Database * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Allmovie * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Rotten Tomatoes * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Metacritic * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Box Office Mojo [show] v • d • e Films directed by Adam McKay 2000s Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · Step Brothers (2008) 2010s The Other Guys (2010) [show] v • d • e Works of Judd Apatow Director The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Funny People (2009) Writer Heavyweights (1995) · Celtic Pride (1996) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Fun with d*ck and Jane (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Funny People (2009) Producer Heavyweights (1995) · The Cable Guy (1996) · Celtic Pride (1996) · Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie (2004) · Kicking & Screaming (2005) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · The TV Set (2006) · Knocked Up (2007) · Superbad (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · Drillbit Taylor (2008) · Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) · Step Brothers (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Year One (2009) · Funny People (2009) · Get Him to the Greek (2010) Television The Ben Stiller Show (1992–1993) · The Critic (1994–1995) · The Larry Sanders Show (1993–1998) · Freaks and Geeks (1999–2000) · Undeclared (2001–2002) Related articles Apatow Productions · Casting in films [show] v • d • e Mediocre American Man Trilogy Films Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy • Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby Direct-to-video Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorman:_The_Legend_of_Ron_Burgundy" Categories: American films | English-language films | 2004 films | 2000s comedy films | American comedy films | Films set in San Diego, California | Films set in the 1970s | Films about television | Films set in California | Directorial debut films | Films directed by Adam McKay | Films shot in Los Angeles, California | Films shot in San Diego | DreamWorks films | Apatow Productions Personal tools * New features * Log in / create account Namespaces * Article * Discussion Variants Views * Read * Edit * View history Actions Search Search Navigation * Main page * Contents * Featured content * Current events * Random article Interaction * About Wikipedia * Community portal * Recent changes * Contact Wikipedia * Donate to Wikipedia * Help Toolbox * What links here * Related changes * Upload file * Special pages * Permanent link * Cite this page Print/export * Create a book * Download as PDF * Printable version Languages * Dansk * Deutsch * Français * Italiano * Nederlands * 日本語 * Polski * Português * Simple English * Suomi * Svenska * This page was last modified on 18 June 2010 at 22:37. * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. * Contact us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 TWICE!!!! It could get really long....Like if someone... oh I don't know... CUT AND PASTED ENTIRE PAGES OF RANDOM WIKIPEDIA INTO IT!!!! :twisted: :twisted: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a 2004 American comedy film, directed by Adam McKay and starring Will Ferrell. The film, which was also written by Ferrell and McKay, is a tongue-in-cheek take on the culture of the 1970s, particularly the then-new Action News format. It portrays a San Diego TV station where Ferrell's title character clashes with his new female counterpart (Christina Applegate). This film is number 100 on Bravo's 100 funniest movies, and 113 on Empire's 500 Greatest Movies of All Time. The film made $28.4 million in its opening weekend, and $89.3 million worldwide in its total theatrical run. A companion film assembled from outtakes and abandoned subplots, titled Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight-to-DVD in late 2004. In May 2008, it was confirmed that a sequel to Anchorman was in the planning stages,[1] but in April 2010, it was announced that the sequel was scrapped.[2] Contents [hide] * 1 Plot * 2 Characters o 2.1 Cameos o 2.2 Narration * 3 Production * 4 Reception * 5 Unrated version * 6 Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie * 7 Sequel * 8 See also * 9 References * 10 External links [edit] Plot In 1970s San Diego, Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is the anchorman for KVWN-TV Channel 4 Evening News. He works alongside his friends and news team, lead field reporter and fashion oriented Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sportscaster Champion "Champ" Kind (David Koechner), and chief meteorologist the mildly retarded Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). After a successful day of work, the team is notified by their boss, Ed Harken (Fred Willard), that their station has again maintained its long-held status as the highest-rated news program in town, leading them to throw a wild party. The next day, Ed informs the team that he has been forced by the network to hire Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), a female news reporter from Asheville, North Carolina. The team is then told that Ling-Wong, a famous panda at the San Diego Zoo is pregnant, and that the station is going to make this its main story. The news team attempts to seduce Veronica using various inept and arrogant flirting techniques, which all fail. Ron ends up asking her out under the guise of helping out a new co-worker, which she accepts. During their date, Ron woos Veronica by playing jazz flute in his friend Tino's (Fred Armisen) club. Veronica goes back on her policy of not dating co-workers and sleeps with Ron. The next day, despite agreeing with Veronica to keep the relationship discreet, Ron loudly announces that he is dating Veronica. One day, as Ron is heading to work, he throws a burrito out his car window, hitting a motorcyclist (Jack Black) in the head, which causes him to crash. Furious, the motorcyclist retaliates by punting Ron's dog Baxter off a bridge. A horribly saddened and incoherent Ron calls Brian from a pay phone to tell him what happened, while Brian tells Ron to rush to the studio to prevent Ed from putting Veronica on the air, since Ron is late. Despite Ron's efforts to arrive early, Veronica goes on air. After Ron arrives, he has an argument with Veronica about the situation and they break up. The next day, Veronica is made co-anchor, much to the entire news team's displeasure. The co-anchors soon become fierce rivals and bitter enemies. Since they want to be popular, the Channel 4 News Team look for a clothes shop, but thanks to Brick, they end up in an alleyway. Just then, the Evening News Team taunts them causing the Channel 4 News Team to fight them. Before they were about to fight, Channel 2 News, Public News Team and Spanish Language News come over with weapons. The five news team start to have a battle with a man on fire, men on horses catching Brian in a net, Brick killing one rider with a trident, the public news anchor (Tim Robbins) chopping the Channel 2 News anchor's arm off with a blade and Wes Mantooth attempting to stab Ron with a knife but gets a whack on the forehead with a table leg. The battle is ended because of the police and all of the news teams flee leaving their weapons. Back at the studio, Ron told Brick about finding a safehouse or a relative closeby because he might be wanted for murder. While in a restaurant celebrating Veronica's success, one of Veronica's co-workers tells her that Ron will read anything that's written on the teleprompter. Later, Veronica sneaks into the station and changes the words in Ron's teleprompter. The next day, instead of Ron delivering his signature, "You stay classy, San Diego," Ron closes the broadcast with, "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego." After hearing this, an angry mob gathers outside the studio and Ed is forced to fire Ron. Veronica sees she has gone too far and attempts to apologize, but Ron dismisses her while being led through the mob by security. Three months later Ron is unemployed, has no friends, and is a slovenly drunk, while Veronica has become very famous. When it's announced that Ling-Wong the panda is about to give birth, all the San Diego news teams head for the zoo to cover the story. In an attempt to sabotage her, the public news anchor pushes Veronica into the Kodiak bear habitat. When Ed can't find Veronica, he calls the bar where Ron spends most of his time and reluctantly asks him to return. Ron then summons the rest of his team by blowing the "News Horn", however, they were all standing a foot away playing pool. Baxter hears this call and follows the voice to find Ron. Once at the zoo, Ron jumps into the bear pen to save Veronica; this attracts everyone else in the zoo to watch. The Channel 4 news team then jumps in to help Ron but is easily defeated. Just as the leader of the bears is about to rip Ron and Veronica apart, Baxter shows up and tells the bear the reasons to let them live and that he is a friend of his cousin. After Ron and Veronica reconcile, it's shown that in years to come, Brian becomes the host of a Fox reality show named Intercourse Island, Brick is George W. Bush's top political adviser, Champ is a commentator for the NFL before sexually harassing Terry Bradshaw, and Ron and Veronica are co-anchors for the CNN-esque World News Center. [edit] Characters * Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy: A five-time (local) Emmy Award-winning journalist, he is the main anchor for the KVWN Channel 4 News Team from 1964 to 1977. He is the protagonist of the film. Always confident and well-dressed, he is nevertheless ignorant, egotistical, misogynistic, and narcissistic, stating that he believes "diversity" to be some type of "old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era." It eventually is revealed that he knows almost nothing of the news or what makes it work, and is a success because he "reads the news quite very well." Despite this he remains the rock for the entire group. He develops an infatuation with newcomer Veronica Corningstone, initially having trouble wooing her with tried and true measures that allegedly won him many bimbo-type women in the past. He has a great fondness for a good glass of scotch whisky, poetry, and his good friend/pet dog Baxter, and plays a mean jazz flute. Beyond this, Burgundy has many self-proclaimed nicknames for his body parts. * Christina Applegate as Veronica Corningstone: From Asheville, North Carolina, she is hired to comply with newly instituted "diversity standards". In a voice-over, Corningstone implies she has previously been in this position at several other news stations. Corningstone has a strong ambition to become a network anchor and desires to be taken seriously in the male-dominated newsroom culture. Burgundy develops an infatuation for her, culminating in a love affair, which provides most of the conflict in the film. At the end of the film she becomes co-anchor with Ron for the first worldwide news network. Amy Poehler (of Saturday Night Live fame) was originally cast as Veronica before Applegate showed interest. * Paul Rudd as Brian Fantana: Fantana is the stylish one of the group and is a lustful field reporter for the Channel Four News Team. He is arrogant and narcissistic and absurdly overestimates his personal qualities. He has a nickname for his penis, "the Octagon" and he also nicknamed his testes, "James Westfall" and "Dr. Kenneth Noisewater". Fantana is a proud user of "Sex Panther" cologne. At the end of the film, it is explained that he goes on to host the Fox Network's Intercourse Island. Adam McKay comments on the DVD that though Fantana fancies himself as something of a ladies' man, he has in fact never slept with a woman. This is confirmed to be true in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. * David Koechner as Champion 'Champ' Kind: The sportscaster for the Channel Four News Team who seems to have hidden feelings for Ron Burgundy (despite stating that Burgundy "sounds like a gay" in a demeaning fashion when talking about Corningstone's feelings). These feelings and his homosexuality are more overt in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. He is the most chauvinistic member of the news team. At the end of the film, it is revealed that Kind, whose signature catchphrase is "Whammy!", ends up becoming an NFL commentator, but gets fired after being accused of sexual harassment by Terry Bradshaw. John C. Reilly was originally slated to play Champ but had to drop out due to work on The Aviator. * Steve Carell as Brick Tamland: The mentally-challenged weatherman for Channel Four News. He has a habit of stating unrequested or irrelevant information. Tamland is not bright, but good hearted and loyal. At one point in the film, Brick wonders what love is and upon questioning he states that he loves several objects in the room such as the carpet, a desk, and a lamp. He is polite and rarely late (which are the main reasons he is employed and well-liked), and enjoys a nice pair of slacks and eating ice cream. Tamland says that years later a doctor will tell him his I.Q. is 48, technically making him mentally retarded. Brick is quite the innocent (though badly influenced by the others). Co-star Paul Rudd commented in rehearsals found on the DVD that the thought that Brick may be mentally retarded would "never faze them", and that the other members of the news team would never berate or become annoyed with Brick because of his stupidity, but they would merely correct him if he made a mistake. Tamland does have a darker side, however. During the battle scene, Brick starts by pulling out a hand grenade (when asked where he got it, he replies "I don't know"). Later in the skirmish, he killed a man with a trident. After the battle, Ron advises Brick to "lay low for a while", and to "find a safe house or a relative close by" because Brick is "probably wanted for murder". He once held a celebrity golf tournament, but when asked whether he would hold it again, he remarked "No, too many people died last year." * Fred Willard as Ed Harken: The news director of the Channel Four News station. His youngest son, Chris, who does not appear in this film but does appear in Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, is apparently very ill-behaved. It is revealed that Chris (played by Justin Long) goes to a Catholic school and has shot a crossbow into a crowd while on LSD, was caught reading German pornography in school, and took the marching band hostage with a gun. * Chris Parnell as Garth Holladay: Ed's assistant at the Channel Four News station. Ron Burgundy was his hero, before he used foul language during a news broadcast. He is frequently ignored by the news team, even though his main job at the station appears to be keeping them out of trouble. * Vince Vaughn as Wes Mantooth (Uncredited): The lead anchor of the competing KQHS Channel 9 Evening News Team is Burgundy's chief rival. It is revealed early on that Mantooth is extremely sensitive about insults directed towards his mother, Dorothy Mantooth, whom he regards as a "saint." Mantooth is consistently irritated by his being second in the ratings, causing him to ultimately initiate an anchorman battle against Burgundy and three other news teams. He ultimately pulls Burgundy from a ladder out of the bear pit, explaining that while he hates him he nonetheless respects him as a journalist. The character is loosely based on the CBC news anchor Peter Mansbridge. He serves as the main antagonist of the film. * Luke Wilson as Frank Vitchard: A competing news anchor whose station, Channel 2, is third in the ratings. During the film, he gets one arm chopped off in the anchorman battle by the lead anchor of the Public news team (Tim Robbins), and his other arm ripped off by a Kodiak Bear near the end of the film (which he deems "ri-goddamn-diculous"). During the climactic scene, he is seen (in an apparent goof) reporting for Channel 9. * Baxter: Ron's beloved dog. Burgundy's relationship with Baxter is almost one of equality, despite one party being a dog. Ron even calls him his 'little gentleman.' He has the uncanny ability to communicate with his master in English; in a scene Baxter barks at Ron, and Ron replies, "you know I don't speak Spanish, in English please." Later in the film, Baxter is punted off the towering San Diego-Coronado Bridge during an encounter between Ron and a biker (Jack Black) whom Ron hit with a burrito. Eventually, Baxter comes back at the end of the film and saves Ron and Veronica from the bears at the zoo by speaking to them about their cousin, Katow-jo, who he met in his time in the wilderness. He doesn't like Veronica, telling Ron that if she moves in he is 'not cool with that.' [edit] Cameos * Ben Stiller appears as Arturo Mendez (Spanish language channel news anchor) * Tim Robbins appears uncredited as the Public News anchor. * Danny Trejo appears as a bartender. * Jack Black plays the role of a motorcyclist whom Ron Burgundy hits with a burrito. * Neil Flynn, who plays the role of "Janitor" on the TV show Scrubs, also makes a cameo appearance in one of the deleted scenes as a police officer helping Ron to look for Baxter's body saddend. * Jerry Stiller can be seen very briefly, from a distance, sitting alone at the far end of the bar in the very beginning of the "Rocky's Bar Grill & Fine Dining" scene. * Judd Apatow, who produced the film, can be seen briefly as a news station employee during the scene in which Brian is attempting to seduce Veronica with the Sex Panther cologne. * Paul F. Tompkins is seen hosting the cat show competition. * Jay Johnston is briefly seen as part of the Eyewitness News Team during the anchorman gang fight. * Robin Antin is seen only for awhile when she is in the background in one of Ben Stillers Scenes. * Fred Armisen plays Tino, the owner of the restaurant that Ron frequents. * Adam McKay who directed the film, can be seen as one of the janitors hosing down Brian Fantana outside the TV centre and commenting on the smell of the Sex Panther cologne. * Seth Rogen appears as Scottie, the cameraman during the cat show competition. [edit] Narration The opening and closing scenes are narrated by veteran Chicago CBS (WBBM-TV) news anchor Bill Kurtis. Bill Kurtis, who currently hosts A&E's American Justice and Cold Case Files, is the winner of twenty Emmys. [edit] Production Although Anchorman is set in San Diego, the real San Diego appears only in brief aerial shots—modern shots that include many downtown buildings not yet built in the 1970s. According to the official production notes and "making of" documentary (both included on the DVD), Anchorman was actually filmed in Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach on sets which were dressed to look like San Diego in the 1970s. Notably, Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach are in the studio zone, while San Diego is not. [edit] Reception Anchorman was released on July 9, 2004 in 3,091 theaters and grossed US$ $28.4 million in its opening weekend. It went on to gross $85.3 million in North American and $5.3 million in the rest of the world for a worldwide total of $89.3 million, well above its $26 million budget.[3] The film was generally well-received by critics with a 65% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 63 metascore at Metacritic, and claimed by Ferrell to be "the best film, EVER!". Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "Most of the time... Anchorman works, and a lot of the time it's very funny".[4] Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers also gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "If you sense the presence of recycled jokes from Animal House onward, you'd be right. But you'd be wrong to discount the comic rapport Ferrell has with his cohorts, notably the priceless Fred Willard as the harried station manager".[5] In his review for Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman gave the film a "C+" rating and wrote, "Yet for a comedy set during the formative era of happy-talk news, Anchorman doesn't do enough to tweak the on-camera phoniness of dum-dum local journalism".[6] USA Today gave the film three out of four stars and Claudia Puig wrote, "That he can make his anchorman chauvinistic, deluded and ridiculous but still manage to give him some humanity is testimony to Ferrell's comic talents".[7] In her review for the Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis wrote, "Tightly directed by newcomer Adam McKay, a former head writer on Saturday Night Live who cooked up the screenplay with Ferrell, Anchorman never reaches the sublime heights of that modern comedy classic There's Something About Mary. Big deal — it's a hoot nonetheless and the scaled-down aspirations seem smart".[8] Empire magazine ranked Ron Burgundy #26 in their "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters" poll.[9] Empire also ranked Anchorman at number 113 in their poll of the 500 Greatest Films Ever. Entertainment Weekly ranked Burgundy #40 in their "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years" poll and Ferrell said, "He is my favorite character I've played, if I have to choose one ... Looking back, that makes it the most satisfying thing I've ever done".[10] [edit] Unrated version Ron's SportsCenter audition. In the unrated version of Anchorman, there are four minutes worth of additional scenes that were not shown in the theaters to secure the PG-13 rating instead of an R rating. Some of these found their way into Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. They are: * A scene where Ron imagines that he and Veronica are married and shows them making out in front of their children. * A scene showing Ron, on the air talking how he is proud of his 'mane' of pubic hair. * An alternate conversation after the party, where Champ Kind talks about pooping out a live squirrel. Then Brick Tamland tells Champ apologetically that he ate his chocolate squirrel. * The extended version of Ron being dragged out of the station into an angry mob after saying "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego," on the news. He says "f*ck" many more times in this extended version. * Ron goes to Tino's (the restaurant where Ron took Veronica out and played jazz flute) after the incident and Tino forces him to eat "cat poop" before he brings him a steak. Ron eats some of the cat feces but is making such a scene that he is disturbing other restaurant patrons. [edit] Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie The film Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight to DVD in 2004, which includes alternate scenes containing much of the original plot.[11] [edit] Sequel On May 5, 2008, online sources reported that the director of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Adam McKay, announced that he and star Will Ferrell are currently developing an Anchorman sequel.[1] According to McKay, the second Anchorman would be released after Channel 3 Billion, another film by McKay that is described as "a science fiction/Brazil type comedy". The sequel, set to start production in a couple of years, is so far a go, as long as every member of the original cast is able to return. Steve Carell confirmed, in a recent interview with MTV, that he would reprise his role as Brick Tamland if the opportunity arose.[12] In an interview with ITV1's London Tonight in August 2008, Ferrell confirmed plans for a sequel but indicated it could take some time to happen. Furthermore, Ferrell confirmed that he still intended to make the film in May 2009 in an interview on Rove Live in Australia. Will Ferrell also indicated that it would be made around 2011 and is toying with the idea of setting it in the 1980s - a decade after the first. On March 23, 2010, Will Ferrell revealed it's now unlikely that a sequel to his comedy Anchorman will be made. The actor had been hoping to reprise his role as TV newscaster Ron Burgundy. But he's told Zoo Magazine it appears that getting the cast together will be too difficult. However, in an interview with Ryan Seacrest, Steve Carell stated that the making of the sequel is "highly likely"[13] On April 29, 2010, Writer/director Adam McKay twittered a message that the studio turned down a proposal to a sequel to the comedy, after McKay had confirmed that Will Ferrell, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would take paycuts. Plans were underway to start production in February.[14] His tweet read "So bummed. Paramount basically passed on Anchorman 2. Even after we cut our budget down. We tried."[15] [edit] See also * Anchorman: Music from the Motion Picture * Frat Pack [edit] References 1. ^ a b Fischer, Kenny (May 4, 2008). "Is Anchorman 2 Coming?". Collider. http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7788/tcid/1. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 2. ^ Davis, Erik (April 29, 2010). "Paramount Cancels 'Anchorman 2'". Cinematical. http://www.cinematical.com/2010/04/29/paramount-cancels-anchorman-2/?icid=main. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 3. ^ "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Box Office Mojo. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=anchorman.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-06. 4. ^ Ebert, Roger (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Chicago Sun-Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040709/REVIEWS/407090301/1023. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 5. ^ Travers, Peter (July 14, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/6298127/review/6298160/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 6. ^ Gleiberman, Owen (July 7, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,661411,00.html. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 7. ^ Puig, Claudia (July 8, 2004). "Tune in to Anchorman". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-07-08-anchorman_x.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 8. ^ Dargis, Manohla (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman". Los Angeles Times. http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dargis9jul09,2,588852.story. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 9. ^ "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters". Empire. http://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/default.asp?c=26. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 10. ^ Ferrell, Will (June 4/11, 2010). "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years". Entertainment Weekly: pp. 64. 11. ^ "Find The Film movie trivia". http://www.findthefilm.com/movies/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy.php. Retrieved June 21, 2009. 12. ^ Carroll, Larry (June 4, 2008). "Steve Carell Says He's "Absolutely" Down For Anchorman Sequel". MTV Movies Blog. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/04/steve-carell-says-hes-abolutely-down-for-anchorman-sequel/. Retrieved 2008-06-04. 13. ^ http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest 14. ^ http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/no-go-on-anchorman-2-for-paramount/ 15. ^ http://twitter.com/ghostpanther/status/13086799281 [edit] External links Search Wikiquote Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy * Official website * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at the Internet Movie Database * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Allmovie * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Rotten Tomatoes * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Metacritic * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Box Office Mojo [show] v • d • e Films directed by Adam McKay 2000s Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · Step Brothers (2008) 2010s The Other Guys (2010) [show] v • d • e Works of Judd Apatow Director The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Funny People (2009) Writer Heavyweights (1995) · Celtic Pride (1996) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Fun with d*ck and Jane (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Funny People (2009) Producer Heavyweights (1995) · The Cable Guy (1996) · Celtic Pride (1996) · Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie (2004) · Kicking & Screaming (2005) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · The TV Set (2006) · Knocked Up (2007) · Superbad (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · Drillbit Taylor (2008) · Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) · Step Brothers (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Year One (2009) · Funny People (2009) · Get Him to the Greek (2010) Television The Ben Stiller Show (1992–1993) · The Critic (1994–1995) · The Larry Sanders Show (1993–1998) · Freaks and Geeks (1999–2000) · Undeclared (2001–2002) Related articles Apatow Productions · Casting in films [show] v • d • e Mediocre American Man Trilogy Films Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy • Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby Direct-to-video Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorman:_The_Legend_of_Ron_Burgundy" Categories: American films | English-language films | 2004 films | 2000s comedy films | American comedy films | Films set in San Diego, California | Films set in the 1970s | Films about television | Films set in California | Directorial debut films | Films directed by Adam McKay | Films shot in Los Angeles, California | Films shot in San Diego | DreamWorks films | Apatow Productions Personal tools * New features * Log in / create account Namespaces * Article * Discussion Variants Views * Read * Edit * View history Actions Search Search Navigation * Main page * Contents * Featured content * Current events * Random article Interaction * About Wikipedia * Community portal * Recent changes * Contact Wikipedia * Donate to Wikipedia * Help Toolbox * What links here * Related changes * Upload file * Special pages * Permanent link * Cite this page Print/export * Create a book * Download as PDF * Printable version Languages * Dansk * Deutsch * Français * Italiano * Nederlands * 日本語 * Polski * Português * Simple English * Suomi * Svenska * This page was last modified on 18 June 2010 at 22:37. * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. * Contact us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 or an entire report on cannabis use among UK youth The supply of drugs to young people is an emotive subject and discussion is rarely conducted with much reference to evidence. Research on young people’s access to drugs is scarce in the UK. The evidence that exists, however, shows that many young people gain access to drugs through older brothers and sisters, through friends and friends of friends – so-called ‘social supply’ networks. This report offers a snapshot view of how young people in a large city and in rural villages get supplies of cannabis. The 182 young people interviewed were aged between 11 and 19. To participate in the research, young people had to fi t one of two criteria: that they had used cannabis on at least one occasion in the three months prior to interview and/or had brokered access or sold cannabis within the six months prior to interview. This group is therefore unlikely to be representative of young people in general. The average age at fi rst cannabis use among respondents was 13, with many fi rst being introduced to the drug by friends. The majority were regular cannabis users, with two-thirds using at least once a week. The main reasons young people reported for using cannabis were that it helped them relax, it helped them calm down, and it made them feel more sociable. Nearly all (172) of the respondents said they used cannabis with friends because it was fun and sociable. The average (median) spend on cannabis among respondents was £20 per week. Half (90) of the young people funded their use through money they received from parent(s) or family; other common methods were through employment or EMA (Educational Maintenance Award). There was little experimentation with Summary other drugs, although a fi fth had tried some other type of drug, most commonly ecstasy. Getting hold of cannabis Nearly all reported cannabis to be ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ to get hold of, with 79 per cent stating that they could obtain it in less than an hour. ‘Chipping-in’ and sharing with friends was a common way of purchasing cannabis for 70 per cent of the sample. Chipping-in was mostly unplanned and spontaneous, usually tied to a social event. The sharing of cannabis was also common, with 78 per cent reporting that they shared cannabis with friends, on average fi ve or six times in the month before interview. Again, the sharing of cannabis was reported as being part of a meaningful social act. Nearly a quarter of the young people interviewed (41) never bought cannabis themselves, relying on friends to give them some, with a further 16 per cent (29) only accessing cannabis through friends buying on their behalf. The importance of the social network to young people’s cannabis transactions came through very strongly. Only 6 per cent reported buying cannabis from an unknown seller. Sellers were described as ‘very good friends’ (friendship often preceding cannabis transactions) or ‘a friend’. Twenty- one per cent bought from an ‘acquaintance’ – including people known from school and/or friend of friends. Some (10) bought from a family friend or a family member. The average age of sellers was 19 and usually around three years older than those they sold to. viiCannabis supply and young people Supplying cannabis Forty-fi ve per cent of our sample reported some involvement in cannabis transactions. Of these, 37 had brokered access (helping others access cannabis but not for profi t) and 22 had sold on only one or two occasions. Thirteen per cent stated that they had been involved in selling cannabis more than once or twice. London respondents were generally more involved in selling than their rural counterparts were. Those who had experience of selling cannabis had generally used cannabis more regularly than the rest of the sample. Generally, those involved in cannabis transactions, particularly those brokering or who had sold once or twice only, did not perceive themselves as dealers. However, many of these individuals conceded that they could be ‘seen’ as dealers by others and by the criminal justice system. While half (91) the young people we interviewed had taken cannabis into school or college and 43 per cent (78) said they had used cannabis while at school or college, only a minority of respondents did this on a regular basis. This appeared to be refl ected in the small number of young people who reported having been caught under the infl uence of, in possession of, or selling/brokering, cannabis. There appeared to be no real consistency by schools on how to deal with drug incidents, and nearly all young people who had been caught reported that the incident had not had an impact on them. While 33 had been found in possession by the police, none had been caught selling the drug. The vast majority of the sample thought they would be arrested if they were caught selling cannabis, and over three-quarters felt there was no difference in sanctions between social and commercial supply. Of the school polices we analysed, most included sections on how an incident