Drug Rehab and Alcohol Rehab

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

The above link refers to a story published on the BBC website that describes the UK as ‘floundering’ in its attempts to control the online mephedrone market.

Mephedrone and other similar drugs are a thriving trade – as is the case with mephedrone and Naphyrone, once one substance is banned there is another waiting to takes its place. So what is the answer? The quicker one drug is banned and replaced the less we know about the new transient chemical – surely this is increasing the health risk? Most of the time experts advise that users don’t even know what chemical they are taking, let alone the sort and long term consequences of the drug? In fact it is unlikely that the internet dealers that are selling the drugs know exactly what it is that they are selling.

So what do we do about this problem? If all new chemicals are banned (think about the logistics of actually doing this!) will it make any difference or will it just increase the health risk people know less and less about what they are taking?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8700638.stm

The link above refers to a BBC news story about a student in Sussex University selling mephedrone to an undercover reporter.  Does the story reflect that criminalising mephedrone has had any impact on its use in the UK aside from increasing the price per sale?

The ban was partly put in place in reaction to a number of deaths associated with the drug, however conclusive evidence of cause of the deaths is yet to be established.   Has criminalising mephedrone had an effect on how many young people are using it and what else could be done to prevent mephedrone related deaths?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8653498.stm

This link above refers to a news article published on the BBC website about the first mephedrone related arrest in Wales.

Is this the kind of news story you expected to see two weeks after mephedrone was banned?  Do you think that the ban will reduce the number of people using mephedrone in the UK?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/7499937/Liverpool-John-Moores-University-students-in-mephedrone-experiment.html

As the debate about mephedrone rages on, 50 students attending Liverpool John Moores University have taken part in an experiment - the idea is to hold structured interviews with the subjects to record how they feel after taking the drug.

Dr Cathy Montgomery, the psychology lecturer behind the research said: “During these tests, the university makes it clear they do not condone drug use.

“Until now, most evidence comes from people anecdotally. We will be holding structured interviews with users, asking them how they feel at different time points.

Whilst Liberal Democrat MP John Pugh, who represents Southport, Merseyside has branded the study “highly irresponsible”, the question remains, should we be taking more steps to understand more about mephedrone as oppose to simply banning it?  Would banning it alone prevent any more people using it?  Should we concentrate our resources on researching effects of legal highs so at least people are informed?

What do you think of the university experiment??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/17/mephedrone-explained-plant-food-miaow

The above link is in reference to an article published by The Guardian this morning. Yesterday two teenagers died after using mephedrone and there has been a public outcry for the reclassification of the drug. Currently legal in the UK, mephedrone, not to be confused with methadone, has been deemed as the possible drug of the next decade. In the 90’s there was ecstasy, in the 00’s there was cocaine and ketamine and now it would seem the party drug of choice is rapidly becoming mephedrone (or m-Cat as it is commonly known).

The major concern about this drug is not dissimilar to that of other drugs that have come up the club rankings since the 70’s – what are the long terms effects, what are the chances of overdosing etc. However, perhaps the most controversial element of this debate is the fact that mephedrone is legal to buy, which may be a significant indicator of why children as young as 11 have been turning up at school high on mephedrone. This touches on the wider debate of legal highs. Are legal highs any safer than illicit drugs (or could it even be a case where some illicit highs are dubbed safer by the recreational drug taking community than legal highs?). Despite the actual chemical make up of these drugs and whether they are deemed to be safe or not by experts, surely the legal status of such drugs gives an illusion of safety if they are legal?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7053731/Children-12-taking-legal-high-drug-meow-meow-on-school-bus.html

The above link is to an article published in the Telegraph that refers to children aged 12 and up taking ‘meow meow’ (

Mephedrone) during their bus ride to school. The drug, which has been compared to ecstasy (but with side effects including convulsions, hallucinations, nose bleeds, headaches, breathing problems and in some cases cardiac arrest) is starting to be widely seen amongst school children - it’s cheap, easily available, but using it presents far more risks that it’s ‘legal high’ label suggests.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Legal-Highs-Frank-Campaign-Is-Not-Eough-Says-Family-Of-Drug-Death-Girl-Hester-Stewart/Article/200909315385088?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_15385088_Legal_Highs%3A_Frank_Campaign_Is_Not_Enough%2C_Says_Family_Of_Drug_Death_Girl_Hester_Stewart

The above link is to an article published on the Sky News website that refers to the death of 21 year old, Hester Stewart, who died a few hours after using GBL. GBL is currently legal, although is reported to be classified as class C later this year.

