—– Original Message —–

From: Peter Reynolds

To: complaints@pcc.org.uk

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 7:40 PM

Subject: Complaint against The Daily Mail, issue dated 5th February 2011

Dear Sirs,

“One in eight cannabis dealers is aged under 18″, The Daily Mail, 05-02-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353917/One-cannabis-dealers-aged-18.html

I make the complaint on my account but also in my capacity as the Speaker of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, a political party, of P.O.Box 674, Salfords, RH1 9BN. For the purposes of correspondence, please use my personal address as below. Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint.

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

2. It also breaches clause 1.iii) in that it confuses comment, conjecture and fact.

3. In the fifth paragraph, the article says: “Critics say the statistics lay bare how younger and younger children are being sucked into the drugs culture, and blamed the previous Government for downgrading the classification of cannabis.” This is misleading and it confuses comment, conjecture and fact. The facts are that after the Labour government downgraded the classification of cannabis from B to C, consumption actually declined. According to the British Crime Survey published on 25th October 2007, “…the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who had used cannabis in the past year fell from 25% when the change in the law was introduced to 21% in 2006/07″

4. In the sixth paragraph, the article says: “Experts said children were ‘playing Russian roulette with their mental health’ as cannabis can cause irreversible damage to the brain and has been linked to psychosis and schizophrenia.”. This is misleading and it confuses comment, conjecture and fact. The statement tries to assert itself as fact by saying “Experts said…” but no experts are identified, neither would any true expert make such an inaccurate or misleading statement. The risk of Russian roulette is a chance of one in six, i.e. one loaded chamber in a six cylinder revolver. By the latest research, the risk of developing psychosis or schizophrenia as a result of using cannabis is at least one in 7500 and perhaps as little as one in 30000.

Professor Glyn Lewis of the University Of Bristol reviewed all the published evidence on the subject in 2009 and says that 96% of people can use cannabis without any risk of psychosis at all and in the remaining 4% the risk is statistically tiny. Even if direct causation of schizophrenia by cannabis was accepted (which is clearly not proven) then on Prof. Lewis’ figures that would amount to approximately 800 additional cases per annum. Based on the Home Office’s figure of six million regular cannabis users that amounts to a risk of one in 7500. In fact, while there is evidence of some correlation between cannabis use and mental health problems there is very little of causation. There is, in fact, much stronger evidence of correlation between tobacco smoking and mental health (more than 90% of those diagnosed with schizophrenia smoke tobacco) but no one is claiming that tobacco causes schizophrenia.

Prof Lewis’ report states that among light cannabis users “…it would be necessary to stop over 10,000 young men and nearly 30,000 young women to prevent one case of schizophrenia.”

5. The article is also misleading and confuses comment, conjecture and fact in that it quotes Charles Walker, Marolin Watson and David Green, all of whom take an essentially anti-cannabis stance. No balance is provided by any commenter who is not evidently anti-cannabis.

6. The overall effect of the article is inaccurate and misleading and it confuses comment, conjecture and fact. The journalist and editor concerned have failed in their “duty to maintain the highest professional standards”.

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

Page 1 of 2 | Next page