is dealt with and when it is appropriate to involve the police. However, many policies were unclear on issues such as the appropriateness of searching pupils. Many policies were also lacking in any input from either pupils or parents, and it was not clear how widely these policies were disseminated. Discussion Our fi ndings suggest that cannabis supply to young people, at least in the areas where the research was conducted, had little to do with commercial concerns. Young people’s patterns of cannabis acquisition had little or nothing to do with ‘drug markets’ as they have been conventionally described, and were primarily based around friendship and social networks. Young people were introduced to cannabis by friends, accessed and maintained supplies via friends, as well as passed on and sold cannabis to friends. Importantly, the cannabis supply mechanisms used by our respondents served to insulate or distance them from more overtly criminal drug markets. An argument often put forward for the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis is that such reform would protect young cannabis users against exposure to more harmful patterns of drug use and criminality. For our sample, this ‘market separation’ appears to have been achieved naturally. Of course we cannot assume that the situation is replicated throughout Britain, though our fi ndings are viiiSummary consistent with other studies. The Independent Review (Police Foundation, 2000) recognised the existence of social supply among friends but was not in a position to judge how common it was. This report shows that young people’s cannabis use revolves around the kind of social networking and social activities that the Independent Review argued justifi ed a distinction in law between social and commercial supply. We think that the Independent Review was right in principle, but our fi ndings suggest that, in practice, current approaches to enforcement – whether through accident or design – manage to differentiate between social and commercial supply. Social supply rarely comes to offi cial attention, and when it does, there is already suffi cient discretion within the system to respond appropriately. There is, nevertheless, a strong case for ensuring that there is clear guidance, for example from the Association of Chief Police Offi ces, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Youth Justice Board and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) about the best ways of dealing with offences of social supply committed by young people. Such guidance might present realistic vignettes involving social, semi-social and commercial supply, and propose appropriate ways of handling each situation. Many of our sample came into contact with cannabis at school, however, the use of cannabis in school was a rare event. The school drugs policies we considered as part of this research were largely consistent with national guidance, with a few exceptions. However, responses to cannabis incidents were less coherent. Given the impact that permanent exclusion from school can have on a young person and their future prospects, this level of response seems disproportionate. In our view, those involved in the social supply of cannabis detected by schools should not receive a permanent exclusion. At the time of writing, the government has asked its Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) whether the classifi cation of cannabis should be reversed to Class B. The fi ndings of this study carry oblique implications for reclassifi cation. On the strength of the fi ndings of this study, we very much doubt that a change would have any impact on young people. We have seen how cannabis use is signifi cantly embedded in the social world of many young people, and a marginal change to the drug’s legal status – following on the confusion of the last fi ve years – will achieve very little. What is required is consistent, visible provision of accurate and accessible information about the health risks that cannabis use actually represents to young people. The health consequences of regular cannabis use among the young are still a matter of debate, and there is a need for further research to help understand the level of potential risk. ix1 Supply of drugs to young people is an emotive subject, and discussion is rarely conducted with much reference to evidence. Research on young people’s access to drugs is scarce in the UK. Little effort has been put into documenting how the criminal justice or education system deals with young people caught supplying or brokering access (helping others access cannabis but not for profi t) to cannabis; and no research has explored the links between practice and policy. However, the potential impact of policies on the lives of young people – and their families and friends – is considerable. In the eyes of some, the decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug, which took effect in 2004, was a lost opportunity. In the fi rst place, the police guidance which accompanied reclassifi cation left arrangements unchanged for policing those aged under 18 who were found in possession of cannabis. And secondly reclassifi cation did nothing to address the status of offences involving the social supply of cannabis – which may involve large numbers of young cannabis users. Whether the government was right to sidestep either of these issues is hard to judge, because there is a dearth of information on how young people actually get hold of the drug. The Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act (Police Foundation, 2000) initially set the terms of the debate about young people and social supply. Following reclassifi cation, this important set of issues has remained unresolved. If they are to be addressed, policy needs to be better informed about young people’s experiences of cannabis supply, about their understanding of current legislation and about the impact of offi cial responses to this issue. It was with this in mind that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation commissioned the Institute for Criminal Policy Research and the University of Plymouth to examine how young people gain access to cannabis. To revivify policy debate, what is now needed – and what this study provides – is an account of how young people actually acquire cannabis, and how offi cial agencies respond to those who are caught doing so. Young people’s cannabis use Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in the UK. Just over two and a half million young people between the ages of 16 and 24 in England and Wales have used cannabis and a fi fth of this age group do so at least once a year (Roe and Man, 2006). Signifi cant minorities of younger age groups also report cannabis experience: 10 per cent of pupils in England between the ages of 11 and 15 have used cannabis within the last year (National Centre for Social Research/ National Foundation for Educational Research (NCSR/NFER), 2007). MORI surveys in 2002 and 2004 found that the average age for young people fi rst trying cannabis was 14. Although cannabis is the illicit drug that is most widely used by young people, the British Crime Survey (BCS) has suggested a shallow decline over the last decade in cannabis use among young people. Although ‘last year’ use among 16–24 year olds progressively increased during the 1990s, hitting a peak in 1998 (28 per cent), this decade has seen a fall in ‘last year’ use; most recently recorded as 21 per cent (Roe and Man, 2006). There is much less information about how young people actually gain access to cannabis. However, the NCSR/NFER (2006) survey 1 Introduction2 Cannabis supply and young people showed that a quarter of 11–15 year olds have been offered cannabis. By the age of 15, two- thirds of young people say they know where to buy cannabis; a quarter saying it can be bought at school (Ogilvie et al., 2005). Parker et al. (1998; 2000) found that young drug users are unlikely to have contact with people they regard as ‘dealers’. Rather, they gain access to drugs through older brothers and sisters, through friends and friends of friends (see also Goulden and Sondhi, 2001; Highet, 2002). They go on to describe how ‘social supply’ (the purchase of drugs and sharing among friends with little or no fi nancial gain) often includes the sale of drugs to friends at cost – or with a modest mark-up so the seller can fi nance their own drug use (Parker et al., 2001; Measham et al., 2000). This issue of ‘social supply’ was considered by the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act (Police Foundation, 2000) and also by our own work on cannabis (May et al., 2002; Hough et al., 2003). Whether the law is properly tailored to the reality of young people’s supply networks remains questionable – especially as the maximum penalty for offences of cannabis supply remained unchanged when the drug was reclassifi ed. The extent of young people’s involvement in cannabis cultivation is unknown, though anecdote suggests that older teenagers may be involved. In a previous Joseph Rowntree Foundation study, we found that motivation among adults for cultivating cannabis varied (Hough et al., 2003). Some grew for commercial reasons, though the majority whom we located grew for themselves or for their social circle. 1 The main motivations given for home cultivation were the poor quality of purchased cannabis, the high prices, and the desire to avoid involvement with criminally active dealers. These reasons will apply in equal measure to young people, though those still living with their parents may have less scope for home cultivation. ‘Social supply’ The Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Police Foundation, 2000) broached the issue of ‘social supply’. It drew attention to the diffi culties in defi ning adequately what constitutes supply, as the Misuse of Drugs Act does not distinguish between acts of supply among friends and supply for gain. In particular, the Review focused on the concept of social supply, as it argued that acts of possession and supply often go together. It suggested that small groups of friends might decide to use a drug together, and then nominate one of the group to buy it; this individual would then be liable to be charged with supplying the drug. The Review recommended that, in such circumstances, where there was a shared intention to acquire drugs for personal use, the individual making the purchase should be charged with possession rather than supply. The Home Affairs Select Committee (2002), however was unconvinced by the Review’s argument and rejected their recommendation. The Committee stated: We do not agree with the Police Foundation. Those guilty of ‘social supply‘ should not escape prosecution for this offence on the basis that their act of supply was to their friends for their personal consumption. We believe that this act of ‘social supply‘, while on a different scale 3 Introduction from commercial supply, is nonetheless a crime which must be punished. (Home Affairs Select Committee, 2002, col. 82) Cannabis use in schools and colleges Schools provide the central setting for young people’s contact with one another. Some young people will use cannabis on school or college premises; some will buy cannabis from fellow students; others will sell it or act as intermediaries. However, drug- and alcohol- related behaviour made up only 6 per cent of the reasons given for permanent exclusions and 2 per cent of all fi xed-period exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools in 2005/06 (DfES, 2007). The statistics do not record the percentage of incidents that were related to cannabis, though this is likely to be high. Although the percentage of both fi xed- term and permanent exclusions for drugs and alcohol appears to be relatively low in comparison with other misdemeanours, such as persistent disruptive behaviour (fi xed term 21 per cent; permanent 30 per cent) and physical assault against pupils (fi xed term 18 per cent; permanent 16 per cent), considerable media coverage has been devoted to the use of drugs and alcohol in schools and of the potential ways to combat this, as the following headlines typify: Cannabis and booze a ‘threat to schools’ (The Guardian, 2006a) Schools let loose the dogs in war on drugs (The Times, 2004) Kent schools to introduce random drug tests (The Guardian, 2006b) Schools and colleges have a number of policy documents to help guide them in the management of drugs and dealing with drug incidents on their premises. The DfES paper Drugs: Guidance for Schools (2004) provides guidance to schools on all matters relating to drugs. As well as providing direction on all matters relating to drug education and supporting the needs of pupils, it discusses the management of drugs in the school community and the development of a policy which sets out the school’s role in relation to all drug matters. As the DfES document states: All schools are expected to have a policy which sets out the school’s role in relation to all drug matters. Those without a drug policy should develop one as a matter of urgency. (DfES, 2004) Similar guidance, Drugs: Guidance for Further Education Institutions (2004), was developed by DrugScope and Alcohol Concern to support further education (FE) establishments to draw out the issues relevant to FE institutions. The Association of Chief Police Offi cers (ACPO) has also published Joining Forces. Drugs: Guidance for Police Working with Schools and Colleges (2006), which details how the police, in partnership with schools and colleges can deal with drug matters, building on the guidance of both the DfES and Drugscope/Alcohol Concern. Work conducted by the Offi ce of Standards in Education (OFSTED) (2005) found that nearly all secondary schools and the majority of primary schools have a drugs policy. However, the report also highlights weaknesses; in particular, it states that school policies often fail to specify whether incidents that take place outside school premises or outside the school 4 Cannabis supply and young people day fall under the remit of the school’s drug policy. As discussed above, the focus on drug and alcohol use in schools and colleges has, in recent years, become more intense. For example, in 2006, schools in Kent introduced a pilot scheme which involved random drug testing in secondary schools (The Guardian, 2006b). There also appears to be a more zealous approach to dealing with drug issues within certain primarily private schools. Anthony Seldon, head teacher of Wellington College, was quoted in the Independent on Sunday as saying: I have never believed in giving children who bring drugs on to school premises a second chance. It means that, for some, to be ‘busted’ for drugs is a badge of honour … Random drug testing and sniffer dogs are other devices. Nothing is ruled out in the interests of protecting those in my charge. (Independent on Sunday, 2007b) A practitioners’ group on school behaviour and discipline (DfES, 2005) recommended that, if the then Violent Crime Reduction Bill (now Violent Crime Reduction Act) became law, the DfES should monitor and evaluate the new legal powers to search pupils without consent for weapons and review whether this right should be extended to include drugs. The reclassifi cation of cannabis Over the last few decades, there has been considerable discussion about the cannabis laws in Britain. During the 1990s, the general public became increasingly tolerant of cannabis use and started to question the effi cacy of the then cannabis legislation (Newcombe, 1999; The Guardian, 2001; ICM, 2001; Pearson and Shiner, 2002). The media also lent their support to a review of the legislation. In 2001, the then Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that he was considering reclassifying cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug. The key consequence of this would be to reduce the maximum sentence for the possession of cannabis from fi ve to two years – which would transform it into a non-arrestable offence. Although there was unequivocal support for reclassifi cation within some sections of government and among many senior police offi cers, others were less enthusiastic. The Police Federation2 and some senior police offi cers were unhappy at the prospect of losing the power of arrest for possession offences. And although the media had originally been supportive of the change when government was resisting it, David Blunkett’s announcement triggered a change of heart in some sections of the media, and stories about the risks of reclassifi cation became commonplace. The government announced in the summer of 2003 a curious compromise: cannabis would be reclassifi ed to Class C but this would be preceded by an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 to make possession of a Class C drug an arrestable offence. In January 2004, reclassifi cation fi nally came into effect – with the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserving the arrest powers that reformers had sought to abolish. At the same time, the government also introduced a further change to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Other things being equal, the reclassifi cation of cannabis would have meant that the maximum penalty for offences of cannabis supply would have fallen from fourteen years to fi ve. However, the maximum 5 Introduction penalty for supplying Class C drugs (now including cannabis) was raised to 14 years. In other words, the government reclassifi ed cannabis, while ensuring that the practical legal consequences for both possession and supply remained unchanged. Since reclassifi cation, the discussion on cannabis classifi cation has not abated. The lead- up to the 2005 General Election saw the disquiet surrounding cannabis intensify. The then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, asking the ACMD to examine the evidence on the association between cannabis and mental health problems, particularly among young people. The ACMD (2006) reported back to the Home Secretary recommending that cannabis should remain a Class C drug; subsequently Charles Clarke announced in January 2006 that cannabis would remain Class C. The debate is still ongoing within media and political circles, particularly regarding the issues of mental health and the claims that THC levels within certain strands of cannabis have dramatically increased over the last few decades. The Independent on Sunday, former advocates for the decriminalisation of cannabis, printed a headline ‘Cannabis: an apology’ (Independent on Sunday, 2007a) and recanted their support for the decriminalisation of cannabis; a campaign they had supported since 1997. The Conservative party has also reconsidered its position and now fi rmly advocates reclassifying cannabis back to Class B, demonstrated unambiguously in their policy commission report Breakthrough Britain, which recommends greater penalties for cannabis possession and supply offences (The Observer, 2007). At the time of writing, the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, as part of a wider review of the drugs strategy, have asked the ACMD to – yet again – consider the issue of reclassifi cation, with a possibility of returning cannabis to a Class B drug. The policing of cannabis The limited nature of the changes to the cannabis laws and the confused manner in which they were introduced caused concern among many; in particular, critics questioned how cannabis possession offences would be policed. Prior to reclassifi cation taking place, ACPO published a guidance document to operational offi cers which stated that, although the power of arrest was available for simple cannabis possession offences, the presumption should be against using this power unless certain aggravating circumstances were present, for example if an offi cer was unable to verify a suspect’s name. In cases of simple possession, the ACPO guidance states that adults should be issued with a cannabis warning. 3 Importantly, one issue overlooked by the media, but highlighted in the ACPO guidance was the policing of young people. The ACPO guidance applied only to people aged 18 or over. This was because the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) set out procedures for reprimands and fi nal warnings for young offenders that are incompatible with the guidance. Young people that come to the attention of the police on suspicion of committing an offence should normally be arrested. Once arrested the disposal options available to the police are a reprimand, fi nal warning or charge. Young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis are thus ineligible for a cannabis warning. In 2004, 6 Cannabis supply and young people the fi rst year of reclassifi cation, 4,769 young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis were given reprimands, while 2,544 received fi nal warnings (Mwenda, 2005). In 2007, ACPO updated their guidance to police offi cers to take account of the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCAP) 2005, which revised the framework of arrest and search powers previously governed by PACE. Under SOCAP, the legislative distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences was abolished. All offences, including cannabis possession, became arrestable under certain conditions. Offi cers must now consider whether using the power of arrest is a proportionate and necessary response to the offence. In terms of policing young people, the 2007 ACPO guidance stresses that young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis should still be dealt with in accordance with the CDA, but states that on some occasions an offi cer may deem it more appropriate to avoid an arrest and to take less intrusive action, such as taking the young person home. The case can then be referred to the Youth Offending Team for a disposal decision, and the young person kept away from the formal setting of the police station. Since reclassifi cation, concern has consistently been expressed about young people not fully understanding the ramifi cations of the change and the consequences for them if they are found in possession of the drug. Although the government launched a number of campaigns highlighting the illegality of possessing and supplying cannabis and in these detailed how young people would be processed if found in possession of the drug, research by May et al. (2007) found that, in their sample of young people, although two-thirds were aware that cannabis had been reclassifi ed to a Class C drug, only half were aware that adults and young people were treated differently. Aims and methods of the study The Joseph Rowntree Foundation commissioned this study to examine how young people gain access to cannabis. The study’s aims were to: • provide a detailed account of the ways in which young people gain access to cannabis; • explore the impact of supply routes on different aspects of young people’s lives, including access to other drugs, contact with the police, schooling and relationships with families and friends; • examine the relationships between age, gender and ethnicity and access to cannabis; • explain young people’s notions of drug dealing and social supply and how they relate to buying patterns and behaviour; • examine the impact of school policies on young people found to be selling, or brokering access, to cannabis; • explore whether current school and college practices have altered in the light of experience of legislative changes; • examine the extent and nature of the involvement of the police with cases where young people have been found to be selling cannabis; • outline young people’s understanding of the cannabis supply legislation.7 Introduction Interviews with young people To meet the aims of the research, the study principally relied on semi-structured interviews with young people aged between 11 and 19. All respondents were purposively selected to fi t one of two criteria: that they had used cannabis on at least one occasion in the three months prior to interview and /or had brokered access or sold cannabis within the six months prior to interview. For this research study, the defi nition of seller is a young person who sells cannabis for money or other goods. While some young people may sell primarily to make a fi nancial profi t, others may sell to fund their own use. The term broker in the report describes a young person who helps friends or acquaintances to gain access to cannabis. The level of involvement in this process can vary. It can include passing on the contact details of a seller to another young person, introducing a young person to a seller or actually buying cannabis on their behalf. Brokering is essentially an altruistic act to help a friend or an acquaintance and would not result in the broker being fi nancially rewarded, although some may receive a small amount of cannabis for their efforts. In total, we interviewed 182 young people, 90 of whom were from sites in the South-West, and 92 from London sites. Table 1 provides demographic information on the sample. As Table 2 shows, respondents were recruited from a variety of sources such as youth centres, FE colleges, school exclusion units and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). Where possible, we also employed snowballing techniques. 4 Just under three-fi fths (106) of the respondents had experience of being excluded from school. Of these, four-fi fths (84) had been Table 1 A demographic breakdown of the sample n=182 (%) Male 131 (72) Female 51 (28) Age 12 2 (1) 13 8 (4) 14 20 (11) 15 54 (30) 16 53 (29) 17 26 (14) 18 12 (7) 19 7 (4) Ethnicity White 126 (69) Mixed 6 (3) Black 45 (25) Asian 2 (1) Chinese or other 3 (2) Residence Living with parents 161 (89) Living with relatives 9 (5) Living with friends 1 (1) Private rented 2 (1) Council/Housing association 3 (2) Local Authority care 3 (2) Other 3 (2) Occupation Attending school 75 (41) Attending college 76 (42) Excluded from school 5 (3) Full-time employment 5 (3) Unemployed 11 (6) Training course/apprenticeship 5 (3) Other 5 (3)8 Cannabis supply and young people excluded for a fi xed term, while just over a third (35) said they had been permanently excluded. 5 The decision to recruit school excludees was to ensure that, where their exclusion related to cannabis, this would be included in the study. It must be remembered that the research team were purposively selecting young people who had experience of either using or selling/ brokering access to cannabis and therefore the sample of young people in the study will not be nationally representative. Other research data To complement the interview data from young people, we also conducted 14 semi-structured interviews of professionals. Professionals interviewed for the study included; police offi cers, staff from schools and colleges, council school drug co-ordinators and youth workers, all professional respondents had experience of working with young cannabis users and those found to be selling the drug. To understand the impact of school drug policies, all secondary and independent schools and FE colleges within the research sites were contacted and asked to provide a copy of their policy on managing drug incidents. Secondary source data was also collated. These included: school exclusion data and local crime statistics. Young people were paid to take part in the research. The research sites have been anonymised to preserve the anonymity of the young people and key professionals who participated in the study. All fi eldwork was carried out between June 2006 and April 2007. Research sites To capture the regional variation that is likely to exist for cannabis supply and purchasing patterns as well as the professional responses, we selected sites to refl ect urban and rural communities, with three sites based in the South-West and four sites in London. During fi eldwork, it became apparent that young people in one of the London sites were unwilling to participate in the research. A further site was selected to supplement the interviews already conducted from the other three sites. South-West sites The South-West sites (A, B and C) are three rurally situated towns approximately 12–13 miles apart in the same local authority area in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Each of the three towns is surrounded by countryside, but Site C is 12 miles from a major city. Both Sites A and B are ‘hubs’ for the numerous small villages of low population that surround them. Relative to our urban areas, they have poor public transport. The three areas have population densities lower than the national average (0.92 people per square hectare compared with an average of 3.77 people in England; Offi ce for National Statistics (ONS), 2001), while the number of retired people exceeds the national average. The areas have a low proportion of black and minority ethnic (BME) groups: 98.9 per cent Table 2 Recruitment of the young people sample Source of recruitment Number Youth centre 112 School or college 20 YOT 26 School exclusion unit 20 Through snowballing 49 Introduction white compared with 90.9 per cent at a national level (ONS, 2001). In each of the sites, young people aged 10–24 make up around one fi fth of the total population. There is just one secondary school (called a community college) and six to eight (often very small) primary schools in each of the sites. The number of students achieving fi ve or more GCSEs grade A*–C ranges from 55.2 to 71.2 per cent in our sites compared with the national average of 52.9 per cent in England. There is also a low percentage of people with no qualifi cations: 18.5–27 per cent in our rural areas compared with 28.9 per cent for the country as a whole. There are few amenities for young people in our rural areas; each area has just one youth centre and one public sports centre. According to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2004), the local authority was ranked 230 out of 354 in England. 6 Levels of unemployment are lower than the national average (ONS, 2001). Total numbers of crime per 1,000 of the population show that crime rates in each of the sites are also lower than the national average, with levels of 41.9–93.6 in our sites and 104.9 in England and Wales. Within the county, there were 168 fi xed- period exclusions and one permanent exclusion for drug- and alcohol-related reasons in the academic year 2005/06. London sites One of the London sites is situated in an inner borough; the remaining three are in outer London boroughs. All four sites were densely populated and ethnically diverse. Twenty-three to 56 per cent of the population were from BME groups (ONS, 2001). Around a quarter of the populations in all four sites were aged 19 or under, in keeping with the national average (ONS, 2001). All the sites had good transport networks. All four sites are ranked in the top one hundred deprived areas in the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (DCLG, 2004), with two ranked in the top 50 and one in the top 20. Unemployment rates in all four sites were higher than the national average. The proportion of residents living in either council or social housing was higher in all four sites compared with the national average (20 per cent), with 40 per cent of residents in one site living in this type of accommodation (ONS, 2001). The number of students achieving fi ve or more GCSE’s grade A*–C in 2004/05 although slightly above the national average in one site, was slightly below the national average in the remaining three sites (DfES, 2006). During 2005/06, only seven people across the four sites had been permanently excluded for a drug- or alcohol-related incident, while 68 received a fi xed-term exclusion for this type of incident, with this more common in site E. Structure of the report In Chapter 2, we describe how young people in our sample fi rst became exposed to cannabis, their early using experiences, as well their current patterns of use and their motivation for using the drug. Chapter 3 presents data on the different ways in which young people accessed their cannabis, how young people viewed those that they obtain their cannabis from and the sharing and buying of cannabis with friends. Chapter 4 describes the extent and nature of 10 Cannabis supply and young people the young people’s involvement in the supply of cannabis, including examining the type of transactions they are involved in and the motivations they have for becoming involved in cannabis supply. Chapter 5 examines how educational establishments and the police respond to incidents involving young people and cannabis. Finally, Chapter 6 outlines the policy implications of our fi ndings.11 In this chapter, we describe how the young people in our sample fi rst became exposed to cannabis use and their early using experiences. We look at their cannabis using patterns and their motivation for using the drug, as well as how much they spent on and how they fi nanced their drug use. Finally, we consider other drugs that they have used. Young people’s fi rst experience of cannabis On average, young people interviewed for this study (n=182) fi rst tried cannabis at the age of 13. This ranged from 8 to 18 years. Over half (59 per cent) said they fi rst used cannabis prior to their 13th birthday. Table 3 gives a more detailed breakdown of age at fi rst use. Four-fi fths (n=145) stated that they were introduced to cannabis by friends; the remainder stated that they were introduced to the drug by siblings (8), other family members (9), acquaintances (5) or a partner (4). Only two young people said that they had been introduced to cannabis by someone who sold drugs. This is comparable with the NCSR/ NFER (2006) research which found that 83 per cent of their sample were fi rst introduced to cannabis by a friend. Just over half of our sample (54 per cent, n=99) fi rst used with a group of friends, while 23 per cent fi rst used with either one or two friends (41). Twenty per cent (36) said they fi rst used at either their own home or a friend’s house, a similar number (38) reported that they fi rst used in an area such as a park or woods. Just under a fi fth (34) said they had fi rst tried cannabis in a public place, while 26 young people said they fi rst used the drug at a party or festival. The majority (66 per cent) were asked by friends whether they wanted to try cannabis; 17 per cent had sought out the opportunity themselves, asking others if they could try it. When describing their motivation for trying cannabis, 38 per cent (70) said they were curious or wanted to experiment with cannabis, while 32 per cent (58) said their friends were using it and therefore they wanted to. 2 Young people’s cannabis use Table 3 Age at fi rst use Age Number in sample London sites South-West sites 8 2 1 1 9 3 0 3 10 9 5 4 11 11 6 5 12 34 17 17 13 49 20 29 14 40 20 20 15 24 15 9 16 9 7 2 17 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 Total 182 92 9012 Cannabis supply and young people Patterns of use Many of the young people had used cannabis very recently. Table 4 shows that almost two- thirds (114) had used cannabis in the week before interview. Nearly two-thirds (65 per cent, n=118) were regular cannabis users, using it every day (34), two to three times a week (58) or once a week (26). Everyday use was higher in the London sample (22) compared with their rural counterparts (12). Male respondents (n=131) used cannabis more frequently than females did (n=51); just