Prof. Les Iversen

Prof. Tim Kirkham

Dr Trevor Turner

Prof Glyn Lewis

Dr Clare Gerada

Prof. David Nutt

Prof Terrie Moffitt

What The Experts Say About Cannabis - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

“I think it is also important to note that we cannot be certain that there is a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis at present.”

Professor Glyn Lewis, University of Bristol, March 2011

We Cannot Be Certain That There Is A Causal Link Between Cannabis Use And Psychosis - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Peter Hitchens

Peter Hitchens’ blog, 23rd February 2013.

The Irreversible, Profound Risks of Damage from Cannabis – an Expert Speaks

Here’s a fascinating extract from an article in today’s  (23^rd February 2013) ‘Times’ magazine, an article about Kuesnacht, a rehabilitation clinic for the super-rich in Zurich, by that interesting writer Robert Crampton. Much of its work involves helping people to stop taking ‘antidepressants’. Interesting, but not the point that leaps from the page.

The clinic’s founder, a Canadian doctor called Lowell Monkhouse, is quoted on the subject of cannabis. Alas, Dr Monkhouse uses the  expression ‘addiction’ to refer to habitual use, but let that pass. Most people do, because it is generally accepted and unconsidered in a society which more or less denies the possibility of self-discipline.  

One patient is said to be likely to spend the rest of his life in a secure psychiatric hospital. ‘”He had cannabis psychosis’” says Monkhouse, ”We couldn’t help him’”.

‘The hardest addiction to break, he adds,  is to cannabis. Cannabis – certain strains at least – is also the drug that can cause the most profound and the least reversible neurological damage, often quickly, often in very young and otherwise healthy adults. The drug many people think of as harmless can send you mad, swiftly and permanently’.

Note the words ‘most profound’, ‘least reversible’ , ‘swiftly’ and ‘permanently’.  And this from a man whose lifelong trade has been treating drug abusers.

And still, a coalition of dupes and cynics campaigns for this drug to be on legal sale.

My Response

Peter, you quote one ‘expert” who, it would seem, relies for his income on gullible people believing the hysterical misinformation you publish.

Below I quote five experts who take a very different view. I also adduce the evidence that three million people in the UK use cannabis at least once per month and the UN estimates between 119 million and 224 million users worldwide aged 15-64. Despite this, rates of psychosis and schizophrenia worldwide are stable or declining.

“Cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains.” – Professor Terrie Moffitt, Institute of Psychiatry. August 2012

“Cannabis has been used safely for many thousands of years…there have been concerted efforts to demonise the drug’s use.” – Professor Tim Kirkham, psychologist, Liverpool University. 2007

“I don’t think it causes mental illness. I have never seen a case of so-called cannabis psychosis.” – Dr Trevor Turner, former vice president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. 2007

“I don’t see a lot of problem cannabis users…we’re not seeing a lot of cannabis users presenting for treatment.” – Dr Clare Gerada, chair, Royal College of General Practitioners. March 2012

“I think it is important to note that we cannot be certain that there is a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis.” – Professor Glyn Lewis, University of Bristol. March 2011

There is no doubt that cannabis can be harmful to the developing brain but for adults the risks are approximately equivalent to caffeine.

The concerted prejudice and misinformation about cannabis is funded mainly by the alcohol industry and promoted by an irresponsible and dishonest media that terrorises politicians into basing policy on propaganda rather than evidence.

In moderation, cannabis is in fact very good for most people acting as a supplement to the body’s endocannabinoid system and helping to maintain homeostasis.

Peanuts are a greater threat to public health than cannabis. It is ridiculous that we abandon our children to street dealers by refusing to take responsibility for this £6 billion market.

On the Rare Occasion That Peter Hitchens Quotes Evidence He Deserves A Response. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

After the disgraceful misinformation and false science about cannabis printed in The Independent last week, I made direct contact with Chris Blackhurst the editor. He was gracious enough to invite me to submit an article or a letter for publication and so I set to and turned round 700 words in just a couple of hours.

Immediately the attitude changed.  There was no courtesy, no more interest, my calls and emails weren’t returned.

The Independent’s anti-cannabis campaign last week breached the Editors’ Code repeatedly.  It published “inaccurate, misleading and distorted information”.  It failed entirely to “distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”. Actually it did exactly the opposite, deliberately confusing the three to scaremonger, sensationalise and mislead.

