IT'S tempting to say that the number of times this column's been drawn into the ecstasy debate doesn't bear thinking about. Unfortunately, it does.
Each time we're moved to comment means someone's life's been ruined, maybe even lost.
The same is true today.
In putting Anthony O'Shea behind bars for four years, Judge Michael Mott has decided to "ram the lesson home" that the drug is dangerous, and to persuade others that dealing in it is unwise.
Unwise because of the trail of devastation O'Shea has left among his family and friends.
Unwise because of the trail of death he could have triggered.
Let's be honest. The 140 tablets found on him could have resulted in 140 more people like Anita Gair or Leah Betts ending up in intensive care, then a mortuary, then a grave.
While we're thinking of that, we shouldn't forget the individual who set the 19-year-old off on his ill-fated road by supplying the tablets which sparked his addiction. There are many more like him, willing to prey on our community.
Amazingly, there's still a hardened core of opinion which would have us believe that the so-called rave drug isn't as dangerous as people like us make out. That argument's plainly ridiculous.
There's no reason to take ecstasy or any other recreational drug - just as there'd be no reason for stepping into the middle of the M5 and taking your chance. The risk would be similar.
If there's one thing the story of an ecstasy death tells us, it's that the thrill of taking one isn't worth the potential consequences. If O'Shea's fate tells us another - thanks to Judge Mott - it's that supplying isn't worth it either.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article