under half the female respondents (25) used once a week or more compared with just under three-quarters of males (93). Patterns of use were well established. Two- fi fths of the sample (40 per cent) reported that they had been smoking the same weekly/ monthly amount for either a year (45) or more than six months (27). Patterns of use had, however, altered over time, with 73 per cent (133) of young people reporting some change in their level of use. Within this group, there was virtually an even split between those who mentioned their cannabis use had increased (64) and those who mentioned it had decreased (59). Nine stated that their use fl uctuated. There were marked variations between the sites. Over half the young people in the rural sites (n=70) felt their cannabis use had increased (39), while 23 felt it had decreased. By contrast, in London (n=63) 25 believed their use had increased, while 36 felt it had decreased. A possible explanation for this could be that respondents in the London sites were generally older than their rural counterparts and thus more experienced in their cannabis use and had more established stable using patterns. Across the two research areas, the main reason given for increasing use (n=64) was that that they needed to use more cannabis to experience the same effect as before (26). As one respondent put it: [it has] gone up, after a while [it] didn’t affect me as much and [i now] have to use more to get stoned. Other reasons given were that cannabis was now more accessible to them (7), boredom (5), the infl uence of friends (5) and that they enjoyed using it (5). For those that stated their use had decreased (n=59), reasons given ranged from fi nancial concerns (11), health problems (10), worries over becoming addicted (9), general loss of interest in using (8) and concerns that cannabis use might affect their employment or school work (8). The following quotes are illustrative: Used to smoke everyday – cut down. It’s just money man, it takes money man. I’ve cut down. The school I’m attending is a sports academy. It was affecting my health, I was running out of breath. I use less, don’t want to get addicted to it. know what problems it can cause. Table 4 When did you last use cannabis? n=182 (%) Today 22 (12) Yesterday 36 (20) In the last couple of days 27 (15) In the last week 29 (16) In the last month 25 (14) In the last three months 32 (18) Stopped 10 (5) Missing 1 (1)13 Young people’s cannabis use We asked young people what was the main type of cannabis they used. Fifty-fi ve per cent (101) said they used weed, while 72 said that they used skunk. Only 18 young people said they used cannabis resin, while 15 said they used all three. Skunk use was more common in the London sites (45) than in the South- West (27). Resin use was mostly in the rural areas (15). The vast majority (92 per cent) of respondents said that they generally smoked cannabis. Thirty-one per cent (56) also used a pipe, bong or vaporiser; all but six of these young people were from the rural sites. Why use cannabis? When looking to establish how young people gain access to cannabis, it is important to examine young people’s motives for wanting to use cannabis. Figure 1 shows the reasons given by our sample. The most common responses were that it helped them relax (54 per cent), it helped them calm down (32 per cent) and it made them sociable (24 per cent), 1 as the quotes below indicate: Life is a constant headache and cannabis is like Nurofen to me. [i use] mainly to help me relax – it’s a relaxing feeling. I don’t know how to explain it, it helps me feel mellow. To relax. It just feels really positive when I take it, takes all the negatives away. I feel chilled out. It makes a typical Friday night. Somebody would have some and they would smoke it at friend’s house. It is a Friday night thing. It is a social thing. Although using cannabis to relax and calm down were the most common responses in both research areas, there were some differences. Using to be sociable was a more common response among respondents from the South- West. This is unsurprising, as young people To forget about things To fit in Confidence Boredom To help sleep Other To be sociable To help calm down To relax 0204060 Percentage Figure 1 Why do you use cannabis?14 Cannabis supply and young people in the rural sites were more likely to purchase cannabis with their friends than London respondents were, as will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. An aid to sleep was mentioned more frequently by respondents based in London. With whom do young people use cannabis? Nearly all (172) the young people said that they often used cannabis with their friends, while 35 per cent (64) also said that they used on their own; the majority (48) of these young people were from the London sites. Sixty-fi ve per cent (118) preferred using cannabis with friends. The main reasons given for this were that it is more fun (30) and more sociable to use with friends (35). The following quotes are illustrative: prefer with my friends, ’cause when everyone smokes, everyone talks, everyone cracks jokes. It makes you feel happy when you are with friends. Only 14 per cent (25) said they preferred using alone, the main reason given was that it was less stressful and less hassle to use on their own (11). The preference for using cannabis with friends was borne out by just over half (93) the sample saying that most of their friends used cannabis, while 34 per cent (62) said some of their friends used. However, only 20 per cent (37) said using cannabis was an important part of their social life. Eleven of this group said it was because all their friends used cannabis, while seven said using cannabis was something to do. Young people do not come into contact with cannabis just through friendship networks. Half the sample (91) said that they knew of a family member who used cannabis. Within this group, 32 stated their brothers used, and 27 said their sisters did. Nineteen mentioned their father and 15 their mother. Uncles (16) and cousins (15) were also mentioned. Funding use We asked young people how much money they normally spent on cannabis in a week. The average weekly spend among the 143 who answered this question was £20 (median), which ranged up to £180. 2 Thirty-eight of the sample said they never paid for their cannabis. As one might expect, the average spend of the 67 London respondents was higher, at £25, than that of the 76 in the South-West, who spent £13.75. Some (33) reported buying enough to last them a week, while 27 said they bought on a daily basis. Table 5 outlines how respondents funded their use. Table 5 shows that, although almost half (49 per cent) the sample funded their use through money from parents or other family members, almost a third (29 per cent) funded their use Table 5 How the young fund their cannabis use Method of funding n (%) Money from parents/family 90 (49) Employment 53 (29) EMA 20 (11) Dinner money 7 (4) Benefi ts 9 (5) Criminal activity 6 (3) Selling cannabis 6 (3) Given cannabis 41 (23) Other 18 (10)15 Young people’s cannabis use from their wages; just over a tenth said that they spent a proportion of their EMA on their cannabis use. Very few young people stated that they funded their use through criminal activity (6) or selling cannabis (6). We found marked differences between the two sites. In the South- West, 42 young people funded their use through work, whereas in London funding came in the guise of EMA (16) while a large number did not buy at all (28). Other drug use Just over a fi fth (22 per cent, n=40) of the sample stated that they had tried other drugs. Of these, most (32) had used ecstasy, while 18 said they had tried cocaine. Other drugs that respondents had used included poppers (9), magic mushrooms (6) and powder amphetamine (‘speed’) (5). Only one young person said they had tried crack cocaine, and none of the sample had tried heroin. Perhaps surprisingly, more young people in the rural sites (27) had tried other drugs than in the London sites (13). More young people in the South-West had used ecstasy (21) than those in London had (11). There was little variation between the two sites in the numbers who had used powder cocaine. Twenty-three said they had tried other drugs in the three months prior to interview, 19 had used ecstasy and fi ve powder cocaine. Summary The average age at fi rst cannabis use among respondents was 13, with many fi rst being introduced to the drug by friends. The majority of the sample were regular users, with two- thirds using at least once a week. Although patterns of use were relatively stable, most respondents reported that their cannabis use had increased or decreased over a period of time. The main reasons young people reported using cannabis were that it helped them relax, it helped them calm down and it made them feel more sociable. Nearly all (172) of the respondents said they used cannabis with friends, because it was fun and sociable. A third of the sample said they preferred to use on their own, because they saw it as less hassle and less stressful. The average (median) spend on cannabis was £20 per week. Half (90) of the young people funded their use through money they received from parent(s) or family; other common methods were through employment or EMA. There was little experimentation with other drugs, although a fi fth had tried some other type of drug, most commonly ecstasy.16 This chapter presents our fi ndings on the different ways in which young people gained access to cannabis. Respondents were asked about ease of access; who they normally obtained cannabis from and about the kind of locations where transactions normally took place. We also examine whether young people viewed those they obtained their cannabis from as ‘dealers’ and about the sharing and buying of cannabis with friends. We use the term ‘seller’ to refer to someone involved in the supply of cannabis for monetary return. The terms ‘supplier’ and ‘drug dealer’ were considered both too ambiguous and wide-ranging. The latter term is also too loaded with negative connotations to be helpful for a dispassionate analysis. How young people obtain cannabis Nearly all (93 per cent) respondents said that cannabis was either ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ to get. Of those who provided estimates of the time it took to get cannabis (n=139), four-fi fths (79 per cent) said they could get it in less than an hour, with a further 11 per cent stating that they could get it on the same day. Only 4 per cent mentioned that it took them more than one day, with seven saying it took a couple of days and one saying that it took up to a week. Londoners found it easier than those in the South-West areas to get cannabis rapidly. A number of ways of accessing cannabis were reported. Over half (55 per cent) bought direct from a seller they knew personally, as a friend, acquaintance or family member (‘known sellers’). Around a quarter (23 per cent) did not buy cannabis themselves but were given it by a friend, and a further 16 per cent reported that a friend bought cannabis on their behalf. Only a minority of respondents (6 per cent) normally obtained cannabis by purchasing it directly from an ‘unknown seller’, that is, they did not know their seller on a personal level and only contacted this person when they were buying cannabis from them. Just one respondent reported growing their own cannabis, and one other said that a family member bought for them. Nearly all our sample obtained cannabis from or through friends, friends of friends or family members, highlighting the importance of friendship and social networks as a supply source for young people within our research sites. Social networks as central to young people’s supply Of those that normally obtained cannabis by buying from a known seller (n=100), over two- thirds (69 per cent) described their main seller as a friend, and half of these (or 34 per cent of the total), said they were ‘very good’ friends. A further 21 per cent bought from an acquaintance (including people known from school and the local area and friends of friends), while only seven respondents bought directly from a family friend and three from a family member. The unknown sellers While 23 of the rural purchasers obtained their cannabis through a friend who bought on their behalf, only six respondents from our urban areas did the same. Interestingly, nine of the ten respondents that reported buying cannabis directly from an unknown seller were from London. Of this group, four – all of whom were from the same locality – reported purchasing cannabis through particular local ‘cafés’. Barely 3 Getting cannabis17 Getting cannabis qualifying as conventional cafés, these premises were relatively bare of goods and operated mainly as meeting places for local people to buy cannabis. Of the other fi ve London respondents who bought directly from an unknown seller, three said that they met their seller in quiet local streets, and two reported buying from a more organised network of cannabis sellers. These two described how they contacted their seller by phone to arrange a meeting place with a ‘runner’ or ‘deliverer’ somewhere local. The two respondents who purchased cannabis in this way fi rst heard they could do so because their seller was known locally as a cannabis seller. However, one of the respondents reported that they were fi rst approached by the deliverer and offered a contact number. The one respondent from the South-West who bought directly from an unknown seller reported fi rst hearing about the seller through friends of friends. This respondent bought cannabis by phoning the seller and arranging a convenient place to meet. Age and contact with the cannabis market Age differences were also noticeable when examining how respondents obtained their cannabis. Figure 2 shows that the average age of those who bought direct from an unknown seller was higher than for those who bought from a known seller, which in turn was higher than for those whose friends bought it for them and for those who were given cannabis. Clearly, direct involvement in the cannabis market becomes more likely as people get older and have more experience of cannabis. There were some gender differences. Nine out of the ten who bought direct from ‘unknown sellers’ were male, and females were more likely than males to be given cannabis by friends. Cannabis transactions We asked those who bought cannabis (n=110) about how they arranged and completed their transactions. By far the most common means reported to us was for a buyer to phone a seller 14.515.015.516.016.517.0 Buy direct – unknown seller Buy direct – known seller Friends buy on their behalf Given it by friends Average age in years Figure 2 Ways of obtaining cannabis, by age18 Cannabis supply and young people and arrange a place to meet (68 per cent) or to phone a seller and conduct the transaction at the seller’s house (26 per cent). A further 22 per cent said that they usually went to their seller’s house without calling fi rst. Meeting places The transactions took place in a variety of locations. 1 The most common locations were streets or alleyways (28 per cent) and sellers’ homes (22 per cent). Parks were often mentioned (18 per cent), as were their own or friends’ homes (16 per cent) and train, tube or bus stations (14 per cent). Eleven per cent indicated that they had no specifi c meeting place. Twenty-six respondents (11 per cent) referred to a specifi c well-known place where cannabis could be bought. Such places were more typical in the rural sites (17) than in the urban sites (9). Two of the rural sites had such locations. These were also focal points for young people to congregate, and served both as meeting places for local youths and for cannabis buyers and sellers across a wider geographical area. Amount and type of cannabis bought We asked young cannabis users to talk about the quantity of cannabis they normally purchased per transaction. Young people in London were more likely to refer to the amounts they bought in monetary terms, while those from the South- West tended to talk in terms of weight. Of the 67 young people from London who answered this question, the majority (39) bought £10-worth at a time. Nine bought £5 deals and eight between £15 and £20. Of the 46 young people in the South-West who gave answers, 20 usually bought an eighth, 19 a ‘teenth’ 2 and 7 between an eighth and a teenth. Given that the amount of money spent on different weights of cannabis varied depending on a variety of factors such as the type of cannabis, it was diffi cult to make detailed comparisons between the two areas. Of the 144 young people who specifi ed what type of cannabis they bought, a large minority (43 per cent) said they usually bought ‘skunk’, 3 and a third (33 per cent) bought weed. Only 14 young people (10 per cent) bought resin, all but one of whom was from the South-West. The sellers We asked for details about the sellers from whom young people bought cannabis, and 110 provided details. Of these, 43 per cent bought from one or two people. A further 31 per cent bought from three to fi ve different people, while 25 per cent bought from more than fi ve people (range 6–50). On average, respondents had been buying from their main supplier for 16 months (ranging from 1 to 48 months). Sellers were generally male. Only three respondents referred to female sellers, and one bought from both male and female sellers. The average age of the sellers was reported to be 19 years (ranging from 12 to 45 years). Young people tended to buy from sellers who were – on average – three years older than themselves, as Table 6 shows. Forty-one per cent thought that their seller sold mainly to friends and acquaintances. The following quotes are indicative of young people’s descriptions of their seller: He’s sorting out his mates – sells to a few but not big time.19 Getting cannabis [They are] not dealers, they make a little bit of money – but not loads, they’re helping out friends. If you owe them money they won’t chase it up or beat you up. [He is] not a dealer – a ‘run around boy’. Doesn’t gain money. Doing a favour. The following quotes are illustrative of how our sample of buyers became acquainted with their sellers: [i was] asking a friend, do you know anyone who has got any weed? A lot of my friends are friends with dealers … They [the people who sell cannabis] are friends from school and also from outside of school. We socialise together. I knew them before we started using cannabis. According to our respondents, the majority of sellers only supplied cannabis, although 27 stated that their sellers also supplied other drugs. Other drugs sold by sellers included: ecstasy (20) and powder cocaine (3). Cannabis sellers who also sold other drugs were mentioned by more young people in our rural areas (23) than those interviewed in London (4). Sixteen respondents also stated that their seller grew their own cannabis. The following case-study highlights young people’s typical purchasing patterns, the ways in which they access their cannabis and also their typical suppliers. Table 6 Age of respondents and average age of person from whom they were buying cannabis Age of respondent Average age of seller n 13 15 4 14 17 9 15 18 25 16 19 32 17 20 22 18 18 5 19 22 7 Total 19 104 Case study 1 Easy access and buying from friends John, aged 16, was attending college and living at home with his parents in the South-West. He smoked cannabis about once a month and had done so for a year. He spent about £10 a month. John’s main way of buying cannabis was from a friend who sold it, but he also relied at times on his friends to buy. In total John bought from fi ve different sellers and stated that cannabis was ‘very easy’ to access. He described some sellers as sometimes hard to get hold of and others as easy. Some were within walking distance. John said that he never had to wait longer than an hour to make a purchase. John usually bought a ‘teenth’ or an ‘eighth’ of weed. He made contact in ‘lots (Continued)20 Cannabis supply and young people of the time. The majority des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I agree.... and I have added my notes below... or an entire report on cannabis use among UK youthThe supply of drugs to young people is an emotive subject and discussion is rarely conducted with much reference to evidence. Research on young people’s access to drugs is scarce in the UK. The evidence that exists, however, shows that many young people gain access to drugs through older brothers and sisters, through friends and friends of friends – so-called ‘social supply’ networks. This report offers a snapshot view of how young people in a large city and in rural villages get supplies of cannabis. The 182 young people interviewed were aged between 11 and 19. To participate in the research, young people had to fi t one of two criteria: that they had used cannabis on at least one occasion in the three months prior to interview and/or had brokered access or sold cannabis within the six months prior to interview. This group is therefore unlikely to be representative of young people in general. The average age at fi rst cannabis use among respondents was 13, with many fi rst being introduced to the drug by friends. The majority were regular cannabis users, with two-thirds using at least once a week. The main reasons young people reported for using cannabis were that it helped them relax, it helped them calm down, and it made them feel more sociable. Nearly all (172) of the respondents said they used cannabis with friends because it was fun and sociable. The average (median) spend on cannabis among respondents was £20 per week. Half (90) of the young people funded their use through money they received from parent(s) or family; other common methods were through employment or EMA (Educational Maintenance Award). There was little experimentation with Summary other drugs, although a fi fth had tried some other type of drug, most commonly ecstasy. Getting hold of cannabis Nearly all reported cannabis to be ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ to get hold of, with 79 per cent stating that they could obtain it in less than an hour. ‘Chipping-in’ and sharing with friends was a common way of purchasing cannabis for 70 per cent of the sample. Chipping-in was mostly unplanned and spontaneous, usually tied to a social event. The sharing of cannabis was also common, with 78 per cent reporting that they shared cannabis with friends, on average fi ve or six times in the month before interview. Again, the sharing of cannabis was reported as being part of a meaningful social act. Nearly a quarter of the young people interviewed (41) never bought cannabis themselves, relying on friends to give them some, with a further 16 per cent (29) only accessing cannabis through friends buying on their behalf. The importance of the social network to young people’s cannabis transactions came through very strongly. Only 6 per cent reported buying cannabis from an unknown seller. Sellers were described as ‘very good friends’ (friendship often preceding cannabis transactions) or ‘a friend’. Twenty- one per cent bought from an ‘acquaintance’ – including people known from school and/or friend of friends. Some (10) bought from a family friend or a family member. The average age of sellers was 19 and usually around three years older than those they sold to. viiCannabis supply and young people Supplying cannabis Forty-fi ve per cent of our sample reported some involvement in cannabis transactions. Of these, 37 had brokered access (helping others access cannabis but not for profi t) and 22 had sold on only one or two occasions. Thirteen per cent stated that they had been involved in selling cannabis more than once or twice. London respondents were generally more involved in selling than their rural counterparts were. Those who had experience of selling cannabis had generally used cannabis more regularly than the rest of the sample. Generally, those involved in cannabis transactions, particularly those brokering or who had sold once or twice only, did not perceive themselves as dealers. However, many of these individuals conceded that they could be ‘seen’ as dealers by others and by the criminal justice system. While half (91) the young people we interviewed had taken cannabis into school or college and 43 per cent (78) said they had used cannabis while at school or college, only a minority of respondents did this on a regular basis. This appeared to be refl ected in the small number of young people who reported having been caught under the infl uence of, in possession of, or selling/brokering, cannabis. There appeared to be no real consistency by schools on how to deal with drug incidents, and nearly all young people who had been caught reported that the incident had not had an impact on them. While 33 had been found in possession by the police, none had been caught selling the drug. The vast majority of the sample thought they would be arrested if they were caught selling cannabis, and over three-quarters felt there was no difference in sanctions between social and commercial supply. Of the school polices we analysed, most included sections on how an incident is dealt with and when it is appropriate to involve the police. However, many policies were unclear on issues such as the appropriateness of searching pupils. Many policies were also lacking in any input from either pupils or parents, and it was not clear how widely these policies were disseminated. Discussion Our fi ndings suggest that cannabis supply to young people, at least in the areas where the research was conducted, had little to do with commercial concerns. Young people’s patterns of cannabis acquisition had little or nothing to do with ‘drug markets’ as they have been conventionally described, and were primarily based around friendship and social networks. Young people were introduced to cannabis by friends, accessed and maintained supplies via friends, as well as passed on and sold cannabis to friends. Importantly, the cannabis supply mechanisms used by our respondents served to insulate or distance them from more overtly criminal drug markets. An argument often put forward for the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis is that such reform would protect young cannabis users against exposure to more harmful patterns of drug use and criminality. For our sample, this ‘market separation’ appears to have been achieved naturally. Of course we cannot assume that the situation is replicated throughout Britain, though our fi ndings are viiiSummary consistent with other studies. The Independent Review (Police Foundation, 2000) recognised the existence of social supply among friends but was not in a position to judge how common it was. This report shows that young people’s cannabis use revolves around the kind of social networking and social activities that the Independent Review argued justifi ed a distinction in law between social and commercial supply. We think that the Independent Review was right in principle, but our fi ndings suggest that, in practice, current approaches to enforcement – whether through accident or design – manage to differentiate between social and commercial supply. Social supply rarely comes to offi cial attention, and when it does, there is already suffi cient discretion within the system to respond appropriately. There is, nevertheless, a strong case for ensuring that there is clear guidance, for example from the Association of Chief Police Offi ces, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Youth Justice Board and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) about the best ways of dealing with offences of social supply committed by young people. Such guidance might present realistic vignettes involving social, semi-social and commercial supply, and propose appropriate ways of handling each situation. Many of our sample came into contact with cannabis at school, however, the use of cannabis in school was a rare event. The school drugs policies we considered as part of this research were largely consistent with national guidance, with a few exceptions. However, responses to cannabis incidents were less coherent. Given the impact that permanent exclusion from school can have on a young person and their future prospects, this level of response seems disproportionate. In our view, those involved in the social supply of cannabis detected by schools should not receive a permanent exclusion. At the time of writing, the government has asked its Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) whether the classifi cation of cannabis should be reversed to Class B. The fi ndings of this study carry oblique implications for reclassifi cation. On the strength of the fi ndings of this study, we very much doubt that a change would have any impact on young people. We have seen how cannabis use is signifi cantly embedded in the social world of many young people, and a marginal change to the drug’s legal status – following on the confusion of the last fi ve years – will achieve very little. What is required is consistent, visible provision of accurate and accessible information about the health risks that cannabis use actually represents to young people. The health consequences of regular cannabis use among the young are still a matter of debate, and there is a need for further research to help understand the level of potential risk. ix1 Supply of drugs to young people is an emotive subject, and discussion is rarely conducted with much reference to evidence. Research on young people’s access to drugs is scarce in the UK. Little effort has been put into documenting how the criminal justice or education system deals with young people caught supplying or brokering access (helping others access cannabis but not for profi t) to cannabis; and no research has explored the links between practice and policy. However, the potential impact of policies on the lives of young people – and their families and friends – is considerable. In the eyes of some, the decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug, which took effect in 2004, was a lost opportunity. In the fi rst place, the police guidance which accompanied reclassifi cation left arrangements unchanged for policing those aged under 18 who were found in possession of cannabis. And secondly reclassifi cation did nothing to address the status of offences involving the social supply of cannabis – which may involve large numbers of young cannabis users. Whether the government was right to sidestep either of these issues is hard to judge, because there is a dearth of information on how young people actually get hold of the drug. The Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act (Police Foundation, 2000) initially set the terms of the debate about young people and social supply. Following reclassifi cation, this important set of issues has remained unresolved. If they are to be addressed, policy needs to be better informed about young people’s experiences of cannabis supply, about their understanding of current legislation and about the impact of offi cial responses to this issue. It was with this in mind that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation commissioned the Institute for Criminal Policy Research and the University of Plymouth to examine how young people gain access to cannabis. To revivify policy debate, what is now needed – and what this study provides – is an account of how young people actually acquire cannabis, and how offi cial agencies respond to those who are caught doing so. Young people’s cannabis use Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in the UK. Just over two and a half million young people between the ages of 16 and 24 in England and Wales have used cannabis and a fi fth of this age group do so at least once a year (Roe and Man, 2006). Signifi cant minorities of younger age groups also report cannabis experience: 10 per cent of pupils in England between the ages of 11 and 15 have used cannabis within the last year (National Centre for Social Research/ National Foundation for Educational Research (NCSR/NFER), 2007). MORI surveys in 2002 and 2004 found that the average age for young people fi rst trying cannabis was 14. Although cannabis is the illicit drug that is most widely used by young people, the British Crime Survey (BCS) has suggested a shallow decline over the last decade in cannabis use among young people. Although ‘last year’ use among 16–24 year olds progressively increased during the 1990s, hitting a peak in 1998 (28 per cent), this decade has seen a fall in ‘last year’ use; most recently recorded as 21 per cent (Roe and Man, 2006). There is much less information about how young people actually gain access to cannabis. However, the NCSR/NFER (2006) survey 1 Introduction2 Cannabis supply and young people showed that a quarter of 11–15 year olds have been offered cannabis. By the age of 15, two- thirds of young people say they know where to buy cannabis; a quarter saying it can be bought at school (Ogilvie et al., 2005). Parker et al. (1998; 2000) found that young drug users are unlikely to have contact with people they regard as ‘dealers’. Rather, they gain access to drugs through older brothers and sisters, through friends and friends of friends (see also Goulden and Sondhi, 2001; Highet, 2002). They go on to describe how ‘social supply’ (the purchase of drugs and sharing among friends with little or no fi nancial gain) often includes the sale of drugs to friends at cost – or with a modest mark-up so the seller can fi nance their own drug use (Parker et al., 2001; Measham et al., 2000). This issue of ‘social supply’ was considered by the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act (Police Foundation, 2000) and also by our own work on cannabis (May et al., 2002; Hough et al., 2003). Whether the law is properly tailored to the reality of young people’s supply networks remains questionable – especially as the maximum penalty for offences of cannabis supply remained unchanged when the drug was reclassifi ed. The extent of young people’s involvement in cannabis cultivation is unknown, though anecdote suggests that older teenagers may be involved. In a previous Joseph Rowntree Foundation study, we found that motivation among adults for cultivating cannabis varied (Hough et al., 2003). Some grew for commercial reasons, though the majority whom we located grew for themselves or for their social circle. 