Can we learn about alcohol pricing from other countries?

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?

Quarter of a million alcohol related deaths in the next 20 years?

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?

 

Self-Service tills and opportunity for under age purchasing of alcohol...

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?

 

 

 

We need to understand the psychology of drinking

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?

'24-hour drinking culture failed'

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?

 

Online chemical crackdown breaking down?

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?

"Watchdog backs a minimum price for alcohol"...

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."

 

Caught on camera...

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?

 

Employee drug testing - intention versus result...

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.

Some employers have decided to adopt drug screening as part of their drug policy. If you think you want to do the same, think very carefully about what you want screening to do, and what you will do with the information it generates. Screening by itself will never be the complete answer to problems caused by drug misuse.

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?

Mephedrone – just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe?

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?

Meow Meow - legal high, but for how long?

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.

Prof. Nutt Debate - the resignations continue...

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?

 

Prof. Nutt - what do you think?

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?

 

1 in 2 weekend ambulance calls out related to alcohol...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6262963/Two-thirds-of-Scottish-ambulance-weekend-call-outs-linked-to-alcohol.html

The above link refers to an article published in the Telegraph regarding the number of Scottish ambulance weekend calls out that are related to alcohol. The article discusses the statistics that suggest that two thirds of weekend ambulance call outs are directly related to alcohol.

The Scottish Ambulance Service complained that these cases were delaying medics' response times to real emergencies and gave it's backing to 'any initiative' that would see the numbers drop.

“SNP ministers hailed the figures as support for their controversial plan to introduce a minimum price for alcohol, mooted at 40p per unit”.

“This would increase the price of cheap lager and cider brought in shops and supermarkets, but most beverages purchased in pubs and clubs already cost more than this threshold”.

“Cathy Jamieson, the Scottish party’s health spokesman, said: “This situation cannot be allowed to continue because if ambulance crews are attending to drunks they may not be available for a genuine emergency.”

Robert Brown, Scottish Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, said: “Alcohol-related call outs are largely preventable if, as a nation, we can adopt a more responsible approach to alcohol consumption.”

 

 

The Crazy Chemist - making a point or pointless?

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?

 

Heroin supply clinic - cuts crime? Other thoughts?

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?

Pregnancy and illegal drugs - enough info and support or not?

If you want to stop smoking there is a host of government funded initiatives to support you - groups, one 2 ones, telephone buddies, patches, chewing gum, inhalers, giving up plans and tools to help you break your own individual smoking cycle....There is even a section dedicated to helping pregnant mothers to stop smoking (also how father's smoking can impact on unborn children). However, there seems to be a significant lack of readily available information regarding how illegal drug use during pregnancy can affect your unborn child.

It is common knowledge that using any substance when pregnant has the potential to cause negative consequences for developing babies, but it is interesting that you can watch numerous videos of a foetus' reactions to cigarette smoke, but getting the medical facts on how illegal drugs affect your unborn child is not nearly as accessible. Could this be a reflection of our countries determination to ignore wide spread drug use and addiction or is it that the facts, as it were, are still relatively unknown?

Should there me more information on how illicit drugs affect pregnant woman and their developing children even if the facts are still unclear?

 

Binge drinking UK Versus Wine cultured continent?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8157725.stm

The article above refers to the recent changes in alcohol consumption laws in Milan. Milan has always embraced wine as part of the local culture – children and young adults included. The easy going attitude of Italians to their younger population drinking is about to change, but these new laws have not been welcomed by all – especially not the bar tenders who feel they have effectively been asked to police Milan's young people.

“In a country where for centuries wine has been part of local culture – and prohibition would be unthinkable – the ban has come as a shock.”

But how will this change in policy impact on the children who it is designed to help? Children as young as 11 years old are experiencing alcohol related problems in Milan. The idea is that if alcohol is not so freely available that younger people will not develop so many problems, but what about the children who are already experiencing problems?

In a country like the UK, where alcohol has never been part of the growing up experience, at least not in local cultures across the board, we often discuss if relaxing the drinking laws so alcohol is not such a mystery until late teenage years would halt the binge drinking we see devastating teenage lives – do you think this would be the case or has culture just changed too much in recent years for relaxed drinking laws to work in any European country?

 

 

Close our only unique specialist young persons unit? = madness

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jun/15/health-drugs

The above links refers to an article published in The Guardian that discusses the potential closure of Middlegate – Britain's only specialist residential drug and alcohol unit for young people. Whilst the article makes points about the development of new and alternative services to units like Middlegate, it remains a travesty to our society that our only facility geared up solely to deal with severe substance abuse problems in our young population is facing closure – and why? It seems to come down to finances. Treatment is not inexpensive, but it is life saving and whilst intense residential treatment is not needed by everyone, we are kidding ourselves if we think that losing a specialist facility like Middlegate is anything but a crying shame. We need to wake up and stop ignoring the fact that children as young as 11 and 12 are using hard drugs – having a place for young people to get the help they really need, and not just a few counselling sessions a month, is vital for the recovery of many young people; what we need is more places like Middlegate, not to rid our country of the only unit of it's kind.

'Nice people take drugs' campaign - to the point or missing it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/09/nice-people-drugs-ads-pulled

The link above refers to an article published in The Guardian today about the human rights charity Release latest drug campaign and the governments instructions to remove their bus posters that use the strapline 'Nice People Take Drugs'. The chief executive of Release has accused the advertising regulators of censorship and politicians of being frightened to have an open debate about drug use in the UK.

Saville, the chief executive of Release, said getting their message across was vital to constructive debate. "I believe that the time has come where potential leaders of our country have much to gain from real honesty about drug use in the UK, including their own drug use," he added. "The intellectual debate on drug control has been won and we must stop allowing politicians to adopt fundamentalist and unscientific policies solely out of fear of upsetting a handful of moral crusaders."

What do you think about the campaign and the poster that are at the centre of an on going debate about how drug use should be addressed? Moreover, if you think the strapline should be changed, what should it be changed to?