Inaccurate, Misleading And Criminal

Foolishly, another cannabis campaign website has allowed the publication of claims that are inaccurate, misleading and illegal.

A notorious cannabis evangelist has been promoting his latest efforts in the manufacture of cannabis oil which he has christened pretentiously as “RSO”, an abbreviation for Rick Simpson oil.  While there is some exciting anecdotal evidence around the use of cannabis oil and a lot of good science that supports the theoretical possibility of its effectiveness, claiming that cannabis cures cancer is irresponsible and extremely cruel both to those who have cancer and their families.  It’s also very probably a criminal offence under the Cancer Act 1939 – a crime that has very real victims who deserve protection from such charlatans and confidence tricksters.

This is yet another example of how cannabis campaigners regularly sabotage their own efforts.  There is overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of cannabis as medicine and this sort of wild exaggeration, overclaiming and behaving like snake oil salesmen does nothing but damage our cause.

Dr Alasdair MacKenzie

Secondly, just yesterday, the Daily Mail published a story on a new study  published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, led by Dr Alasdair MacKenzie of the University of Aberdeen.  In typical, mendacious style, the Mail is leading the story with a claim that it knows full well is untrue –  “…smoking cannabis causes psychosis and addiction in more than one-in-ten users”.

I have been in touch with Dr Mackenzie by email and I spoke to him on the telephone this morning.  He is a gently spoken man who deplores the Daily Mail coverage and explained to me that the very reason he is pursuing his work is so that cannabis can more effectively be used as medicine. He volunteered the opinion to me that “…compared to alcohol and tobacco, cannabis is not that dangerous a drug at all”.

In fact, Dr MacKenzie has agreed to work with me in bringing a complaint against the Daily Mail for the misleading way in which it has reported his work.  Imagine my horror then when at the end of our conversation he told me an all too familiar story.  Since the publication of the Daily Mail story he has received more than 200 emails, mainly from people who are pro-cannabis and are attacking and abusing him using foul language, false accusations and entirely inaccurate interpretations of his work.

I am afraid that this is normal practice for a small but vociferous group of people who claim to be campaigning for cannabis law reform but are in fact the enemy.  These foul-mouthed idiots are as least as much an obstacle to reform as is the Home Office, Peter Hitchens or MPs like Charles Walker and Nadine Dorries.

If we want to make progress towards reform, it is vital that we learn from events like these and recognise the enemy within.

Two Cautionary Tales For The Cannabis Campaign - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Rupert Wolfe-Murray

Most of what most people see and hear about cannabis and mental health has nothing to do with evidence. Mostly it’s about fear, prejudice and propaganda. Increasingly, the pernicious “drug support” industry is trying to exploit cannabis users as a new source of income.

Yesterday, Rupert Wolfe-Murray, who describes himself as “Editor at Castle Craig rehab clinic” posted an article on Huffpost UK entitled “Can Cannabis Drive You Crazy?”

Given Rupert’s employment it’s no surprise that his answer to his question is a resounding “Yes!”.  I can almost hear him licking his lips and salivating gently as he flicks through the thick wad of notes in his wallet.

Take a look at the Castle Craig rehab clinic’s website.  It is constructed precisely to exploit financially the UK government’s drug strategy.  It uses exactly the right phrases and terminology to check all the government’s tick boxes.  I can imagine James Brokenshire was beside himself with joy at such “on message” propaganda.

Castle Craig

The “drug support” industry is one of the most wicked and corrupting influences in modern society.  Entirely for its own benefit it invents quasi-medical conditions and conspires with the police, the CPS and the courts to drum up business for itself.

As with all such “drug support” businesses, Castle Craig lumps all drugs together as one.  The most severe effects of opiate addiction are written about in the same context as cannabis.   Funnily enough though, the most dangerous, harmful and addictive drug of all – alcohol, is treated differently and given its own section.