1 The main motivations given for home cultivation were the poor quality of purchased cannabis, the high prices, and the desire to avoid involvement with criminally active dealers. These reasons will apply in equal measure to young people, though those still living with their parents may have less scope for home cultivation. ‘Social supply’ The Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Police Foundation, 2000) broached the issue of ‘social supply’. It drew attention to the diffi culties in defi ning adequately what constitutes supply, as the Misuse of Drugs Act does not distinguish between acts of supply among friends and supply for gain. In particular, the Review focused on the concept of social supply, as it argued that acts of possession and supply often go together. It suggested that small groups of friends might decide to use a drug together, and then nominate one of the group to buy it; this individual would then be liable to be charged with supplying the drug. The Review recommended that, in such circumstances, where there was a shared intention to acquire drugs for personal use, the individual making the purchase should be charged with possession rather than supply. The Home Affairs Select Committee (2002), however was unconvinced by the Review’s argument and rejected their recommendation. The Committee stated: We do not agree with the Police Foundation. Those guilty of ‘social supply‘ should not escape prosecution for this offence on the basis that their act of supply was to their friends for their personal consumption. We believe that this act of ‘social supply‘, while on a different scale 3 Introduction from commercial supply, is nonetheless a crime which must be punished. (Home Affairs Select Committee, 2002, col. 82) Cannabis use in schools and colleges Schools provide the central setting for young people’s contact with one another. Some young people will use cannabis on school or college premises; some will buy cannabis from fellow students; others will sell it or act as intermediaries. However, drug- and alcohol- related behaviour made up only 6 per cent of the reasons given for permanent exclusions and 2 per cent of all fi xed-period exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools in 2005/06 (DfES, 2007). The statistics do not record the percentage of incidents that were related to cannabis, though this is likely to be high. Although the percentage of both fi xed- term and permanent exclusions for drugs and alcohol appears to be relatively low in comparison with other misdemeanours, such as persistent disruptive behaviour (fi xed term 21 per cent; permanent 30 per cent) and physical assault against pupils (fi xed term 18 per cent; permanent 16 per cent), considerable media coverage has been devoted to the use of drugs and alcohol in schools and of the potential ways to combat this, as the following headlines typify: Cannabis and booze a ‘threat to schools’ (The Guardian, 2006a) Schools let loose the dogs in war on drugs (The Times, 2004) Kent schools to introduce random drug tests (The Guardian, 2006b) Schools and colleges have a number of policy documents to help guide them in the management of drugs and dealing with drug incidents on their premises. The DfES paper Drugs: Guidance for Schools (2004) provides guidance to schools on all matters relating to drugs. As well as providing direction on all matters relating to drug education and supporting the needs of pupils, it discusses the management of drugs in the school community and the development of a policy which sets out the school’s role in relation to all drug matters. As the DfES document states: All schools are expected to have a policy which sets out the school’s role in relation to all drug matters. Those without a drug policy should develop one as a matter of urgency. (DfES, 2004) Similar guidance, Drugs: Guidance for Further Education Institutions (2004), was developed by DrugScope and Alcohol Concern to support further education (FE) establishments to draw out the issues relevant to FE institutions. The Association of Chief Police Offi cers (ACPO) has also published Joining Forces. Drugs: Guidance for Police Working with Schools and Colleges (2006), which details how the police, in partnership with schools and colleges can deal with drug matters, building on the guidance of both the DfES and Drugscope/Alcohol Concern. Work conducted by the Offi ce of Standards in Education (OFSTED) (2005) found that nearly all secondary schools and the majority of primary schools have a drugs policy. However, the report also highlights weaknesses; in particular, it states that school policies often fail to specify whether incidents that take place outside school premises or outside the school 4 Cannabis supply and young people day fall under the remit of the school’s drug policy. As discussed above, the focus on drug and alcohol use in schools and colleges has, in recent years, become more intense. For example, in 2006, schools in Kent introduced a pilot scheme which involved random drug testing in secondary schools (The Guardian, 2006b). There also appears to be a more zealous approach to dealing with drug issues within certain primarily private schools. Anthony Seldon, head teacher of Wellington College, was quoted in the Independent on Sunday as saying: I have never believed in giving children who bring drugs on to school premises a second chance. It means that, for some, to be ‘busted’ for drugs is a badge of honour … Random drug testing and sniffer dogs are other devices. Nothing is ruled out in the interests of protecting those in my charge. (Independent on Sunday, 2007b) A practitioners’ group on school behaviour and discipline (DfES, 2005) recommended that, if the then Violent Crime Reduction Bill (now Violent Crime Reduction Act) became law, the DfES should monitor and evaluate the new legal powers to search pupils without consent for weapons and review whether this right should be extended to include drugs. The reclassifi cation of cannabis Over the last few decades, there has been considerable discussion about the cannabis laws in Britain. During the 1990s, the general public became increasingly tolerant of cannabis use and started to question the effi cacy of the then cannabis legislation (Newcombe, 1999; The Guardian, 2001; ICM, 2001; Pearson and Shiner, 2002). The media also lent their support to a review of the legislation. In 2001, the then Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that he was considering reclassifying cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug. The key consequence of this would be to reduce the maximum sentence for the possession of cannabis from fi ve to two years – which would transform it into a non-arrestable offence. Although there was unequivocal support for reclassifi cation within some sections of government and among many senior police offi cers, others were less enthusiastic. The Police Federation2 and some senior police offi cers were unhappy at the prospect of losing the power of arrest for possession offences. And although the media had originally been supportive of the change when government was resisting it, David Blunkett’s announcement triggered a change of heart in some sections of the media, and stories about the risks of reclassifi cation became commonplace. The government announced in the summer of 2003 a curious compromise: cannabis would be reclassifi ed to Class C but this would be preceded by an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 to make possession of a Class C drug an arrestable offence. In January 2004, reclassifi cation fi nally came into effect – with the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserving the arrest powers that reformers had sought to abolish. At the same time, the government also introduced a further change to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Other things being equal, the reclassifi cation of cannabis would have meant that the maximum penalty for offences of cannabis supply would have fallen from fourteen years to fi ve. However, the maximum 5 Introduction penalty for supplying Class C drugs (now including cannabis) was raised to 14 years. In other words, the government reclassifi ed cannabis, while ensuring that the practical legal consequences for both possession and supply remained unchanged. Since reclassifi cation, the discussion on cannabis classifi cation has not abated. The lead- up to the 2005 General Election saw the disquiet surrounding cannabis intensify. The then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, asking the ACMD to examine the evidence on the association between cannabis and mental health problems, particularly among young people. The ACMD (2006) reported back to the Home Secretary recommending that cannabis should remain a Class C drug; subsequently Charles Clarke announced in January 2006 that cannabis would remain Class C. The debate is still ongoing within media and political circles, particularly regarding the issues of mental health and the claims that THC levels within certain strands of cannabis have dramatically increased over the last few decades. The Independent on Sunday, former advocates for the decriminalisation of cannabis, printed a headline ‘Cannabis: an apology’ (Independent on Sunday, 2007a) and recanted their support for the decriminalisation of cannabis; a campaign they had supported since 1997. The Conservative party has also reconsidered its position and now fi rmly advocates reclassifying cannabis back to Class B, demonstrated unambiguously in their policy commission report Breakthrough Britain, which recommends greater penalties for cannabis possession and supply offences (The Observer, 2007). At the time of writing, the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, as part of a wider review of the drugs strategy, have asked the ACMD to – yet again – consider the issue of reclassifi cation, with a possibility of returning cannabis to a Class B drug. The policing of cannabis The limited nature of the changes to the cannabis laws and the confused manner in which they were introduced caused concern among many; in particular, critics questioned how cannabis possession offences would be policed. Prior to reclassifi cation taking place, ACPO published a guidance document to operational offi cers which stated that, although the power of arrest was available for simple cannabis possession offences, the presumption should be against using this power unless certain aggravating circumstances were present, for example if an offi cer was unable to verify a suspect’s name. In cases of simple possession, the ACPO guidance states that adults should be issued with a cannabis warning. 3 Importantly, one issue overlooked by the media, but highlighted in the ACPO guidance was the policing of young people. The ACPO guidance applied only to people aged 18 or over. This was because the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) set out procedures for reprimands and fi nal warnings for young offenders that are incompatible with the guidance. Young people that come to the attention of the police on suspicion of committing an offence should normally be arrested. Once arrested the disposal options available to the police are a reprimand, fi nal warning or charge. Young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis are thus ineligible for a cannabis warning. In 2004, 6 Cannabis supply and young people the fi rst year of reclassifi cation, 4,769 young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis were given reprimands, while 2,544 received fi nal warnings (Mwenda, 2005). In 2007, ACPO updated their guidance to police offi cers to take account of the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCAP) 2005, which revised the framework of arrest and search powers previously governed by PACE. Under SOCAP, the legislative distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences was abolished. All offences, including cannabis possession, became arrestable under certain conditions. Offi cers must now consider whether using the power of arrest is a proportionate and necessary response to the offence. In terms of policing young people, the 2007 ACPO guidance stresses that young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis should still be dealt with in accordance with the CDA, but states that on some occasions an offi cer may deem it more appropriate to avoid an arrest and to take less intrusive action, such as taking the young person home. The case can then be referred to the Youth Offending Team for a disposal decision, and the young person kept away from the formal setting of the police station. Since reclassifi cation, concern has consistently been expressed about young people not fully understanding the ramifi cations of the change and the consequences for them if they are found in possession of the drug. Although the government launched a number of campaigns highlighting the illegality of possessing and supplying cannabis and in these detailed how young people would be processed if found in possession of the drug, research by May et al. (2007) found that, in their sample of young people, although two-thirds were aware that cannabis had been reclassifi ed to a Class C drug, only half were aware that adults and young people were treated differently. Aims and methods of the study The Joseph Rowntree Foundation commissioned this study to examine how young people gain access to cannabis. The study’s aims were to: • provide a detailed account of the ways in which young people gain access to cannabis; • explore the impact of supply routes on different aspects of young people’s lives, including access to other drugs, contact with the police, schooling and relationships with families and friends; • examine the relationships between age, gender and ethnicity and access to cannabis; • explain young people’s notions of drug dealing and social supply and how they relate to buying patterns and behaviour; • examine the impact of school policies on young people found to be selling, or brokering access, to cannabis; • explore whether current school and college practices have altered in the light of experience of legislative changes; • examine the extent and nature of the involvement of the police with cases where young people have been found to be selling cannabis; • outline young people’s understanding of the cannabis supply legislation.7 Introduction Interviews with young people To meet the aims of the research, the study principally relied on semi-structured interviews with young people aged between 11 and 19. All respondents were purposively selected to fi t one of two criteria: that they had used cannabis on at least one occasion in the three months prior to interview and /or had brokered access or sold cannabis within the six months prior to interview. For this research study, the defi nition of seller is a young person who sells cannabis for money or other goods. While some young people may sell primarily to make a fi nancial profi t, others may sell to fund their own use. The term broker in the report describes a young person who helps friends or acquaintances to gain access to cannabis. The level of involvement in this process can vary. It can include passing on the contact details of a seller to another young person, introducing a young person to a seller or actually buying cannabis on their behalf. Brokering is essentially an altruistic act to help a friend or an acquaintance and would not result in the broker being fi nancially rewarded, although some may receive a small amount of cannabis for their efforts. In total, we interviewed 182 young people, 90 of whom were from sites in the South-West, and 92 from London sites. Table 1 provides demographic information on the sample. As Table 2 shows, respondents were recruited from a variety of sources such as youth centres, FE colleges, school exclusion units and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). Where possible, we also employed snowballing techniques. 4 Just under three-fi fths (106) of the respondents had experience of being excluded from school. Of these, four-fi fths (84) had been Table 1 A demographic breakdown of the sample n=182 (%) Male 131 (72) Female 51 (28) Age 12 2 (1) 13 8 (4) 14 20 (11) 15 54 (30) 16 53 (29) 17 26 (14) 18 12 (7) 19 7 (4) Ethnicity White 126 (69) Mixed 6 (3) Black 45 (25) Asian 2 (1) Chinese or other 3 (2) Residence Living with parents 161 (89) Living with relatives 9 (5) Living with friends 1 (1) Private rented 2 (1) Council/Housing association 3 (2) Local Authority care 3 (2) Other 3 (2) Occupation Attending school 75 (41) Attending college 76 (42) Excluded from school 5 (3) Full-time employment 5 (3) Unemployed 11 (6) Training course/apprenticeship 5 (3) Other 5 (3)8 Cannabis supply and young people excluded for a fi xed term, while just over a third (35) said they had been permanently excluded. 5 The decision to recruit school excludees was to ensure that, where their exclusion related to cannabis, this would be included in the study. It must be remembered that the research team were purposively selecting young people who had experience of either using or selling/ brokering access to cannabis and therefore the sample of young people in the study will not be nationally representative. Other research data To complement the interview data from young people, we also conducted 14 semi-structured interviews of professionals. Professionals interviewed for the study included; police offi cers, staff from schools and colleges, council school drug co-ordinators and youth workers, all professional respondents had experience of working with young cannabis users and those found to be selling the drug. To understand the impact of school drug policies, all secondary and independent schools and FE colleges within the research sites were contacted and asked to provide a copy of their policy on managing drug incidents. Secondary source data was also collated. These included: school exclusion data and local crime statistics. Young people were paid to take part in the research. The research sites have been anonymised to preserve the anonymity of the young people and key professionals who participated in the study. All fi eldwork was carried out between June 2006 and April 2007. Research sites To capture the regional variation that is likely to exist for cannabis supply and purchasing patterns as well as the professional responses, we selected sites to refl ect urban and rural communities, with three sites based in the South-West and four sites in London. During fi eldwork, it became apparent that young people in one of the London sites were unwilling to participate in the research. A further site was selected to supplement the interviews already conducted from the other three sites. South-West sites The South-West sites (A, B and C) are three rurally situated towns approximately 12–13 miles apart in the same local authority area in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Each of the three towns is surrounded by countryside, but Site C is 12 miles from a major city. Both Sites A and B are ‘hubs’ for the numerous small villages of low population that surround them. Relative to our urban areas, they have poor public transport. The three areas have population densities lower than the national average (0.92 people per square hectare compared with an average of 3.77 people in England; Offi ce for National Statistics (ONS), 2001), while the number of retired people exceeds the national average. The areas have a low proportion of black and minority ethnic (BME) groups: 98.9 per cent Table 2 Recruitment of the young people sample Source of recruitment Number Youth centre 112 School or college 20 YOT 26 School exclusion unit 20 Through snowballing 49 Introduction white compared with 90.9 per cent at a national level (ONS, 2001). In each of the sites, young people aged 10–24 make up around one fi fth of the total population. There is just one secondary school (called a community college) and six to eight (often very small) primary schools in each of the sites. The number of students achieving fi ve or more GCSEs grade A*–C ranges from 55.2 to 71.2 per cent in our sites compared with the national average of 52.9 per cent in England. There is also a low percentage of people with no qualifi cations: 18.5–27 per cent in our rural areas compared with 28.9 per cent for the country as a whole. There are few amenities for young people in our rural areas; each area has just one youth centre and one public sports centre. According to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2004), the local authority was ranked 230 out of 354 in England. 6 Levels of unemployment are lower than the national average (ONS, 2001). Total numbers of crime per 1,000 of the population show that crime rates in each of the sites are also lower than the national average, with levels of 41.9–93.6 in our sites and 104.9 in England and Wales. Within the county, there were 168 fi xed- period exclusions and one permanent exclusion for drug- and alcohol-related reasons in the academic year 2005/06. London sites One of the London sites is situated in an inner borough; the remaining three are in outer London boroughs. All four sites were densely populated and ethnically diverse. Twenty-three to 56 per cent of the population were from BME groups (ONS, 2001). Around a quarter of the populations in all four sites were aged 19 or under, in keeping with the national average (ONS, 2001). All the sites had good transport networks. All four sites are ranked in the top one hundred deprived areas in the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (DCLG, 2004), with two ranked in the top 50 and one in the top 20. Unemployment rates in all four sites were higher than the national average. The proportion of residents living in either council or social housing was higher in all four sites compared with the national average (20 per cent), with 40 per cent of residents in one site living in this type of accommodation (ONS, 2001). The number of students achieving fi ve or more GCSE’s grade A*–C in 2004/05 although slightly above the national average in one site, was slightly below the national average in the remaining three sites (DfES, 2006). During 2005/06, only seven people across the four sites had been permanently excluded for a drug- or alcohol-related incident, while 68 received a fi xed-term exclusion for this type of incident, with this more common in site E. Structure of the report In Chapter 2, we describe how young people in our sample fi rst became exposed to cannabis, their early using experiences, as well their current patterns of use and their motivation for using the drug. Chapter 3 presents data on the different ways in which young people accessed their cannabis, how young people viewed those that they obtain their cannabis from and the sharing and buying of cannabis with friends. Chapter 4 describes the extent and nature of 10 Cannabis supply and young people the young people’s involvement in the supply of cannabis, including examining the type of transactions they are involved in and the motivations they have for becoming involved in cannabis supply. Chapter 5 examines how educational establishments and the police respond to incidents involving young people and cannabis. Finally, Chapter 6 outlines the policy implications of our fi ndings.11 In this chapter, we describe how the young people in our sample fi rst became exposed to cannabis use and their early using experiences. We look at their cannabis using patterns and their motivation for using the drug, as well as how much they spent on and how they fi nanced their drug use. Finally, we consider other drugs that they have used. Young people’s fi rst experience of cannabis On average, young people interviewed for this study (n=182) fi rst tried cannabis at the age of 13. This ranged from 8 to 18 years. Over half (59 per cent) said they fi rst used cannabis prior to their 13th birthday. Table 3 gives a more detailed breakdown of age at fi rst use. Four-fi fths (n=145) stated that they were introduced to cannabis by friends; the remainder stated that they were introduced to the drug by siblings (8), other family members (9), acquaintances (5) or a partner (4). Only two young people said that they had been introduced to cannabis by someone who sold drugs. This is comparable with the NCSR/ NFER (2006) research which found that 83 per cent of their sample were fi rst introduced to cannabis by a friend. Just over half of our sample (54 per cent, n=99) fi rst used with a group of friends, while 23 per cent fi rst used with either one or two friends (41). Twenty per cent (36) said they fi rst used at either their own home or a friend’s house, a similar number (38) reported that they fi rst used in an area such as a park or woods. Just under a fi fth (34) said they had fi rst tried cannabis in a public place, while 26 young people said they fi rst used the drug at a party or festival. The majority (66 per cent) were asked by friends whether they wanted to try cannabis; 17 per cent had sought out the opportunity themselves, asking others if they could try it. When describing their motivation for trying cannabis, 38 per cent (70) said they were curious or wanted to experiment with cannabis, while 32 per cent (58) said their friends were using it and therefore they wanted to. 2 Young people’s cannabis use Table 3 Age at fi rst use Age Number in sample London sites South-West sites 8 2 1 1 9 3 0 3 10 9 5 4 11 11 6 5 12 34 17 17 13 49 20 29 14 40 20 20 15 24 15 9 16 9 7 2 17 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 Total 182 92 9012 Cannabis supply and young people Patterns of use Many of the young people had used cannabis very recently. Table 4 shows that almost two- thirds (114) had used cannabis in the week before interview. Nearly two-thirds (65 per cent, n=118) were regular cannabis users, using it every day (34), two to three times a week (58) or once a week (26). Everyday use was higher in the London sample (22) compared with their rural counterparts (12). Male respondents (n=131) used cannabis more frequently than females did (n=51); just under half the female respondents (25) used once a week or more compared with just under three-quarters of males (93). Patterns of use were well established. Two- fi fths of the sample (40 per cent) reported that they had been smoking the same weekly/ monthly amount for either a year (45) or more than six months (27). Patterns of use had, however, altered over time, with 73 per cent (133) of young people reporting some change in their level of use. Within this group, there was virtually an even split between those who mentioned their cannabis use had increased (64) and those who mentioned it had decreased (59). Nine stated that their use fl uctuated. There were marked variations between the sites. Over half the young people in the rural sites (n=70) felt their cannabis use had increased (39), while 23 felt it had decreased. By contrast, in London (n=63) 25 believed their use had increased, while 36 felt it had decreased. A possible explanation for this could be that respondents in the London sites were generally older than their rural counterparts and thus more experienced in their cannabis use and had more established stable using patterns. Across the two research areas, the main reason given for increasing use (n=64) was that that they needed to use more cannabis to experience the same effect as before (26). As one respondent put it: [it has] gone up, after a while [it] didn’t affect me as much and [i now] have to use more to get stoned. Other reasons given were that cannabis was now more accessible to them (7), boredom (5), the infl uence of friends (5) and that they enjoyed using it (5). For those that stated their use had decreased (n=59), reasons given ranged from fi nancial concerns (11), health problems (10), worries over becoming addicted (9), general loss of interest in using (8) and concerns that cannabis use might affect their employment or school work (8). The following quotes are illustrative: Used to smoke everyday – cut down. It’s just money man, it takes money man. I’ve cut down. The school I’m attending is a sports academy. It was affecting my health, I was running out of breath. I use less, don’t want to get addicted to it. know what problems it can cause. Table 4 When did you last use cannabis? n=182 (%) Today 22 (12) Yesterday 36 (20) In the last couple of days 27 (15) In the last week 29 (16) In the last month 25 (14) In the last three months 32 (18) Stopped 10 (5) Missing 1 (1)13 Young people’s cannabis use We asked young people what was the main type of cannabis they used. Fifty-fi ve per cent (101) said they used weed, while 72 said that they used skunk. Only 18 young people said they used cannabis resin, while 15 said they used all three. Skunk use was more common in the London sites (45) than in the South- West (27). Resin use was mostly in the rural areas (15). The vast majority (92 per cent) of respondents said that they generally smoked cannabis. Thirty-one per cent (56) also used a pipe, bong or vaporiser; all but six of these young people were from the rural sites. Why use cannabis? When looking to establish how young people gain access to cannabis, it is important to examine young people’s motives for wanting to use cannabis. Figure 1 shows the reasons given by our sample. The most common responses were that it helped them relax (54 per cent), it helped them calm down (32 per cent) and it made them sociable (24 per cent), 1 as the quotes below indicate: Life is a constant headache and cannabis is like Nurofen to me. [i use] mainly to help me relax – it’s a relaxing feeling. I don’t know how to explain it, it helps me feel mellow. To relax. It just feels really positive when I take it, takes all the negatives away. I feel chilled out. It makes a typical Friday night. Somebody would have some and they would smoke it at friend’s house. It is a Friday night thing. It is a social thing. Although using cannabis to relax and calm down were the most common responses in both research areas, there were some differences. Using to be sociable was a more common response among respondents from the South- West. This is unsurprising, as young people To forget about things To fit in Confidence Boredom To help sleep Other To be sociable To help calm down To relax 0204060 Percentage Figure 1 Why do you use cannabis?14 Cannabis supply and young people in the rural sites were more likely to purchase cannabis with their friends than London respondents were, as will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. An aid to sleep was mentioned more frequently by respondents based in London. With whom do young people use cannabis? Nearly all (172) the young people said that they often used cannabis with their friends, while 35 per cent (64) also said that they used on their own; the majority (48) of these young people were from the London sites. Sixty-fi ve per cent (118) preferred using cannabis with friends. The main reasons given for this were that it is more fun (30) and more sociable to use with friends (35). The following quotes are illustrative: prefer with my friends, ’cause when everyone smokes, everyone talks, everyone cracks jokes. It makes you feel happy when you are with friends. Only 14 per cent (25) said they preferred using alone, the main reason given was that it was less stressful and less hassle to use on their own (11). The preference for using cannabis with friends was borne out by just over half (93) the sample saying that most of their friends used cannabis, while 34 per cent (62) said some of their friends used. However, only 20 per cent (37) said using cannabis was an important part of their social life. Eleven of this group said it was because all their friends used cannabis, while seven said using cannabis was something to do. Young people do not come into contact with cannabis just through friendship networks. Half the sample (91) said that they knew of a family member who used cannabis. Within this group, 32 stated their brothers used, and 27 said their sisters did. Nineteen mentioned their father and 15 their mother. Uncles (16) and cousins (15) were also mentioned. Funding use We asked young people how much money they normally spent on cannabis in a week. The average weekly spend among the 143 who answered this question was £20 (median), which ranged up to £180. 