All this in the week when the Leveson report was published.  The Independent and all newspapers operate in brazen and blatant defiance of their spurious and insincere ‘self-regulation’.  It is a total failure and nothing but a licence for a corrupt press to print whatever it wants.

I am preparing a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission but I know what it will do.  It will do what it was designed for.  It will pay lip service to considering my complaint and then, instead of enforcing the Editors’ Code, it will find excuses for where it has been breached.

So here is the piece I wrote for The Independent.  It is the truth and it exposes the lies and deception that Mr Blackhurst printed last week. 

Throughout the world, rates of schizophrenia and psychosis have been declining for the last 50 years. Simultaneously, consumption of cannabis has skyrocketed. It is also true that average THC levels in cannabis have increased two or three fold since the 1970s, although stronger varieties of cannabis have always been available.

So any suggestion that cannabis causes schizophrenia or psychosis just doesn’t add up. Neither does the scientific evidence support this.

Professor Sir Robin Murray is only one of many eminent scientists working in this field and he holds the most extreme opinion which is why Patrick Cockburn only adduces his words as evidence. Others interpret the evidence very differently:

“Cannabis has been used safely for many thousands of years…there have been concerted efforts to demonise the drug’s use.” - Professor Tim Kirkham, psychologist, Liverpool University.

“I don’t think it causes mental illness. I have never seen a case of so-called cannabis psychosis.” -  Dr Trevor Turner, former vice president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

“I don’t see a lot of problem cannabis users…we’re not seeing a lot of cannabis users presenting for treatment.”  - Dr Clare Gerada, chair, Royal College of General Practitioners.

Perhaps the most valuable study, specifically about schizophrenia, comes from the University of Bristol in 2009 (Hickman, Zammit and Lewis). It is a review of all published evidence so, by definition, not cherry picked. It acknowledges that no causal link can be shown so looks at the risk involved. It shows that to prevent one case of schizophrenia or psychosis you would have to stop 7500 heavy users or 30,000 light users ever using cannabis in their life.

The risks are therefore infinitesimally small. To put the whole debate in perspective, there are 750 hospital admissions each year for cannabis but 3000 for peanuts. We spend £500 million each year on the criminal justice system for cannabis alone when perhaps it would be better spent stamping out peanuts?

Of course if you make the comparison with alcohol the gap is even wider Over one million hospital admissions each year with around 47,000 for mental health issues and alcohol is proven to be a direct cause of psychosis. The facts are that anyone in Britain is six times more likely to experience mental health problems associated with alcohol than with cannabis.

The truth is perhaps best expressed by Professor Terrie Moffitt of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College who said in August 2012 “cannabis is safe for over-18 brains but risky for under-18 brains”.

This highlights the real issue. The disastrous policy of prohibition followed by successive governments means that in Britain we have more children using cannabis and the lowest age at first use in Europe. Why? Because the only ID a dealer asks for is a £20 note.

We urgently need to introduce legal regulation of cannabis in order to protect children, fight crime and enable police to concentrate on real wrongdoing instead of crimes that only exist because of a misguided and failed government policy. The UK cannabis market is worth in excess of £6 billion per annum. We consume more than three tons of cannabis every single day. All this is in the hands of criminals at present. Under legal regulation it would create thousands of new jobs and new tax revenue which could be spent on drugs education as well as schools and hospitals.

Professor David Nutt said recently that a legally regulated cannabis market could lead to a 25% reduction in alcohol consumption which would transform public health. It is of course the alcohol industry which is behind the continuing prohibition of cannabis. It is terrified of a healthier and safer alternative to its poisonous products.

Most urgently we need to allow doctors to prescribe medicinal cannabis, the evidence for which is now overwhelmingly positive. Apart from France, Britain is the only country in Europe which denies this relief to sick and disabled people. Remarkably though, Britain is the only country in the world that has licensed a pharmaceutical company to grow huge quantities of cannabis to make the medicine called ‘Sativex’, even though the Home Office says “there is no medicinal value in cannabis”. Sativex is an extremely concentrated form of cannabis containing 51% THC. Strangely enough, there is no warning label on the bottles claiming that it may cause schizophrenia or psychosis.

The Truth About Cannabis That The Independent Refuses To Print. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Anti-depressant overdose killed devoted New Addington father”, the Croydon Guardian, 30-08-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/9222927.Anti_depressant_overdose_killed_devoted_father/

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.

I make this complaint in good faith that you will honestly and fairly judge whether or not there have been breaches of the Editors’ Code. Self-evidently it is the duty of the commission to enforce the Editors’ Code. However, it is clear from many decisions that the commission’s focus is actually on finding excuses for breaches of the code. I am also very concerned that the commission is distorting scientific evidence to support its decisions in exactly the same way as some newspapers distort such evidence to enhance their copy. If it can be shown that commission is failing to enforce the Editors’ Code and/or distorting evidence to support the rejection of a complaint then the commission is not acting in good faith and a cause for action arises to recover damages.

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

4. In the first paragraph the article states: “…prescribed to deal with cannabis and cocaine-induced psychosis…” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. There is no such condition as cannabis-induced psychosis. This is an invention of the Daily Mail which has been engaged for many years in a systematic campaign of misinformation, dishonesty, falsification and distortion of evidence concerning cannabis. Although science does show that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis there is no certainty at all that it causes or induces it. The commission has already received first hand evidence on this from Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent expert on the subject. All the experts agree that there is no proof of a causal relationship.

5. Cocaine-induced psychosis is a recognised medical condition. As well as being inaccurate and misleading, it is irresponsible of the newspaper to confuse and misinform readers by conflating cannabis use with the effects of the dangerous drug cocaine.

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 Croydon Guardian, 30th August 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Cannabis compound ‘eases nerve pain caused by cancer drugs’, The Daily Mail, 07-10-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2046529/Cannabis-compound-eases-nerve-pain-caused-cancer-drugs.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.

I make this complaint in good faith that you will honestly and fairly judge whether or not there have been breaches of the Editors’ Code. Self-evidently it is the duty of the commission to enforce the Editors’ Code. However, it is clear from many decisions that the commission’s focus is actually on finding excuses for breaches of the code. I am also very concerned that the commission is distorting scientific evidence to support its decisions in exactly the same way as some newspapers distort such evidence to enhance their copy. If it can be shown that commission is failing to enforce the Editors’ Code and/or distorting evidence to support the rejection of a complaint then the commission is not acting in good faith and a cause for action arises to recover damages.

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

4. This complaint needs to be seen in the context of the Daily Mail’s 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. In the sixth paragraph the article states: “Smoking cannabis has been found to be a major cause of psychotic illnesses in those who are genetically vulnerable.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. There is no certainty at all that cannabis causes psychotic illnesses. The commission has already received first hand evidence on this from Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent expert on the subject. All the experts agree that there is no proof of a causal relationship. Even the anti-cannabis campaigner Professor Sir Robin Murray concedes that there is no proof. The idea that cannabis causes psychosis is a myth promoted by the Daily Mail for many years which has no basis in fact. What science shows is that cannabis use may increase the risk of psychosis but to a far lesser degree than alcohol, tobacco, energy drinks and many OTC or POM medicines.

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 Daily Mail, 7th October 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Cannabis factories in posh homes”, The Sun, 26-09-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3835235/Cannabis-factories-in-posh-homes.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.

I make this complaint in good faith that you will honestly and fairly judge whether or not there have been breaches of the Editors’ Code. Self-evidently it is the duty of the commission to enforce the Editors’ Code. However, it is clear from many decisions that the commission’s focus is actually on finding excuses for breaches of the code. I am also very concerned that the commission is distorting scientific evidence to support its decisions in exactly the same way as some newspapers distort such evidence to enhance their copy. If it can be shown that commission is failing to enforce the Editors’ Code and/or distorting evidence to support the rejection of a complaint then the commission is not acting in good faith and a cause for action arises to recover damages.

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

4. In the second paragraph the article states: “”skunk” — which can cause psychosis and other mental health problems.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. There is no certainty at all that cannabis causes psychosis or mental health problems. The commission has already received first hand evidence on this from Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent expert on the subject. All the experts agree that there is no proof of a causal relationship. Even the anti-cannabis campaigner Professor Sir Robin Murray concedes that there is no proof. The idea that cannabis causes psychosis is a myth promoted principally by the Daily Mail which has no basis in fact. What science shows is that cannabis use may increase the risk of psychosis but to a far lesser degree than alcohol, tobacco, energy drinks and many OTC or POM medicines.

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 Sun, 26th September 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Just ONE cannabis joint ‘can bring on schizophrenia’ as well as damaging memory”, the Daily Mail, 26-10-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2053486/One-cannabis-joint-bring-schizophrenia.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.

I make this complaint in good faith that you will honestly and fairly judge whether or not there have been breaches of the Editors’ Code. Self-evidently it is the duty of the commission to enforce the Editors’ Code. However, it is clear from many decisions that the commission’s focus is actually on finding excuses for breaches of the code. I am also very concerned that the commission is distorting scientific evidence to support its decisions in exactly the same way as some newspapers distort such evidence to enhance their copy. If it can be shown that commission is failing to enforce the Editors’ Code and/or distorting evidence to support the rejection of a complaint then the commission is not acting in good faith and a cause for action arises to recover damages.

1. The article breaches the duty set out in the preamble to the Editors’ Code to maintain the highest professional standards because it amounts to deliberate falsification of evidence.

2. It also breaches clause 1.i) of the code in that it publishes inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

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

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. This complaint needs to be seen in the context of the Daily Mail’s 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.

6. Yesterday, 26th October 2011, I telephoned Dr Matt Jones of the University of Bristol, lead author of the study that the article is concerned with. He told me that he was “disappointed but not surprised” at the Daily Mail coverage of the study. He also authorised me to quote his exact words in saying “The study does NOT show that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia”.

7. A full text copy of the study is provided here: http://clear-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DrMattJonesKucewicz_JN2011.pdf

8. As shown in 6) above, the headline and first paragraph of the article are false and can only be described as lies.

9. The second paragraph of the article is false in that the study did not look at the brains of cannabis users. It looked at the brains of rats. The method of administration was injection which is not a method used by cannabis users. The substance was not cannabis which contains hundreds of cannabinoids, flavonoids, terpenoids and other substances, all of which have their own effects and which interact to produce further effects. The substance used was a synthetic cannabinoid analogue of THC known as CP55940. This is approximately 45 times more potent than naturally occurring THC (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_55,940). Further details are available at the manufacturer’s website: http://www.tocris.com/pdfs/cannabinoid_receptor_review/page_004.html

10. The fifth paragraph is false in that it states that the dosage given to rats was a similar dose to a person smoking a joint. I spoke to Dr Matt Jones about this as well. He confirms that there is absolutely nothing in the study that compares the dosage of CP55940 in rats to a dosage of cannabis in humans and that, in fact, it would be impossible to quantify equivalent doses of different drugs in different species ingested in different ways. However, simple maths, scaling up the dosage of a 45 times more potent drug at a rate of 0.30 mg per kg of body weight indicates that a straight comparison between the dosage given to rats is more like a human ingesting the THC in about 85 joints simultaneously. I can provide detailed calculations if required. Quite clearly this is an invention by the Daily Mail and yet more falsification of evidence.

11. This article is a scandalous web of deception, lies, falsified evidence and deceit. I call on the commission to censure the Daily Mail in the strongest possible terms and for a full and very prominent apology and correction to be published.

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 Daily Mail, 26th October 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053486/One-cannabis-joint-bring-schizophrenia.html

This will be the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint.  However, I do not expect any satisfaction or proper evaluation of a complaint by the PCC as it has proved itself again and again to be corrupt, dishonest and not in the least concerned with truth, accuracy or enforcing the Editors’ Code.

However, I have now spoken directly to Dr Matt Jones, lead author of the study in question and MRC Senior Non-clinical Fellow at the University of Bristol.  He told me that he was “disappointed but not surprised” at the Daily Mail’s coverage of his work.  He gave me permission to quote him in saying that “This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia”.

The Daily Mail, its journalists and its toady apologists on the PCC are liars, cheats and charlatans with not one ounce of integrity, nor any interest in truth or honesty.

A full copy of the study in question is here.

The Daily Mail – Addicted To Lies And Misinformation About Cannabis - 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,

“Depression is not a ‘brain disorder’”, the Guardian, 14-06-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/jun/14/depression-brain-disease-david-nutt?

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 fifth paragraph the article states: “Even in cases where mental illness has undoubtedly been caused by chemical means – such as cannabis psychosis…” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. 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.

3. Although the article is presented as an opinion piece, that cannot absolve the newspaper from its responsibilities under clause 1.i). This statement is clearly asserted as fact – “…undoubtedly…” when in fact all the experts agree that there is no proven causal link between cannabis use and psychosis.

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 Guardian, 14th 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