Certainly addiction to opiates is an illness that requires medical treatment.  Some users of cocaine, particularly crack, also need healthcare interventions but the vast majority of users of psychedelics, MDMA (Ecstasy) and cannabis experience no ill effects at all.

The myth of cannabis addiction is what Rupert and his cronies in the “drug support” industry make most of their money from.  Little Johnny gets busted with a bit of weed and his solicitor advances his “addiction” in mitigation.  Consequently the court builds up a false statistical base which appears to “prove” there is a problem with cannabis addiction and gifts public money to drug support charlatans to “treat” the “problem”.  This self-perpetuating and corrupt cycle generates oodles of cash for Rupert and his co-conspirators.

An important caveat is that Castle Craig may well offer excellent and much needed services for those addicted to drugs such as alcohol and heroin.  That is a noble cause.  What is wrong are the false pretences of cannabis “addiction” and “psychosis” in order to obtain public money by deception.   After alcohol, cannabis is the biggest market of all and that is what the drug support industry seeks to exploit.

Jason Reed also posted a rebuttal of Rupert’s article here.

The scientific evidence about “cannabis addiction” is that the prevalence, rate (about 9% among users) and withdrawal symptoms associated with cannabis dependency are similar to or less serious than for caffeine dependence. (Hall et al 2001, Coffey et al 2002, Copeland et al 2004, DSM-IV)

The scientific evidence about cannabis and mental health is:

1. Hickman et al, 2009. A review of all published research so, by definition­, not cherry picked. It shows that the risk of lifetime cannabis use correlatin­g with a single diagnosis of psychosis is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%.

2. Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)

Cannabinoids (F12)

2009-10 713
2010-11 799

Alcohol (F10)

2009-10 47,402
2010-11 47,287

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.

3. Frisher et al 2009. The ACMD commissioned a study by Keele University into the trends in schizophrenia specifically to test the claims in the media of a link between it and cannabis. It looked at almost 600,000 patients and concluded that “..the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” despite alleged increased use of allegedly more potent cannabis.

The Best Evidence About Cannabis And Mental Health - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

I wish to make a complaint against Sergeant Stuart McGuire of Greater Manchester Police concerning statements made by him and published in The Mancunian newspaper on 4th November 2011.  The article in question is available online here: http://www.student-direct.co.uk/2011/11/2000-cannabis-plants-found-in-salford-pub/

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 contact me via email

I confirm my consent for you to forward my complaint to the police force concerned.  I consider that I am a victim of Sgt McGuire’s misconduct which has caused me considerable distress at his misuse of his office to promote myth, prejudice and propaganda as well as fear, consternation and hatred of cannabis users as a social group.  As leader of CLEAR I am also acting on behalf of more than 5000 members who are victims of Sgt McGuire’s misconduct for the same reasons, particularly those members who reside in the Greater Manchester area and those who need cannabis as medicine for the treatment of conditions such as MS, Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia and spinal injury.

As published in The Mancunian, Sgt McGuire said: “Many people view cannabis as a harmless drug, however it is important to realise that these people become addicted to it and then commit crime to fund their habit.” This is a false, inaccurate and misleading statement which attempts to deceive the public

a) that Sgt McGuire is an expert in the subject and the public can rely on the accuracy and veracity of what he says

b) that cannabis is an addictive drug

c) that cannabis users “commit crime to fund their habit”

d) into fear, consternation and hatred of cannabis users as a social group

In making this statement Sgt McGuire has acted dishonestly, without integrity, fairness and impartiality.  He has abused his authority by making statements which are false, inaccurate and misleading but which, as a police officer, he knows that the public are likely to believe without question.  He has also acted in a way that discredits the police service and will undermine public confidence.

a) Sgt McGuire’s words show that while he is ignorant of the evidence about cannabis he is ready to promote myths and prejudice.

