Pubdate: Thu, 23 May 2002 Source: Scotsman (UK) Copyright: The Scotsman Publications Ltd 2002 Contact: http://www.scotsman.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/406 Author: Jason Beattie, Chief Political Correspondent Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mdma.htm (Ecstasy) BEREAVED PARENTS EXERT PRESSURE ON POLICY DECISIONS WHO has more influence over the government's policy on drugs, an all-party group of MPs or the parents of Leah Betts, the 18-year-old who died seven years ago from taking a single ecstasy tablet? The home affairs select committee yesterday published its long-awaited report on Labour's approach to drugs - the product of 11 evidence sessions featuring 45 witnesses and 200 written submissions. In what has been described as a landmark report, the Committee made 30 major recommendations, including the downgrading of ecstasy from class A, a status it shares with heroin and cocaine, to class B - the category for so-called soft-drugs. The response to the report was for the most part reasonable and rational. The Police Federation has already backed the suggestion that ecstasy should be reclassified, while DrugScope, one of the UK's leading organisations dedicated to combating the problems of addiction, welcomed the tone of the report, saying it was right to concentrate on the importance of treatment rather than prevention. Only two voices expressed absolute opposition to the downgrading of ecstasy: David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, and Leah's parents, Paul and Janet Betts. In her widely-reported response Mrs Betts, said the committee was "totally misinformed" and challenged Tony Blair and Mr Blunkett to "have the balls" to stick by their earlier promise not to reclassify the rave drug. A few hours later, the Home Secretary did just that, rushing out a statement saying he was opposed categorically to changing the status of ecstasy: "Ecstasy can, and does, kill unpredictably and there is no such thing as a safe dose. "I believe it should remain class A. Reclassification of ecstasy is not on the government's agenda." The timing of the remarks added to the perception that the Betts family had a greater say on the government's approach towards drugs than a group of highly-respected MPs. The frequency with which the Betts comment on drug-related issues is an indication of their sincere and passionate views on the subject. But there is also a danger that in wishing to promote their message they have become a tool of those wishing to advance views which some regard as an impediment to improving our drug laws. A spokesman for one drugs charity said it was important to be sympathetic to those who had lost children through drugs but he questioned whether their influence on the wider debate was entirely benign. "It is very, very hard to have a sensible debate when there's understandable but extreme views about these issues. We think it is admirable that these families want to try to do something but their support doesn't always make for sensible policy and that's a difficult question and hard to address," he said. He believed many of those parents who had suffered the trauma of drug addiction first hand were unable to address the problem with sufficient perspective. "If they are able to look at the evidence, then the contribution they can make is fantastic but it can be hard to have a constructive debate when people have been personally affected by it. He also pointed out that Michael and Pauline Holcroft, who released photographs of their heroin-addicted daughter Rachel Whitear, have taken a different approach to the problem to the Betts, arguing for Britain to adopt Dutch-style treatment programmes. Another parent who has gone public, Fulton Gillespie, whose son Scott died of a heroin overdose two years ago, argued for all drugs to be legalised. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom