"These things are best sorted out behind the scenes so that the government and their advisers can go to the public with a united front."Sir Liam Donaldson
Which all seems a bit odd to Dr Grumble because the views of the advisers are clearly in the public domain having been published by the government. How can you have a united front when the government decides something that is plainly not consistent with the published evidence? And why have they picked on Professor Nutt because Sir Michael Rawlins said exactly the same? Below is what Sir Michael said as reported in the Daily Mail:
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, the advisory council's chairman, said drug users did not care whether a substance was in Class A, B or C.
The council's review acknowledged some link between cannabis and mental illness, but said the evidence was 'uncertain', and the connection was 'probable but weak', with the drug playing only a 'modest role' in causing mental health problems.
Prof Rawlins said: 'We estimate we would have to prevent 5,000 young males or 20,000 young females from ever smoking cannabis in order to prevent one case of schizophrenia.'
The advisers accepted skunk was becoming more common, but said there was some evidence users adjusted their intake - smoking less if the drug was stronger.
Prof Rawlins said: 'It's like alcohol - whisky is stronger than beer, but people don't drink pints of it.'
The experts also dismissed claims that cannabis is a 'gateway drug' leading to cocaine and heroin abuse - which they said was based on 'very weak evidence'.
Dr Grumble has seen people die from the effects of alcohol. He has seen people die from the effects of tobacco. He is yet to see a patient die from an overdose of cannabis. He is yet to see a patient even admitted to hospital as a result of the effects of cannabis.
When the government is arguing that black is white what are their advisers supposed to do?