The family has criticised the home office and the ‘Crazy Chemist’ Talk To Frank campaign and state that this young woman would still be alive if she had been aware of the dangers.

There are two points here, one the pointless loss of a young life and the other wider picture: Whist it is clear that classifying drugs as illegal does not stop people from using them, conversely, does classifying drugs as legal make people think they are safe (or at least safer than their illegal alternatives?).

If this is the case then when is education going to change? Isn’t it about time that alcohol and other legal drugs, such as OTC pain killers are considered in the substance abuse equation more readily?

Do you think campaigns like the Crazy Chemist are effective or widespread enough ti actually make a difference?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8255418.stm

The link above refers to the news story published by the BBC this morning regarding three clinics who have been trialling a new approach to address heroin addiction. Over the past 6 months these clinics have been supplying heroin for over 100 heroin addicts – the scheme involves clients attending a clinic twice a day for supervised injecting – unlike previous treatment plans, these clinics are not just using methadone, but also heroin.

The findings that have been reported this morning include a reduction in personal use of street drugs, meaning less money being spent on the illegal drug market and a reduction in crime. However, at £15,000 per person per year the NTA is considering the financial implications of the scheme. Aside from finances (treatment is reported to be three times as expensive as alternative treatment, but roughly three times cheaper than a year long prison sentence), this trial has raised many points…Some about the individual and some about crime and money….
For example, whilst the news report this morning suggested the scheme is designed to stabilise heroin addicts, it said nothing about the end goal – I.e. how long do individuals attend the scheme, what does completing the programme result in – safer using or recovery? Additionally, whilst the report advised that the 127 participants involved in the scheme had failed at other kinds of treatment, they have not reported any details. There is a proportion of addicts who do not successfully complete treatment the first time – this can be due many reasons, not least because the individual has gone into a unsuitable clinic and has been unable to engage. The point is, would £15,000 be better spent on 6 months of rehab where addicts learn to live drug free in a supervised and supportive environment, or do you think this new scheme will path the way to a healthily population and a serious reduction in drug related crime?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/jul/25/gary-reinbach-alcoholic-madeline-hanshaw

Above is a link to an article published in The Guardian over the weekend that writes about Gary Reinbach, a 22 year old who died from liver failure last week. The article discusses his mothers experience of her son’s drinking and ultimately his death as well as more general issues, such as should an alcoholic be given a liver transplant if there is a chance they may start to drink again? Surely there is always a chance that an addict will return to drinking or using, but they deserve the opportunity to get into recovery and that requires specialist help.

As Gary’s mother discusses and reject, the population have attributed a far proportion of blame to her for Gary’s death, but it is also clear that if Gary was eligible for a transplant he may well still be alive, so who should decide if someone should or should not be given a second chance? A key point is that if more alcoholics were treated in suitable rehab clinics then there would not be so much demand for livers or indeed so many alcohol related deaths.

What is most shocking about this tragic story is that a man aged 22 years old could die from a condition that is widely associated with older people who have 40 years old alcohol abuse under their belts. Indeed, even Dr Nick Sheron, a liver specialist has been shocked by the number of liver failure cases he has seen in young people.

“What Luke and his mates have discovered the hard way is what liver specialists like Dr Nick Sheron, of Southampton General hospital, have been saying for some time: that young people who abuse alcohol heavily will suffer the same consequences that older people who’ve been abusing it for many years do; in other words, their livers will fail.

The lost of this young man’s life not only highlights the severity of alcohol abuse, but also emphasises the need for people who are experiencing problems with alcohol to seek help no matter how old they are.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mindenhancing-drugs-are-they-a-nobrainer-1708988.html

The link above directs you to an article published by the Independent that addresses the issue of mind altering drugs and their place in academia. Whilst the article discusses various drugs that are now becoming popular amongst students, all of which are used widely in other areas (for example Ritalin, used to treat children with ADHD) the main gist revolves around a highly debated suggestion from John Harris, director of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics. The distinguished Professor of Bioethics says it is time to embrace the possibilities of ‘brain boosters’ and chemical cognitive enhancement.

Do you think it is fair that healthy students take mind enhancing drugs to concentrate harder in exams? If yes, then who should the drugs be made available to? And if no, then what’s the difference between taking performance enhancing drugs in the context of studying and getting extra help in the form of tuition?

Regardless of the answer to the above questions, is it too late anyway as all these drugs are easily accessible on the Internet and it would seem that at least some of the world wide population of students have been embracing the concept of mind enhancing drugs for years…