Unnamed

60. A number of commentators have called into question whether the Class A status of
ecstasy is warranted on the basis of the harm caused by its misuse. The RAND report cited
evidence suggesting that “ecstasy may be several thousand times less dangerous than
heroin, although both are in Class A, as the percentage of deaths among users is very small
and there is little evidence that ecstasy users exhibit withdrawal symptoms, with far more
evidence suggesting there are no withdrawal symptoms”.115 It also noted that “Recent
figures show that there were about 13.5 times more ecstasy users than heroin users in 2004,
and deaths caused by ecstasy were around 3% of the number caused by heroin”.116 In oral
evidence to this inquiry, Professor Colin Blakemore, MRC Chief Executive, told us that
ecstasy was “at the bottom of the scale of harm” and “on the basis of present evidence […]
should not be a Class A drug”.117
61. According to DrugScope, the ACMD was not consulted prior to classification of ecstasy
as a Class A drug in 1977 and the Government has resisted more recent calls to refer the
matter to the ACMD.118 David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, rejected the
recommendation of both the Runciman report in 2000 and the Home Affairs Committee
in 2002 that ecstasy should be reclassified from Class A to Class B, in the latter case on the
grounds that reclassification would be “irresponsible”.119 The Government’s response to
the Runciman report stated: “In the absence of any clear recommendation from the
Advisory Council to the contrary, the Government believes that ecstasy should remain a
Class A drug”, but Mr Blunkett subsequently refused to ask the ACMD to conduct a review
of the evidence.120,121 The Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker told us categorically in
evidence to this inquiry that the Government still had “no plans” to refer the classification
of ecstasy to the ACMD.122
62. What is perhaps more surprising is that the ACMD has not “presented any
recommendations on [ecstasy] to the Government of its own volition”.123 Sir Michael gave
the following explanation for this in evidence to us: “The difficulty is it is one of these other
areas where there is very little research done on it […] Frankly, I do not think we would get
anywhere by a review at the present time. This may change. There may be better evidence
that comes forward but it is vague and imprecise and I do not think we would get very
far”.124 We are not convinced by this explanation and note that there is a substantial body
of scientific literature on ecstasy, much of which has been published in recent years. In
view of the high-profile nature of the drug and its apparent widespread usage amongst
certain groups, it is surprising and disappointing that the ACMD has never chosen to
review the evidence for ecstasy’s Class A status. This, in turn, highlights the lack of
clarity regarding the way the ACMD determines its work programme. We recommend
that the ACMD carries out an urgent review of the classification of ecstasy.