Drug Rehab and Alcohol Rehab

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21244194

As the debate about minimum pricing of alcohol rages on can we look abroad for an indication of its potential impact?  The experience of Saskatchewan, a Canadian prairie province, suggests that minimum pricing can lower alcohol consumption and in turn reduce the number of alcohol related deaths.  However there still remains an opinion that minimum alcohol pricing will not effectively tackle problem drinking.

What do you think?

Writing in The Lancet leading liver experts say poor alcohol regulation in the UK could lead to quarter of a million deaths in the next two decades. The doctors have suggested that if certain measures are put in place, including imposing a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, the death rate could be reduced by a third.

The debate continues to rage about how much the coalition government is doing to address the huge issue of alcohol related deaths. Sir Richard Thompson, President of the Royal College of Physicians asked “how many more people have to due from alcohol-related conditions….before the government takes the situation as seriously as it took tobacco?”.

The doctors, lead by Professor Sir Ian Gilmore said “Alcohol is not an ordinary commodity like soap powder…It is a drug, it happens to be legal, but it is a drug and there are more the 1.5 million people addicted to alcohol. We think, like other areas of public health, like smoking, like seatbelts, there is a strong case for tougher regulation and the most effective regulation would be around price”.

The current situation in the UK has been compared to 1960s France when liver disease deaths were related to the consumption of cheap alcohol – changes in marketing and price regulation altered this situation. Can the same change happen here? Surely as well as a change in price there has to be a significant shift in the way that addiction is recognised and treated? What are your thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12107971

The above link relates to an article expressing a call to ban self-service tills for buying alcohol. The Scottish National Party’s Stewart Maxwell is suggesting to retailers that they act responsibly and voluntarily end the use of self-service tills for the sale of alcohol. It is suggested that having one supervisor overseeing a number of self-service tills makes it difficult to accurately monitor customer’s ages, hence allowing under age customers to buy alcohol undetected. Many self service tills require manual authorisation by an assistant when age restricted items are being purchased, do you think this is enough to prevent under age drinkers from purchasing alcohol or should the use of self-service tills be banned for all age restricted items?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11138535

Research is demonstrating that problem drinking is more prevelent in some parts of the country compared with others (see above link to BBC news article).   Recent research published by the North West Public Health Observatory has found some stark regional divisions, with two thirds of alcohol related harm occuring in the north. 

Health minister Lord Howe said the government was already taking action to stop the sale of alcohol below cost and to review alcohol taxation and price.  However he acknowledged that increasing the cost of alcohol alone will not tackle the huge amount of alcohol related health problems and crime our nation is experiencing:

“Supply and price are not the only factors fuelling misuse though, attitudes are crucial. We need to understand better the psychology behind why different groups of people drink too much. Legislation or initiatives will not work unless we have a better understanding of what drives people’s decisions.”

What are your thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10784060

‘24-hour drinking culture failed’.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: “The benefits promised by the 24-hour drinking ‘cafe culture’ have failed to materialise and in its place we have seen an increase in the number of alcohol related incidents and drink fuelled crime and disorder.”

This comes before an expected plan to overhaul licensing laws to tackle alcohol related violent crime, which has increased since the implementation of 24-hour drinking.

The new laws are intending to support local communities and to punish those venues that are deemed to facilitate violent crimes.

Does it come as a surprise to you that the 24-hour drinking laws in the UK have not produced any benefits, but rather caused more problems? Do you think the concerns about trying to encourage a cafe culture should have been considered more carefully before the laws were passed or is it only with hindsight we can see what a failure this concept has been?

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/health/10207827.stm

The link above refers to a story published this morning on the BBC website. The story advises that a health watchdog has now backed the call for a minimum price per unit of alcohol in the UK.

Do you agree with opinion such as that of Dr Robin Purshouse of Sheffield University that raising the  cvminimum price per unit of alcohol will result in fewer alcohol related deaths and hospital admissions and alcohol related crime OR do you agree with opinions such as that of Simon Litherland of Diageo GB: “Minimum pricing, self evidently, is not going to address alcohol misuse by heavy drinkers because people logic alone tells you that people who have a problem are going to go to any end to actually obtain alcohol.”

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://www.hse.gov.uk/alcoholdrugs/drugs.htm
Above is a link to the Directgov website, specifically the ‘Health and Safety Executive’. Below is an extract from the site discussing employment substance misuse policies and drug testing:

“Drug and other substance (e.g. solvent) misuse is everyone’s concern. In the context of work, not only does it damage the misuser’s health, but it can cost employers through absenteeism and reduced productivity. It may also increase the risk of accidents. Employers should adopt a substance misuse policy, in consultation with their staff. This policy should aim to support affected employees rather than punish them, though your policy must say that possession or dealing in drugs at work will be reported immediately to the Police. If an employee admits to being a drug user, your policy should seek to help them rather than lead simply to dismissing them.

The advice clearly states that any drugs policy or screening programme should be implemented with the intention of helping employees that are experiencing drug problems. In reality is this how substance misuse policies are interpreted by employees and do they feel that a positive drug test result will mean they get help or get the sack?

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?