What is an acceptable risk

A few weeks ago Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs got into political hot water for suggesting that taking ecstasy was less dangerous than riding a horse. In purely statistical terms he is correct, in that more people are killed or seriously hurt in riding accidents each year than from taking ecstasy. The Home Secretary's anxieties about headlines in such papers as The Daily Mail must have led her to make predictable statements about the use of illicit substances, admonishing Professor Nutt and preventing her from engaging in a proper debate about risk.

In the US there are even more absurd reactions to risks. In California in 2005 (according to a report on Salon-com) a teenager kissed her boyfriend and died (apparently because he had recently eaten a peanut butter sandwich and she was allergic to it). Campaigners claim that around 150 US citizens die from anaphylaxis each year and many families no longer buy peanut butter. All this pales into insignificance compared with the 1,300 deaths from accidents with guns in the US. I have yet to hear of any Americans who have decided to clear their cupboards of firearms.

Meanwhile, back in London, I have a teenage daughter who used to ride and, aged 10, fell off and fractured her forearm. Was she unlucky or was I being cavalier? More importantly, now that she is a lot older, I am far more concerned about the amount of alcohol that the under-25s seem to imbibe than the drugs they take: in that respect they really are a danger to themselves.

Olivia Timbs