Scientists 'wrong about ecstasy'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Controversial plans to downgrade ecstasy to a class B drug will be the subject of fierce debate on Tuesday, when the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is presented with evidence on why the drug should remain class A.
The ACMD's new chairman, Professor David Nutt, published a report in 'The Lancet' last year that ranked the drug as less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. But Professor Andy Parrott of Swansea University argues that it is at least as powerful as cocaine.
Writing in the latest issue of 'Addiction Today', Professor Parrott accuses the ACMD of proposing to downgrade ecstasy "without a full and very detailed consideration of the extensive scientific evidence on its damaging effects."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments