The Editor replies: New Scientist was aware that a background paper
comparing cannabis with alcohol and tobacco is to be published later this year.
If anything, this adds to our suspicions about the WHO’s decision to exclude the
comparison from its report. If the comparison is good enough to publish as a
background paper, why not include it in the report? Part of the answer is that
reports are widely circulated and read by policy makers and journalists, whereas
background papers are not.
If “uncertainties” were the only reason for excluding the analysis, one must
question the consistency of the peer review process. Much of the material deemed
fit to include in the report could scarcely be described as certain. Take one
example, the hormonal effects of cannabis. Here the report says: “This action of
cannabis might be of importance in the prepubertal male… however, at
present this is purely conjecture.”