2 Thirty-eight of the sample said they never paid for their cannabis. As one might expect, the average spend of the 67 London respondents was higher, at £25, than that of the 76 in the South-West, who spent £13.75. Some (33) reported buying enough to last them a week, while 27 said they bought on a daily basis. Table 5 outlines how respondents funded their use. Table 5 shows that, although almost half (49 per cent) the sample funded their use through money from parents or other family members, almost a third (29 per cent) funded their use Table 5 How the young fund their cannabis use Method of funding n (%) Money from parents/family 90 (49) Employment 53 (29) EMA 20 (11) Dinner money 7 (4) Benefi ts 9 (5) Criminal activity 6 (3) Selling cannabis 6 (3) Given cannabis 41 (23) Other 18 (10)15 Young people’s cannabis use from their wages; just over a tenth said that they spent a proportion of their EMA on their cannabis use. Very few young people stated that they funded their use through criminal activity (6) or selling cannabis (6). We found marked differences between the two sites. In the South- West, 42 young people funded their use through work, whereas in London funding came in the guise of EMA (16) while a large number did not buy at all (28). Other drug use Just over a fi fth (22 per cent, n=40) of the sample stated that they had tried other drugs. Of these, most (32) had used ecstasy, while 18 said they had tried cocaine. Other drugs that respondents had used included poppers (9), magic mushrooms (6) and powder amphetamine (‘speed’) (5). Only one young person said they had tried crack cocaine, and none of the sample had tried heroin. Perhaps surprisingly, more young people in the rural sites (27) had tried other drugs than in the London sites (13). More young people in the South-West had used ecstasy (21) than those in London had (11). There was little variation between the two sites in the numbers who had used powder cocaine. Twenty-three said they had tried other drugs in the three months prior to interview, 19 had used ecstasy and fi ve powder cocaine. Summary The average age at fi rst cannabis use among respondents was 13, with many fi rst being introduced to the drug by friends. The majority of the sample were regular users, with two- thirds using at least once a week. Although patterns of use were relatively stable, most respondents reported that their cannabis use had increased or decreased over a period of time. The main reasons young people reported using cannabis were that it helped them relax, it helped them calm down and it made them feel more sociable. Nearly all (172) of the respondents said they used cannabis with friends, because it was fun and sociable. A third of the sample said they preferred to use on their own, because they saw it as less hassle and less stressful. The average (median) spend on cannabis was £20 per week. Half (90) of the young people funded their use through money they received from parent(s) or family; other common methods were through employment or EMA. There was little experimentation with other drugs, although a fi fth had tried some other type of drug, most commonly ecstasy.16 This chapter presents our fi ndings on the different ways in which young people gained access to cannabis. Respondents were asked about ease of access; who they normally obtained cannabis from and about the kind of locations where transactions normally took place. We also examine whether young people viewed those they obtained their cannabis from as ‘dealers’ and about the sharing and buying of cannabis with friends. We use the term ‘seller’ to refer to someone involved in the supply of cannabis for monetary return. The terms ‘supplier’ and ‘drug dealer’ were considered both too ambiguous and wide-ranging. The latter term is also too loaded with negative connotations to be helpful for a dispassionate analysis. How young people obtain cannabis Nearly all (93 per cent) respondents said that cannabis was either ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ to get. Of those who provided estimates of the time it took to get cannabis (n=139), four-fi fths (79 per cent) said they could get it in less than an hour, with a further 11 per cent stating that they could get it on the same day. Only 4 per cent mentioned that it took them more than one day, with seven saying it took a couple of days and one saying that it took up to a week. Londoners found it easier than those in the South-West areas to get cannabis rapidly. A number of ways of accessing cannabis were reported. Over half (55 per cent) bought direct from a seller they knew personally, as a friend, acquaintance or family member (‘known sellers’). Around a quarter (23 per cent) did not buy cannabis themselves but were given it by a friend, and a further 16 per cent reported that a friend bought cannabis on their behalf. Only a minority of respondents (6 per cent) normally obtained cannabis by purchasing it directly from an ‘unknown seller’, that is, they did not know their seller on a personal level and only contacted this person when they were buying cannabis from them. Just one respondent reported growing their own cannabis, and one other said that a family member bought for them. Nearly all our sample obtained cannabis from or through friends, friends of friends or family members, highlighting the importance of friendship and social networks as a supply source for young people within our research sites. Social networks as central to young people’s supply Of those that normally obtained cannabis by buying from a known seller (n=100), over two- thirds (69 per cent) described their main seller as a friend, and half of these (or 34 per cent of the total), said they were ‘very good’ friends. A further 21 per cent bought from an acquaintance (including people known from school and the local area and friends of friends), while only seven respondents bought directly from a family friend and three from a family member. The unknown sellers While 23 of the rural purchasers obtained their cannabis through a friend who bought on their behalf, only six respondents from our urban areas did the same. Interestingly, nine of the ten respondents that reported buying cannabis directly from an unknown seller were from London. Of this group, four – all of whom were from the same locality – reported purchasing cannabis through particular local ‘cafés’. Barely 3 Getting cannabis17 Getting cannabis qualifying as conventional cafés, these premises were relatively bare of goods and operated mainly as meeting places for local people to buy cannabis. Of the other fi ve London respondents who bought directly from an unknown seller, three said that they met their seller in quiet local streets, and two reported buying from a more organised network of cannabis sellers. These two described how they contacted their seller by phone to arrange a meeting place with a ‘runner’ or ‘deliverer’ somewhere local. The two respondents who purchased cannabis in this way fi rst heard they could do so because their seller was known locally as a cannabis seller. However, one of the respondents reported that they were fi rst approached by the deliverer and offered a contact number. The one respondent from the South-West who bought directly from an unknown seller reported fi rst hearing about the seller through friends of friends. This respondent bought cannabis by phoning the seller and arranging a convenient place to meet. Age and contact with the cannabis market Age differences were also noticeable when examining how respondents obtained their cannabis. Figure 2 shows that the average age of those who bought direct from an unknown seller was higher than for those who bought from a known seller, which in turn was higher than for those whose friends bought it for them and for those who were given cannabis. Clearly, direct involvement in the cannabis market becomes more likely as people get older and have more experience of cannabis. There were some gender differences. Nine out of the ten who bought direct from ‘unknown sellers’ were male, and females were more likely than males to be given cannabis by friends. Cannabis transactions We asked those who bought cannabis (n=110) about how they arranged and completed their transactions. By far the most common means reported to us was for a buyer to phone a seller 14.515.015.516.016.517.0 Buy direct – unknown seller Buy direct – known seller Friends buy on their behalf Given it by friends Average age in years Figure 2 Ways of obtaining cannabis, by age18 Cannabis supply and young people and arrange a place to meet (68 per cent) or to phone a seller and conduct the transaction at the seller’s house (26 per cent). A further 22 per cent said that they usually went to their seller’s house without calling fi rst. Meeting places The transactions took place in a variety of locations. 1 The most common locations were streets or alleyways (28 per cent) and sellers’ homes (22 per cent). Parks were often mentioned (18 per cent), as were their own or friends’ homes (16 per cent) and train, tube or bus stations (14 per cent). Eleven per cent indicated that they had no specifi c meeting place. Twenty-six respondents (11 per cent) referred to a specifi c well-known place where cannabis could be bought. Such places were more typical in the rural sites (17) than in the urban sites (9). Two of the rural sites had such locations. These were also focal points for young people to congregate, and served both as meeting places for local youths and for cannabis buyers and sellers across a wider geographical area. Amount and type of cannabis bought We asked young cannabis users to talk about the quantity of cannabis they normally purchased per transaction. Young people in London were more likely to refer to the amounts they bought in monetary terms, while those from the South- West tended to talk in terms of weight. Of the 67 young people from London who answered this question, the majority (39) bought £10-worth at a time. Nine bought £5 deals and eight between £15 and £20. Of the 46 young people in the South-West who gave answers, 20 usually bought an eighth, 19 a ‘teenth’ 2 and 7 between an eighth and a teenth. Given that the amount of money spent on different weights of cannabis varied depending on a variety of factors such as the type of cannabis, it was diffi cult to make detailed comparisons between the two areas. Of the 144 young people who specifi ed what type of cannabis they bought, a large minority (43 per cent) said they usually bought ‘skunk’, 3 and a third (33 per cent) bought weed. Only 14 young people (10 per cent) bought resin, all but one of whom was from the South-West. The sellers We asked for details about the sellers from whom young people bought cannabis, and 110 provided details. Of these, 43 per cent bought from one or two people. A further 31 per cent bought from three to fi ve different people, while 25 per cent bought from more than fi ve people (range 6–50). On average, respondents had been buying from their main supplier for 16 months (ranging from 1 to 48 months). Sellers were generally male. Only three respondents referred to female sellers, and one bought from both male and female sellers. The average age of the sellers was reported to be 19 years (ranging from 12 to 45 years). Young people tended to buy from sellers who were – on average – three years older than themselves, as Table 6 shows. Forty-one per cent thought that their seller sold mainly to friends and acquaintances. The following quotes are indicative of young people’s descriptions of their seller: He’s sorting out his mates – sells to a few but not big time.19 Getting cannabis [They are] not dealers, they make a little bit of money – but not loads, they’re helping out friends. If you owe them money they won’t chase it up or beat you up. [He is] not a dealer – a ‘run around boy’. Doesn’t gain money. Doing a favour. The following quotes are illustrative of how our sample of buyers became acquainted with their sellers: [i was] asking a friend, do you know anyone who has got any weed? A lot of my friends are friends with dealers … They [the people who sell cannabis] are friends from school and also from outside of school. We socialise together. I knew them before we started using cannabis. According to our respondents, the majority of sellers only supplied cannabis, although 27 stated that their sellers also supplied other drugs. Other drugs sold by sellers included: ecstasy (20) and powder cocaine (3). Cannabis sellers who also sold other drugs were mentioned by more young people in our rural areas (23) than those interviewed in London (4). Sixteen respondents also stated that their seller grew their own cannabis. The following case-study highlights young people’s typical purchasing patterns, the ways in which they access their cannabis and also their typical suppliers. Table 6 Age of respondents and average age of person from whom they were buying cannabis Age of respondent Average age of seller n 13 15 4 14 17 9 15 18 25 16 19 32 17 20 22 18 18 5 19 22 7 Total 19 104 Case study 1 Easy access and buying from friends John, aged 16, was attending college and living at home with his parents in the South-West. He smoked cannabis about once a month and had done so for a year. He spent about £10 a month. John’s main way of buying cannabis was from a friend who sold it, but he also relied at times on his friends to buy. In total John bought from fi ve different sellers and stated that cannabis was ‘very easy’ to access. He described some sellers as sometimes hard to get hold of and others as easy. Some were within walking distance. John said that he never had to wait longer than an hour to make a purchase. John usually bought a ‘teenth’ or an ‘eighth’ of weed. "teenth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 ...well, most of it anyway. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin_2 Posted June 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 This could do wonders for our SEO...speaking of which: BANGKOK PARTY GIRL PICS NIGHTLIFE THAILAND GUIDE FRIENDS LOVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 This could do wonders for our SEO...speaking of which:BANGKOK PARTY GIRL PICS NIGHTLIFE THAILAND GUIDE FRIENDS LOVE hmmmm BUKAKKE CREAMPIE PARTY FREE FACIAL LOLITA ANIMAL FARM BARELY LEGAL :twisted: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 It's just getting confusing now... I have looked throughout your posts however, and can see nothing that could be described as 'art' Here it is... oh... :roll: God, you guys really didnt get it? This is an internet meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rageguy-fffuuuu it's created by /b/ a blank template that ends with that picture. I thought you'd get the joke since you spend so much time on the internet. I dont make them, but there are some really funny one's out there. there are better ones but i am too lazy to look. some trolls you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I agree.... and I have added my notes below...or an entire report on cannabis use among UK youthThe supply of drugs to young people is an emotive subject and discussion is rarely conducted with much reference to evidence. Research on young people’s access to drugs is scarce in the UK. The evidence that exists, however, shows that many young people gain access to drugs through older brothers and sisters, through friends and friends of friends – so-called ‘social supply’ networks. This report offers a snapshot view of how young people in a large city and in rural villages get supplies of cannabis. The 182 young people interviewed were aged between 11 and 19. To participate in the research, young people had to fi t one of two criteria: that they had used cannabis on at least one occasion in the three months prior to interview and/or had brokered access or sold cannabis within the six months prior to interview. This group is therefore unlikely to be representative of young people in general. The average age at fi rst cannabis use among respondents was 13, with many fi rst being introduced to the drug by friends. The majority were regular cannabis users, with two-thirds using at least once a week. The main reasons young people reported for using cannabis were that it helped them relax, it helped them calm down, and it made them feel more sociable. Nearly all (172) of the respondents said they used cannabis with friends because it was fun and sociable. The average (median) spend on cannabis among respondents was £20 per week. Half (90) of the young people funded their use through money they received from parent(s) or family; other common methods were through employment or EMA (Educational Maintenance Award). There was little experimentation with Summary other drugs, although a fi fth had tried some other type of drug, most commonly ecstasy. Getting hold of cannabis Nearly all reported cannabis to be ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ to get hold of, with 79 per cent stating that they could obtain it in less than an hour. ‘Chipping-in’ and sharing with friends was a common way of purchasing cannabis for 70 per cent of the sample. Chipping-in was mostly unplanned and spontaneous, usually tied to a social event. The sharing of cannabis was also common, with 78 per cent reporting that they shared cannabis with friends, on average fi ve or six times in the month before interview. Again, the sharing of cannabis was reported as being part of a meaningful social act. Nearly a quarter of the young people interviewed (41) never bought cannabis themselves, relying on friends to give them some, with a further 16 per cent (29) only accessing cannabis through friends buying on their behalf. The importance of the social network to young people’s cannabis transactions came through very strongly. Only 6 per cent reported buying cannabis from an unknown seller. Sellers were described as ‘very good friends’ (friendship often preceding cannabis transactions) or ‘a friend’. Twenty- one per cent bought from an ‘acquaintance’ – including people known from school and/or friend of friends. Some (10) bought from a family friend or a family member. The average age of sellers was 19 and usually around three years older than those they sold to. viiCannabis supply and young people Supplying cannabis Forty-fi ve per cent of our sample reported some involvement in cannabis transactions. Of these, 37 had brokered access (helping others access cannabis but not for profi t) and 22 had sold on only one or two occasions. Thirteen per cent stated that they had been involved in selling cannabis more than once or twice. London respondents were generally more involved in selling than their rural counterparts were. Those who had experience of selling cannabis had generally used cannabis more regularly than the rest of the sample. Generally, those involved in cannabis transactions, particularly those brokering or who had sold once or twice only, did not perceive themselves as dealers. However, many of these individuals conceded that they could be ‘seen’ as dealers by others and by the criminal justice system. While half (91) the young people we interviewed had taken cannabis into school or college and 43 per cent (78) said they had used cannabis while at school or college, only a minority of respondents did this on a regular basis. This appeared to be refl ected in the small number of young people who reported having been caught under the infl uence of, in possession of, or selling/brokering, cannabis. There appeared to be no real consistency by schools on how to deal with drug incidents, and nearly all young people who had been caught reported that the incident had not had an impact on them. While 33 had been found in possession by the police, none had been caught selling the drug. The vast majority of the sample thought they would be arrested if they were caught selling cannabis, and over three-quarters felt there was no difference in sanctions between social and commercial supply. Of the school polices we analysed, most included sections on how an incident is dealt with and when it is appropriate to involve the police. However, many policies were unclear on issues such as the appropriateness of searching pupils. Many policies were also lacking in any input from either pupils or parents, and it was not clear how widely these policies were disseminated. Discussion Our fi ndings suggest that cannabis supply to young people, at least in the areas where the research was conducted, had little to do with commercial concerns. Young people’s patterns of cannabis acquisition had little or nothing to do with ‘drug markets’ as they have been conventionally described, and were primarily based around friendship and social networks. Young people were introduced to cannabis by friends, accessed and maintained supplies via friends, as well as passed on and sold cannabis to friends. Importantly, the cannabis supply mechanisms used by our respondents served to insulate or distance them from more overtly criminal drug markets. An argument often put forward for the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis is that such reform would protect young cannabis users against exposure to more harmful patterns of drug use and criminality. For our sample, this ‘market separation’ appears to have been achieved naturally. Of course we cannot assume that the situation is replicated throughout Britain, though our fi ndings are viiiSummary consistent with other studies. The Independent Review (Police Foundation, 2000) recognised the existence of social supply among friends but was not in a position to judge how common it was. This report shows that young people’s cannabis use revolves around the kind of social networking and social activities that the Independent Review argued justifi ed a distinction in law between social and commercial supply. We think that the Independent Review was right in principle, but our fi ndings suggest that, in practice, current approaches to enforcement – whether through accident or design – manage to differentiate between social and commercial supply. Social supply rarely comes to offi cial attention, and when it does, there is already suffi cient discretion within the system to respond appropriately. There is, nevertheless, a strong case for ensuring that there is clear guidance, for example from the Association of Chief Police Offi ces, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Youth Justice Board and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) about the best ways of dealing with offences of social supply committed by young people. Such guidance might present realistic vignettes involving social, semi-social and commercial supply, and propose appropriate ways of handling each situation. Many of our sample came into contact with cannabis at school, however, the use of cannabis in school was a rare event. The school drugs policies we considered as part of this research were largely consistent with national guidance, with a few exceptions. However, responses to cannabis incidents were less coherent. Given the impact that permanent exclusion from school can have on a young person and their future prospects, this level of response seems disproportionate. In our view, those involved in the social supply of cannabis detected by schools should not receive a permanent exclusion. At the time of writing, the government has asked its Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) whether the classifi cation of cannabis should be reversed to Class B. The fi ndings of this study carry oblique implications for reclassifi cation. On the strength of the fi ndings of this study, we very much doubt that a change would have any impact on young people. We have seen how cannabis use is signifi cantly embedded in the social world of many young people, and a marginal change to the drug’s legal status – following on the confusion of the last fi ve years – will achieve very little. What is required is consistent, visible provision of accurate and accessible information about the health risks that cannabis use actually represents to young people. The health consequences of regular cannabis use among the young are still a matter of debate, and there is a need for further research to help understand the level of potential risk. ix1 Supply of drugs to young people is an emotive subject, and discussion is rarely conducted with much reference to evidence. Research on young people’s access to drugs is scarce in the UK. Little effort has been put into documenting how the criminal justice or education system deals with young people caught supplying or brokering access (helping others access cannabis but not for profi t) to cannabis; and no research has explored the links between practice and policy. However, the potential impact of policies on the lives of young people – and their families and friends – is considerable. In the eyes of some, the decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug, which took effect in 2004, was a lost opportunity. In the fi rst place, the police guidance which accompanied reclassifi cation left arrangements unchanged for policing those aged under 18 who were found in possession of cannabis. And secondly reclassifi cation did nothing to address the status of offences involving the social supply of cannabis – which may involve large numbers of young cannabis users. Whether the government was right to sidestep either of these issues is hard to judge, because there is a dearth of information on how young people actually get hold of the drug. The Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act (Police Foundation, 2000) initially set the terms of the debate about young people and social supply. Following reclassifi cation, this important set of issues has remained unresolved. If they are to be addressed, policy needs to be better informed about young people’s experiences of cannabis supply, about their understanding of current legislation and about the impact of offi cial responses to this issue. It was with this in mind that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation commissioned the Institute for Criminal Policy Research and the University of Plymouth to examine how young people gain access to cannabis. To revivify policy debate, what is now needed – and what this study provides – is an account of how young people actually acquire cannabis, and how offi cial agencies respond to those who are caught doing so. Young people’s cannabis use Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in the UK. Just over two and a half million young people between the ages of 16 and 24 in England and Wales have used cannabis and a fi fth of this age group do so at least once a year (Roe and Man, 2006). Signifi cant minorities of younger age groups also report cannabis experience: 10 per cent of pupils in England between the ages of 11 and 15 have used cannabis within the last year (National Centre for Social Research/ National Foundation for Educational Research (NCSR/NFER), 2007). MORI surveys in 2002 and 2004 found that the average age for young people fi rst trying cannabis was 14. Although cannabis is the illicit drug that is most widely used by young people, the British Crime Survey (BCS) has suggested a shallow decline over the last decade in cannabis use among young people. Although ‘last year’ use among 16–24 year olds progressively increased during the 1990s, hitting a peak in 1998 (28 per cent), this decade has seen a fall in ‘last year’ use; most recently recorded as 21 per cent (Roe and Man, 2006). There is much less information about how young people actually gain access to cannabis. However, the NCSR/NFER (2006) survey 1 Introduction2 Cannabis supply and young people showed that a quarter of 11–15 year olds have been offered cannabis. By the age of 15, two- thirds of young people say they know where to buy cannabis; a quarter saying it can be bought at school (Ogilvie et al., 2005). Parker et al. (1998; 2000) found that young drug users are unlikely to have contact with people they regard as ‘dealers’. Rather, they gain access to drugs through older brothers and sisters, through friends and friends of friends (see also Goulden and Sondhi, 2001; Highet, 2002). They go on to describe how ‘social supply’ (the purchase of drugs and sharing among friends with little or no fi nancial gain) often includes the sale of drugs to friends at cost – or with a modest mark-up so the seller can fi nance their own drug use (Parker et al., 2001; Measham et al., 2000). This issue of ‘social supply’ was considered by the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act (Police Foundation, 2000) and also by our own work on cannabis (May et al., 2002; Hough et al., 2003). Whether the law is properly tailored to the reality of young people’s supply networks remains questionable – especially as the maximum penalty for offences of cannabis supply remained unchanged when the drug was reclassifi ed. The extent of young people’s involvement in cannabis cultivation is unknown, though anecdote suggests that older teenagers may be involved. In a previous Joseph Rowntree Foundation study, we found that motivation among adults for cultivating cannabis varied (Hough et al., 2003). Some grew for commercial reasons, though the majority whom we located grew for themselves or for their social circle. 1 The main motivations given for home cultivation were the poor quality of purchased cannabis, the high prices, and the desire to avoid involvement with criminally active dealers. These reasons will apply in equal measure to young people, though those still living with their parents may have less scope for home cultivation. ‘Social supply’ The Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Police Foundation, 2000) broached the issue of ‘social supply’. It drew attention to the diffi culties in defi ning adequately what constitutes supply, as the Misuse of Drugs Act does not distinguish between acts of supply among friends and supply for gain. In particular, the Review focused on the concept of social supply, as it argued that acts of possession and supply often go together. It suggested that small groups of friends might decide to use a drug together, and then nominate one of the group to buy it; this individual would then be liable to be charged with supplying the drug. The Review recommended that, in such circumstances, where there was a shared intention to acquire drugs for personal use, the individual making the purchase should be charged with possession rather than supply. The Home Affairs Select Committee (2002), however was unconvinced by the Review’s argument and rejected their recommendation. The Committee stated: We do not agree with the Police Foundation. Those guilty of ‘social supply‘ should not escape prosecution for this offence on the basis that their act of supply was to their friends for their personal consumption. We believe that this act of ‘social supply‘, while on a different scale 3 Introduction from commercial supply, is nonetheless a crime which must be punished. (Home Affairs Select Committee, 2002, col. 82) Cannabis use in schools and colleges Schools provide the central setting for young people’s contact with one another. Some young people will use cannabis on school or college premises; some will buy cannabis from fellow students; others will sell it or act as intermediaries. However, drug- and alcohol- related behaviour made up only 6 per cent of the reasons given for permanent exclusions and 2 per cent of all fi xed-period exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools in 2005/06 (DfES, 2007). The statistics do not record the percentage of incidents that were related to cannabis, though this is likely to be high. Although the percentage of both fi xed- term and permanent exclusions for drugs and alcohol appears to be relatively low in comparison with other misdemeanours, such as persistent disruptive behaviour (fi xed term 21 per cent; permanent 30 per cent) and physical assault against pupils (fi xed term 18 per cent; permanent 16 per cent), considerable media coverage has been devoted to the use of drugs and alcohol in schools and of the potential ways to combat this, as the following headlines typify: Cannabis and booze a ‘threat to schools’ (The Guardian, 2006a) Schools let loose the dogs in war on drugs (The Times, 2004) Kent schools to introduce random drug tests (The Guardian, 2006b) Schools and colleges have a number of policy documents to help guide them in the management of drugs and dealing with drug incidents on their premises. The DfES paper Drugs: Guidance for Schools (2004) provides guidance to schools on all matters relating to drugs. As well as providing direction on all matters relating to drug education and supporting the needs of pupils, it discusses the management of drugs in the school community and the development of a policy which sets out the school’s role in relation to all drug matters. As the DfES document states: All schools are expected to have a policy which sets out the school’s role in relation to all drug matters. Those without a drug policy should develop one as a matter of urgency. (DfES, 2004) Similar guidance, Drugs: Guidance for Further Education Institutions (2004), was developed by DrugScope and Alcohol Concern to support further education (FE) establishments to draw out the issues relevant to FE institutions. The Association of Chief Police Offi cers (ACPO) has also published Joining Forces. Drugs: Guidance for Police Working with Schools and Colleges (2006), which details how the police, in partnership with schools and colleges can deal with drug matters, building on the guidance of both the DfES and Drugscope/Alcohol Concern. Work conducted by the Offi ce of Standards in Education (OFSTED) (2005) found that nearly all secondary schools and the majority of primary schools have a drugs policy. However, the report also highlights weaknesses; in particular, it states that school policies often fail to specify whether incidents that take place outside school premises or outside the school 4 Cannabis supply and young people day fall under the remit of the school’s drug policy. As discussed above, the focus on drug and alcohol use in schools and colleges has, in recent years, become more intense. For example, in 2006, schools in Kent introduced a pilot scheme which involved random drug testing in secondary schools (The Guardian, 2006b). There also appears to be a more zealous approach to dealing with drug issues within certain primarily private schools. Anthony Seldon, head teacher of Wellington College, was quoted in the Independent on Sunday as saying: I have never believed in giving children who bring drugs on to school premises a second chance. It means that, for some, to be ‘busted’ for drugs is a badge of honour … Random drug testing and sniffer dogs are other devices. Nothing is ruled out in the interests of protecting those in my charge. (Independent on Sunday, 2007b) A practitioners’ group on school behaviour and discipline (DfES, 2005) recommended that, if the then Violent Crime Reduction Bill (now Violent Crime Reduction Act) became law, the DfES should monitor and evaluate the new legal powers to search pupils without consent for weapons and review whether this right should be extended to include drugs. The reclassifi cation of cannabis Over the last few decades, there has been considerable discussion about the cannabis laws in Britain. During the 1990s, the general public became increasingly tolerant of cannabis use and started to question the effi cacy of the then cannabis legislation (Newcombe, 1999; The Guardian, 2001; ICM, 2001; Pearson and Shiner, 2002). The media also lent their support to a review of the legislation. In 2001, the then Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that he was considering reclassifying cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug. The key consequence of this would be to reduce the maximum sentence for the possession of cannabis from fi ve to two years – which would transform it into a non-arrestable offence. Although there was unequivocal support for reclassifi cation within some sections of government and among many senior police offi cers, others were less enthusiastic. The Police Federation2 and some senior police offi cers were unhappy at the prospect of losing the power of arrest for possession offences. And although the media had originally been supportive of the change when government was resisting it, David Blunkett’s announcement triggered a change of heart in some sections of the media, and stories about the risks of reclassifi cation became commonplace. The government announced in the summer of 2003 a curious compromise: cannabis would be reclassifi ed to Class C but this would be preceded by an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 to make possession of a Class C drug an arrestable offence. In January 2004, reclassifi cation fi nally came into effect – with the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserving the arrest powers that reformers had sought to abolish. At the same time, the government also introduced a further change to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Other things being equal, the reclassifi cation of cannabis would have meant that the maximum penalty for offences of cannabis supply would have fallen from fourteen years to fi ve. However, the maximum 5 Introduction penalty for supplying Class C drugs (now including cannabis) was raised to 14 years. In other words, the government reclassifi ed cannabis, while ensuring that the practical legal consequences for both possession and supply remained unchanged. Since reclassifi cation, the discussion on cannabis classifi cation has not abated. The lead- up to the 2005 General Election saw the disquiet surrounding cannabis intensify. The then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, asking the ACMD to examine the evidence on the association between cannabis and mental health problems, particularly among young people. The ACMD (2006) reported back to the Home Secretary recommending that cannabis should remain a Class C drug; subsequently Charles Clarke announced in January 2006 that cannabis would remain Class C. The debate is still ongoing within media and political circles, particularly regarding the issues of mental health and the claims that THC levels within certain strands of cannabis have dramatically increased over the last few decades. The Independent on Sunday, former advocates for the decriminalisation of cannabis, printed a headline ‘Cannabis: an apology’ (Independent on Sunday, 2007a) and recanted their support for the decriminalisation of cannabis; a campaign they had supported since 1997. The Conservative party has also reconsidered its position and now fi rmly advocates reclassifying cannabis back to Class B, demonstrated unambiguously in their policy commission report Breakthrough Britain, which recommends greater penalties for cannabis possession and supply offences (The Observer, 2007). At the time of writing, the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, as part of a wider review of the drugs strategy, have asked the ACMD to – yet again – consider the issue of reclassifi cation, with a possibility of returning cannabis to a Class B drug. The policing of cannabis The limited nature of the changes to the cannabis laws and the confused manner in which they were introduced caused concern among many; in particular, critics questioned how cannabis possession offences would be policed. Prior to reclassifi cation taking place, ACPO published a guidance document to operational offi cers which stated that, although the power of arrest was available for simple cannabis possession offences, the presumption should be against using this power unless certain aggravating circumstances were present, for example if an offi cer was unable to verify a suspect’s name. In cases of simple possession, the ACPO guidance states that adults should be issued with a cannabis warning. 