—– Original Message —–
From: Peter Reynolds
To: complaints@pcc.org.uk
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:19 PM
Subject: Second complaint against the Independent on Sunday, issue dated 5th June 2011

Dear Sirs,

“Patrick Cockburn: We must cut politics out of the debate on cannabis”, The Independent on Sunday, 05-06-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-we-must-cut-politics-out-of-the-debate-on-cannabis-2293166.html

I make the complaint on my own account but also in my capacity as the Leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a UK political party, of P.O.Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, RH1 9BN. For the purposes of correspondence, please use my personal address as below.

1. This article breaches the Editors’ Code Of Practice clause 1.i) in that it publishes inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

2. In the fourth paragraph, the article states that “Not everybody taking it is vulnerable to the same degree, but numerous studies show that cannabis can be the precipitating factor for a sizeable minority of the population, perhaps 20 per cent, with a genetic predisposition to psychosis.”

Although the article is presented as a comment piece, that does not absolve the publishers of their responsibility “…not to publish inaccurate, misleading and distorted information” which this clearly is.

Only one study has ever presented the idea of a genetic susceptibility to psychosis for such a large proportion of the population. This was a 2005 study from the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London concerning a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551. The study was disproven two years later by a team at the University of Cardiff led by Dr Stanley Zammit, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject. It announced in the British Journal of Psychiatry that the link between cannabis use and the COMT gene was “unfounded” – http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/191/5/402

3. In an attempt to rebut this point, the IoS cited a study from the University of Maastricht in 2010 stating:

“As reported at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/728121, Dr Cecile Henquet of the Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology at the University of Maastricht stated in 2010 that ‘We know that subclinical psychotic symptoms are present in 15% to 20% of healthy individuals at some point in life, and we know that these are associated with liability for psychosis….We then wanted to see if cannabis is one of the risk factors interacting with a genetic liability for psychosis. We found the risk of persistent symptoms be higher after cannabis use, again with a dose-response relationship.”

The figures of 15% to 20% presented here and on which the IoS relies do not support the assertion made in the article at all. They relate to something entirely different – “subclinical psychotic symptoms are present in 15% to 20% of healthy individuals at some point in life”. This is blatant distortion of the evidence and is exactly why this sort of inaccurate and misleading journalism must be checked. This is an entirely spurious attempt to defeat my complaint.

4. In the fifth paragraph, the article quotes a study of 1900 people published in the British Medical Journal this year and seeks to adduce this as evidence that cannabis causes psychosis. In fact, the study was not about clinically diagnosed psychosis at all. It’s about what may be just one trivial thought or mental confusion in the space of 10 years. The authors call it “subclinical expression of psychosis in the general population…that is, expression of psychosis below the level required for a clinical diagnosis.” Astonishingly, that’s enough for a “positive”.

Earlier this year, Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol, one of the foremost authorities on the subject confirmed “…there is no certainty of a causal relationship between cannabis use and psychosis”. He reviewed all the published research and announced in the journal Addiction in 2009 that the risk of psychosis from cannabis use is at worst 0.013% and perhaps as little as 0.0030% – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19832786.

In 2009, specifically in response to tabloid scare stories about cannabis and psychosis, the ACMD commissioned Keele University to look at the evidence. The study looked at almost 600,000 subjects and concluded that despite increased consumption of more potent cannabis, “the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychosis was either stable or declining”.

5. In an attempt to rebut this point, the IOS quotes the conclusion of the study of 1900 people referred to:

‘Cannabis use is a risk factor for the development of incident psychotic symptoms. Continued cannabis use might increase the risk for psychotic disorder by impacting on the persistence of symptoms.’

Again, this does not support the assertion made in the article at all. This is about “incident psychotic symptoms” and “subclinical symptoms”, nothing to do with the article’s inaccurate misleading and distorted assertion that “cannabis can be the precipitating factor for a sizeable minority of the population, perhaps 20 per cent, with a genetic predisposition to psychosis.”

6. In the ninth paragraph, the article states “…for people genetically susceptible to psychosis, the risks involved in taking cannabis may be lethally high. Cigarettes and alcohol, whatever harm they cause, do not send you mad.”.

Although the article is presented as a comment piece, that does not absolve the publishers of their responsibility “…not to publish inaccurate, misleading and distorted information” which this clearly is.

Cannabis has no realistic lethal effects and use of the word “lethal” is unambiguous. Psychosis is not a lethal condition. This claim is entirely false. The therapeutic ratio is the scientific measurement of toxicity – effective dose:lethal dose. The therapeutic ratio of alcohol is 1:20, of aspirin 1:35, of cannabis 1:20000. It is impossible to ingest a lethal dose of cannabis.

7. In an attempt to rebut this point, the IoS has suggested that “‘the risks involving cannabis may be lethally high’ as psychosis can, of course, lead to potentially lethal actions of self harm, injury or suicide.”.

This is not an accurate quotation from the article which actually says “…the risks involved in taking cannabis…” which is a different thing.

If the article intended to mean there might be “potentially lethal actions of self harm, injury or suicide.”, then why did it not say so? To say what it did was self-evidently misleading and distorted.

Cigarettes are a far higher risk factor for psychosis than is cannabis. 80-90% of diagnosed schizophrenics smoke cigarettes – http://brainblogger.com/2009/07/03/why-do-schizophrenics-smoke-cigarettes/.  Alcohol is a proven cause of psychosis, 1-2% in Korsakoff”s syndrome. There is therefore far more evidence suggesting that cigarettes or alcohol send you mad than there is for cannabis.  Mr Cockburn’s assertion is entirely false.

8. It is obvious that either Mr Cockburn and the IoS do not properly understand the research they are citing or they are deliberately distorting it to support their sensationalist theories. These studies use precise language which Mr Cockburn has hacked and distorted into simplistic certainties which are entirely false.

9. Prior to making this complaint I tried to engage with the Independent on Sunday (IoS) in an effort to obtain either a correction or the opportunity to submit a letter for publication. I wrote to the IoS as follows:

“As promised, here is a draft of my proposed PCC complaint concerning John Rentoul’s article on 5th June 2011. I shall also forward you shortly a draft complaint concerning Patrick Cockburn’s article.

I think the point here is that both these articles were seriously “inaccurate, misleading and distorted”. They completely misrepresent the scientific evidence about cannabis and are little more than scaremongering and propaganda.

I am concerned that the truth about cannabis should be made clear. It is a psychoactive substance so it does have potential for harm and it certainly should not be used by children. The sort of misinformation in Mr Rentoul’s and Mr Cockburn’s articles is exactly what leads to widespread disrespect of information about drugs and consequent harms.

In deciding whether or not to pursue these complaints, the most important thing is that you give due prominence to any correction, article or letter in response. I would hope that you might take this opportunity to look at the subject in real depth. I believe that there would be real interest in a serious examination of the subject, extending into the extraordinary therapeutic potential of cannabis into which all the major pharmaceutical companies are pumping millions in research funding.

Please let me know whether we can reach an agreement on this.”

The IoS made no offer of a correction or of an opportunity to submit a letter. It sought to rebut completely each point of my complaint, as shown above by further distortion of evidence and misquoting of its own article.

10. The article that the IoS should publish in correction of this appalling travesty should most appropriately be headlined “We must cut inaccurate, misleading and distorted information out of the debate on cannabis”

I would be grateful if you would deal with this complaint at your earliest convenience. I shall be happy to provide any further information required or to give oral evidence in support.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds