Peter Reynolds

Conservative Party Conference 2022, left to right: PCC Mark Shelford, Professor Neil McKeganey, PCC David Sidwick, Unknown, Unknown

For the past nine months I have been engaged in series of formal complaints against Conservative PCCs concerning their seriously misleading anti-cannabis campaign. I am pleased that they have now stopped their silly scaremongering. If they try to go down this road again, they will be back into a costly and time-consuming process which they can never win because nothing they have claimed can be supported by evidence.

None of my complaints have been upheld despite exhausting all routes of appeal but this is no surprise to me. Such complaints procedures are not designed to hold officials to account as you might hope. Their real purpose is to find excuses for misconduct. However, by any measure, I have defeated every absurd claim they have made by adducing published, peer-reviewed evidence.

This all started with the ridiculous proposal that cannabis should be made a class A drug, announced at the Conservative Party Conference 2022 in Birmingham. Inevitably, all the tabloid newspapers loved this and when home secretary Suella Braverman endorsed the idea, well, it was a wet dream for the Daily Mail and every hack who believes the role of the press is to sensationalise rather than inform.

The leader of the campaign was David Sidwick, PCC for Dorset. He advanced all the old chestnuts of addiction, psychosis and the ‘gateway theory’ but went much, much further:

“the pernicious influence of cannabis on our society”

“nothing soft about this drug. Its impact can be brutal — damaging lives and promoting crime”

“make no mistake, this stuff does the same harm as crack and heroin”

“a factor in numerous random acts of violence”

Such was the content of Sidwick’s article in the Daily Mail, a platform the newspaper gave him to coincide with his event at the Conservative Party Conference which was titled ‘Cannabis: Just a bit of weed or a Class A drug?’

Sidwick also claimed that his experience in the pharmaceutical industry gave him a special understanding of the health harms of cannabis and during the complaints process he implied he had some sort of medical expertise. In reality, he was a pharmaceutical salesmen and this attempt to blag some extra credibility for his claims speaks volumes.

To be fair, Sidwick has been taken in by the work of Professor Stuart Reece, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Western Australia. Reece is ‘reefer madness’ personifed. His claims and theories are as extreme as they come and have made him a laughing stock amongst his professional peers. See here for more details.

Sidwick claimed that Professor Reece’s work amounted to “a wealth of new data on the drug’s effects which merited a re-evaluation”.

The basis of my complaint was that under the Nolan Principles of Public Life, with which all PCCs are obliged to comply, they must

“act with integity and diligence and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias” and “act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner”.

It is self-evident that Sidwick’s claims could not pass this test, so I submitted a complaint against him and also Alison Hernandez, PCC for Devon and Cornwall; and Mark Shelford, PCC for Avon and Somerset. These were his principle accomplices. Hernandez has a particularly poor record with a quite ridiculous attitude to all aspects of drugs policy. Matthew Barber, PCC for Thames Valley, was also in my sights but to be fair to him, he readily engaged with me. We debated the issue on a radio programme and had a lengthy discussion on a Zoom call. While we didn’t come to any agreement, he listened and took on board what I had to say.

Sidwick and his office did make an attempt to respond properly to my complaint but what they offered as evidence was almost exclusively just Sidwick’s opinions. Hernandez was, as I might have expected, high handed and arrogant. She made no attempt at all to deal with the substance and just dismissed my complaint, claiming in effect that she was entitled to say whatever she wanted. Shelford also failed to deal with the issues, saying he was entitled to express his opinion and had “drawn from a large number of sources to inform his views” – without saying what those sources were!

Of course, they are perfectly entitled to hold any opinion they want but in their role as PCC they must comply with the Nolan Principles which they have all clearly failed to do. Their campaign did not use “best evidence” and neither were they “open and transparent” about their claims.

So that’s it. A great deal of work was involved on my part but more importantly it required a great deal of work from the PCCs and their staff. I’m confident they won’t want to go down this road again. Of course they’re perfectly entitled to be anti-cannabis and uphold the law as it currently stands but they won’t be spreading misinformation and ridiculous propaganda anymore.

For the record, this is how I responded to Sidwick’s claims.

CLAIM THAT CANNABIS IS A ‘GATEWAY DRUG’

I accept Sidwick’s ‘real-world definition as meaning an increased desire for taking Class A drugs’. I do not accept that cannabis is a ‘gateway drug’ ‘meaning an increased opportunity for taking Class A drugs’. As now widely accepted by experts, the real ‘gateway’ is the illegal status of cannabis meaning that anyone purchasing cannabis will be in contact with an illegal supplier who is likely to offer other drugs including Class As.

In 2008, the government’s expert advisors on drugs, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), investigated the gateway theory and concluded:

8.14 The “gateway theory” is the term that describes the possibility that use of cannabis leads to use of more dangerous drugs such as opiates and cocaine. It arises from the observation that users of the most harmful (Class A) drugs have generally used cannabis first. The interpretation of these studies is extraordinarily difficult because of the confounding effects of alcohol, tobacco, solvents, stimulants and psychedelic drugs, whose use frequently precedes that of Class A drugs. Moreover, although there is no evidence that there are physiological mechanisms leading to more harmful drugs, the social milieu of drug use may result in some users trying them. The shared market for cannabis and other drugs would increase the potential for escalation.

8.15 In 2002, the Council concluded that it was not possible to state, with certainty, whether or not cannabis use predisposes users to dependency on Class A drugs. Nevertheless, it considered the risks to be small and certainly less that those associated with the use of alcohol and tobacco. No further convincing evidence has been identified by the Council to alter this conclusion.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/119174/acmd-cannabis-report-2008.pdf

The ACMD comprises the most senior, highly qualified, experienced drugs experts. I particularly draw your attention to the unequivocal statement “there is no evidence that there are physiological mechanisms leading to more harmful drugs”.

Sidwick’s ‘alcohol argument’ is simply an expression of opinion. It is not evidence.

Sidwick’s reference to ‘tolerance’ is an opinion that developing tolerance in cannabis leads to Class A drugs. This is just more opinion, re-stating his belief in the ‘gateway theory’ and is not evidence.

Sidwick’s ‘business model’ is yet more opinion and is comprehensively dealt with by the ACMD’s conclusions above. Dame Carol Black’s report supports the ACMD’s conclusion that it is the “social milieu of drug use” and “shared market for cannabis and other drugs” that is the gateway, not cannabis.

Sidwick’s ‘neurophysiology argument’ is his opinion and interpretation of evidence. It is not evidence.

Sidwick interprets data on hospitalisations during the ‘Lambeth experiment’ to show that Class A use increased. This is not what the data show, nor is it what the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ paper shows. All they show is an increase in hospital admissions which correlates with the depenalisation of cannabis. No causal relationship is shown. Once again, this is not evidence of cannabis being a ‘gateway drug’, it is simply Sidwick’s opinion.

Sidwick’s ‘multi-drug use argument’ is presented as ‘intuitive’, so is merely opinion, it is not evidence.

None of the arguments advanced by Sidwick amount to evidence that cannabis is a gateway drug. They are all just expressions of his opinion.

By contrast I adduce the following evidence:

1.The ACMD’s report as above, Cannabis Classification and Public Health, 2008 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/119174/acmd-cannabis-report-2008.pdf “There is no evidence that there are physiological mechanisms leading to more harmful drugs.”

2. The Gateway Hypothesis, Common Liability to Addictions or the Route of Administration Model. A Modelling Process Linking the Three Theories, 2016 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26431216/ “The ‘gateway’ sequence, tobacco to cannabis to other illicit drugs was not associated with substance use propensity more than alternative sequences.”

3. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and recommendations for research, 2017. “Most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, “harder” drugs.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK423845/

4. Is Cannabis a Gateway Drug? Key Findings and Literature Review, 2018 https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252950.pdf I note that Sidwick himself cited this report. He clearly missed the main conclusion: “No causal link between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs can be claimed at this time.”

