Drug Rehab and Alcohol Rehab

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?

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.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8353685.stm

The link above will take to you a article published by the BBC that reports that three more government advisers have resigned after Mr Johnson sacked his chief drugs adviser, Prof. David Nutt.

Whilst the ACMD have been in discussions with the Home Office about how to work effectively with each other, it would seem that the sacking of Prof. Nutt for ‘crossing a line’ into politics has had a significant impact, so far resulting in 5 council members resigning.

On one hand the Home Office is publishing positive statements about how to go forward – on the other hand, many people, including the Lib Dem’s science spokesman relay further criticism:
“The fact the resignations come after Alan Johnson met the ACMD demonstrates he just doesn’t get it when it comes to the importance of respecting the academic freedom and integrity of independent, unpaid, science adviser.”

What do you think about politics and science and will the Home Office continue to pay for their decision with more resignations?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6509297/MPs-demand-answers-over-Nutt-sacking.html

The link above refers to an article published by The Telegraph that discusses the letter that the Commons Science and Technology Committee has written to Mr Johnson requesting details about the sacking of Prof. Nutt - specifically if he had breached the terms of his contract or the codes of practise before he was forced to resign.

There is much controversy over the sacking of one the countries leading advisors - what do you think?  Do politics and science have some common ground or if researched based evidence at odds with what the government thinks we need to know?