ecstasy safer than horse riding

[loopyloop]

I heard this on the radio this morning and had to track the article down to investigate!

Most amusing thing I've read all week, I may even go to my doctor and ask him what he prescribes for people suffering with equine addiction syndrome (equasy)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...rse-riding.html

What on earth will the Goverment come up with next?

 

[Seahorse]

Its ridiculous isn't it, I've just started a thread in SB too.

Equasy lol

 

[loopyloop]

Well and truly ridiculous!

Although my very political friend is currently debating it with me on Facebook!!

 

[hairycob]

If I wake up & it's a glorious sunny day & I would rather ride than go to the office could I legitimately call in sick? After all it would be because of my Equine Addiction Syndrome

 

[loopyloop]

Try it and let me know?

I might try and get a certificate from the docs?

 

[slingo1uk]

Yeah well he`s got the right name hasnt he Prof Nut lol

 

[TarrSteps]

Um, but he's trying to make a point, isn't he? He's not calling for control on riding, he's simply pointing out (a thought shared by lots of people involved in the debate) that things like drug control laws, help programs etc are not very well thought out or logically defended when you look at it from a completely objective view. People spend time and money on all sorts of dangerous things which CAN negatively impact on society (theft? head trauma? debt?) but we accept some and not others. Read all these "what have you hurt?" threads - you can't say people don't get hurt riding and the argument IS valid that more people die from it, if you want to see the stats go that way.

As far as addiction, well, look at what people do for horses! What's the difference, really? Why do they do it then? I think people are within their rights to do what they want so long as no one else gets hurt but that's his point.

I'm not trying to defend his view, just suggesting he isn't actually making a literal interpretation, just suggesting another side to the debate.

 

[Foxford]

I think you're onto something TarrSteps. I guess it's hurtful for us riders to have someone call our hobby "dangerous" and compare it to illegal drug use!! I think although riding has it's risks, it's a fairly wholesome sport and therefore I think the comparison is a bit off.
I certainly wouldn't like to be hacking my horse out and for someone to have a go at me becasue "it's dangerous". So is getting in a car and driving away, so is crosssing the road. I'm a scientist, I work with dangerous chamicals - silly me!! I should stop right away then?
I think he just picked the wrong thing to compare drug use to that's all.

I will read the paper when I get my library login on monday morning - and report back!

 

[skewbaldpony]

Well I just listened to the Nutty Professor on the News on R4, and I hope the BHS has something up its sleeve, because all the work that's been put in, promoting riding as a sport has now been swiftly undone.

 

[perfect11s]

Is anyone supprised !! its just typical of the stupid contrary way these so called "intellectuals" think... too many morons with degrees... and zero common sense... Thankyou prof nut (case) the men in white coats will see you now...

 

[amandaco2]

haha they looked at total numbers of deaths per year according to bbc news
in that case obviously ecstacy is not as dangerous as eating as more people die choking per year than taking the drug.(3000 vrs 30)


total rubbish-how many people ride per year and how many people take the drug per year?!professor nutt is obviously off his.


you cant just tot up the total number of deaths per year as a comparision.stupid.load of horse crap.lol

any chance they can look at other end points-such as the crime used to get money to fund the drug habit.dont know about you, but no horse riders i know go round robbing people to fund their dangerous riding habit!
or how many of them use/ go on to use other drugs and end up with other associated conditions-like HIV?and cause a great burden on the NHS with those associated issues?!

and lowering its class will only increase its use-which will increase deaths per year as it will carry less of a sentence if someone deals or possesses it so people wont have as much incentive NOT to take/deal it.

 

[Tribal]

Oh these topics always make me laugh. Especially when people have opinions when they dont even know what they're talking about.
Have any of you had personal experience from this subject?

Do you think he was attacking equestrianism? I didnt read it like that. I read it as an example comparison to an extra curricular activity.

You are probably having the opinion that I am defending him because I'm a user. Well you'd be right, I am a user, but not an abuser and there is the difference. But, I'm also an equestrian and a motorbike rider/racer, and I have a professional job, which Ive had days off from horse riding and motorbike incidents, and not the other as you are so lead to believe. So what does that make me? A miracle? No I'm one of the thousands of users who really knows the truth.

Right Im ready, bring on the abuse

 

[skewbaldpony]

Erm. I don't give a french fig what you use to destroy your mind with, but the nutty professor has obviously overdone it a bit, since his 'statistic' did not hold water.
On Radio Four last night, he claimed that if you considered three day eventing, the fatality rate went up to one for every ten hours taking part. Which is, if you will excuse the expression, billhooks.
It was a stupid and sensationalist thing to say, particularly given he has a professional position on the Advisory Council.
The man is an idiot, and how you spend your money has little to do with it.
Using his logic, the most dangerous occupation is travelling by car. Or breathing.

