—– 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”.

Page 1 of 3 | Next page