5. Reductions in alcohol use following medical cannabis initiation: results from a large cross-sectional survey of medical cannabis patients in Canada, 2020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395920303017  “44% reported drinking less frequently on a monthly basis. Moreover, results showed that patients also reduced their use of prescription opioids, tobacco and illicit substances when they consumed medical cannabis.” 

6. Is marijuana really a gateway drug? A nationally representative test of the marijuana gateway hypothesis using a propensity score matching design, 2021 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-021-09464-z “Results from this study indicate that marijuana use is not a reliable gateway cause of illicit drug use. As such, prohibition policies are unlikely to reduce illicit drug use.”

7. Trends in Alcohol, Cigarette, E-Cigarette, and Nonprescribed Pain Reliever Use Among Young Adults in Washington State After Legalization of Nonmedical Cannabis, 2022 https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(22)00374-3/fulltext “Contrary to concerns about spillover effects, implementation of legalized nonmedical cannabis coincided with decreases in alcohol and cigarette use and pain reliever misuse.”

8. Recreational cannabis legalization has had limited effects on a wide range of adult psychiatric and psychosocial outcomes, 2023 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/recreational-cannabis-legalization-has-had-limited-effects-on-a-wide-range-of-adult-psychiatric-and-psychosocial-outcomes/D4AB5EB78D588473A054877E05D45F16 “We assessed a broad range of outcomes, including other substance use, substance dependence…and found no detrimental nor protective effects for the majority of these domains, nor did we identify any increased vulnerability conferred by established risk factors.”

Thus I have shown that Sidwick’s claim is not supported by evidence, let alone ‘the best evidence’, nor has he taken any note of the overwhelming weight of evidence which opposes his position. Clearly his assertion that ‘cannabis is a gateway drug’ is unsupportable opinion and he is in breach of Nolan principle 1.3.

CLAIM THAT CANNABIS CAUSES SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS

There is no dispute that there is an association between the use of psychoactive substance and mental health disorders. The issue is whether there is evidence that shows a causal effect from cannabis.

1.Assessing evidence for a causal link between cannabis and psychosis: a review of cohort studies, 2009 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19783132/ “Whether cannabis use can cause serious psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred cannot be answered from the existing data.”

2. Cannabis and psychosis: Neurobiology, 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3927252/  “The ‘transition-to-psychosis’ due to cannabis, despite it being a strong risk factor, remains uncertain based upon neurobiological changes. It appears that multiple other factors might be involved.”

3. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) of lifetime cannabis use reveals a causal effect of schizophrenia liability, 2018 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-018-0206-1 “Largest study yet of genes and predisposition to schizophrenia and cannabis use looked at anonymised data from 180,000 people. Cannabis is more likely to be taken by schizophrenics trying to self-medicate than to cause the disorder.”

4. High-potency cannabis and incident psychosis: correcting the causal assumption, 2019 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30174-9/fulltext “We found little evidence for any causal effect of cannabis use on schizophrenia risk.”

5. Adolescent cannabis use and adult psychoticism: A longitudinal co-twin control analysis using data from two cohorts, 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34553951/ “Cannabis exposure during adolescence is not independently associated with either adult-onset psychosis or signs of schizophrenia.”

6.. Cannabis and Psychosis: Recent Epidemiological Findings Continuing the “Causality Debate”, 2022 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21111126 “While cannabis use may increase the risk for psychosis, its exposure is neither necessary nor sufficient for psychosis, suggesting that it is one of multiple causal components.”

7. Influence of cannabis use on incidence of psychosis in people at clinical high risk, 2023 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37070555/ “There was no significant association between any measure of cannabis use at baseline and either transition to psychosis, the persistence of symptoms, or functional outcome.”

8. State Cannabis Legalization and Psychosis-Related Health Care Utilization, 2023 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800728 “The findings of this study do not support an association between state policies legalizing cannabis and psychosis-related outcomes.”