b) Approximately 9% of cannabis users exhibit signs of mild dependence. Prevalence and withdrawal symptoms are equivalent to caffeine dependence. (Hall et al 2001, Coffey et al 2002, Copeland et al 2004, DSM-IV)

c) Cannabis use is not associated with acquisitive crime. The consensus conclusion of all government appointed experts on the subject is “The evidence available to the Council does not suggest that cannabis use is a substantial cause of acquisitive crime (Section 9.3)” (Cannabis: Classification And Public Health, 12.13, ACMD 2008

d) The public are likely to be alarmed by the Sgt McGuire’s words which are clearly intended to cause fear, consternation and hatred of cannabis users as a social group

I accept that Sgt McGuire has a duty to uphold the law as it presently stands,  It is however entirely improper for him to engage in politics, scaremongering, the promotion of myth, prejudice and propaganda.

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

IPCC Complaint – Sergeant Stuart McGuire of Greater Manchester Police - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

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

PCC Complaint. The Independent On Sunday, 5th June 2011 (2) - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“John Rentoul: the truth about the lies about drugs”, 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/john-rentoul/john-rentoul-the-truth-about-the-lies-about-drugs-2293171.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. Although the article is presented as a comment piece, the headline asserts that it provides “truth”. It does not. It is seriously inaccurate and misleading. It is therefore also in breach of clause 1.iii) in that it fails to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

3. In the eighth paragraph, the article states that “More and more studies had suggested that a quarter of the population, and especially teenage boys, is susceptible to psychosis that can be triggered by cannabis.” Only one study has ever presented the idea of a susceptibility to psychosis for one quarter 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

4. 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.”

This clearly goes nowhere near the substance of my complaint. There is no figure of “a quarter” mentioned and in any case the figures of 15% to 20% relate to something entirely different. This is an entirely spurious attempt to defeat my complaint.

5. In the last paragraph, the article states that “For all the vogue for “experiments” with decriminalisation, it is notable that nowhere in the world has conducted such an experiment successfully, while the medical evidence against cannabis has mounted.” There have been several such “experiments” with decriminalisation all of which are continuing because of their success. These are in Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Poland, the Czech Republic and five US states (I exclude decriminalisation or regulation for medicinal purposes which is even more widely implemented). Without exception these have all resulted in a decrease in cannabis consumption, particularly amongst children and young people. Furthermore, if anything the “medical evidence” of the risk of psychosis from cannabis use has pointed towards a lower risk than previously suggested. Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol 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. Also the “medical evidence” of therapeutic benefits of cannabis has increased exponentially.

6. In an attempt to rebut this point, the IoS claimed:

“This is the writer’s opinion, as what could be considered ‘successful’ is largely subjective and it is his view that the medical evidence against cannabis has mounted. John Rentoul’s reference to experiments in other countries was intended, and its meaning was clear, as a response to those who argue for legalisation of all drugs. In his view, the limited experiments in decriminalisation do not provide evidence for that argument.”

This may be “the writer’s opinion” but it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is clear from Mr Rentoul’s words that he was referring to cannabis, not “all drugs”. To attempt to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best. Whether an experiment is “successful” is not by definition “subjective” but something that is determined by objective and empirical observation. I have provided thirteen examples of where such experiments have been conducted successfully and I submit that a decrease in cannabis consumption can only be defined as a measure of success.

Also, it is not a matter of opinion whether “the medical evidence against cannabis has mounted” but a matter of fact. I have provided evidence that it is in fact diminishing and that the positive evidence is increasing. All that the IoS can offer is baseless and misinformed opinion which it has published as inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

7. 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.

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

PCC Complaint. The Independent On Sunday, 5th June 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Cannabis is ruining lives – MP”, the Hertfordshire Mercury, 15-06-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Cheshunt-and-Waltham/Cannabis-is-ruining-lives-MP-14062011.htm

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. 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 news story, not an opinion piece. It should therefore be concerned only with facts – unless comment or conjecture is clearly distinguished.

4. Although the article is presented as a report of what Charles Walker said in the House of Commons, that cannot absolve the newspaper from its responsibilities under clause 1.i) and 1.iii).

5. In the second paragraph, the article states that cannabis is “highly toxic and highly dangerous”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It is a scientific fact that cannabis is extremely low in toxicity. This has been confirmed by every expert on the subject including the government’s chief drugs advisor, Professor Les Iversen. The therapeutic ratio of cannabis, the scientific measure of toxicity, is at least 1:20000 and perhaps as little as 1:40000. Neither is cannabis “highly dangerous”. Even if one argues that it is dangerous at all, which is difficult to support, it is absurd to describe it as “highly dangerous” in comparison to any other drug or activity. No deaths have ever been recorded as a sole result of cannabis. Whatever measure one chooses, cannabis is a remarkably safe substance compared to anything else. For instance, in 2009, hospital admissions for cannabis were 750, for peanuts 3000, for alcohol in excess of one million.

6. In the fifth paragraph, the article talks about “addiction to skunk cannabis”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. Cannabis is not addictive. It is recognised that dependence may occur in some users but this is at a comparatively low level. According to the Institute of Medicine report in 1999, dependency risks are: tobacco 32%, heroin 23%, cocaine 17%, alcohol 15%, cannabis 9%.

7. In the seventh paragraph, the article states “Child and adolescent mental health services across this country are dealing with thousands of youngsters and adolescents who are suffering severe psychotic illnesses and there is a causal link with skunk cannabis.” This is a wholly false statement. It is a lie. Professor Glyn Lewis, of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent authority on the subject, confirmed only a few weeks ago that there is no certainty of a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis. This is an hysterical and grossly irresponsible statement which a newspaper should not publish without a prominent warning or disclaimer.

8. In the eighth paragraph, the article states “…one in four carried a faulty gene for dopamine transmission and if a youngster had that gene and smoked skunk cannabis they were six times more likely to get a psychotic illness.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It relates to research published in 2005 into a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene which is present in 25% of the population. Just two years later, researchers at the University of Cardiff announced in the British Journal of Psychiatry that the link between cannabis use and the COMT gene was “unfounded”.

9. The blatant misinformation, untruths and inaccuracies contained within this article are so extreme that the newspaper has to take responsibility for publishing them without clearly distinguishing them as not being factual. Mr Walker was protected by parliamentary privilege when he spoke these untruths but that cannot protect the newspaper from repeating them without a very prominent warning or disclaimer.

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

PCC Complaint. The Hertfordshire Mercury, 15th June 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Cannabis ‘Russian roulette’ warning”, the Newmarket Journal, 13-06-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/regional/cannabis_russian_roulette_warning_1_2762093

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. 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 news story, not an opinion piece. It should therefore be concerned only with facts – unless comment or conjecture is clearly distinguished.

4. Although the article is presented as a report of what Charles Walker said in the House of Commons, that cannot absolve the newspaper from its responsibilities under clause 1.i) and 1.iii).

5. In the second paragraph, the article states that cannabis is “highly toxic and highly dangerous”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It is a scientific fact that cannabis is extremely low in toxicity. This has been confirmed by every expert on the subject including the government’s chief drugs advisor, Professor Les Iversen. The therapeutic ratio of cannabis, the scientific measure of toxicity, is at least 1:20000 and perhaps as little as 1:40000. Neither is cannabis “highly dangerous”. Even if one argues that it is dangerous at all, which is difficult to support, it is absurd to describe it as “highly dangerous” in comparison to any other drug or activity. No deaths have ever been recorded as a sole result of cannabis. Whatever measure one chooses, cannabis is a remarkably safe substance compared to anything else. For instance, in 2009, hospital admissions for cannabis were 750, for peanuts 3000, for alcohol in excess of one million.

6. In the fifth paragraph, the article talks about “addiction to skunk cannabis”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. Cannabis is not addictive. It is recognised that dependence may occur in some users but this is at a comparatively low level. According to the Institute of Medicine report in 1999, dependency risks are: tobacco 32%, heroin 23%, cocaine 17%, alcohol 15%, cannabis 9%.

7. In the seventh paragraph, the article states “Child and adolescent mental health services across this country are dealing with thousands of youngsters and adolescents who are suffering severe psychotic illnesses and there is a causal link with skunk cannabis.” This is a wholly false statement. It is a lie. Professor Glyn Lewis, of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent authority on the subject, confirmed only a few weeks ago that there is no certainty of a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis. This is an hysterical and grossly irresponsible statement which a newspaper should not publish without a prominent warning or disclaimer.

8. In the eighth paragraph, the article states “…one in four carried a faulty gene for dopamine transmission and if a youngster had that gene and smoked skunk cannabis they were six times more likely to get a psychotic illness.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It relates to research published in 2005 into a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene which is present in 25% of the population. Just two years later, researchers at the University of Cardiff announced in the British Journal of Psychiatry that the link between cannabis use and the COMT gene was “unfounded”.

9. The blatant misinformation, untruths and inaccuracies contained within this article are so extreme that the newspaper has to take responsibility for publishing them without clearly distinguishing them as not being factual. Mr Walker was protected by parliamentary privilege when he spoke these untruths but that cannot protect the newspaper from repeating them without a very prominent warning or disclaimer.

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

PCC Complaint. The Newmarket Journal, 13th June 2011 – NOT UPHELD - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Cannabis ‘Russian roulette’ warning”, the Bearsden Herald, 13-06-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.bearsdenherald.co.uk/news/cannabis_russian_roulette_warning_1_1672386

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. 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 news story, not an opinion piece. It should therefore be concerned only with facts – unless comment or conjecture is clearly distinguished.

4. Although the article is presented as a report of what Charles Walker said in the House of Commons, that cannot absolve the newspaper from its responsibilities under clause 1.i) and 1.iii).

5. In the second paragraph, the article states that cannabis is “highly toxic and highly dangerous”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It is a scientific fact that cannabis is extremely low in toxicity. This has been confirmed by every expert on the subject including the government’s chief drugs advisor, Professor Les Iversen. The therapeutic ratio of cannabis, the scientific measure of toxicity, is at least 1:20000 and perhaps as little as 1:40000. Neither is cannabis “highly dangerous”. Even if one argues that it is dangerous at all, which is difficult to support, it is absurd to describe it as “highly dangerous” in comparison to any other drug or activity. No deaths have ever been recorded as a sole result of cannabis. Whatever measure one chooses, cannabis is a remarkably safe substance compared to anything else. For instance, in 2009, hospital admissions for cannabis were 750, for peanuts 3000, for alcohol in excess of one million.

6. In the fifth paragraph, the article talks about “addiction to skunk cannabis”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. Cannabis is not addictive. It is recognised that dependence may occur in some users but this is at a comparatively low level. According to the Institute of Medicine report in 1999, dependency risks are: tobacco 32%, heroin 23%, cocaine 17%, alcohol 15%, cannabis 9%.

7. In the seventh paragraph, the article states “Child and adolescent mental health services across this country are dealing with thousands of youngsters and adolescents who are suffering severe psychotic illnesses and there is a causal link with skunk cannabis.” This is a wholly false statement. It is a lie. Professor Glyn Lewis, of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent authority on the subject, confirmed only a few weeks ago that there is no certainty of a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis. This is an hysterical and grossly irresponsible statement which a newspaper should not publish without a prominent warning or disclaimer.

8. In the eighth paragraph, the article states “…one in four carried a faulty gene for dopamine transmission and if a youngster had that gene and smoked skunk cannabis they were six times more likely to get a psychotic illness.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It relates to research published in 2005 into a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene which is present in 25% of the population. Just two years later, researchers at the University of Cardiff announced in the British Journal of Psychiatry that the link between cannabis use and the COMT gene was “unfounded”.

