Afternoon:
9°c
Ecstasy to remain class A drug due to its 'ability to kill'
Martin Bentham11 Feb 2009
Ministers today rejected a call by their own advisers for ecstasy to be downgraded to a class B drug because of continuing concern about its ability to kill.
The decision follows a recommendation by the Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that ecstasy should lose its class A status.
The advisory council argues that the drug should instead be given the lower status of class B - alongside amphetamines and cannabis - because it is not as dangerous as other top-ranked substances such as cocaine and heroin.
The advisers also suggest that there is little connection between the drug and criminal behaviour and that little effect on users' short-term memory has been found.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who last year also rebuffed the advisory council by ignoring its views on cannabis, rejected the advice and said that ecstasy would retain its class A status.
Among the reasons cited are the number of deaths which continue to be caused by the drug, with around 30 people losing their lives each year after taking it.
The dangers of the drug were highlighted by the case of Essex schoolgirl Leah Betts, 17, who died after taking a single ecstasy tablet in 1995.
The ministers' decision to maintain ecstasy's class A status has been backed by police chiefs.
Reader views (19)
Sue in Orpington: you're right to highlight the link between criminality and drug use. But given that people are still using drugs even when they're banned, surely the sensible thing would actually be to legalise all drugs? Things would carry on much as they are already, only the money wouldn't go to criminal gangs.
- Charlie, Soho, London, 12/02/2009 13:14
Report abuse
Yh, I couldn't have put it better myself! I don't care what class a drug is categorised as ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE BANNED. Mark Lee: Don't you realise that the majority of crimes committed are fuelled by drug addiction? No money for drugs, we'll have to mug someone or steal it. Violent crimes are mostly caused by people taking drugs. The majority of gangs and gangsters get into all sort of crime, again, because of the huge amounts of money that can be made by selling drugs. As for drunken yobs, let a few die on their own vomit, only then will they take responsibility for their own actions. Me for Prime Minister! I want this country to start showing a bit of backbone. I definitely couldn't do a worse job than our present PM.
- Sue, Orpington, Kent, 12/02/2009 08:52
Report abuse
If people want to addle their brains and take risks with their health then let them. It's their own life they ruin and that's cool with me.
- Susannah, London UK, 12/02/2009 06:14
Report abuse
The biggest cause of premature death in the world by a billion times more than any drug is road traffic accidents. Therefore, all car drivers must be Class A users in my opinion.
- Real, London, 11/02/2009 18:30
Report abuse
Two things strike me here.
Firstly why spend money on a committee of you are going to ignore its findings and do your own thing anyway? This is not the first time the government has outright rejected the findings of a committee. When in consultation for the recently enacted Criminal Justice And Immigration Bill. The government ignored current evidence on links between pornography and violence. We now have a bizarre law in place where by you could be breaking the law for being in possession of images of an act where no crime actually took place.
Secondly, the members of the cabinet are not scientists or pharmacologists or doctors or pathologists. To establish a committee of subject matter experts and then reject their findings sounds incredibly ignorant. Just who is it we have in power here? If they aren't making informed decisions based on reason, evidence, and experience. What on earth are they making these decisions on???
- John, Coventry, 11/02/2009 17:50
Report abuse
I'm sure the Tabacco companies and breweries have given on many occassion to charities and have also paid out to people who have sued them directly for damaging their health. However, I pretty sure the hardened criminals who benefit from all the sales of drugs, A, B or C do anything other than rub their hands with glee when they get their money from the fools who keep buying these drugs! Drugs should have a zero tolerance in our society and we shouldn't emphasise whether a drug is A, B, or C, but that buy supplying, taking, and producing the law is being broken.
- Yh,, London, 11/02/2009 16:15
Report abuse
Someone died after taking one dose of ecstacy so of course it should be a class A drug; so should peanuts.
- Mark, St Albans, UK, 11/02/2009 15:56
Report abuse
Our message should be one of zero tolerance. Stop breaking the law and start behaving in a way that helps our society not hinders it!
- Yh,, London, 11/02/2009 15:56
Report abuse
Why do the government waste time on consulting experts when they already know what the answer should be ? In any case facts don't stop them condoning and collecting taxes on the biggest killers, alcohol and tobacco.
- M Wilkinson, London UK, 11/02/2009 14:52
Report abuse
Didn't Leah Betts die of drinking too much water after she had taken the pill, as opposed to the pill itself killing her (yes you can die from drinking too much water if you drink enough all at once)? The fact that they're still using a case that is now over a decade old speaks volumes about the lack of more recent cases too. I'd like to see the facts about these 30 deaths a year. Were they on anything else at the time? Was it the pill itself or because they thought they could fly etc etc?
- Isabel, Woking, 11/02/2009 14:03
Report abuse
Although technically Leah Betts died after taking a single ecstasy tablet, it wasn't the effects of ecstasy that killed her but water intoxication, a brilliant example how newspapers can mislead the public without technically lieing!
- Nj, London, 11/02/2009 13:52
Report abuse
Leah Betts did not die from the effects of ecstasy, but from water intoxication, hyponatremia, as a web search will easily confirm.
If ecstasy must be class A with 30 people dying a year, what class must alcohol (30,000) and tobacco (100,000) be?
We deserve an informed and factual debate about drugs, not just the same old misinformation and moralising dead ends.
- Dr John, London, 11/02/2009 13:34
Report abuse
Why isn't alcohol and tobacco class a drugs in that case as thay kill far more people than all other drugs combined.It seems to me drugs that make you high are not acceptable but those that make you dumb or do nothing are OK,now ask yourselves why!
- Kev, London-UK, 11/02/2009 13:29
Report abuse
Leah Betts died after drinking nearly 10 pints of water in under the space of an hour. She did not die from extacy.
- Serox, london, 11/02/2009 13:20
Report abuse
If the dimwits never put it into their bodies in the first place then it can't kill you. There are many things in life that have the ability to kill. These people know the risks when taking drugs,but they still do it. A bit like a nut allergy sufferer eating a peanut!
- Triffidqueen, Desk in London, 11/02/2009 12:46
Report abuse
How many people per year die drinking and smoking, but then they're taxable drugs that MP's use aren't they?
- Bob, Cheam, 11/02/2009 12:14
Report abuse
It is absurd to overruls sound scientific advice in favour of propaganda. If drug policy is to regain a shred of credibility, the government will need to drop its addiction to prohibition and start looking to Holland for a model to follow.
The "more research" mantra is a cowardly cop out which by leaving prohibition in place simply wrecks more young lives. It is time to abandon criminalisation entirely in favour of genuine control.
- Mike, Le Mans, France, 11/02/2009 11:53
Report abuse
The chairman of the Home Office's Advisory Council, Dr. Peter Nutt, published a paper last month commenting that the use of Ecstasy was no more dangerous than riding a horse, commenting that it should be lowered to a Class B drug.
Should we now make horse riding a class A drug due to its "ability to kill"?
I don't take any drugs - but tt seems a pointless waste of time for the police to spend their time on these matters when there are far greater threats out there (think street crime and violence). Drunk people are far more of a violent threat than someone who has been taking certain illegal drugs.
- Mark Lee, Vauxhall, 11/02/2009 11:51
Report abuse
I am not an advocate of drug taking and neither drink alcohol or smoke. However, I do find the Government's reasons for maintaining Ecstasy as a class A drug particularly unrealistic.
It is very unfortunate when anybody dies doing when taking these tablets. I suspect that the fact they are made in backstreet factories without any quality controls, is the main reason for the fatalities. I think that Paracetamol would be considered dangerous if manufactured under similar conditions. One only has to look at the numerous deaths caused by adulterated milk last year in China last year. To realise that without adequate quality control and supervision in the production process, swallowing anything is a risky business.
In terms of risk I know that cycling in London is a cause for concern. As far as I am aware, the wearing of a helmet is not compulsory. Which is hard to explain.
- Harry H, London UK, 11/02/2009 11:26
Report abuse
