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.”

 

 

Freshers week drinking - problem or right of passage?

Over the last few weeks numerous reports regarding 'freshers week' drinking have been aired on the television, heard on the radio and read about on the internet. Some stories have focused on the fact that first year university students can go out on a pub crawl expecting to buy a pint for a £1 and a shot for as little as 20p. Other broadcasts have looked at the 'chaperone' service that pub crawl leaders (older students) are offering, I.e. having fun and drinking responsibility, and whether it is actually possible with low drink prices and inexperienced teenagers. Whilst others argue that going to 10 pubs at a pound a pint is not drinking responsibly. Some news reports have touched on the facts that some of the older student population drink as irresponsibly as those in their first few weeks despite having more experience of drinking and university life.

The problem with generalising about freshers week is that whilst there appears to be a general trend in 18 year old students getting heavily intoxicated, this is not limited to freshers week and nor does it extend to all new students. The mentally of 18 years old moving into halls having never been away from home before and never experienced drinking alcohol before can perhaps mean that they are not equipped to cope with the inevitable (?) binge drinking that is likely to ensue, but surely that applies to everyone, regardless of whether they go to uni or not? Do you think that first week university binge drinking is a major problem, or like some of the students (new and old) that have been answering blogs all over the UK – is it just a right of passage? And if so, are you agreeing that the beneficial consequences (sociality, experience....) outweigh the negative consequences (alcohol poisoning, hospital admissions, accidents...)

 

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?

 

DrugScope 2009 Survey - purity low = mixing high...

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/ourwork/pressoffice/pressreleases/Street_drug_trends_2009.htm

The above link refers to the 'DrugScope Street Drug Trends Survey 2009: Falling illegal drug purity 'accelerates trend' in uses combining different drugs'.

This survey emphasises that recreational use and substance addiction is unlikely to involve just one drug. Whilst the purity of drugs (such as cocaine have fallen to as low as 2% on the illegal market) has contributed to poly drug use there are also other motivations for the increase in people using a mixture of drugs. A significant proportion of users report using alcohol with illegal drugs, but the rise in the popularity of 'legal highs' and prescription drugs have added to the problem of 'mixing'.

When you think of addiction or recreational drug use how many drugs come to mind? Four? Five? Maybe more? The facts are that substance abuse does not revolve around a few drugs, but a huge variety of legal, illegal and new substances that have unreported effects, especially when mixed with other drugs. It is well known that Benzodiazepines when mixed with alcohol can be extremely dangerous, but what about drugs that are only just registering on the radars of many support groups? Ketamine is a prime example, it has been available on the streets of the UK for over 10 years, but how many GPs know about the drug and how it is used?

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?

Hidden Addiction...

The stereotype of addicts is accurate and outdated. True or false?

Does the general population think of alcoholics as people holding white labelled bottles on park benches and of heroin addicts as homeless? If so, why is this...films, narrow minded TV documentaries and biased news reports? But what about the wider picture – the hidden addicts? The majority of addicts are not stereotypical, in fact their addictions are largely hidden from their families, friends and employers. Do we really know what we are looking for when we define someone an addict? For example, sex and love addictions as well as gambling and eating disorders are prevalent in the UK, but not so widely acknowledged as drug and alcohol addictions, at least not in films and journalism.

How can we provide support for all addicts if we don't know how to identify an active addiction? If you are worried about changes in a persons behaviour it might not be anything to do with an addiction, however it could also be directly to do with an addiction that we just don't see – or choose to see. Currently, there are hundreds of drivers who are over the drink drive limit, hundreds of people using at lunch time and hundreds of people who are hiding their addictions from the world around them – not everyone fits a stereotype.

When is old enough to be formally educated about addiction?

Is there enough information available to children and parents about legal and illegal drugs? There is plenty of information available on the internet, but is that enough to educate parents and their young children about the reality of developing a drug or alcohol addiction? Should there be more education in schools and if so, what age should children first be experiencing lessons about addiction? Would you say that 8 years old is too young or that 14 years is too old?

 

How could we go about implementing more information for children whose parents have an addiction: crisis lines, on line info, school welfare etc...