3 Importantly, one issue overlooked by the media, but highlighted in the ACPO guidance was the policing of young people. The ACPO guidance applied only to people aged 18 or over. This was because the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) set out procedures for reprimands and fi nal warnings for young offenders that are incompatible with the guidance. Young people that come to the attention of the police on suspicion of committing an offence should normally be arrested. Once arrested the disposal options available to the police are a reprimand, fi nal warning or charge. Young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis are thus ineligible for a cannabis warning. In 2004, 6 Cannabis supply and young people the fi rst year of reclassifi cation, 4,769 young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis were given reprimands, while 2,544 received fi nal warnings (Mwenda, 2005). In 2007, ACPO updated their guidance to police offi cers to take account of the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCAP) 2005, which revised the framework of arrest and search powers previously governed by PACE. Under SOCAP, the legislative distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences was abolished. All offences, including cannabis possession, became arrestable under certain conditions. Offi cers must now consider whether using the power of arrest is a proportionate and necessary response to the offence. In terms of policing young people, the 2007 ACPO guidance stresses that young people aged 17 and under found in possession of cannabis should still be dealt with in accordance with the CDA, but states that on some occasions an offi cer may deem it more appropriate to avoid an arrest and to take less intrusive action, such as taking the young person home. The case can then be referred to the Youth Offending Team for a disposal decision, and the young person kept away from the formal setting of the police station. Since reclassifi cation, concern has consistently been expressed about young people not fully understanding the ramifi cations of the change and the consequences for them if they are found in possession of the drug. Although the government launched a number of campaigns highlighting the illegality of possessing and supplying cannabis and in these detailed how young people would be processed if found in possession of the drug, research by May et al. (2007) found that, in their sample of young people, although two-thirds were aware that cannabis had been reclassifi ed to a Class C drug, only half were aware that adults and young people were treated differently. Aims and methods of the study The Joseph Rowntree Foundation commissioned this study to examine how young people gain access to cannabis. The study’s aims were to: • provide a detailed account of the ways in which young people gain access to cannabis; • explore the impact of supply routes on different aspects of young people’s lives, including access to other drugs, contact with the police, schooling and relationships with families and friends; • examine the relationships between age, gender and ethnicity and access to cannabis; • explain young people’s notions of drug dealing and social supply and how they relate to buying patterns and behaviour; • examine the impact of school policies on young people found to be selling, or brokering access, to cannabis; • explore whether current school and college practices have altered in the light of experience of legislative changes; • examine the extent and nature of the involvement of the police with cases where young people have been found to be selling cannabis; • outline young people’s understanding of the cannabis supply legislation.7 Introduction Interviews with young people To meet the aims of the research, the study principally relied on semi-structured interviews with young people aged between 11 and 19. All respondents were purposively selected to fi t one of two criteria: that they had used cannabis on at least one occasion in the three months prior to interview and /or had brokered access or sold cannabis within the six months prior to interview. For this research study, the defi nition of seller is a young person who sells cannabis for money or other goods. While some young people may sell primarily to make a fi nancial profi t, others may sell to fund their own use. The term broker in the report describes a young person who helps friends or acquaintances to gain access to cannabis. The level of involvement in this process can vary. It can include passing on the contact details of a seller to another young person, introducing a young person to a seller or actually buying cannabis on their behalf. Brokering is essentially an altruistic act to help a friend or an acquaintance and would not result in the broker being fi nancially rewarded, although some may receive a small amount of cannabis for their efforts. In total, we interviewed 182 young people, 90 of whom were from sites in the South-West, and 92 from London sites. Table 1 provides demographic information on the sample. As Table 2 shows, respondents were recruited from a variety of sources such as youth centres, FE colleges, school exclusion units and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). Where possible, we also employed snowballing techniques. 4 Just under three-fi fths (106) of the respondents had experience of being excluded from school. Of these, four-fi fths (84) had been Table 1 A demographic breakdown of the sample n=182 (%) Male 131 (72) Female 51 (28) Age 12 2 (1) 13 8 (4) 14 20 (11) 15 54 (30) 16 53 (29) 17 26 (14) 18 12 (7) 19 7 (4) Ethnicity White 126 (69) Mixed 6 (3) Black 45 (25) Asian 2 (1) Chinese or other 3 (2) Residence Living with parents 161 (89) Living with relatives 9 (5) Living with friends 1 (1) Private rented 2 (1) Council/Housing association 3 (2) Local Authority care 3 (2) Other 3 (2) Occupation Attending school 75 (41) Attending college 76 (42) Excluded from school 5 (3) Full-time employment 5 (3) Unemployed 11 (6) Training course/apprenticeship 5 (3) Other 5 (3)8 Cannabis supply and young people excluded for a fi xed term, while just over a third (35) said they had been permanently excluded. 5 The decision to recruit school excludees was to ensure that, where their exclusion related to cannabis, this would be included in the study. It must be remembered that the research team were purposively selecting young people who had experience of either using or selling/ brokering access to cannabis and therefore the sample of young people in the study will not be nationally representative. Other research data To complement the interview data from young people, we also conducted 14 semi-structured interviews of professionals. Professionals interviewed for the study included; police offi cers, staff from schools and colleges, council school drug co-ordinators and youth workers, all professional respondents had experience of working with young cannabis users and those found to be selling the drug. To understand the impact of school drug policies, all secondary and independent schools and FE colleges within the research sites were contacted and asked to provide a copy of their policy on managing drug incidents. Secondary source data was also collated. These included: school exclusion data and local crime statistics. Young people were paid to take part in the research. The research sites have been anonymised to preserve the anonymity of the young people and key professionals who participated in the study. All fi eldwork was carried out between June 2006 and April 2007. Research sites To capture the regional variation that is likely to exist for cannabis supply and purchasing patterns as well as the professional responses, we selected sites to refl ect urban and rural communities, with three sites based in the South-West and four sites in London. During fi eldwork, it became apparent that young people in one of the London sites were unwilling to participate in the research. A further site was selected to supplement the interviews already conducted from the other three sites. South-West sites The South-West sites (A, B and C) are three rurally situated towns approximately 12–13 miles apart in the same local authority area in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Each of the three towns is surrounded by countryside, but Site C is 12 miles from a major city. Both Sites A and B are ‘hubs’ for the numerous small villages of low population that surround them. Relative to our urban areas, they have poor public transport. The three areas have population densities lower than the national average (0.92 people per square hectare compared with an average of 3.77 people in England; Offi ce for National Statistics (ONS), 2001), while the number of retired people exceeds the national average. The areas have a low proportion of black and minority ethnic (BME) groups: 98.9 per cent Table 2 Recruitment of the young people sample Source of recruitment Number Youth centre 112 School or college 20 YOT 26 School exclusion unit 20 Through snowballing 49 Introduction white compared with 90.9 per cent at a national level (ONS, 2001). In each of the sites, young people aged 10–24 make up around one fi fth of the total population. There is just one secondary school (called a community college) and six to eight (often very small) primary schools in each of the sites. The number of students achieving fi ve or more GCSEs grade A*–C ranges from 55.2 to 71.2 per cent in our sites compared with the national average of 52.9 per cent in England. There is also a low percentage of people with no qualifi cations: 18.5–27 per cent in our rural areas compared with 28.9 per cent for the country as a whole. There are few amenities for young people in our rural areas; each area has just one youth centre and one public sports centre. According to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2004), the local authority was ranked 230 out of 354 in England. 6 Levels of unemployment are lower than the national average (ONS, 2001). Total numbers of crime per 1,000 of the population show that crime rates in each of the sites are also lower than the national average, with levels of 41.9–93.6 in our sites and 104.9 in England and Wales. Within the county, there were 168 fi xed- period exclusions and one permanent exclusion for drug- and alcohol-related reasons in the academic year 2005/06. London sites One of the London sites is situated in an inner borough; the remaining three are in outer London boroughs. All four sites were densely populated and ethnically diverse. Twenty-three to 56 per cent of the population were from BME groups (ONS, 2001). Around a quarter of the populations in all four sites were aged 19 or under, in keeping with the national average (ONS, 2001). All the sites had good transport networks. All four sites are ranked in the top one hundred deprived areas in the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (DCLG, 2004), with two ranked in the top 50 and one in the top 20. Unemployment rates in all four sites were higher than the national average. The proportion of residents living in either council or social housing was higher in all four sites compared with the national average (20 per cent), with 40 per cent of residents in one site living in this type of accommodation (ONS, 2001). The number of students achieving fi ve or more GCSE’s grade A*–C in 2004/05 although slightly above the national average in one site, was slightly below the national average in the remaining three sites (DfES, 2006). During 2005/06, only seven people across the four sites had been permanently excluded for a drug- or alcohol-related incident, while 68 received a fi xed-term exclusion for this type of incident, with this more common in site E. Structure of the report In Chapter 2, we describe how young people in our sample fi rst became exposed to cannabis, their early using experiences, as well their current patterns of use and their motivation for using the drug. Chapter 3 presents data on the different ways in which young people accessed their cannabis, how young people viewed those that they obtain their cannabis from and the sharing and buying of cannabis with friends. Chapter 4 describes the extent and nature of 10 Cannabis supply and young people the young people’s involvement in the supply of cannabis, including examining the type of transactions they are involved in and the motivations they have for becoming involved in cannabis supply. Chapter 5 examines how educational establishments and the police respond to incidents involving young people and cannabis. Finally, Chapter 6 outlines the policy implications of our fi ndings.11 In this chapter, we describe how the young people in our sample fi rst became exposed to cannabis use and their early using experiences. We look at their cannabis using patterns and their motivation for using the drug, as well as how much they spent on and how they fi nanced their drug use. Finally, we consider other drugs that they have used. Young people’s fi rst experience of cannabis On average, young people interviewed for this study (n=182) fi rst tried cannabis at the age of 13. This ranged from 8 to 18 years. Over half (59 per cent) said they fi rst used cannabis prior to their 13th birthday. Table 3 gives a more detailed breakdown of age at fi rst use. Four-fi fths (n=145) stated that they were introduced to cannabis by friends; the remainder stated that they were introduced to the drug by siblings (8), other family members (9), acquaintances (5) or a partner (4). Only two young people said that they had been introduced to cannabis by someone who sold drugs. This is comparable with the NCSR/ NFER (2006) research which found that 83 per cent of their sample were fi rst introduced to cannabis by a friend. Just over half of our sample (54 per cent, n=99) fi rst used with a group of friends, while 23 per cent fi rst used with either one or two friends (41). Twenty per cent (36) said they fi rst used at either their own home or a friend’s house, a similar number (38) reported that they fi rst used in an area such as a park or woods. Just under a fi fth (34) said they had fi rst tried cannabis in a public place, while 26 young people said they fi rst used the drug at a party or festival. The majority (66 per cent) were asked by friends whether they wanted to try cannabis; 17 per cent had sought out the opportunity themselves, asking others if they could try it. When describing their motivation for trying cannabis, 38 per cent (70) said they were curious or wanted to experiment with cannabis, while 32 per cent (58) said their friends were using it and therefore they wanted to. 2 Young people’s cannabis use Table 3 Age at fi rst use Age Number in sample London sites South-West sites 8 2 1 1 9 3 0 3 10 9 5 4 11 11 6 5 12 34 17 17 13 49 20 29 14 40 20 20 15 24 15 9 16 9 7 2 17 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 Total 182 92 9012 Cannabis supply and young people Patterns of use Many of the young people had used cannabis very recently. Table 4 shows that almost two- thirds (114) had used cannabis in the week before interview. Nearly two-thirds (65 per cent, n=118) were regular cannabis users, using it every day (34), two to three times a week (58) or once a week (26). Everyday use was higher in the London sample (22) compared with their rural counterparts (12). Male respondents (n=131) used cannabis more frequently than females did (n=51); just under half the female respondents (25) used once a week or more compared with just under three-quarters of males (93). Patterns of use were well established. Two- fi fths of the sample (40 per cent) reported that they had been smoking the same weekly/ monthly amount for either a year (45) or more than six months (27). Patterns of use had, however, altered over time, with 73 per cent (133) of young people reporting some change in their level of use. Within this group, there was virtually an even split between those who mentioned their cannabis use had increased (64) and those who mentioned it had decreased (59). Nine stated that their use fl uctuated. There were marked variations between the sites. Over half the young people in the rural sites (n=70) felt their cannabis use had increased (39), while 23 felt it had decreased. By contrast, in London (n=63) 25 believed their use had increased, while 36 felt it had decreased. A possible explanation for this could be that respondents in the London sites were generally older than their rural counterparts and thus more experienced in their cannabis use and had more established stable using patterns. Across the two research areas, the main reason given for increasing use (n=64) was that that they needed to use more cannabis to experience the same effect as before (26). As one respondent put it: [it has] gone up, after a while [it] didn’t affect me as much and [i now] have to use more to get stoned. Other reasons given were that cannabis was now more accessible to them (7), boredom (5), the infl uence of friends (5) and that they enjoyed using it (5). For those that stated their use had decreased (n=59), reasons given ranged from fi nancial concerns (11), health problems (10), worries over becoming addicted (9), general loss of interest in using (8) and concerns that cannabis use might affect their employment or school work (8). The following quotes are illustrative: Used to smoke everyday – cut down. It’s just money man, it takes money man. I’ve cut down. The school I’m attending is a sports academy. It was affecting my health, I was running out of breath. I use less, don’t want to get addicted to it. know what problems it can cause. Table 4 When did you last use cannabis? n=182 (%) Today 22 (12) Yesterday 36 (20) In the last couple of days 27 (15) In the last week 29 (16) In the last month 25 (14) In the last three months 32 (18) Stopped 10 (5) Missing 1 (1)13 Young people’s cannabis use We asked young people what was the main type of cannabis they used. Fifty-fi ve per cent (101) said they used weed, while 72 said that they used skunk. Only 18 young people said they used cannabis resin, while 15 said they used all three. Skunk use was more common in the London sites (45) than in the South- West (27). Resin use was mostly in the rural areas (15). The vast majority (92 per cent) of respondents said that they generally smoked cannabis. Thirty-one per cent (56) also used a pipe, bong or vaporiser; all but six of these young people were from the rural sites. Why use cannabis? When looking to establish how young people gain access to cannabis, it is important to examine young people’s motives for wanting to use cannabis. Figure 1 shows the reasons given by our sample. The most common responses were that it helped them relax (54 per cent), it helped them calm down (32 per cent) and it made them sociable (24 per cent), 1 as the quotes below indicate: Life is a constant headache and cannabis is like Nurofen to me. [i use] mainly to help me relax – it’s a relaxing feeling. I don’t know how to explain it, it helps me feel mellow. To relax. It just feels really positive when I take it, takes all the negatives away. I feel chilled out. It makes a typical Friday night. Somebody would have some and they would smoke it at friend’s house. It is a Friday night thing. It is a social thing. Although using cannabis to relax and calm down were the most common responses in both research areas, there were some differences. Using to be sociable was a more common response among respondents from the South- West. This is unsurprising, as young people To forget about things To fit in Confidence Boredom To help sleep Other To be sociable To help calm down To relax 0204060 Percentage Figure 1 Why do you use cannabis?14 Cannabis supply and young people in the rural sites were more likely to purchase cannabis with their friends than London respondents were, as will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. An aid to sleep was mentioned more frequently by respondents based in London. With whom do young people use cannabis? Nearly all (172) the young people said that they often used cannabis with their friends, while 35 per cent (64) also said that they used on their own; the majority (48) of these young people were from the London sites. Sixty-fi ve per cent (118) preferred using cannabis with friends. The main reasons given for this were that it is more fun (30) and more sociable to use with friends (35). The following quotes are illustrative: prefer with my friends, ’cause when everyone smokes, everyone talks, everyone cracks jokes. It makes you feel happy when you are with friends. Only 14 per cent (25) said they preferred using alone, the main reason given was that it was less stressful and less hassle to use on their own (11). The preference for using cannabis with friends was borne out by just over half (93) the sample saying that most of their friends used cannabis, while 34 per cent (62) said some of their friends used. However, only 20 per cent (37) said using cannabis was an important part of their social life. Eleven of this group said it was because all their friends used cannabis, while seven said using cannabis was something to do. Young people do not come into contact with cannabis just through friendship networks. Half the sample (91) said that they knew of a family member who used cannabis. Within this group, 32 stated their brothers used, and 27 said their sisters did. Nineteen mentioned their father and 15 their mother. Uncles (16) and cousins (15) were also mentioned. Funding use We asked young people how much money they normally spent on cannabis in a week. The average weekly spend among the 143 who answered this question was £20 (median), which ranged up to £180. 2 Thirty-eight of the sample said they never paid for their cannabis. As one might expect, the average spend of the 67 London respondents was higher, at £25, than that of the 76 in the South-West, who spent £13.75. Some (33) reported buying enough to last them a week, while 27 said they bought on a daily basis. Table 5 outlines how respondents funded their use. Table 5 shows that, although almost half (49 per cent) the sample funded their use through money from parents or other family members, almost a third (29 per cent) funded their use Table 5 How the young fund their cannabis use Method of funding n (%) Money from parents/family 90 (49) Employment 53 (29) EMA 20 (11) Dinner money 7 (4) Benefi ts 9 (5) Criminal activity 6 (3) Selling cannabis 6 (3) Given cannabis 41 (23) Other 18 (10)15 Young people’s cannabis use from their wages; just over a tenth said that they spent a proportion of their EMA on their cannabis use. Very few young people stated that they funded their use through criminal activity (6) or selling cannabis (6). We found marked differences between the two sites. In the South- West, 42 young people funded their use through work, whereas in London funding came in the guise of EMA (16) while a large number did not buy at all (28). Other drug use Just over a fi fth (22 per cent, n=40) of the sample stated that they had tried other drugs. Of these, most (32) had used ecstasy, while 18 said they had tried cocaine. Other drugs that respondents had used included poppers (9), magic mushrooms (6) and powder amphetamine (‘speed’) (5). Only one young person said they had tried crack cocaine, and none of the sample had tried heroin. Perhaps surprisingly, more young people in the rural sites (27) had tried other drugs than in the London sites (13). More young people in the South-West had used ecstasy (21) than those in London had (11). There was little variation between the two sites in the numbers who had used powder cocaine. Twenty-three said they had tried other drugs in the three months prior to interview, 19 had used ecstasy and fi ve powder cocaine. Summary The average age at fi rst cannabis use among respondents was 13, with many fi rst being introduced to the drug by friends. The majority of the sample were regular users, with two- thirds using at least once a week. Although patterns of use were relatively stable, most respondents reported that their cannabis use had increased or decreased over a period of time. The main reasons young people reported using cannabis were that it helped them relax, it helped them calm down and it made them feel more sociable. Nearly all (172) of the respondents said they used cannabis with friends, because it was fun and sociable. A third of the sample said they preferred to use on their own, because they saw it as less hassle and less stressful. The average (median) spend on cannabis was £20 per week. Half (90) of the young people funded their use through money they received from parent(s) or family; other common methods were through employment or EMA. There was little experimentation with other drugs, although a fi fth had tried some other type of drug, most commonly ecstasy.16 This chapter presents our fi ndings on the different ways in which young people gained access to cannabis. Respondents were asked about ease of access; who they normally obtained cannabis from and about the kind of locations where transactions normally took place. We also examine whether young people viewed those they obtained their cannabis from as ‘dealers’ and about the sharing and buying of cannabis with friends. We use the term ‘seller’ to refer to someone involved in the supply of cannabis for monetary return. The terms ‘supplier’ and ‘drug dealer’ were considered both too ambiguous and wide-ranging. The latter term is also too loaded with negative connotations to be helpful for a dispassionate analysis. How young people obtain cannabis Nearly all (93 per cent) respondents said that cannabis was either ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ to get. Of those who provided estimates of the time it took to get cannabis (n=139), four-fi fths (79 per cent) said they could get it in less than an hour, with a further 11 per cent stating that they could get it on the same day. Only 4 per cent mentioned that it took them more than one day, with seven saying it took a couple of days and one saying that it took up to a week. Londoners found it easier than those in the South-West areas to get cannabis rapidly. A number of ways of accessing cannabis were reported. Over half (55 per cent) bought direct from a seller they knew personally, as a friend, acquaintance or family member (‘known sellers’). Around a quarter (23 per cent) did not buy cannabis themselves but were given it by a friend, and a further 16 per cent reported that a friend bought cannabis on their behalf. Only a minority of respondents (6 per cent) normally obtained cannabis by purchasing it directly from an ‘unknown seller’, that is, they did not know their seller on a personal level and only contacted this person when they were buying cannabis from them. Just one respondent reported growing their own cannabis, and one other said that a family member bought for them. Nearly all our sample obtained cannabis from or through friends, friends of friends or family members, highlighting the importance of friendship and social networks as a supply source for young people within our research sites. Social networks as central to young people’s supply Of those that normally obtained cannabis by buying from a known seller (n=100), over two- thirds (69 per cent) described their main seller as a friend, and half of these (or 34 per cent of the total), said they were ‘very good’ friends. A further 21 per cent bought from an acquaintance (including people known from school and the local area and friends of friends), while only seven respondents bought directly from a family friend and three from a family member. The unknown sellers While 23 of the rural purchasers obtained their cannabis through a friend who bought on their behalf, only six respondents from our urban areas did the same. Interestingly, nine of the ten respondents that reported buying cannabis directly from an unknown seller were from London. Of this group, four – all of whom were from the same locality – reported purchasing cannabis through particular local ‘cafés’. Barely 3 Getting cannabis17 Getting cannabis qualifying as conventional cafés, these premises were relatively bare of goods and operated mainly as meeting places for local people to buy cannabis. Of the other fi ve London respondents who bought directly from an unknown seller, three said that they met their seller in quiet local streets, and two reported buying from a more organised network of cannabis sellers. These two described how they contacted their seller by phone to arrange a meeting place with a ‘runner’ or ‘deliverer’ somewhere local. The two respondents who purchased cannabis in this way fi rst heard they could do so because their seller was known locally as a cannabis seller. However, one of the respondents reported that they were fi rst approached by the deliverer and offered a contact number. The one respondent from the South-West who bought directly from an unknown seller reported fi rst hearing about the seller through friends of friends. This respondent bought cannabis by phoning the seller and arranging a convenient place to meet. Age and contact with the cannabis market Age differences were also noticeable when examining how respondents obtained their cannabis. Figure 2 shows that the average age of those who bought direct from an unknown seller was higher than for those who bought from a known seller, which in turn was higher than for those whose friends bought it for them and for those who were given cannabis. Clearly, direct involvement in the cannabis market becomes more likely as people get older and have more experience of cannabis. There were some gender differences. Nine out of the ten who bought direct from ‘unknown sellers’ were male, and females were more likely than males to be given cannabis by friends. Cannabis transactions We asked those who bought cannabis (n=110) about how they arranged and completed their transactions. By far the most common means reported to us was for a buyer to phone a seller 14.515.015.516.016.517.0 Buy direct – unknown seller Buy direct – known seller Friends buy on their behalf Given it by friends Average age in years Figure 2 Ways of obtaining cannabis, by age18 Cannabis supply and young people and arrange a place to meet (68 per cent) or to phone a seller and conduct the transaction at the seller’s house (26 per cent). A further 22 per cent said that they usually went to their seller’s house without calling fi rst. Meeting places The transactions took place in a variety of locations. 1 The most common locations were streets or alleyways (28 per cent) and sellers’ homes (22 per cent). Parks were often mentioned (18 per cent), as were their own or friends’ homes (16 per cent) and train, tube or bus stations (14 per cent). Eleven per cent indicated that they had no specifi c meeting place. Twenty-six respondents (11 per cent) referred to a specifi c well-known place where cannabis could be bought. Such places were more typical in the rural sites (17) than in the urban sites (9). Two of the rural sites had such locations. These were also focal points for young people to congregate, and served both as meeting places for local youths and for cannabis buyers and sellers across a wider geographical area. Amount and type of cannabis bought We asked young cannabis users to talk about the quantity of cannabis they normally purchased per transaction. Young people in London were more likely to refer to the amounts they bought in monetary terms, while those from the South- West tended to talk in terms of weight. Of the 67 young people from London who answered this question, the majority (39) bought £10-worth at a time. Nine bought £5 deals and eight between £15 and £20. Of the 46 young people in the South-West who gave answers, 20 usually bought an eighth, 19 a ‘teenth’ 2 and 7 between an eighth and a teenth. Given that the amount of money spent on different weights of cannabis varied depending on a variety of factors such as the type of cannabis, it was diffi cult to make detailed comparisons between the two areas. Of the 144 young people who specifi ed what type of cannabis they bought, a large minority (43 per cent) said they usually bought ‘skunk’, 3 and a third (33 per cent) bought weed. Only 14 young people (10 per cent) bought resin, all but one of whom was from the South-West. The sellers We asked for details about the sellers from whom young people bought cannabis, and 110 provided details. Of these, 43 per cent bought from one or two people. A further 31 per cent bought from three to fi ve different people, while 25 per cent bought from more than fi ve people (range 6–50). On average, respondents had been buying from their main supplier for 16 months (ranging from 1 to 48 months). Sellers were generally male. Only three respondents referred to female sellers, and one bought from both male and female sellers. The average age of the sellers was reported to be 19 years (ranging from 12 to 45 years). Young people tended to buy from sellers who were – on average – three years older than themselves, as Table 6 shows. Forty-one per cent thought that their seller sold mainly to friends and acquaintances. The following quotes are indicative of young people’s descriptions of their seller: He’s sorting out his mates – sells to a few but not big time.19 Getting cannabis [They are] not dealers, they make a little bit of money – but not loads, they’re helping out friends. If you owe them money they won’t chase it up or beat you up. [He is] not a dealer – a ‘run around boy’. Doesn’t gain money. Doing a favour. The following quotes are illustrative of how our sample of buyers became acquainted with their sellers: [i was] asking a friend, do you know anyone who has got any weed? A lot of my friends are friends with dealers … They [the people who sell cannabis] are friends from school and also from outside of school. We socialise together. I knew them before we started using cannabis. According to our respondents, the majority of sellers only supplied cannabis, although 27 stated that their sellers also supplied other drugs. Other drugs sold by sellers included: ecstasy (20) and powder cocaine (3). Cannabis sellers who also sold other drugs were mentioned by more young people in our rural areas (23) than those interviewed in London (4). Sixteen respondents also stated that their seller grew their own cannabis. The following case-study highlights young people’s typical purchasing patterns, the ways in which they access their cannabis and also their typical suppliers. Table 6 Age of respondents and average age of person from whom they were buying cannabis Age of respondent Average age of seller n 13 15 4 14 17 9 15 18 25 16 19 32 17 20 22 18 18 5 19 22 7 Total 19 104 Case study 1 Easy access and buying from friends John, aged 16, was attending college and living at home with his parents in the South-West. He smoked cannabis about once a month and had done so for a year. He spent about £10 a month. John’s main way of buying cannabis was from a friend who sold it, but he also relied at times on his friends to buy. In total John bought from fi ve different sellers and stated that cannabis was ‘very easy’ to access. He described some sellers as sometimes hard to get hold of and others as easy. Some were within walking distance. John said that he never had to wait longer than an hour to make a purchase. John usually bought a ‘teenth’ or an ‘eighth’ of we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalcat Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 It's just getting confusing now... I have looked throughout your posts however, and can see nothing that could be described as 'art' Here it is... oh... :roll: God, you guys really didnt get it? This is an internet meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rageguy-fffuuuu it's created by /b/ a blank template that ends with that picture. I thought you'd get the joke since you spend so much time on the internet. I dont make them, but there are some really funny one's out there. there are better ones but i am too lazy to look. some trolls you are Multiple studies find comprehensive climate and energy legislation equitable, affordable, and good for the economyPosted June 16, 2010 http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/multiple_studies_find_comprehe.html In the last two weeks, a number of studies have been released assessing the economic impact of the American Power Act (APA), comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation released by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman last month. The conclusions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and Climate Works are unambiguously positive, and consistent with numerous past analyses of climate legislation. Measuring only a very small fraction of benefits from climate protection that can actually be monetized (e.g. protecting crops from temperature increases, and coastal properties from rising sea levels), the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's School of Law took the bold step of adding these benefits up and comparing them to the (much smaller) abatement cost of mitigation. Using the most conservative assumptions at every corner, their study finds that this limited subset of benefits could be as much as 9 times higher than the costs. Notably, these benefits exclude the potentially catastrophic outcomes scientists worry the most about (e.g. a complete melting of the West Antarctic ice shelf or Greenland’s ice sheets, either of which would by itself result in a 20 foot rise in sea level), and many environmental assets that are difficult if not impossible to monetize, such as the loss of species and ecosystems—some of which are already underway (click here, here, and here for examples). Employment and national security benefits from enhanced oil recovery (EOR). New oil production from a process called enhanced oil recovery (EOR) would drive further job creation. EOR is a technology that has been used for decades to produce additional oil from fields by injecting CO2 (or steam) to free oil that is ordinarily left trapped in the underground formation. Currently, most of the CO2 used for EOR is extracted from natural sources which are limited in supply. With climate legislation, the supply of CO2 would increase dramatically from CO2 waste captured at power plants and industrial facilities. In addition to providing a place to sequester CO2, an abundance of existing and abandoned oil fields are available for CO2-EOR. They could yield an estimated 3 million of barrels of oil per day (mbd) by 2030, and displace 2.25 mbd in oil imports [1]. By 2020, over 40,000 jobs could be created in the oil industry, rising to approximately 350,000 by 2030 (click here, here, here, and here to learn more about EOR).[2] CO2-EOR would also reduce pressure to open up new areas for oil exploration. Energy efficiency savings. Only the McKinsey & Co. model used by Climate Works adequately captures all of the possible energy efficiency and other low-cost abatement options. To get a sense of the vast potential for energy efficiency McKinsey & Company put out an excellent report in 2009 on energy efficiency opportunities in different sectors of the economy. It found that the industrial sector could cut primary energy consumption with a positive payback by 18 percent by 2020 (click here for another study on industrial efficiency). Climate legislation can help industry realize these improvements (click here and here). Allowances will go toward promoting more efficient production processes, R&D, low-cost loans, and other assistance to help manufacturers retool, retrain workers, and lower their energy bills. Increased efficiency will improve competitiveness, not only creating jobs in the process, but also keeping the ones we already have. In addition, McKinsey (2009) also estimates energy efficiency potential of almost 30% for both the residential and commercial sectors. USA consumes about 4,045 billion kWhs a year, so 30% savings equals a lot of money and CO2 reduction. Cost-reducing breakthrough innovations. None of the models can include cost-reducing breakthrough innovations, for the simple reason that they don’t yet exist. Yet how likely is it that over the course of forty years we won’t see any? Just looking at the evolution of computers and cell phones over only the last decade, our success in reaching the moon in a decade’s time, and the inexorable force of market innovation wherever profitable opportunities exist, it is difficult to imagine that rewarding clean energy production won’t unleash an unprecedented wave of clean energy innovation. IMHO, anything less than American Power Act is simply suicide for all living things that inhabit this planet. The Senate must set a price on carbon. Austin, Texas has a plan to be using 35% Clean Energy by 2020. San Francisco and Boulder, Colorado are gonna to do it too. Point being that some cities are already to doing more to lower CO2 emissions than the APA would require. Can Americans stand by and let a Republican "Filibuster" kill us all? Yesterday wasn't soon enough to take serious action on reducing CO2 emissions. I concur Senor Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalcat Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 eh? really? [/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb][/quote:b43237a2eb] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 eh? really? [/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab][/quote:faf5a73eab]Is this more of your 'art'? em...very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 So... just to recap.... hi hello hello Thanks, was feeling lonely in here. Hey...wait! You ruined it!! Is the bar open? Is the bar open? yep, come on in...first round is on you. Is the bar open? it's open til tomorrow. Want a martini with a little umbrella in it? It could get really long....Like if someone... oh I don't know... CUT AND PASTED ENTIRE PAGES OF RANDOM WIKIPEDIA INTO IT!!!! :twisted: :twisted: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a 2004 American comedy film, directed by Adam McKay and starring Will Ferrell. The film, which was also written by Ferrell and McKay, is a tongue-in-cheek take on the culture of the 1970s, particularly the then-new Action News format. It portrays a San Diego TV station where Ferrell's title character clashes with his new female counterpart (Christina Applegate). This film is number 100 on Bravo's 100 funniest movies, and 113 on Empire's 500 Greatest Movies of All Time. The film made $28.4 million in its opening weekend, and $89.3 million worldwide in its total theatrical run. A companion film assembled from outtakes and abandoned subplots, titled Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight-to-DVD in late 2004. In May 2008, it was confirmed that a sequel to Anchorman was in the planning stages,[1] but in April 2010, it was announced that the sequel was scrapped.[2] Contents [hide] * 1 Plot * 2 Characters o 2.1 Cameos o 2.2 Narration * 3 Production * 4 Reception * 5 Unrated version * 6 Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie * 7 Sequel * 8 See also * 9 References * 10 External links [edit] Plot In 1970s San Diego, Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is the anchorman for KVWN-TV Channel 4 Evening News. He works alongside his friends and news team, lead field reporter and fashion oriented Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sportscaster Champion "Champ" Kind (David Koechner), and chief meteorologist the mildly retarded Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). After a successful day of work, the team is notified by their boss, Ed Harken (Fred Willard), that their station has again maintained its long-held status as the highest-rated news program in town, leading them to throw a wild party. The next day, Ed informs the team that he has been forced by the network to hire Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), a female news reporter from Asheville, North Carolina. The team is then told that Ling-Wong, a famous panda at the San Diego Zoo is pregnant, and that the station is going to make this its main story. The news team attempts to seduce Veronica using various inept and arrogant flirting techniques, which all fail. Ron ends up asking her out under the guise of helping out a new co-worker, which she accepts. During their date, Ron woos Veronica by playing jazz flute in his friend Tino's (Fred Armisen) club. Veronica goes back on her policy of not dating co-workers and sleeps with Ron. The next day, despite agreeing with Veronica to keep the relationship discreet, Ron loudly announces that he is dating Veronica. One day, as Ron is heading to work, he throws a burrito out his car window, hitting a motorcyclist (Jack Black) in the head, which causes him to crash. Furious, the motorcyclist retaliates by punting Ron's dog Baxter off a bridge. A horribly saddened and incoherent Ron calls Brian from a pay phone to tell him what happened, while Brian tells Ron to rush to the studio to prevent Ed from putting Veronica on the air, since Ron is late. Despite Ron's efforts to arrive early, Veronica goes on air. After Ron arrives, he has an argument with Veronica about the situation and they break up. The next day, Veronica is made co-anchor, much to the entire news team's displeasure. The co-anchors soon become fierce rivals and bitter enemies. Since they want to be popular, the Channel 4 News Team look for a clothes shop, but thanks to Brick, they end up in an alleyway. Just then, the Evening News Team taunts them causing the Channel 4 News Team to fight them. Before they were about to fight, Channel 2 News, Public News Team and Spanish Language News come over with weapons. The five news team start to have a battle with a man on fire, men on horses catching Brian in a net, Brick killing one rider with a trident, the public news anchor (Tim Robbins) chopping the Channel 2 News anchor's arm off with a blade and Wes Mantooth attempting to stab Ron with a knife but gets a whack on the forehead with a table leg. The battle is ended because of the police and all of the news teams flee leaving their weapons. Back at the studio, Ron told Brick about finding a safehouse or a relative closeby because he might be wanted for murder. While in a restaurant celebrating Veronica's success, one of Veronica's co-workers tells her that Ron will read anything that's written on the teleprompter. Later, Veronica sneaks into the station and changes the words in Ron's teleprompter. The next day, instead of Ron delivering his signature, "You stay classy, San Diego," Ron closes the broadcast with, "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego." After hearing this, an angry mob gathers outside the studio and Ed is forced to fire Ron. Veronica sees she has gone too far and attempts to apologize, but Ron dismisses her while being led through the mob by security. Three months later Ron is unemployed, has no friends, and is a slovenly drunk, while Veronica has become very famous. When it's announced that Ling-Wong the panda is about to give birth, all the San Diego news teams head for the zoo to cover the story. In an attempt to sabotage her, the public news anchor pushes Veronica into the Kodiak bear habitat. When Ed can't find Veronica, he calls the bar where Ron spends most of his time and reluctantly asks him to return. Ron then summons the rest of his team by blowing the "News Horn", however, they were all standing a foot away playing pool. Baxter hears this call and follows the voice to find Ron. Once at the zoo, Ron jumps into the bear pen to save Veronica; this attracts everyone else in the zoo to watch. The Channel 4 news team then jumps in to help Ron but is easily defeated. Just as the leader of the bears is about to rip Ron and Veronica apart, Baxter shows up and tells the bear the reasons to let them live and that he is a friend of his cousin. After Ron and Veronica reconcile, it's shown that in years to come, Brian becomes the host of a Fox reality show named Intercourse Island, Brick is George W. Bush's top political adviser, Champ is a commentator for the NFL before sexually harassing Terry Bradshaw, and Ron and Veronica are co-anchors for the CNN-esque World News Center. [edit] Characters * Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy: A five-time (local) Emmy Award-winning journalist, he is the main anchor for the KVWN Channel 4 News Team from 1964 to 1977. He is the protagonist of the film. Always confident and well-dressed, he is nevertheless ignorant, egotistical, misogynistic, and narcissistic, stating that he believes "diversity" to be some type of "old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era." It eventually is revealed that he knows almost nothing of the news or what makes it work, and is a success because he "reads the news quite very well." Despite this he remains the rock for the entire group. He develops an infatuation with newcomer Veronica Corningstone, initially having trouble wooing her with tried and true measures that allegedly won him many bimbo-type women in the past. He has a great fondness for a good glass of scotch whisky, poetry, and his good friend/pet dog Baxter, and plays a mean jazz flute. Beyond this, Burgundy has many self-proclaimed nicknames for his body parts. * Christina Applegate as Veronica Corningstone: From Asheville, North Carolina, she is hired to comply with newly instituted "diversity standards". In a voice-over, Corningstone implies she has previously been in this position at several other news stations. Corningstone has a strong ambition to become a network anchor and desires to be taken seriously in the male-dominated newsroom culture. Burgundy develops an infatuation for her, culminating in a love affair, which provides most of the conflict in the film. At the end of the film she becomes co-anchor with Ron for the first worldwide news network. Amy Poehler (of Saturday Night Live fame) was originally cast as Veronica before Applegate showed interest. * Paul Rudd as Brian Fantana: Fantana is the stylish one of the group and is a lustful field reporter for the Channel Four News Team. He is arrogant and narcissistic and absurdly overestimates his personal qualities. He has a nickname for his penis, "the Octagon" and he also nicknamed his testes, "James Westfall" and "Dr. Kenneth Noisewater". Fantana is a proud user of "Sex Panther" cologne. At the end of the film, it is explained that he goes on to host the Fox Network's Intercourse Island. Adam McKay comments on the DVD that though Fantana fancies himself as something of a ladies' man, he has in fact never slept with a woman. This is confirmed to be true in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. * David Koechner as Champion 'Champ' Kind: The sportscaster for the Channel Four News Team who seems to have hidden feelings for Ron Burgundy (despite stating that Burgundy "sounds like a gay" in a demeaning fashion when talking about Corningstone's feelings). These feelings and his homosexuality are more overt in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. He is the most chauvinistic member of the news team. At the end of the film, it is revealed that Kind, whose signature catchphrase is "Whammy!", ends up becoming an NFL commentator, but gets fired after being accused of sexual harassment by Terry Bradshaw. John C. Reilly was originally slated to play Champ but had to drop out due to work on The Aviator. * Steve Carell as Brick Tamland: The mentally-challenged weatherman for Channel Four News. He has a habit of stating unrequested or irrelevant information. Tamland is not bright, but good hearted and loyal. At one point in the film, Brick wonders what love is and upon questioning he states that he loves several objects in the room such as the carpet, a desk, and a lamp. He is polite and rarely late (which are the main reasons he is employed and well-liked), and enjoys a nice pair of slacks and eating ice cream. Tamland says that years later a doctor will tell him his I.Q. is 48, technically making him mentally retarded. Brick is quite the innocent (though badly influenced by the others). Co-star Paul Rudd commented in rehearsals found on the DVD that the thought that Brick may be mentally retarded would "never faze them", and that the other members of the news team would never berate or become annoyed with Brick because of his stupidity, but they would merely correct him if he made a mistake. Tamland does have a darker side, however. During the battle scene, Brick starts by pulling out a hand grenade (when asked where he got it, he replies "I don't know"). Later in the skirmish, he killed a man with a trident. After the battle, Ron advises Brick to "lay low for a while", and to "find a safe house or a relative close by" because Brick is "probably wanted for murder". He once held a celebrity golf tournament, but when asked whether he would hold it again, he remarked "No, too many people died last year." * Fred Willard as Ed Harken: The news director of the Channel Four News station. His youngest son, Chris, who does not appear in this film but does appear in Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, is apparently very ill-behaved. It is revealed that Chris (played by Justin Long) goes to a Catholic school and has shot a crossbow into a crowd while on LSD, was caught reading German pornography in school, and took the marching band hostage with a gun. * Chris Parnell as Garth Holladay: Ed's assistant at the Channel Four News station. Ron Burgundy was his hero, before he used foul language during a news broadcast. He is frequently ignored by the news team, even though his main job at the station appears to be keeping them out of trouble. * Vince Vaughn as Wes Mantooth (Uncredited): The lead anchor of the competing KQHS Channel 9 Evening News Team is Burgundy's chief rival. It is revealed early on that Mantooth is extremely sensitive about insults directed towards his mother, Dorothy Mantooth, whom he regards as a "saint." Mantooth is consistently irritated by his being second in the ratings, causing him to ultimately initiate an anchorman battle against Burgundy and three other news teams. He ultimately pulls Burgundy from a ladder out of the bear pit, explaining that while he hates him he nonetheless respects him as a journalist. The character is loosely based on the CBC news anchor Peter Mansbridge. He serves as the main antagonist of the film. * Luke Wilson as Frank Vitchard: A competing news anchor whose station, Channel 2, is third in the ratings. During the film, he gets one arm chopped off in the anchorman battle by the lead anchor of the Public news team (Tim Robbins), and his other arm ripped off by a Kodiak Bear near the end of the film (which he deems "ri-goddamn-diculous"). During the climactic scene, he is seen (in an apparent goof) reporting for Channel 9. * Baxter: Ron's beloved dog. Burgundy's relationship with Baxter is almost one of equality, despite one party being a dog. Ron even calls him his 'little gentleman.' He has the uncanny ability to communicate with his master in English; in a scene Baxter barks at Ron, and Ron replies, "you know I don't speak Spanish, in English please." Later in the film, Baxter is punted off the towering San Diego-Coronado Bridge during an encounter between Ron and a biker (Jack Black) whom Ron hit with a burrito. Eventually, Baxter comes back at the end of the film and saves Ron and Veronica from the bears at the zoo by speaking to them about their cousin, Katow-jo, who he met in his time in the wilderness. He doesn't like Veronica, telling Ron that if she moves in he is 'not cool with that.' [edit] Cameos * Ben Stiller appears as Arturo Mendez (Spanish language channel news anchor) * Tim Robbins appears uncredited as the Public News anchor. * Danny Trejo appears as a bartender. * Jack Black plays the role of a motorcyclist whom Ron Burgundy hits with a burrito. * Neil Flynn, who plays the role of "Janitor" on the TV show Scrubs, also makes a cameo appearance in one of the deleted scenes as a police officer helping Ron to look for Baxter's body saddend. * Jerry Stiller can be seen very briefly, from a distance, sitting alone at the far end of the bar in the very beginning of the "Rocky's Bar Grill & Fine Dining" scene. * Judd Apatow, who produced the film, can be seen briefly as a news station employee during the scene in which Brian is attempting to seduce Veronica with the Sex Panther cologne. * Paul F. Tompkins is seen hosting the cat show competition. * Jay Johnston is briefly seen as part of the Eyewitness News Team during the anchorman gang fight. * Robin Antin is seen only for awhile when she is in the background in one of Ben Stillers Scenes. * Fred Armisen plays Tino, the owner of the restaurant that Ron frequents. * Adam McKay who directed the film, can be seen as one of the janitors hosing down Brian Fantana outside the TV centre and commenting on the smell of the Sex Panther cologne. * Seth Rogen appears as Scottie, the cameraman during the cat show competition. [edit] Narration The opening and closing scenes are narrated by veteran Chicago CBS (WBBM-TV) news anchor Bill Kurtis. Bill Kurtis, who currently hosts A&E's American Justice and Cold Case Files, is the winner of twenty Emmys. [edit] Production Although Anchorman is set in San Diego, the real San Diego appears only in brief aerial shots—modern shots that include many downtown buildings not yet built in the 1970s. According to the official production notes and "making of" documentary (both included on the DVD), Anchorman was actually filmed in Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach on sets which were dressed to look like San Diego in the 1970s. Notably, Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach are in the studio zone, while San Diego is not. [edit] Reception Anchorman was released on July 9, 2004 in 3,091 theaters and grossed US$ $28.4 million in its opening weekend. It went on to gross $85.3 million in North American and $5.3 million in the rest of the world for a worldwide total of $89.3 million, well above its $26 million budget.[3] The film was generally well-received by critics with a 65% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 63 metascore at Metacritic, and claimed by Ferrell to be "the best film, EVER!". Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "Most of the time... Anchorman works, and a lot of the time it's very funny".[4] Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers also gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "If you sense the presence of recycled jokes from Animal House onward, you'd be right. But you'd be wrong to discount the comic rapport Ferrell has with his cohorts, notably the priceless Fred Willard as the harried station manager".[5] In his review for Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman gave the film a "C+" rating and wrote, "Yet for a comedy set during the formative era of happy-talk news, Anchorman doesn't do enough to tweak the on-camera phoniness of dum-dum local journalism".[6] USA Today gave the film three out of four stars and Claudia Puig wrote, "That he can make his anchorman chauvinistic, deluded and ridiculous but still manage to give him some humanity is testimony to Ferrell's comic talents".[7] In her review for the Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis wrote, "Tightly directed by newcomer Adam McKay, a former head writer on Saturday Night Live who cooked up the screenplay with Ferrell, Anchorman never reaches the sublime heights of that modern comedy classic There's Something About Mary. Big deal — it's a hoot nonetheless and the scaled-down aspirations seem smart".[8] Empire magazine ranked Ron Burgundy #26 in their "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters" poll.[9] Empire also ranked Anchorman at number 113 in their poll of the 500 Greatest Films Ever. Entertainment Weekly ranked Burgundy #40 in their "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years" poll and Ferrell said, "He is my favorite character I've played, if I have to choose one ... Looking back, that makes it the most satisfying thing I've ever done".[10] [edit] Unrated version Ron's SportsCenter audition. In the unrated version of Anchorman, there are four minutes worth of additional scenes that were not shown in the theaters to secure the PG-13 rating instead of an R rating. Some of these found their way into Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. They are: * A scene where Ron imagines that he and Veronica are married and shows them making out in front of their children. * A scene showing Ron, on the air talking how he is proud of his 'mane' of pubic hair. * An alternate conversation after the party, where Champ Kind talks about pooping out a live squirrel. Then Brick Tamland tells Champ apologetically that he ate his chocolate squirrel. * The extended version of Ron being dragged out of the station into an angry mob after saying "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego," on the news. He says "f*ck" many more times in this extended version. * Ron goes to Tino's (the restaurant where Ron took Veronica out and played jazz flute) after the incident and Tino forces him to eat "cat poop" before he brings him a steak. Ron eats some of the cat feces but is making such a scene that he is disturbing other restaurant patrons. [edit] Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie The film Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight to DVD in 2004, which includes alternate scenes containing much of the original plot.[11] [edit] Sequel On May 5, 2008, online sources reported that the director of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Adam McKay, announced that he and star Will Ferrell are currently developing an Anchorman sequel.[1] According to McKay, the second Anchorman would be released after Channel 3 Billion, another film by McKay that is described as "a science fiction/Brazil type comedy". The sequel, set to start production in a couple of years, is so far a go, as long as every member of the original cast is able to return. Steve Carell confirmed, in a recent interview with MTV, that he would reprise his role as Brick Tamland if the opportunity arose.[12] In an interview with ITV1's London Tonight in August 2008, Ferrell confirmed plans for a sequel but indicated it could take some time to happen. Furthermore, Ferrell confirmed that he still intended to make the film in May 2009 in an interview on Rove Live in Australia. Will Ferrell also indicated that it would be made around 2011 and is toying with the idea of setting it in the 1980s - a decade after the first. On March 23, 2010, Will Ferrell revealed it's now unlikely that a sequel to his comedy Anchorman will be made. The actor had been hoping to reprise his role as TV newscaster Ron Burgundy. But he's told Zoo Magazine it appears that getting the cast together will be too difficult. However, in an interview with Ryan Seacrest, Steve Carell stated that the making of the sequel is "highly likely"[13] On April 29, 2010, Writer/director Adam McKay twittered a message that the studio turned down a proposal to a sequel to the comedy, after McKay had confirmed that Will Ferrell, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would take paycuts. Plans were underway to start production in February.[14] His tweet read "So bummed. Paramount basically passed on Anchorman 2. Even after we cut our budget down. We tried."[15] [edit] See also * Anchorman: Music from the Motion Picture * Frat Pack [edit] References 1. ^ a b Fischer, Kenny (May 4, 2008). "Is Anchorman 2 Coming?". Collider. http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7788/tcid/1. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 2. ^ Davis, Erik (April 29, 2010). "Paramount Cancels 'Anchorman 2'". Cinematical. http://www.cinematical.com/2010/04/29/paramount-cancels-anchorman-2/?icid=main. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 3. ^ "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Box Office Mojo. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=anchorman.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-06. 4. ^ Ebert, Roger (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Chicago Sun-Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040709/REVIEWS/407090301/1023. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 5. ^ Travers, Peter (July 14, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/6298127/review/6298160/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 6. ^ Gleiberman, Owen (July 7, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,661411,00.html. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 7. ^ Puig, Claudia (July 8, 2004). "Tune in to Anchorman". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-07-08-anchorman_x.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 8. ^ Dargis, Manohla (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman". Los Angeles Times. http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dargis9jul09,2,588852.story. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 9. ^ "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters". Empire. http://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/default.asp?c=26. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 10. ^ Ferrell, Will (June 4/11, 2010). "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years". Entertainment Weekly: pp. 64. 11. ^ "Find The Film movie trivia". http://www.findthefilm.com/movies/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy.php. Retrieved June 21, 2009. 12. ^ Carroll, Larry (June 4, 2008). "Steve Carell Says He's "Absolutely" Down For Anchorman Sequel". MTV Movies Blog. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/04/steve-carell-says-hes-abolutely-down-for-anchorman-sequel/. Retrieved 2008-06-04. 13. ^ http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest 14. ^ http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/no-go-on-anchorman-2-for-paramount/ 15. ^ http://twitter.com/ghostpanther/status/13086799281 [edit] External links Search Wikiquote Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy * Official website * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at the Internet Movie Database * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Allmovie * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Rotten Tomatoes * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Metacritic * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Box Office Mojo [show] v • d • e Films directed by Adam McKay 2000s Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · Step Brothers (2008) 2010s The Other Guys (2010) [show] v • d • e Works of Judd Apatow Director The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Funny People (2009) Writer Heavyweights (1995) · Celtic Pride (1996) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Fun with d*ck and Jane (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Funny People (2009) Producer Heavyweights (1995) · The Cable Guy (1996) · Celtic Pride (1996) · Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie (2004) · Kicking & Screaming (2005) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · The TV Set (2006) · Knocked Up (2007) · Superbad (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · Drillbit Taylor (2008) · Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) · Step Brothers (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Year One (2009) · Funny People (2009) · Get Him to the Greek (2010) Television The Ben Stiller Show (1992–1993) · The Critic (1994–1995) · The Larry Sanders Show (1993–1998) · Freaks and Geeks (1999–2000) · Undeclared (2001–2002) Related articles Apatow Productions · Casting in films [show] v • d • e Mediocre American Man Trilogy Films Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy • Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby Direct-to-video Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorman:_The_Legend_of_Ron_Burgundy" Categories: American films | English-language films | 2004 films | 2000s comedy films | American comedy films | Films set in San Diego, California | Films set in the 1970s | Films about television | Films set in California | Directorial debut films | Films directed by Adam McKay | Films shot in Los Angeles, California | Films shot in San Diego | DreamWorks films | Apatow Productions Personal tools * New features * Log in / create account Namespaces * Article * Discussion Variants Views * Read * Edit * View history Actions Search Search Navigation * Main page * Contents * Featured content * Current events * Random article Interaction * About Wikipedia * Community portal * Recent changes * Contact Wikipedia * Donate to Wikipedia * Help Toolbox * What links here * Related changes * Upload file * Special pages * Permanent link * Cite this page Print/export * Create a book * Download as PDF * Printable version Languages * Dansk * Deutsch * Français * Italiano * Nederlands * 日本語 * Polski * Português * Simple English * Suomi * Svenska * This page was last modified on 18 June 2010 at 22:37. * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. * Contact us AND THEN QUOTED HIMSELF!!! It could get really long....Like if someone... oh I don't know... CUT AND PASTED ENTIRE PAGES OF RANDOM WIKIPEDIA INTO IT!!!! :twisted: :twisted: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a 2004 American comedy film, directed by Adam McKay and starring Will Ferrell. The film, which was also written by Ferrell and McKay, is a tongue-in-cheek take on the culture of the 1970s, particularly the then-new Action News format. It portrays a San Diego TV station where Ferrell's title character clashes with his new female counterpart (Christina Applegate). This film is number 100 on Bravo's 100 funniest movies, and 113 on Empire's 500 Greatest Movies of All Time. The film made $28.4 million in its opening weekend, and $89.3 million worldwide in its total theatrical run. A companion film assembled from outtakes and abandoned subplots, titled Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight-to-DVD in late 2004. In May 2008, it was confirmed that a sequel to Anchorman was in the planning stages,[1] but in April 2010, it was announced that the sequel was scrapped.