Science Communication Officer Holly Wood-Blake explores the stigma and misinformation engrained in discussions about ketamine in popular culture.
If you consume media about drugs, you’ve probably seen or heard ketamine referred to as a ‘horse tranquilliser’. Maybe the journalist even included a picture of a horse, for maximum impact. In the past couple of months alone, I’ve observed horse-related ketamine references in news reports, sector publications, and at conferences. For me, the conflation of ketamine with horse tranquillisers has come to epitomise the casual stigma and misinformation around drugs.
I may be slightly unusual for my generation in that I actually knew about ketamine as a veterinary medicine before I knew about it as a party drug – probably because I was a young animal-obsessed, wannabe vet before I was a (non-veterinary science) student attending Bristol house parties in the 2010s.
It’s not incorrect that ketamine is used to tranquillise horses. Within veterinary medicine, ketamine is used as an anaesthetic on lots of animals, most commonly cats and dogs. So why not call it a ‘cat tranquilliser’? My theory is that the media’s proclivity towards horse references comes from the saying ‘enough to knock out a horse’. It implies a stronger, more dangerous drug, and so makes for a more interesting story.
This is illustrated by a recent, rather surreal video from VICE, whose drug reporting is often very good, but which in this case featured footage of a horse being put under sedation using ketamine. The video’s title was “Ketamine was developed as a horse anaesthetic. One gram is enough to sedate a 600kg animal”. Never mind the fact that a typical recreational dose of ketamine is a fraction of that, so this is a bit like pointing out that three bottles of wine could sedate a 90kg person. Factually correct, but not especially useful information.
That VICE title also includes a claim I’ve seen repeated across news outlets of all different stripes – that ketamine was ‘originally’ designed for use on horses. I couldn’t find any evidence for this. It was first synthesised by Dr Calvin Stevens in 1962, who was looking for a safer form of anaesthesia to phencyclidine (PCP). Ketamine was subsequently developed as a human anaesthetic and used to treat wounded soldiers during the Vietnam war. Which brings me to…
Ketamine is well established for use in human medicine. It is widely used as an anaesthetic, including for children and in emergency and military settings, partly because it is less likely than many other anaesthetics to interfere with breathing. It also providers pain relief. This is a really important point when we’re thinking about drug regulation because tighter controls can make it harder to access medicines for legitimate medical purposes.
In my research for this article, I also came across several harm reduction sites that referred to ketamine as ‘sometimes called ‘horse tranquilliser”. As a communications professional in the drugs sector, I know it can be helpful to use slang or street names for drugs, particularly when the scientific name is very rarely used (no one’s picking up a leaflet about methylenedioxymethamphetamine). But ‘horse tranquilliser’ isn’t a common street name for ketamine, so I don’t think including a reference to it is adding anything.
Referring to ketamine as a ‘horse tranquilliser’ can reinforce stigma. It implies that people who use ketamine recreationally somehow lack self-respect, or that they’re taking something unsuitable for human use. Not only is this misleading, but stigmatising language can also put people off getting support. And finally…
Accurate information about drugs always matters! Ketamine is a good example of why. There are important conversations happening about its harms, how best to support people experiencing problems with its use, and whether changing its legal classification would help. These are complicated questions, and sensationalist or misleading language doesn’t help us answer them. If we want people to understand the risks of ketamine use, seek support when they need it, and engage in informed debates about drug policy, surely we should be focusing on the evidence rather than perpetuating misconceptions?
Holly Wood-Blake joined the SSA as a Science Communication Officer in January 2026, having previously worked in policy, public affairs, and research communication roles in the drug and alcohol treatment sector. Holly holds a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Bristol and a Master’s degree in Public Policy from the University of Bath. Her MSc dissertation, ‘This is your brain on discourse: A poststructuralist analysis of how ‘harm’ is conceptualised in the classification of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971’, explored how ideas of harm are constructed and applied within UK drug policy. She is particularly interested in how language, evidence, and problem framing shape policymaking, public understanding, and service design, especially in relation to addiction and multiple disadvantage. Holly has previously written about drug classification for the SSA, as well as a policy guide for early career researchers and tips for responding to disinformation as a scientist.
The opinions expressed in this post reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions or official positions of the SSA.
The SSA does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information in external sources or links and accepts no responsibility.