9. The blatant misinformation, untruths and inaccuracies contained within this article are so extreme that the newspaper has to take responsibility for publishing them without clearly distinguishing them as not being factual. Mr Walker was protected by parliamentary privilege when he spoke these untruths but that cannot protect the newspaper from repeating them without a very prominent warning or disclaimer.

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

PCC Complaint. The Bearsden Herald, 13th June 2011 – NOT UPHELD - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Judge Roger Thorn

Email to the Office for Judicial Complaints

—– Original Message —–
From: Peter Reynolds
To: inbox@ojc.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:54 PM
Subject: Complaint against Judge Roger Thorn (Newcastle Crown Court)

Dear Sirs,

I wish to make a complaint against Judge Roger Thorn concerning statements he has made which were published in the Sunderland Echo on 26th May 2011. The article is still available online via this link: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/drug_like_russian_roulette_1_3417325

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

Judge Thorn is quoted as saying that …”recent research indicates one in four cannabis users will trigger psychosis because of what they are doing. If you hope to be one of the three out of the four who get away with it you are playing Russian roulette.”

These statements are without any foundation in fact. All the scientific evidence and research points in the opposite direction from Judge Thorn’s statements which appear to be nothing more than uncritical repetition of tabloid newspaper reports. It is particularly worrying that the use of the phrase “playing Russian roulette” directly repeats the language used recently in the Daily Mail and London Evening Standard which have themselves been the subject of multiple complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. It is disgraceful that anyone involved in the administration of justice, particularly a judge, should make such inaccurate, misleading, prejudiced and sensationalist statements. They must call into question Judge Thorn’s suitability for any role in the judiciary but are conclusive proof that he is unfit to preside in any case concerning cannabis, so grossly improper is his conduct.

I believe that Judge Thorn has misunderstood research from 2005 into a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene which is present in 25% of the population: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551. This is the only published research on the subject where the ratio “one in four” is mentioned. This is highly complex science which can be very confusing. Just two years later, researchers at the University of Cardiff 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).

Overall, the most important evidence on this subject is from Keele University. In 2009, specifically in response to tabloid headlines linking cannabis with psychosis, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) commissioned the largest ever study of its type examining links between cannabis use and mental health. It looked at 600,000 subjects and concluded that “the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” despite increased cannabis use.

Prof. Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol carried out a systematic review of all published evidence on the subject and said that 96% of people can use cannabis with no risk at all. Only this month he has re-stated that there is no certainty of a causal relationship between cannabis use and psychosis. Writing in the journal “Addiction” in 2009 he said that focusing on schizophrenia in connection with cannabis use was “misguided” and that “Our research cannot resolve the question whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but does show that up to 30,000 people need to be prevented from using cannabis to prevent one case of schizophrenia”.

Professor Leslie Iversen, chair of the ACMD and the government’s chief drugs advisor is also on the record saying that cannabis is “one of the safer recreational drugs. A recent CLEAR analysis of morbidity, hospital admissions, toxicity and propensity to psychosis showed that cannabis is 2953 times safer than alcohol.

While Judge Thorn is entitled to his opinion on cannabis, his statement was not about a matter of opinion, it was about a matter of scientific fact. His remarks amount to misconduct both because they are factually inaccurate and because they betray a bias which is incompatible with his position. I urge you to take the strongest possible steps to ensure he plays no further part in the trial of anyone for cannabis-related offences.

The evidence I have presented above is merely indicative of the vast body of peer-reviewed, scientific research which refutes the statements made by Judge Thorn. I can provide further evidence if required and I am ready to give oral evidence in person, if that would assist.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

Complaint against Judge Roger Thorn (Newcastle Crown Court) - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Police raid wakes cannabis grower”, The Swindon Advertiser, 13-05-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9027590.Police_raid_wakes_cannabis_grower/

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

3. It also breaches clause 12.i) in that it makes prejudicial and pejorative reference to the individual’s alleged illness of addiction.

4. The article is presented as a news story, not an opinion piece. It should therefore be concerned only with facts – unless comment or conjecture is clearly distinguished.

5. The article starts by saying “A drug addict got a rude awakening…” There is no evidence that the man concerned is a drug addict so this is comment or conjecture but it is presented as fact. Addiction should not be spoken of in connection with cannabis as although there is some evidence of the possibility of mild dependence, there is no evidence that cannabis is addictive. This is, therefore, inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. Even if the newspaper is entitled to express an opinion about whether cannabis is addictive, no effort as been made to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.

6. The article then goes on to quote a series of extremely abusive, prejudicial and pejorative remarks attributed to PC Stephen Yeates. It is wholly improper that a police officer should make such comments and irresponsible for a newspaper to repeat them. They amount to misleading and distorted information and have not been properly distinguished as comment. Readers, noting the prominence given to them and that they come from a police officer, may mistakenly regard them as 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 further information required or to give oral evidence in support.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

—– Original Message —–
From: Elizabeth Cobbe
To: peter@peter-reynolds.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 1:43 PM
Subject: PCC Ref 112411 (Swindon Advertiser)

Commission’s decision in the case of
Reynolds v Swindon Advertiser

The complainant was concerned that the article referred to the subject of the arrest as a “drug addict” without providing evidence to support the assertion, and published “extremely abusive, prejudicial and pejorative remarks”, attributed to a policeman, which had not been adequately distinguished as conjecture.

The Commission made clear that newspapers are entitled to publish the comments and opinions of individuals, provided that they are clearly distinguished from fact. In this instance, the comments had clearly been presented as direct quotes and been attributed to PC Stephen Yeates. Readers would be left in no doubt that the quotes reflected the policeman’s experience of the arrest and the state of the house. He was entitled to express his views and recount his experience of the raid. Given that the comments had been very clearly presented as direct quotes, and the newspaper was fully entitled to publish such comments, the Commission did not consider that readers would be in any misled by their publication. There was no breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

In regard to the reference to the individual as a “drug addict”, the Commission would not be in a sufficiently informed position to come to a view on the accuracy of such a description without the involvement of the individual to who the article related or that of his official representative. In the absence of such a complaint, the Commission could not establish that the description misrepresented him. As such, it could not comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

PCC Complaint. The Swindon Advertiser, 13th May 2011 – NOT UPHELD - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Smoking mixture on sale sparks a ‘legal highs’ row”, The Burton Mail, 10-05-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Smoking-mixture-on-sale-sparks-a-legal-highs-row-10052011.htm

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. 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 news story, not an opinion piece. It should therefore be concerned only with facts – unless comment or conjecture is clearly distinguished.

4. The article concerns a smoking mixture on sale at Burton Market. Although the mixture is called “Super Skunk”, the article makes it clear that it is not cannabis and is thought to be what is known as a “legal high”. However, the article then goes on to make several misleading and distorted comments about drugs in general, about legal highs and about cannabis. It fails to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. The journalist and the editor concerned have failed in their duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The result is a muddled article which exacerbates misunderstandings and confuses the facts concerning cannabis, legal highs and other drugs.

5. The article is so unclear as to what it is talking about and when that it creates confusion. There is no effort made at all to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. Addiction should not be spoken of in connection with cannabis as although there is some evidence of the possibility of mild dependence, there is no evidence of addiction.

6. The references to a “slippery slope” are also confusing and are not supported by the facts. The “Gateway theory”, as scientists call it, the idea that the use of one drug leads to use of more harmful drugs, has been comprehensively disproved consistently by all credible scientific studies. In fact, it has been shown that it makes as much sense to say that mother’s milk leads to heroin as to say that cannabis leads to cocaine. These are matters of statistical correlation rather than causation.

7. Finally, the last sentence in the article states “The long-term effects of smoking cannabis include paranoia, schizophrenia and mental health problems”. This statement is not within quotation marks and is not distinguished as comment or conjecture. It is presented as fact. As such, it is inaccurate, misleading and distorted.

In 2009, specifically in response to tabloid scare stories, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (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”. Also, just last month, Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol,one of the world’s leading experts on the subject, said “…there is no certainty of a causal relationship between cannabis use and psychosis”.

Ever since the “Reefer Madness” scare stories of the 1930s, there have been dozens of studies looking at links between cannabis and mental illness. Despite this, there is still no concrete evidence. It is time that newspapers stopped their irresponsible and speculative stories, particularly when they are dressed up as fact. It is time that the Press Complaints Commission took a stand against such inaccurate, misleading and distorted reporting.

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

On 13th August 2011, the Burton Mail published the following letter:

Click To Enlarge

PCC Complaint. The Burton Mail, 10th May 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Judge Richard Bray

Email to the Office for Judicial Complaints

From: Peter Reynolds
To: inbox@ojc.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:12 PM
Subject: Complaint against Judge Richard Bray (Northampton Crown Court)

Dear Sirs,

I wish to make a complaint against Judge Richard Bray concerning statements he has made which were published in the Northants Evening Telegraph today Tuesday, 26th April 2011. The article is still available online via this link: http://www.northantset.co.uk/news/local/plea_for_longer_sentences_for_cannabis_growers_1_2626279

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

Judge Bray is quoted as saying that cannabis is “causing lasting mental problems for users” and also that “he is dealing with an increased number of young people suffering from paralysis following extended drug use”.

These statements are without any foundation in fact. All the scientific evidence and research points in the opposite direction from Judge Bray’s statements which appear to be nothing more than uncritical repetition of tabloid newspaper misinformation, innuendo and propaganda. It is disgraceful that anyone involved in the administration of justice, particularly a judge, should make such inaccurate, misleading, prejudiced and sensationalist statements. They must call into question Judge Bray’s suitability for any role in the judiciary but are conclusive proof that he is unfit to preside in any case concerning cannabis, so grossly improper is his declared position.

It may be that the use of the word “paralysis” is a misprint or an error. The popular tabloid newspaper lie is that cannabis causes psychosis and this may be what Judge Bray said or meant to say. There is no evidence to support either assertion.

The most important evidence in this matter is from Keele University. In 2009, specifically in response to tabloid headlines linking cannabis with psychosis, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) commissioned the largest ever study of its type examining links between cannabis use and mental health. It looked at 600,000 subjects and concluded that “the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” despite increased cannabis use.

Prof. Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol carried out a systematic review of all published evidence on the subject and said that 96% of people can use cannabis with no risk at all. Only this month he has re-stated that there is no certainty of a causal relationship between cannabis use and psychosis. Writing in the journal “Addiction” in 2009 he said that focusing on schizophrenia in connection with cannabis use was “misguided” and that “Our research cannot resolve the question whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but does show that up to 30,000 people need to be prevented from using cannabis to prevent one case of schizophrenia”.

Professor Leslie Iversen, chair of the ACMD and the government’s chief drugs advisor is also on the record saying that cannabis is “one of the safer recreational drugs. A recent CLEAR analysis of morbidity, hospital admissions, toxicity and propensity to psychosis showed that cannabis is 2953 times safer than alcohol.

Judge Bray’s comments are outrageous both because they are factually inaccurate and because they betray a bias which is incompatible with his position. I urge you to take the strongest possible steps to ensure he plays no further part in the trial of anyone for cannabis-related offences.

The evidence I have presented above is merely indicative of the vast body of peer-reviewed, scientific research which refutes the statements made by Judge Bray. I can provide further evidence if require and I am ready to give oral evidence in person, if that would assist.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

Complaint against Judge Richard Bray (Northampton Crown Court) - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party