PCC Complaint. The Mail On Sunday, 19th February 2012

—– Original Message —–

From: Peter Reynolds

To: complaints@pcc.org.uk

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 3:08 PM

Subject: Complaint against the Mail on Sunday, issue dated 19th February 2012

Dear Sirs,

“I’m glad you have given up cannabis, Paul – maybe you’ll think straight now”, The Mail on Sunday, 19-02-12

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2103123/PETER-HITCHENS-Im-glad-given-cannabis-Paul–maybe-youll-think-straight-now.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. The article breaches clause 1.i) of the code in that it publishes inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

2. It also breaches clause 1.iii) in that it fails to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

3. The article is presented as a comment piece. However, even when clearly distinguished as such, the Independent Reviewer has already ruled (21-07-11 letter to Peter Reynolds) that a comment “should not be published if it is based on an inaccuracy or misleading statement”.

4. This complaint needs to be seen in the context of the Mail newspapers’ systematic campaign over many years of misinformation, dishonesty, falsification and distortion of evidence concerning cannabis. To date the commission has failed to rein in these activities at all or to make any attempt to do so.

5. The author of this piece, Peter Hitchens, is well known for his extremist views on cannabis. While he is entitled to his views, the comments complained about are not matters of opinion but are determined by scientific evidence. He repeatedly fails to report the evidence truthfully and instead promotes scaremongering and inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. In doing so he fails to maintain the highest professional standards as required under the code. I call on the commission to censure him in the strongest possible terms and for a front page apology.

7. In paragraph 13 the article states: “After all, what grown-up, informed person would call for the legalisation of a drug whose users so often end up suffering from incurable mental illness?”

This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted, It is extremely rare for users of cannabis to develop mental illness. Hickman et al 2009(ref 1), a review of all published evidence, so, by definition, not cherry picked, shows that the risk of a single diagnosis of psychosis correlating with lifetime cannabis use is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%.

8. In paragraph 14 the article states: “The busy, well-funded pro-cannabis lobby…”

This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted. As leader of the largest, membership based cannabis law reform group that has ever existed in the UK and having been involved with the campaign for more than 30 years, it is to my first hand knowledge that the campaign has never been well funded. It presently operates on donations of less than £10,000 per annum and the personal expenditure of its volunteer workers.

9. In paragraph 15 the article states: “The fact so many cannabis users end up tragically mentally ill, or that mental illness has increased since cannabis use became widespread, is not enough for them.”

Page 1 of 2 | Next page