 

[amandaco2]

erm are you talking to me TH?

 

[Tribal]

Destroy my mind. That's hilarious and I would be concerned if it were true.
Do you drink alcohol? If you do then I need'nt say anymore, because in reality your brain cells are far more damaged than mine ever will be.

 

[Tribal]

Oh and for the record, I don't drink alcohol or smoke, nor any of the other things, which I really know are not to be touched or considered. As I am a well educated person and I know what things really do damage to your body and mind, and that are addictive, so I stay well clear.
I would assume everyone else would take the same stance on life and the reasons for their choices in life. Maybe I'm naive to think everyone's as intelligent as me

 

[skewbaldpony]

No, I think you're safe. I think most people are at least as intelligent as you

 

[skewbaldpony]

[ QUOTE ]
Destroy my mind. That's hilarious and I would be concerned if it were true.
Do you drink alcohol? If you do then I need'nt say anymore, because in reality your brain cells are far more damaged than mine ever will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the odd glass of red, yes. I know, I know, it means I'm not as intelligent as you.
But I find it keeps me humble, preserves my sense of the ridiculous, and wards off delusions of grandeur ......

And pissed as I may be, I can still put an apostrophe in the right place .....

 

[perfect11s]

[ QUOTE ]
Destroy my mind. That's hilarious and I would be concerned if it were true.
Do you drink alcohol? If you do then I need'nt say anymore, because in reality your brain cells are far more damaged than mine ever will be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Im fine with you poisoning yourself Im not happy with the crime it causes from the smuggling to the petty offences that blights comunitys, so while you are breaking the law and funding organised crime I would keep your destructive habbit to yourself...

 

[Tribal]

Ahh! Besides my bad grammar, at least you get my sense of humour.

And yes I agree with you "I have the odd glass of red", everything in moderation is fine, and that should apply to everything my friend, so don't alienate me just because what you do has been made legal and mine is not. We are both sensible in what we do with our choices.
The facts, even by the goverments own advisers is that alcohol is more dangerous than ecstacy and many other illegal substances. Yet I'm frowned upon and your not, yet your odd tipple is more damaging and mine is not, where is the justice in that?

 

[Tribal]

I dont have a habit. I'd be lucky if its more than 4 times a year. I dont steal and commit other crimes, so why am I held responsible for other peoples actions.

Why, are you responsible for mothers and fathers dieing from liver damage, or the usual Friday/Saturday night brawls when the pubs shut, or woman who's just been beaten to a pulp by her drunken partner, or the kids that have to fend for themselves because their parents are so drunk to care for them.

Drinking alcohol does all that, but do I blame you for that. Be reasonable in this conversation please.

 

[Starbucks]

I can see what he's trying to get at in a way, but I think he could have worded it a bit better. I think the reason he's used horse riding as an example is that it's not really thought of as an "extreme" sport, it's a normal sport that normal people of all ages take part in.

He is probably right though - horse riding is pretty dangerous!

I think the point is that taking ecstasy isn't that dangerous and neither does it cause too many problems in society.

The hunting bit made me chuckle!

 

[Tribal]

Yes he could have worded it a whole lot better AND he should have also highlighted that to a developing mind, the younger generation that is, that any mind altering substance be that ecstasy or alcohol or whatever, it is dangerous.

If these people want to educate others by going public then they should just stick to the facts, both pro's and con's.
And if the goverment made it legal they could control it more and cut out the real crim's who do make it bad for the rest of the decent people out there.
Everyone says we deserve freedom of choice as well as speech, but you will always get the minority who make the wrong choice by poor education or leadership and it is these that spoil it for the majority be that in alcohol or anything else.

 

[rubykiz]

i think it is totlay pathetic saying that , i know the drug is very harmfull but if somone was thinking about taking it asnd turned on horse and country and saw horse being good and not being crazy ect they would think it obv isent that bad then ..... stupid

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
i think it is totlay pathetic saying that , i know the drug is very harmfull but if somone was thinking about taking it asnd turned on horse and country and saw horse being good and not being crazy ect they would think it obv isent that bad then ..... stupid


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not about horses being stupid though, all kinds of accidents can happen with horses and it doesn't have to involve them misbehaving. I don't see why people think the idea of horse riding being dangerous is such a crazy concept - of course it is!!

 

[Tribal]

Keh!? Did I miss something???

