CAN WE CALM DOWN ABOUT ECSTASY

The 50,000 people who spent last weekend expanding their minds and
sensory perceptions on ecstasy will probably have missed the news
that the drug might soon be reclassified from A down to B. The fact
that it is officially considered one of the most dangerous drugs on
the streets of Britain has most likely escaped them too, for if the
after-effects of a night taking ecstasy gave even a hint to users
that it should be ranked alongside heroin, they would probably have
stuck to the vodka and tonics.

Those convicted of possession of ecstasy face up to seven years'
imprisonment and dealing could confer a life sentence; the point of
the archaic classification system being to match the punishment with
the harm caused by the drug, something it fails to do. "Harm" here
means the harm caused to the person taking that drug, not those around them.

The charity DrugScope says that, "after taking ecstasy users may feel
very tired and low and need a long period of sleep to recover" and
that regular use could lead to sleep problems, lack of energy,
dietary problems, depression and anxiety. There are also fears that
we are sitting on a timebomb generation of potential Parkinson's
sufferers, yet the acid house crew are pushing on a bit now, and
there is little evidence that they are unravelling.

Ecstasy is not an addictive drug and it is already eight years since
a Police Foundation inquiry found it to be several thousand times
less dangerous than heroin and to play a part in fewer than 10 deaths
per year. Ever since the tragic death of Leah Betts in 1995, though,
it has been difficult to shake ecstasy's reputation as a killer.

The dangers of ecstasy should not be underestimated. It can lead both
directly and indirectly to death, and the associated and cumulative
negative effects it can have on the health of users are potentially
serious. Yet they pale in comparison with the consequences of alcohol
and tobacco abuse. When he was chief executive of the Medical
Research Council, Professor Colin Blakemore said ecstasy was "at the
bottom of the scale of harm", a view which has since been
corroborated by other leading experts in science, medicine and the
police service.

In concentrating on the health fall-out of drugs, Home Office
classifications short-sightedly ignore the social impact of drug use
(though ministers are pushing for such consequences to be
considered), rendering the system as arbitrary as when it was
introduced under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act.

Does anyone remember the one about the clubber who was so blissed out
on ecstasy that he started a fight on a bus and stabbed an innocent
bystander? What about the group of lads who each necked a handful of
pills and gang raped a fellow raver? Or the party-goer who stands
accused of date rape and is using the fact that he took ecstasy with
his accuser as a defence? Then there's the woman who broke into her
own parents home and stole and pawned her mother's jewellery to fund
her ecstasy habit.

Of course you haven't heard any such tales, because ecstasy does not
lead to the sort of violent and aggressive behaviour that alcohol
does, nor does it develop into a dependency which users turn to crime to fund.

Professor David Nutt, the incoming chairman of the Advisory Council
on the Misuse of Drugs, has admitted that young people know that
ecstasy is "relatively" safe. Pretending any different undermines
having any classification system at all, where one is much needed.