[2] Contents [hide] * 1 Plot * 2 Characters o 2.1 Cameos o 2.2 Narration * 3 Production * 4 Reception * 5 Unrated version * 6 Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie * 7 Sequel * 8 See also * 9 References * 10 External links [edit] Plot In 1970s San Diego, Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is the anchorman for KVWN-TV Channel 4 Evening News. He works alongside his friends and news team, lead field reporter and fashion oriented Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sportscaster Champion "Champ" Kind (David Koechner), and chief meteorologist the mildly retarded Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). After a successful day of work, the team is notified by their boss, Ed Harken (Fred Willard), that their station has again maintained its long-held status as the highest-rated news program in town, leading them to throw a wild party. The next day, Ed informs the team that he has been forced by the network to hire Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), a female news reporter from Asheville, North Carolina. The team is then told that Ling-Wong, a famous panda at the San Diego Zoo is pregnant, and that the station is going to make this its main story. The news team attempts to seduce Veronica using various inept and arrogant flirting techniques, which all fail. Ron ends up asking her out under the guise of helping out a new co-worker, which she accepts. During their date, Ron woos Veronica by playing jazz flute in his friend Tino's (Fred Armisen) club. Veronica goes back on her policy of not dating co-workers and sleeps with Ron. The next day, despite agreeing with Veronica to keep the relationship discreet, Ron loudly announces that he is dating Veronica. One day, as Ron is heading to work, he throws a burrito out his car window, hitting a motorcyclist (Jack Black) in the head, which causes him to crash. Furious, the motorcyclist retaliates by punting Ron's dog Baxter off a bridge. A horribly saddened and incoherent Ron calls Brian from a pay phone to tell him what happened, while Brian tells Ron to rush to the studio to prevent Ed from putting Veronica on the air, since Ron is late. Despite Ron's efforts to arrive early, Veronica goes on air. After Ron arrives, he has an argument with Veronica about the situation and they break up. The next day, Veronica is made co-anchor, much to the entire news team's displeasure. The co-anchors soon become fierce rivals and bitter enemies. Since they want to be popular, the Channel 4 News Team look for a clothes shop, but thanks to Brick, they end up in an alleyway. Just then, the Evening News Team taunts them causing the Channel 4 News Team to fight them. Before they were about to fight, Channel 2 News, Public News Team and Spanish Language News come over with weapons. The five news team start to have a battle with a man on fire, men on horses catching Brian in a net, Brick killing one rider with a trident, the public news anchor (Tim Robbins) chopping the Channel 2 News anchor's arm off with a blade and Wes Mantooth attempting to stab Ron with a knife but gets a whack on the forehead with a table leg. The battle is ended because of the police and all of the news teams flee leaving their weapons. Back at the studio, Ron told Brick about finding a safehouse or a relative closeby because he might be wanted for murder. While in a restaurant celebrating Veronica's success, one of Veronica's co-workers tells her that Ron will read anything that's written on the teleprompter. Later, Veronica sneaks into the station and changes the words in Ron's teleprompter. The next day, instead of Ron delivering his signature, "You stay classy, San Diego," Ron closes the broadcast with, "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego." After hearing this, an angry mob gathers outside the studio and Ed is forced to fire Ron. Veronica sees she has gone too far and attempts to apologize, but Ron dismisses her while being led through the mob by security. Three months later Ron is unemployed, has no friends, and is a slovenly drunk, while Veronica has become very famous. When it's announced that Ling-Wong the panda is about to give birth, all the San Diego news teams head for the zoo to cover the story. In an attempt to sabotage her, the public news anchor pushes Veronica into the Kodiak bear habitat. When Ed can't find Veronica, he calls the bar where Ron spends most of his time and reluctantly asks him to return. Ron then summons the rest of his team by blowing the "News Horn", however, they were all standing a foot away playing pool. Baxter hears this call and follows the voice to find Ron. Once at the zoo, Ron jumps into the bear pen to save Veronica; this attracts everyone else in the zoo to watch. The Channel 4 news team then jumps in to help Ron but is easily defeated. Just as the leader of the bears is about to rip Ron and Veronica apart, Baxter shows up and tells the bear the reasons to let them live and that he is a friend of his cousin. After Ron and Veronica reconcile, it's shown that in years to come, Brian becomes the host of a Fox reality show named Intercourse Island, Brick is George W. Bush's top political adviser, Champ is a commentator for the NFL before sexually harassing Terry Bradshaw, and Ron and Veronica are co-anchors for the CNN-esque World News Center. [edit] Characters * Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy: A five-time (local) Emmy Award-winning journalist, he is the main anchor for the KVWN Channel 4 News Team from 1964 to 1977. He is the protagonist of the film. Always confident and well-dressed, he is nevertheless ignorant, egotistical, misogynistic, and narcissistic, stating that he believes "diversity" to be some type of "old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era." It eventually is revealed that he knows almost nothing of the news or what makes it work, and is a success because he "reads the news quite very well." Despite this he remains the rock for the entire group. He develops an infatuation with newcomer Veronica Corningstone, initially having trouble wooing her with tried and true measures that allegedly won him many bimbo-type women in the past. He has a great fondness for a good glass of scotch whisky, poetry, and his good friend/pet dog Baxter, and plays a mean jazz flute. Beyond this, Burgundy has many self-proclaimed nicknames for his body parts. * Christina Applegate as Veronica Corningstone: From Asheville, North Carolina, she is hired to comply with newly instituted "diversity standards". In a voice-over, Corningstone implies she has previously been in this position at several other news stations. Corningstone has a strong ambition to become a network anchor and desires to be taken seriously in the male-dominated newsroom culture. Burgundy develops an infatuation for her, culminating in a love affair, which provides most of the conflict in the film. At the end of the film she becomes co-anchor with Ron for the first worldwide news network. Amy Poehler (of Saturday Night Live fame) was originally cast as Veronica before Applegate showed interest. * Paul Rudd as Brian Fantana: Fantana is the stylish one of the group and is a lustful field reporter for the Channel Four News Team. He is arrogant and narcissistic and absurdly overestimates his personal qualities. He has a nickname for his penis, "the Octagon" and he also nicknamed his testes, "James Westfall" and "Dr. Kenneth Noisewater". Fantana is a proud user of "Sex Panther" cologne. At the end of the film, it is explained that he goes on to host the Fox Network's Intercourse Island. Adam McKay comments on the DVD that though Fantana fancies himself as something of a ladies' man, he has in fact never slept with a woman. This is confirmed to be true in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. * David Koechner as Champion 'Champ' Kind: The sportscaster for the Channel Four News Team who seems to have hidden feelings for Ron Burgundy (despite stating that Burgundy "sounds like a gay" in a demeaning fashion when talking about Corningstone's feelings). These feelings and his homosexuality are more overt in the alternate film, Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. He is the most chauvinistic member of the news team. At the end of the film, it is revealed that Kind, whose signature catchphrase is "Whammy!", ends up becoming an NFL commentator, but gets fired after being accused of sexual harassment by Terry Bradshaw. John C. Reilly was originally slated to play Champ but had to drop out due to work on The Aviator. * Steve Carell as Brick Tamland: The mentally-challenged weatherman for Channel Four News. He has a habit of stating unrequested or irrelevant information. Tamland is not bright, but good hearted and loyal. At one point in the film, Brick wonders what love is and upon questioning he states that he loves several objects in the room such as the carpet, a desk, and a lamp. He is polite and rarely late (which are the main reasons he is employed and well-liked), and enjoys a nice pair of slacks and eating ice cream. Tamland says that years later a doctor will tell him his I.Q. is 48, technically making him mentally retarded. Brick is quite the innocent (though badly influenced by the others). Co-star Paul Rudd commented in rehearsals found on the DVD that the thought that Brick may be mentally retarded would "never faze them", and that the other members of the news team would never berate or become annoyed with Brick because of his stupidity, but they would merely correct him if he made a mistake. Tamland does have a darker side, however. During the battle scene, Brick starts by pulling out a hand grenade (when asked where he got it, he replies "I don't know"). Later in the skirmish, he killed a man with a trident. After the battle, Ron advises Brick to "lay low for a while", and to "find a safe house or a relative close by" because Brick is "probably wanted for murder". He once held a celebrity golf tournament, but when asked whether he would hold it again, he remarked "No, too many people died last year." * Fred Willard as Ed Harken: The news director of the Channel Four News station. His youngest son, Chris, who does not appear in this film but does appear in Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, is apparently very ill-behaved. It is revealed that Chris (played by Justin Long) goes to a Catholic school and has shot a crossbow into a crowd while on LSD, was caught reading German pornography in school, and took the marching band hostage with a gun. * Chris Parnell as Garth Holladay: Ed's assistant at the Channel Four News station. Ron Burgundy was his hero, before he used foul language during a news broadcast. He is frequently ignored by the news team, even though his main job at the station appears to be keeping them out of trouble. * Vince Vaughn as Wes Mantooth (Uncredited): The lead anchor of the competing KQHS Channel 9 Evening News Team is Burgundy's chief rival. It is revealed early on that Mantooth is extremely sensitive about insults directed towards his mother, Dorothy Mantooth, whom he regards as a "saint." Mantooth is consistently irritated by his being second in the ratings, causing him to ultimately initiate an anchorman battle against Burgundy and three other news teams. He ultimately pulls Burgundy from a ladder out of the bear pit, explaining that while he hates him he nonetheless respects him as a journalist. The character is loosely based on the CBC news anchor Peter Mansbridge. He serves as the main antagonist of the film. * Luke Wilson as Frank Vitchard: A competing news anchor whose station, Channel 2, is third in the ratings. During the film, he gets one arm chopped off in the anchorman battle by the lead anchor of the Public news team (Tim Robbins), and his other arm ripped off by a Kodiak Bear near the end of the film (which he deems "ri-goddamn-diculous"). During the climactic scene, he is seen (in an apparent goof) reporting for Channel 9. * Baxter: Ron's beloved dog. Burgundy's relationship with Baxter is almost one of equality, despite one party being a dog. Ron even calls him his 'little gentleman.' He has the uncanny ability to communicate with his master in English; in a scene Baxter barks at Ron, and Ron replies, "you know I don't speak Spanish, in English please." Later in the film, Baxter is punted off the towering San Diego-Coronado Bridge during an encounter between Ron and a biker (Jack Black) whom Ron hit with a burrito. Eventually, Baxter comes back at the end of the film and saves Ron and Veronica from the bears at the zoo by speaking to them about their cousin, Katow-jo, who he met in his time in the wilderness. He doesn't like Veronica, telling Ron that if she moves in he is 'not cool with that.' [edit] Cameos * Ben Stiller appears as Arturo Mendez (Spanish language channel news anchor) * Tim Robbins appears uncredited as the Public News anchor. * Danny Trejo appears as a bartender. * Jack Black plays the role of a motorcyclist whom Ron Burgundy hits with a burrito. * Neil Flynn, who plays the role of "Janitor" on the TV show Scrubs, also makes a cameo appearance in one of the deleted scenes as a police officer helping Ron to look for Baxter's body saddend. * Jerry Stiller can be seen very briefly, from a distance, sitting alone at the far end of the bar in the very beginning of the "Rocky's Bar Grill & Fine Dining" scene. * Judd Apatow, who produced the film, can be seen briefly as a news station employee during the scene in which Brian is attempting to seduce Veronica with the Sex Panther cologne. * Paul F. Tompkins is seen hosting the cat show competition. * Jay Johnston is briefly seen as part of the Eyewitness News Team during the anchorman gang fight. * Robin Antin is seen only for awhile when she is in the background in one of Ben Stillers Scenes. * Fred Armisen plays Tino, the owner of the restaurant that Ron frequents. * Adam McKay who directed the film, can be seen as one of the janitors hosing down Brian Fantana outside the TV centre and commenting on the smell of the Sex Panther cologne. * Seth Rogen appears as Scottie, the cameraman during the cat show competition. [edit] Narration The opening and closing scenes are narrated by veteran Chicago CBS (WBBM-TV) news anchor Bill Kurtis. Bill Kurtis, who currently hosts A&E's American Justice and Cold Case Files, is the winner of twenty Emmys. [edit] Production Although Anchorman is set in San Diego, the real San Diego appears only in brief aerial shots—modern shots that include many downtown buildings not yet built in the 1970s. According to the official production notes and "making of" documentary (both included on the DVD), Anchorman was actually filmed in Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach on sets which were dressed to look like San Diego in the 1970s. Notably, Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach are in the studio zone, while San Diego is not. [edit] Reception Anchorman was released on July 9, 2004 in 3,091 theaters and grossed US$ $28.4 million in its opening weekend. It went on to gross $85.3 million in North American and $5.3 million in the rest of the world for a worldwide total of $89.3 million, well above its $26 million budget.[3] The film was generally well-received by critics with a 65% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 63 metascore at Metacritic, and claimed by Ferrell to be "the best film, EVER!". Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "Most of the time... Anchorman works, and a lot of the time it's very funny".[4] Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers also gave the film three out of four stars and wrote, "If you sense the presence of recycled jokes from Animal House onward, you'd be right. But you'd be wrong to discount the comic rapport Ferrell has with his cohorts, notably the priceless Fred Willard as the harried station manager".[5] In his review for Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman gave the film a "C+" rating and wrote, "Yet for a comedy set during the formative era of happy-talk news, Anchorman doesn't do enough to tweak the on-camera phoniness of dum-dum local journalism".[6] USA Today gave the film three out of four stars and Claudia Puig wrote, "That he can make his anchorman chauvinistic, deluded and ridiculous but still manage to give him some humanity is testimony to Ferrell's comic talents".[7] In her review for the Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis wrote, "Tightly directed by newcomer Adam McKay, a former head writer on Saturday Night Live who cooked up the screenplay with Ferrell, Anchorman never reaches the sublime heights of that modern comedy classic There's Something About Mary. Big deal — it's a hoot nonetheless and the scaled-down aspirations seem smart".[8] Empire magazine ranked Ron Burgundy #26 in their "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters" poll.[9] Empire also ranked Anchorman at number 113 in their poll of the 500 Greatest Films Ever. Entertainment Weekly ranked Burgundy #40 in their "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years" poll and Ferrell said, "He is my favorite character I've played, if I have to choose one ... Looking back, that makes it the most satisfying thing I've ever done".[10] [edit] Unrated version Ron's SportsCenter audition. In the unrated version of Anchorman, there are four minutes worth of additional scenes that were not shown in the theaters to secure the PG-13 rating instead of an R rating. Some of these found their way into Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie. They are: * A scene where Ron imagines that he and Veronica are married and shows them making out in front of their children. * A scene showing Ron, on the air talking how he is proud of his 'mane' of pubic hair. * An alternate conversation after the party, where Champ Kind talks about pooping out a live squirrel. Then Brick Tamland tells Champ apologetically that he ate his chocolate squirrel. * The extended version of Ron being dragged out of the station into an angry mob after saying "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego," on the news. He says "f*ck" many more times in this extended version. * Ron goes to Tino's (the restaurant where Ron took Veronica out and played jazz flute) after the incident and Tino forces him to eat "cat poop" before he brings him a steak. Ron eats some of the cat feces but is making such a scene that he is disturbing other restaurant patrons. [edit] Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie The film Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight to DVD in 2004, which includes alternate scenes containing much of the original plot.[11] [edit] Sequel On May 5, 2008, online sources reported that the director of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Adam McKay, announced that he and star Will Ferrell are currently developing an Anchorman sequel.[1] According to McKay, the second Anchorman would be released after Channel 3 Billion, another film by McKay that is described as "a science fiction/Brazil type comedy". The sequel, set to start production in a couple of years, is so far a go, as long as every member of the original cast is able to return. Steve Carell confirmed, in a recent interview with MTV, that he would reprise his role as Brick Tamland if the opportunity arose.[12] In an interview with ITV1's London Tonight in August 2008, Ferrell confirmed plans for a sequel but indicated it could take some time to happen. Furthermore, Ferrell confirmed that he still intended to make the film in May 2009 in an interview on Rove Live in Australia. Will Ferrell also indicated that it would be made around 2011 and is toying with the idea of setting it in the 1980s - a decade after the first. On March 23, 2010, Will Ferrell revealed it's now unlikely that a sequel to his comedy Anchorman will be made. The actor had been hoping to reprise his role as TV newscaster Ron Burgundy. But he's told Zoo Magazine it appears that getting the cast together will be too difficult. However, in an interview with Ryan Seacrest, Steve Carell stated that the making of the sequel is "highly likely"[13] On April 29, 2010, Writer/director Adam McKay twittered a message that the studio turned down a proposal to a sequel to the comedy, after McKay had confirmed that Will Ferrell, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would take paycuts. Plans were underway to start production in February.[14] His tweet read "So bummed. Paramount basically passed on Anchorman 2. Even after we cut our budget down. We tried."[15] [edit] See also * Anchorman: Music from the Motion Picture * Frat Pack [edit] References 1. ^ a b Fischer, Kenny (May 4, 2008). "Is Anchorman 2 Coming?". Collider. http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7788/tcid/1. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 2. ^ Davis, Erik (April 29, 2010). "Paramount Cancels 'Anchorman 2'". Cinematical. http://www.cinematical.com/2010/04/29/paramount-cancels-anchorman-2/?icid=main. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 3. ^ "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Box Office Mojo. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=anchorman.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-06. 4. ^ Ebert, Roger (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Chicago Sun-Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040709/REVIEWS/407090301/1023. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 5. ^ Travers, Peter (July 14, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/6298127/review/6298160/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 6. ^ Gleiberman, Owen (July 7, 2004). "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,661411,00.html. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 7. ^ Puig, Claudia (July 8, 2004). "Tune in to Anchorman". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-07-08-anchorman_x.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 8. ^ Dargis, Manohla (July 9, 2004). "Anchorman". Los Angeles Times. http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dargis9jul09,2,588852.story. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 9. ^ "The 100 Greatest Movie Characters". Empire. http://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/default.asp?c=26. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 10. ^ Ferrell, Will (June 4/11, 2010). "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years". Entertainment Weekly: pp. 64. 11. ^ "Find The Film movie trivia". http://www.findthefilm.com/movies/anchorman_the_legend_of_ron_burgundy.php. Retrieved June 21, 2009. 12. ^ Carroll, Larry (June 4, 2008). "Steve Carell Says He's "Absolutely" Down For Anchorman Sequel". MTV Movies Blog. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/04/steve-carell-says-hes-abolutely-down-for-anchorman-sequel/. Retrieved 2008-06-04. 13. ^ http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest 14. ^ http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/no-go-on-anchorman-2-for-paramount/ 15. ^ http://twitter.com/ghostpanther/status/13086799281 [edit] External links Search Wikiquote Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy * Official website * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at the Internet Movie Database * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Allmovie * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Rotten Tomatoes * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Metacritic * Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Box Office Mojo [show] v • d • e Films directed by Adam McKay 2000s Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · Step Brothers (2008) 2010s The Other Guys (2010) [show] v • d • e Works of Judd Apatow Director The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Funny People (2009) Writer Heavyweights (1995) · Celtic Pride (1996) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Fun with d*ck and Jane (2005) · Knocked Up (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Funny People (2009) Producer Heavyweights (1995) · The Cable Guy (1996) · Celtic Pride (1996) · Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) · Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie (2004) · Kicking & Screaming (2005) · The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) · Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) · The TV Set (2006) · Knocked Up (2007) · Superbad (2007) · Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) · Drillbit Taylor (2008) · Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) · Step Brothers (2008) · Pineapple Express (2008) · Year One (2009) · Funny People (2009) · Get Him to the Greek (2010) Television The Ben Stiller Show (1992–1993) · The Critic (1994–1995) · The Larry Sanders Show (1993–1998) · Freaks and Geeks (1999–2000) · Undeclared (2001–2002) Related articles Apatow Productions · Casting in films [show] v • d • e Mediocre American Man Trilogy Films Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy • Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby Direct-to-video Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorman:_The_Legend_of_Ron_Burgundy" Categories: American films | English-language films | 2004 films | 2000s comedy films | American comedy films | Films set in San Diego, California | Films set in the 1970s | Films about television | Films set in California | Directorial debut films | Films directed by Adam McKay | Films shot in Los Angeles, California | Films shot in San Diego | DreamWorks films | Apatow Productions Personal tools * New features * Log in / create account Namespaces * Article * Discussion Variants Views * Read * Edit * View history Actions Search Search Navigation * Main page * Contents * Featured content * Current events * Random article Interaction * About Wikipedia * Community portal * Recent changes * Contact Wikipedia * Donate to Wikipedia * Help Toolbox * What links here * Related changes * Upload file * Special pages * Permanent link * Cite this page Print/export * Create a book * Download as PDF * Printable version Languages * Dansk * Deutsch * Français * Italiano * Nederlands * 日本語 * Polski * Português * Simple English * Suomi * Svenska * This page was last modified on 18 June 2010 at 22:37. * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. * Contact us TWICE!!! It could get really long....Like if someone... oh I don't know... CUT AND PASTED ENTIRE PAGES OF RANDOM WIKIPEDIA INTO IT!!!! :twisted: :twisted: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a 2004 American comedy film, directed by Adam McKay and starring Will Ferrell. The film, which was also written by Ferrell and McKay, is a tongue-in-cheek take on the culture of the 1970s, particularly the then-new Action News format. It portrays a San Diego TV station where Ferrell's title character clashes with his new female counterpart (Christina Applegate). This film is number 100 on Bravo's 100 funniest movies, and 113 on Empire's 500 Greatest Movies of All Time. The film made $28.4 million in its opening weekend, and $89.3 million worldwide in its total theatrical run. A companion film assembled from outtakes and abandoned subplots, titled Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, was released straight-to-DVD in late 2004. In May 2008, it was confirmed that a sequel to Anchorman was in the planning stages,[1] but in April 2010, it was announced that the sequel was scrapped.[2] Contents [hide] * 1 Plot * 2 Characters o 2.1 Cameos o 2.2 Narration * 3 Production * 4 Reception * 5 Unrated version * 6 Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie * 7 Sequel * 8 See also * 9 References * 10 External links [edit] Plot In 1970s San Diego, Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is the anchorman for KVWN-TV Channel 4 Evening News. He works alongside his friends and news team, lead field reporter and fashion oriented Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sportscaster Champion "Champ" Kind (David Koechner), and chief meteorologist the mildly retarded Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). After a successful day of work, the team is notified by their boss, Ed Harken (Fred Willard), that their station has again maintained its long-held status as the highest-rated news program in town, leading them to throw a wild party. The next day, Ed informs the team that he has been forced by the network to hire Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), a female news reporter from Asheville, North Carolina. The team is then told that Ling-Wong, a famous panda at the San Diego Zoo is pregnant, and that the station is going to make this its main story. The news team attempts to seduce Veronica using various inept and arrogant flirting techniques, which all fail. Ron ends up asking her out under the guise of helping out a new co-worker, which she accepts. During their date, Ron woos Veronica by playing jazz flute in his friend Tino's (Fred Armisen) club. Veronica goes back on her policy of not dating co-workers and sleeps with Ron. The next day, despite agreeing with Veronica to keep the relationship discreet, Ron loudly announces that he is dating Veronica. One day, as Ron is heading to work, he throws a burrito out his car window, hitting a motorcyclist (Jack Black) in the head, which causes him to crash. Furious, the motorcyclist retaliates by punting Ron's dog Baxter off a bridge. A horribly saddened and incoherent Ron calls Brian from a pay phone to tell him what happened, while Brian tells Ron to rush to the studio to prevent Ed from putting Veronica on the air, since Ron is late. Despite Ron's efforts to arrive early, Veronica goes on air. After Ron arrives, he has an argument with Veronica about the situation and they break up. The next day, Veronica is made co-anchor, much to the entire news team's displeasure. The co-anchors soon become fierce rivals and bitter enemies. Since they want to be popular, the Channel 4 News Team look for a clothes shop, but thanks to Brick, they end up in an alleyway. Just then, the Evening News Team taunts them causing the Channel 4 News Team to fight them. Before they were about to fight, Channel 2 News, Public News Team and Spanish Language News come over with weapons. The five news team start to have a battle with a man on fire, men on horses catching Brian in a net, Brick killing one rider with a trident, the public news anchor (Tim Robbins) chopping the Channel 2 News anchor's arm off with a blade and Wes Mantooth attempting to stab Ron with a knife but gets a whack on the forehead with a table leg. The battle is ended because of the police and all of the news teams flee leaving their weapons. Back at the studio, Ron told Brick about finding a safehouse or a relative closeby because he might be wanted for murder. While in a restaurant celebrating Veronica's success, one of Veronica's co-workers tells her that Ron will read anything that's written on the teleprompter. Later, Veronica sneaks into the station and changes the words in Ron's teleprompter. The next day, instead of Ron delivering his signature, "You stay classy, San Diego," Ron closes the broadcast with, "Go f*ck yourself, San Diego." After hearing this, an angry mob gathers outside the studio and Ed is forced to fire Ron. Veronica sees she has gone too far and attempts to apologize, but Ron dismisses her while being led through the mob by security. Three months later Ron is unemployed, has no friends, and is a slovenly drunk, while Veronica has become very famous. When it's announced that Ling-Wong the panda is about to give birth, all the San Diego news teams head for the zoo to cover the story. In an attempt to sabotage her, the public news anchor pushes Veronica into the Kodiak bear habitat. When Ed can't find Veronica, he calls the bar where Ron spends most of his time and reluctantly asks him to return. Ron then summons the rest of his team by blowing the "News Horn", however, they were all standing a foot away playing pool. Baxter hears this call and follows the voice to find Ron. Once at the zoo, Ron jumps into the bear pen to save Veronica; this attracts everyone else in the zoo to watch. The Channel 4 news team then jumps in to help Ron but is easily defeated. Just as the leader of the bears is about to rip Ron and Veronica apart, Baxter shows up and tells the bear the reasons to let them live and that he is a friend of his cousin. After Ron and Veronica reconcile, it's shown that in years to come, Brian becomes the host of a Fox reality show named Intercourse Island, Brick is George W. Bush's top political adviser, Champ is a commentator for the NFL before sexually harassing Terry Bradshaw, and Ron and Veronica are co-anchors for the CNN-esque World News Center. [edit] Characters * Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy: A five-time (local) Emmy Award-winning journalist, he is the main anchor for the KVWN Channel 4 News Team from 1964 to 1977. He is the protagonist of the film. Always confident and well-dressed, he is nevertheless ignorant, egotistical, misogynistic, and narcissistic, stating that he believes "diversity" to be some type of "old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era." It eventually is revealed that he knows almost nothing of the news or what makes it work, and is a success because he "reads the news quite very well." Despite this he remains the rock for the entire group. He develops an infatuation with newcomer Veronica Corningstone, initially having trouble wooing her with tried and true measures that allegedly won him many bimbo-type women in the past. He has a great fondness for a good glass of scotch whisky, poetry, and his good friend/pet dog Baxter, and plays a mean jazz flute. Beyond this, Burgundy has many self-proclaimed nicknames for his body parts. * Christina Applegate as Veronica Corningstone: From Asheville, North Carolina, she is hired to comply with newly instituted "diversity standards". In a voice-over, Corningstone implies she has previously been in this position at several other news stations. Corningstone has a strong ambition to become a network anchor and desires to be taken seriously in the male-dominated newsroom culture. Burgundy develops an infatuation for her, culminating in a love affair, which provides m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Hmmm it seems posts are limited in length by TF... Hey! This thread isn't short at all! I want my money back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin_2 Posted June 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I feel like I'm getting a zit on my nose. It's real deep under the skin and feels like a bruise right now...not visible at the moment. Is this normal for a guy who is about to turn 30? P.S. I never wash my face...seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I feel like I'm getting a zit on my nose.It's real deep under the skin and feels like a bruise right now...not visible at the moment. Is this normal for a guy who is about to turn 30? P.S. I never wash my face...seriously. You see it as a more jocular affair do you? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoBeIt Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts