Alcohol should be a class-A drug say experts

[Gromit]

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis, according to a new drug classification table proposed by leading experts.

Ecstasy, currently a class-A drug, possession of which can result in a seven-year prison sentence, is placed near the bottom of the new table.

Anybody disagree with this sensible suggestion http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2007/03/23/nalcohol123.xml

[Loosehead]

I think if they where discovered today they probably would be illigal and at least Class B. However the box is open not much can be done now, there is an entire edifice of society based on alcohol and tobacco. The point is well made but I can't see anything changing.

[libertie]

Well I for one don't personally know anyone who has died from or is addicted to drugs! I do however know several..my father for one, who died from cancer two weeks after his 50th birthday... who have died from smoking or drink related illnessess!

[suffragette]

As the present population of social drug users ages, I think there will be a more health informed response to the categorization of drugs. I think cigarettes are slowly, but surely being eradicated, but alcohol has such a massive influence in every culture throughout history, except Islam, that I don't see any democratically elected government ever coming to terms with this most readily available, socially acceptible and yet most dangerous drug of them all.

[Booldawg]

If the above-mentioned drugs were as wide-spread and commonly used as alcohol and tobacco then I'm sure there would be a sharp increase in deaths relating to these drugs and put the argument in its true perspective.

[sandbach99]

I have never heard of anyone dying from 1 cigarette or 1 drink, but there are reports of people dying from 1 Ecstasy tablet.

A lot of the substances said to be less harmful than nicotine or alcohol are fairly new on the market and the long-term use of these are not yet known. The medical profession may find a huge increase in some disease in 20 years time, when this is researched it could be traced to having a couple of lines of cocaine a week.

70-100 years ago cigarette smoking was actively encouraged by the government to calm nerves especially before going to war, it is only in the last 30 years or so that the dangers have been found This report is dangerous as some people could now say it is safer to have an ecstasy tablet and a dose of LSD than it is to have 2 pints of lager on a Saturday night.

As a parent I would prefer my child to drink in moderation than take any of the other drugs.

[BooldawgsMrs]

I agree with sandbach - has everyone forgotten the Leah Betts campaign?

[alijangra]

Considering how widely used ecstasy is, there are actually very few deaths from it. More people die from peanut allergies!!

[alijangra]

I am not condoning taking drugs by the way, the damage of recreational drug taking is actually more hidden in people being diagnosed with depression and other mental health problems.

[alijangra]

As a matter of interest, I wonder how many people calling ecstasy dangerous have actually tried it? At least people who take it dont spill out onto the street from the club and start vomiting, urinating, fighting and generally causing trouble. How many of them end up in A+E abusing healthcare staff? That article states that out of 500,000 people taking it every weekend, there are only 10 fatalities every year. Can the same be said for alcohol? Most definitely not.

[NJOK]

A higher proportion of people die from one aspirin than one ecstacy tablet. (I'd also argue that, once legalised, ecstacy would be subject to stringent safety requirements).

Incidentally, Leah Betts died from excessive water consumption, not the effects of ecstacy. She drank 7 litres of water in 90 minutes. Why? Because someone told her she had to drink water while on ecstacy and she panicked.

When 'drugs' are demonised and not openly discussed, this is what happens. Untruths, rumours, crank medical opinion circulate and people feel unable to get help from someone older and responsible.

I agree that the long-term effects are unknown but we're supposed to live in a free society. And criminalising something because of evidence that MIGHT come to light in 50 or 100 years strikes me an odd approach to law making. Everything should be legal until there's sufficient reason for it to be otherwise.

We don't know the effect of mobile phone use yet. Should we ban them just to be on the safe side?

I'd never want children of mine to break the law - and I'd much much rather that they lay off all substances. But if all drugs were legal, I'd much much prefer my children to take ecstacy or cannibis than alcohol.

Think about it. If you heard of a new drug that made people unable to walk or talk properly, and that made them aggresive and irrational and frequently vomit or pass out, you would be absolutely appalled.

I would also mention the massive reduction in crime that would result from decriminalising some drugs, but I can't be bothered.