Ecstasy as safe as horse riding, says UK government adviser
Taking ecstasy is no worse than riding a horse, the British government’s top drug adviser claimed today.
Writing in a medical journal, Professor David Nutt said taking the drug was no more dangerous than what he called “equasy”, or people’s addiction to horse riding.
He is the chairman of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).
The organisation is expected next week to recommend that ecstasy is downgraded from class A to the less dangerous class B classification. Ministers have outlined their opposition to such a move.
Prof Nutt’s article in the latest edition of the Journal of Psychopharmacology is entitled “Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms”.
He writes: “The point was to get people to understand that drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between horse rising and ecstasy.”
The professor said equasy – short for equine addiction syndrome – caused 10 deaths and more than 100 road traffic accidents a year.
He adds: “This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates - indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use.”
Ecstasy use is linked to around 30 deaths a year in the UK, up from 10 a year in the early 1990s.
Fatalities are caused by massive organ failure from overheating or the effects of drinking too much water.
The ACMD last night distanced itself from Prof Nutt’s comments.
A spokesman for the body said: “The recent article by Professor David Nutt published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology was done in respect of his academic work and not as chair of the ACMD.
“Professor Nutt’s academic work does not prejudice that which he conducts as chair of the ACMD.”
David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, called on Prof Nutt to consider his position.
He told the Daily Telegraph: “He is entitled to his personal opinion, but if his personal view conflicts so very strongly with his public duties, it would be honourable to consider his position.
“If he does not, the Home Secretary should do it for him.”
