How to try to win a debate

Dr. Nutt feels himself badly done by, - sacked by the Home Secretary for attacking government policies in public.

His position really says, of course, "We have the facts and therefore we should dictate policy!" The politicians, on the other hand, say "Thank you for your facts, but we shall make the policy."

This is a battle which they must resolve.

My point here is that Dr.Nutt spoke about the danger of dying from cannabis smoking, or why else did he talk about being killed from horse-riding in a year.

But the harm from cannabis is not just that of dying - cannabis like tobacco can kill people with lung cancer, it is also about long term impairment. A member of his committee later discussed the difference made by cannabis in the incidence of schizophrenia. He was quoting a doubling of the chance of contracting it after a few years. More years of constant smoking can increase the risk six-fold.

I do not have the figures, but to fail to talk about the mental illness associated is surely to try to win an argument on a false basis. I am sure that only a few equestrians die each year, and even fewer smokers of cannabis, but although people are killed in riding accidents and some are confined to a wheel chair for life virtually none contract schizophrenia from the accident.

No science has the wherewithal to weigh up the pros and cons of lung disease and death on the one hand and the brain disease on the other. Neither has the politician, but the issue is a political one and politicians must resolve it.