Thus I have shown that Sidwick’s claim is not supported by evidence. He has distorted the evidence to claim that cannabis causes psychosis when in fact it shows is that it may or may not be one of multiple causal components. This misleading treatment of evidence based on a strong personal opinion is clearly in breach of Nolan principle 1.3. The consensus of expert opinion is that the risk of cannabis as a possible component cause of psychosis is best managed through a legally regulated system where age limits and potency can be controlled, rather than leaving the market under the control of criminal gangs.

CLAIM THAT CANNABIS CAUSES AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER, ASPERGER’S SYNDROME AND ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD)

You have already acknowledged that Sidwick misrepresented the single study he adduces to support this claim when he gave oral evidence at the Home Affairs Committee Drugs Inquiry in 2022.  You suggest “it is likely that the PCC misspoke”.  This does not explain why he has subsequently repeated this claim on multiple occasions in media interviews.

This single study is by Dr. Stuart Reece who is an outlier at the very edge of professional credibility. The study has not been peer-reviewed, cites only other studies by Reece in support of his conclusions and there is no independent evidence supporting his conclusions.

By contrast, there is considerable evidence supporting the therapeutic use of cannabis in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) which include Asperger’s Syndrome; and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

1.Cannabidiol-Rich Cannabis in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Severe Behavioral Problems, 2019 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30382443/ “Following the cannabis treatment, behavioral outbreaks were much improved or very much improved in 61% of patients.”.

2. Real life Experience of Medical Cannabis Treatment in Autism: Analysis of Safety and Efficacy, 2019 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30655581/ “Cannabis in ASD patients appears to be well tolerated, safe and effective option to relieve symptoms associated with ASD.”

3. Cannabis and cannabinoid use in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review, 2022 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34043900/ “Cannabis and cannabinoids may have promising effects in the treatment of symptoms related to ASD, and can be used as a therapeutic alternative in the relief of those symptoms.”

4. Cannabis for the Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, 2022 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/521370 “This report adds to the literature by providing detailed personal accounts from patients and objective evidence of improvement on validated measures for ADHD symptoms.”

Thus I have shown that Sidwick’s claim is not supported by evidence and, in fact, is contradicted by evidence. He seriously misrepresented the only evidence he adduces at the Home Affairs Committee Drugs Inquiry and has continued to misrepresent it in subsequent media interviews. His conduct is clearly in breach of Nolan principle 1.3

OTHER CLAIMS

You have acknowledged that Sidwick’s other claims on issues such as birth defects, cancer, etc are based on single sources of information and the same authors. Clearly this does not meet the test of Nolan principle 1.3 “to act…using the best evidence and without…bias.”

SUMMARY

On all matters relating to cannabis, you have acknowledged that Sidwick relies on a limited amount of research from a limited range of sources.  I have shown that the overwhelming weight of evidence does not support his claims and in many instances directly contradicts them.

Clearly, he has allowed his strong personal opinion on cannabis to distort his communications on many occasions to a very large public audience. Since he first took office his conduct on this issue has been consistently in breach of Nolan principle 1.3.

I note that Sidwick states he has a “pharmaceutical understanding of the science” but his past employment in the pharmaceutical industry is in sales and marketing, so any claim of scientific or clinical expertise cannot be sustained.

I submit it is clear that Mr David Sidwick, the PCC, has acted in this matter without integrity, diligence, transparency and objectivity. With respect, your claim that he has not is incredible and unsustainable.

I consider that in view of his personal responsibility for the misinformation that he has repeatedly and widely communicated, he should resign from office. As a minimum, the Police and Crime Panel should issue a public statement of retraction and apology for these false claims. My overriding concern is that Sidwick has used his office to try and increase the criminal penalties for cannabis by campaigning for it to be made a Class A drug on the basis of false evidence.  This supports the criminal market in cannabis and all the harm it causes for which he must be held to account.