 

[Rachi]

I took it quite lightly, and found it somewhat amusing. I said to my Mum "I may as well start taking E then." lol.
The 'fact' itself seems a bit off, but I'm not really reading much into it, 'pinch of salt' and all.

 

[amandaco2]

well i drink a glass of wine every now and again-this does NO harm at all.in fact they think a glass of red can have benefits to the heart.
excessive drinking that is a problem-and it is a huge problem-there are so many people putting a drain on the NHS with all sorts of related incidents and illnesses.
i dont think anyone doubts or disputes that.
can you die from a glass of wine?very very unlikely.
can you die from one ecstacy tablet-the chances are higher!

is ecstacy safer than riding?based on total deaths per year?erm surely common sense says the two arent comparable on the basis of such simple statistics!lol.im flummuxed why a professor would say such a frankly stupid thing based on such an unsound basis.


has anyone considered what the tablets are often cut with-bit of rat poison,talc or other medicines anyone?!
anyone thought about the process of actually getting the stuff made-it funds criminal activity and can cause all sorts of human rights issues.because of the amounts of money to be made, declassifying it is unlikely to prevent this anymore than is possible now.

and besides all that is this-it is an illegal activity. therefore as a person who is law abiding and of some sort of intelligance i choose not to do it!
MY professional body would strike me off if i was involved in anything like that.

 

[TarrSteps]

The idea that the prime "risks" of the use of ecstasy are crime, possible contamination etc is, I think, part of the point he's trying (not very well, perhaps) to make. That it's not necessarily the drug itself that hurts people the most, it's the way the drug fits into society. If riding was outlawed tomorrow do we all think everyone who has one would give it up? I doubt it. (Has everyone stopped hunting . . ?) They would simply start breaking the law to continue to get the pleasure they seek.

I know that's heavy handed but to say the damage from "soft" drugs is because they're illegal and that's why they need to be illegal . . . Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be (I have my own opinions but again, his point is we should be talking FACTS not opinions) just that the argument doesn't really pan out when we "allow", as a society, so many dangerous things that exist merely to give people pleasure. Why one and not the other?

As to the people who say the risks of taking something like ecstasy are greater than riding, I'd like to see the proof. Last I checked, riding was classed as the second most dangerous sport next to motorcycle racing. You only have to read the magazine that sponsors this board to be aware that people die every year from riding accidents, often doing pretty benign stuff. (When was the last jump jockey death? But in the last half year or so we've had at least one hunting death and one child die in a low level competition, just to point out 2 that come easily to mind.)

It really isn't an attack on riding. There might be, depending on your beliefs, all sorts of reasons why people should not be allowed to take soft drugs (although the alcohol thing does justifiably come up) but quoting "safety" doesn't really stand up when we let people do so many dangerous things. If the idea is that we should protect people from themselves . . . well, look how hard people on here scream about the increasing burden of H&S, how it prevents people now taking the risks they ENJOYED taking as youngsters themselves, and how much they hate being dictated to in the name of "social responsibility". If you're going to take the libertarianism outlook to the extreme logical end . . .

Btw, for what it's worth, I think the cost of taking drugs, in both the literal and metaphorical sense, is much higher than for riding horses. And riding GIVES so much more, which also tips the relative "risk vs reward" balance. Not to mention, I suspect (a quick trawl around the internet for stats supports this) if you look at the statistics one is far more likely to end up damaged or dead doing drugs than riding horses. BUT your chances of ending up damaged or dead (average about 10 people are year, apparently) from riding horses is much higher than for, say, playing tennis or watching a movie.

All in all, I think the report is silly and am surprised someone in that position went with that approach. I suspect he was trying to use humour to prove his point and it backfired, big time. But that still doesn't explain why so many people risk their necks (often without even the most basic attention to risk management), garner crushing debt, and generally give up a great deal to ride and have horses . . . .

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
well i drink a glass of wine every now and again-this does NO harm at all.in fact they think a glass of red can have benefits to the heart.
excessive drinking that is a problem-and it is a huge problem-there are so many people putting a drain on the NHS with all sorts of related incidents and illnesses.
i dont think anyone doubts or disputes that.
can you die from a glass of wine?very very unlikely.
can you die from one ecstacy tablet-the chances are higher!

is ecstacy safer than riding?based on total deaths per year?erm surely common sense says the two arent comparable on the basis of such simple statistics!lol.im flummuxed why a professor would say such a frankly stupid thing based on such an unsound basis.


[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense would say ... from what I've read...
2 million riders in the UK - 100 deaths=0.006%
Ecstacy users 500,000 - 30 deaths=0.010%

The horsey one is based on someones estimation on here - so not accurate.

I think that is comparable and I work in stats.