DrugScope Responds To Advisory Council's Review Of Ecstasy, UK
Main Category: Alcohol / Addiction / Illegal DrugsArticle Date: 13 Feb 2009 - 0:00 PDT
email to a friend 
printer friendly 
opinions
DrugScope, the leading independent centre of expertise on drugs and drug policy, has today welcomed publication of the findings from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) review of ecstasy [1] [2].
Based on a review of the social and health harms of ecstasy, the ACMD recommends that the government reclassify the drug from Class A to Class B. The Council also advised that the government revise and widen access to public health messages and guidance on the drug's harms, particularly for young people.
Other key recommendations include:
- Parents, carers, teachers and those working in the criminal justice system should be informed about the risks of ecstasy and how these compare with those of other drugs.
- More research is required into the effects of ecstasy upon the brain.
- More research should be conducted regarding the nature and extent of ecstasy use among young people.
Responding to today's report, DrugScope Chief Executive Martin Barnes said:
"DrugScope welcomes the ACMD's report on ecstasy and we support all its recommendations. It is appropriate that drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act are subject to regular review, in order to ensure that decisions on drugs policy are informed by the latest and best evidence.
"DrugScope supports the ACMD's recommendation that ecstasy be reclassified to Class B. The advice is based on a thorough, objective and independent review of the latest evidence. Previous reviews of drug policy, not least a Home Affairs Select Committee report in 2002, have questioned the classification of ecstasy as a Class A drug. [3]
"The challenge is to ensure that any debate over ecstasy's classification is not perceived - or indeed misrepresented - as indicating that the drug is in any way 'safe'. It is precisely because ecstasy is a harmful drug that it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act but evidence shows that its social and health harms are more consistent with drugs controlled under Class B, such as amphetamines.
"Today's report highlights the considerable health risks posed by ecstasy, particularly when used in combination with other drugs. We support the ACMD's call for credible and accurate public health information about ecstasy and its harms. Access to 'Safer Clubbing' guidance is essential - as ecstasy-related deaths are commonly linked to dehydration, overheating and excessive water consumption in clubbing environments, as well as to the direct toxic effects of the drug itself.
"It would be regrettable if we reached a situation where, for political reasons, drugs can only be placed within, or moved up, the classification system, but cannot be moved down regardless of the evidence. It is crucial that decisions on the penalties for the use and supply of controlled drugs should be based on the best available information, otherwise the drug laws themselves lose credibility, especially among young people."
About DrugScope
DrugScope is the national membership organisation for the drugs field and the leading independent centre of expertise on drugs and drug policy. Our aim is to inform policy and reduce drug-related harms - to individuals, families and communities.
For more information visit http://www.drugscope.org.uk
[1] About the ACMD
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is an independent expert body that advises government on drug related issues in the UK. It was established under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, its current chair is Professor David Nutt. The council's membership includes a range of experts in the social and health harms of drugs.
Although the ACMD was set up to advise the government on classification, ministers are not obliged to follow its recommendations and any decision on ecstasy's legal status will ultimately be made by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.
More information on the ACMD can be found here.
[2] Information on ecstasy
Ecstasy is an illegally manufactured drug that usually comes in tablet or capsule form and is normally taken orally. The chemical name of pure ecstasy is 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine or MDMA for short.
More information on ecstasy and its effects can be found here.
[3] Home Affairs Select Committee report on drug policy
In 2002, a Home Affairs Select Committee published a report entitled 'The Government's Drugs Policy: Is it working ?'. One of the report's key recommendations was that ecstasy should be downgraded from Class A to Class B.
The press notice for the report can be viewed here.
The full report can be viewed here.
DrugScope
Visit our alcohol / addiction / illegal drugs section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/138801.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/138801.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (11)
Ecstasy, Drugscope And The ACMD
posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 15 Feb 2009 at 6:30 amDrugScope’s endorsement of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) recommendation to downgrade ecstasy appears to be self contradictory. However, the writer would endorse the views of Drugscope that any decision to reclassify a drug should be based on the ‘best and latest’ evidence’ providing that both are scientific, factual and unbiased. It is interesting to note that in the present context Drugscope appear to posit ‘best’ and ‘latest’ as synonymous, which in itself is not necessarily the case.
The use of the term ‘objective’ in relation to evidence is also interesting since so called ‘objective evidence’ may, by definition, mean evidence which supports a pre determined objective, or hypothesis. Given the well publicised views of Professor Nutt, and other members of the ACMD, prior to their recommendation that ecstasy should be downgraded, one is entitled to query whether the ‘objective evidence’ referred to was selected in order to support those views and thus meet the objective of Nutt et al.
This writer suggests that because a drug causes relatively few deaths, it is hardly sufficient reason to call for downgrading; a more balance approach would be to take into consideration the total harms caused by the drug under review, together with the further total harms caused when that drug, as is the case with ecstasy, is commonly used in conjunction with other harmful substances, including alcohol and cocaine, as documented by those world renowned addiction specialists Professors Parrot and Schifano, together with the well documented evidence of numerous psychiatrists. Regrettably, that does not appear to have occurred on this occasion, nor, despite the overwhelming evidence of the dangers of cannabis, did it seem to occur when the ACMD recommended the downgrading of cannabis and their subsequent objection to reclassification of that particularly insidious drug.
It is self contradictory by DrugScope to claim, ‘more research is required ‘into the effects of ecstasy upon the brain’ together with more research ‘regarding the nature and extent of ecstasy use among young people’ and then to endorse the downgrading of ecstasy without the benefit of that evidence. If, as DrugScope recommend, such evidence is needed, then combined with their acknowledgment of the dangers of, ecstasy, the recommendation by the ACMD to downgrade it before such research is carried out and the total harms caused by ecstasy, have been identified, together with the additional harms caused by its use with other psycho active substances, would appear to be premature, if not irresponsible, as is the enthusiastic reception afforded it by Drugscope.
If as the latter claims, it is their aim 'to reduce drug related harms to individuals, their families and communities', would it not have been more in keeping with that aim and their claim of being ‘the leading independent centre of expertise on drugs and drug policy’ to await the evidence they call for, before their unqualified acceptance and endorsement of the recommendations by the ACMD?
Reality Over Fantasy
posted by Niall Scott on 17 Feb 2009 at 1:45 amThis seems yet another disingenous argument Peter. It is not irresponsible to point out the fact that ecstasy by any criteria is less harmful than heroin and cocaine. One would expect people to call for more research into for example the effects of mobile phones and mobile phone masts despite the fact many of the 'problems' are media fantasies - would you suggest banning mobile phones in the interim?
I personally believe people should be free to make their own choices but as long as the misuse of drugs act is in place then evidence should be used rather than points-scoring and grandstanding which is always going to lead to politicians to want to look tough and place drugs in higher categories.
How Is It Disengenous To Ask A Straightforward Question?
posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 17 Feb 2009 at 2:45 amNiall, If not withstanding the plethora of evidence of the the total harms Ecstasy can cause, including the fact sheets published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, more research is required, what on earth is disengenous about suggesting we await the outcome of that evidence prior to rushing to recommend and endorse the downgrading of it?
You do yourself an injustice by seeking to obfuscate the issue, with unjustified allegations, rather than addressing the central truth.
Prohibition Leads To Harm
posted by Niall Scott on 17 Feb 2009 at 6:22 amThere is always room for more evidence, that is what science is. Can you think of any situation where you would accept any substance should be downgraded or is every substance in the right category or too low a category?
You seem to come from an anti-drug perspective rather than a pro-science perspective and you will hunt down and misrepesent statistics to 'prove' your case. It appears that if there is anything that does not fit your initial position then you will demand a 'best out of three' like a child losing a coin toss.
The central truth is surely that our drug laws are not respected precisely because they are based on fear and wishing to send out a message. They serve only to made politicians look tough and increase the danger to those who choose to use drugs.
Have You Read The ACMD Report?
posted by Steve Rolles on 17 Feb 2009 at 7:45 amWhatever views we may have on the ABC classifiaction system and its efficacy (and there is certainly a lot to criticise), the mandate of the ACMD is clear - to keep drug harms under review and give advice to ministers, on classification, and broader policy considerations.
The Ecstasy review was part of a broader review process, similarly made clear by the committee, in which all drugs are being systematically re-examined. The Sci-Tech select committee and the Home Affairs select committee had both requested that the issue of Ecstasy's classification be revisited (for the first time since the 70's), as have numerous other commentators. The ACMD, somewhat reluctantly by their own account, specifically bowed to the wishes of the SciTech committee (under the previous chair, Sir Micheal Rawlins) and undertook a review of the avialable evidence on ecstasy - over 1000 papers - producing a 40 page summary report. Prof Parrot is in fact quoted extensively throughout (5 papers appearing in the references) as is Schifano. Parrot also submitted written evidence and made and oral presentation to the committee. Acute and chronic long term harms are considered in some detail, and the issue of poly drug use and the difficulties this creates for analysis of drug harms are also considered. If there is a more comprehensive review anywhere, I have not seen it. If new substantial evidence emerges the committee would no doubt revisit the subject once more.
The committee were very clear that Ecstasy is a dangerous drug, but not, in their opinion, as other drugs in class A, including heroin and cocaine.
Ecstasy, Drugscope & The ACMD
posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 19 Feb 2009 at 4:46 amIt is interesting to note that neither of the correspondents, nor for that matter DrugScope, appear willing to respond to my question seeking the central truth as to why, if further evidence as DrugScope state is needed to assess the total harms caused by ecstasy, wound it not be more compatible with their stated aim of reducing the harm caused by drug use to await that evidence before rushing to endorse the downgrading of what is acknowledged as a dangerous drug?
A straightforward question which remains unanswered and until such times as it is, other comments whilst interesting, are in that context irrelevant.
You Try To Muddy The Water For Your Own Agenda
posted by Niall Scott on 20 Feb 2009 at 12:44 amThe other comments are not irrelevant, you make many similar points in your letter to the NTA on drug related deaths.
Put simply the evidence is clearly very strong but there is room for more. I beleive my parallel with the effects of mobile phone technology is a relevant one and I will go further and suggest that there are similarities with your position and that of creationists and climate change deniers i.e. the evidence is to all intents and pruposes overwhelming yet you insist on suggesting there is a debate beyond the finer points.
Where Would That Logic Lead?
posted by Steve Rolles on 20 Feb 2009 at 7:53 amI am confused as to the point you are seeking to make here. You clearly question the credibility and integrity of the study, querying whether: "the ‘objective evidence’ referred to was selected in order to support those views and thus meet the objective of Nutt et al.".
My point was just clarify the nature of the ACMD report. It was based on an two public hearings, written submissions which all were welcome to make, and a literature review (commissioned and undertaken independently of the ACMD) of every research paper on ecstasy harms ever published. At some 400 pages this was the most thorough review ever undertaken.
It is hard to imagine what more could have been asked for, and you do not make any case against the ACMD reports findings (even if you differ with their recommendations) or those of the literature review, beyond insinuating compromised integrity. Which research are you suggesting they overlooked?
I am not here to defend Drugscope's position or statements, in which i have no interest, but the logic of your argument appears to be that all drugs should be kept in (or moved to?) class A, just in case evidence subsequently emerges that they are more harmful than we thought. Surely that is taking the precautionary principle to absurdity?
The ACMD attempt to make the best judgement they can with the available evidence - as is their legal remit - and if more emerges, those judgements are revisited (as for example happened in 2006-7 with methamphetamine). If the ACMD, or anyone else, identifies gaps in the research, then flagging these up for future work is an appropriate and indeed standard part of any such review. I fail to see the problem with this, regardless of the wider critique of the ABC system
Ecstasy DrugSCope And The ACMD
posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 21 Feb 2009 at 11:47 amWhilst this writer through his experience of counselling those who are unfortunate enough to have developed drug induced addiction, understands how distressing confusion can be, and sympathises with those who experience it, he feels that in this instance Mr. Rolles only has himself to blame for his self acknowledged confused state of mind.
The writer would have hoped that it was apparent that the main thrust of his letter was to highlight the self evident anomalies between DrugScope’s enthusiastic endorsement of the ACMD recommendation, and their declared position on drugs and drug policy together with their aim of reducing drug related harm, rather than any relevant references he made in respect of the latter. If, as Mr Rolles acknowledges, he has no interest in the former, and prefers to focus on the latter, it is obvious that he is going to be have difficulty in understanding the points I sought to make then, and in subsequent responses to correspondents.
If as it appears, Mr. Rolles is seeking to engage the writer in a discussion regarding the relative merits of the ACMD recommendation, or the drug classification system, he is wasting his time, as indeed are other correspondents, who in preference to addressing my comments regarding the glaring self contradictory nature of DrugScope’s endorsement, opt to submit allegations, regarding my views on unrelated matters.
In view of the foregoing I trust that I have made it clear that I will not be wasting my time acknowledging any further comments that I consider to be irrelevant or hypothetical; thus those who disagree with me can, if they so choose, console themselves with having the last word.
Kathy Gyngell
posted by Kathy Gyngell on 21 Feb 2009 at 12:15 pmPeter's assessment of Drugscope's response seems to me to be entirely reasonable. In view of the lack of certainty about the evidence that Drugscope apparently acknowledge - one area being the difficulties in attributing the cause of death (since nearly all Ecstasy/MDMA users are polydrug users with 90% taking cannabis and/or alcohol,and the majority taking other stimulant drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine) and another being assessing the level of risk as many lives are saved by emergency medical care - they might well have been wiser to adopt the precautionary principle when deciding whether or not to support the ACMD's recommendations, as would have the ACMD been themselves in coming to their conclusions.
First 10 opinions shown. For all opinions, click through to the full thread.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
