675/2021 Cork Cannabis Activist Network and The Irish Times

On 15 February 2021 the Press Ombudsman did not uphold a complaint made by the Cork Cannabis Activist Network that The Irish Times breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland.   He is unable to make a decision part of the complaint made under Principle 1 of the Code as he has insufficient evidence.

On 31 December 2020, The Irish Times published an article under the headline “Garda begin seizing highly-potent cannabis”. The article reported that the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau had seized 490g of the drug “valued at about €32,000” which was described as a concentrated form of cannabis. The article said the drug was known as “cannabis shatter” or “weed shatter”. In the course of the article it was stated that sometimes the drug is referred to as “the crack of cannabis” as it could be smoked in a similar way to crack cocaine.

The Cork Cannabis Activist Network complained to The Irish Times. The Network said that “no one (with even rudimentary knowledge of cannabis) has ever referred to cannabis concentrates as being ‘the crack of cannabis’”. The Network asked that the article be removed or amended.

The Irish Times responded stating that people involved in law enforcement did refer to cannabis concentrate as “the crack of cannabis”.

The Network made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman claiming that the article had breached Principle 1, Principle 2 and Principle 3 of the Code of Practice. They described the article as “scaremongering” and containing misinformation.  They stated that cannabis concentrates are not dangerous when produced properly and that many patients worldwide use concentrated cannabis for medicinal purposes. The Network also objected to the use of the expression “crack of cannabis” stating that concentrates are never referred to in this manner, and that forcing links between cannabis, crime and crack cocaine reflected poorly on all cannabis consumers and perpetuated the stigma that still surrounds cannabis use in Ireland.

The editor of The Irish Times in a submission to the Office of the Press Ombudsman defended the article stating that it had accurately reported that the Gardaí “had begun seizing highly potent cannabis”.  He reasserted the claim that the term “crack of cannabis” is used by the Gardaí. He noted that it had been a short article on Garda seizures of cannabis concentrate and had not purported to be an extensive feature on cannabis use. The editor in a spirit of conciliation offered to publish a “right of reply” letter in which the Network could take issue with the article’s assertions.

The Network declined the offer of a “right of reply” letter, saying that it did not believe that any submission on their part would be presented in full, nor would it  “undo the damage caused by the sensationalist comments made in the article”.

As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision

Principle 1

The Press Ombudsman has been unable to find any inaccuracy in the article which could be considered a breach of Principle 1. As the editor pointed out, the article is an account of seizures made by the Gardaí and is not a comprehensive account of the effects of cannabis concentrate. The Press Ombudsman can understand that a group lobbying in support of cannabis might have wished for a more comprehensive article. But this is not the grounds for upholding a complaint that the article that was published was inaccurate.

In regard to the expression “crack of cannabis” the Press Ombudsman has insufficient evidence to make a decision. The newspaper asserts something as accurate, the complainant as inaccurate. Without further evidence the Ombudsman cannot make a decision on this part of the complaint.

Principle 2

The Press Ombudsman can find no evidence in the article where the journalist failed to distinguish between fact and comment. The article is an account of Garda activity. It does not include any comments by the journalist. Disagreement on the interpretation of facts cannot be interpreted by complainants as commentary.

Principle 3

Principle 3.1 states:

The press shall strive at all times for fair procedures and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information.

The Press Ombudsman has been presented with no evidence that the article breached the requirement for fair procedures and honesty.

15 February 2021