<H2 class=padding-bottom-7 style="FONT-SIZE: 1.05em; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.05em">THE Government’s top drug adviser was slammed today after he claimed that taking ecstasy is no worse than riding a horse. </H2>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).

Conflicts

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 more than 100 deaths 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, 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.

var RStag = "";try{RStag = segQS;}catch(e){RStag = "";}document.write('');

David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, called on Prof Nutt to consider his position.

He told a national newspaper: “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.”

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."

Driving cars has risks too. Surprising that the good professor cannot appreciate the distinction. On the face of it, I'm not surprised that his suitability for the position of chair of the ACMD has been called into question.

Mods

Can you clean up for me the ' var RStag = "";try{RStag = segQS;}catch(e){RStag = "";}document.write(''); ' ect ect, as my Internet went down before i could edit and clean up...

Driving cars has risks too. Surprising that the good professor cannot appreciate the distinction. On the face of it, I'm not surprised that his suitability for the position of chair of the ACMD has been called into question.

well i was thinking the same, as there are fair more dangerous things to do then riding a horse.... but the main point is why on earth did they come up with a Horse as a comparible to Ecstasy..... makes you think what these guys actually do all day

He's probably from a well off horsey family...

More likely he's off his box on ecstasy

Professor Nutt? More like Professor Nut Case.

"..... makes you think what these guys actually do all day."

They're always thinking. His logic is so convoluted, it almost makes sense. He would have been much better off using alcohol or smoking instead of horse riding, but, then, he's the chair person. I'll bet he has a young GF he gets high with.

Horse related death is a quite common 'cause' of death in countries were horse riding is common. Death from naturally failing coconuts is very rare in Sweden. In countries that permits drug use there will be a percentage of deaths connected their use, simple.

People will take drugs - as a species we have taken drugs since we discovered semi-rotten fruit makes us funny and go to sleep. People use drugs to relieve the pains of life, those that choose to take too much or in uncontrolled ways pay with their lives - their choice why try to stop them?

Legalize and tax it.

The doctor's position as the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is to present the Home Office (and therefore the public) with correct information about drug use/misuse, not to peddle a government line or that of anyone else. Don't see why he should be considering his position for expressing what he regards as the truth. Should he instead be peddling a Home Office lie to the public ?

Known as "toeing the party line" it is prevalent in government , business, medicine, sports, in fact it is all pervasive throughout civilisation.

People like this guy are in these positions because of the specialist knowledge they have regarding a certain subject. Should we encourage them to think rationally, outside the box even, and propose courses of action they themselves think logical? Or should we expect them merely to churn out the standard response in line with government, or whoever, policy?

If it's the latter we would choose then let's stop wasting all that intellect and learning and just appoint any kid just out of school. They could then get on and do the job reissuing the current hymn sheet at a fraction of the cost and we'd avoid these periodic upsets.

If we, as I would, want them to use their talents in challenging the status quo and the "party line" then we have to be prepared for these curve balls every now and again. At the very least it airs alternative views for public debate even if the final decision is to go with the mainstream flow. It is only by challenging beliefs and opinions, however uncomfortable that might be, that the human race will progress.