Archive for the ‘anxiety’ Tag

Alcohol – it’s not a drug, it’s a drink

Wednesday, September 25th, 2013

I have had somewhat of an epiphany recently. In light of my self-questioning around the application of morality to the laws of the land – specifically with reference to drug use – I have started to perceive alcohol differently. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a drinker. I always have been, and so has everyone around me. This is despite losing people to alcohol. And yet we all still drink drink drink like it was going out of fashion.

I still told my clients the dangers of drinking, indeed I knew them myself, and to be fair in recent years I have generally drunk within ‘safe’ limits. But that is far as I ever thought about going – after all, it was safe, so why would I question it any further?

Recently, I have pretty much stopped drinking – because after a spell of drinking very little, I realised that, when I do drink, I feel anxious the next day. Not only on the night itself, but the day after, I misjudge things, and my perception of the world and of myself is altered. This has nothing to do with ‘safety’ – but it definitely has a lot to do with health. If, as I am starting to wonder, alcohol can significantly affect mood the day after use – and bearing in mind that many people drink every night – does this not have huge implications for the mental state of the nation?

Then I saw a news report last week about the proposed ‘drunk tanks’. The idea was that people who were incapable of being responsible for their own welfare because of excessive alcohol consumption would be put into a unit overnight and then charged for the care they received – both to protect people and to reclaim some of the money in revenue spent on policing costs. It seemed like quite a good idea for me. But the man representing the alcohol industry gave me an insight into how much they care about the damage done by alcohol consumption and what they want to do to tackle it – which was, in summary, fuck all. The well-groomed young man in expensive glasses had a seemingly endless list about why no national mandates should be passed – why this was about local services making local decisions. Which, as anyone who works in the public sector knows, means doing nothing. Because everyone is too busy, are all praying to keep their heads above water and their jobs, and are not about to stump up the cash and time to commission and implement something so huge without imperative direction from the very top.

And as I sat there, watching this nicely-spoken young gent, something happened. Before my eyes, he morphed into every heroin and crack dealer I had ever met. His shirt was ironed, his face was clean – but his justifications for the continued sale of his product, his reasonings for why the deaths and the violence and the illnesses were not his fault, made him seem to me no different from the many dealers I have challenged about their choice of product and its impacts. The truth was – he didn’t give a shit about the number of young women getting sexually assaulted. He wasn’t the least bit interested in how much use of his product cost the taxpayer each weekend in policing and health interventions. And he certainly wasn’t willing to do anything about it.

Now, fear not – I am not about to go all evangelical about alcohol use and start praying to a higher power for strength to repel the demon drink. I am still going to have a drink when I feel like it and, likely as not, will drink too much on occasions. I suppose I am just realising, for myself, another layer to my indoctrination on the matter of legal and illegal drugs. Alcohol is not ‘bad’ – just like any other drug – and of course alcohol companies are only interested in taking your money, as per the capitalist mantra, or just like any other drug dealer. But where is the logic that most drugs should be illegal while just one remains legal – and what impact does this have on perceived safety and social acceptability?

My brother recently came back to the UK, and commented after a night out, “God, I’d forgotten how the English drink”. Recent reports indicate that, in fact, much like the truth-dodging representative for the licensing industry, we as a nation also forget how we drink. A report published by Alcohol Concern found that, in 2007-8, for Brits to drink within advised limits, alcohol consumption (excluding that brought into the country duty-free and home-brewed) would need to reduce by a third. The report found that if the alcohol bought in shops was divided between every adult, we would all be consuming twenty-six units a week.

However, an even scarier report published this year in the European Journal of Public Health , found that half the alcohol consumed in England was unaccounted for. (Again, this does not include imported of home-brewed alcohol, so the actual consumption is even higher.) The report exposed the discrepancy between self-reports of alcohol consumption, and alcohol sales. So at least three quarters of the population are estimated to drink above recommended limits – and no-one is admitting to it.

Now the alcohol industry clearly know this. If this wasn’t happening, they wouldn’t be eating caviar on their yachts. And yet, despite the serious health problems associated with drinking at these levels, they continue to push the drug. They continue to fight legislation to minimise the harm it causes. And they continue to put their hands up in objection when anyone suggests maybe they could be partly responsible for this problem and, as such, should maybe put their hands in their ever-deepening pockets and contribute towards reducing some of the damage done by their product. No less ruthless that the dealers who keep selling heroin they know contains congealants, or market their stash of PMA as ecstacy.

It also makes me wonder how much sway the alcohol firms have in the Tories’ drug policies. They bring in billions in revenue – and I am sure they are none-to-happy at the idea of someone muscling in on their market share by selling cannabis or other alternative products. Yet again, I am left questioning how much of our legislation is about the welfare of the population, and how much is about rich people scratching each other’s backs..

Advertisements

Cancer patients with acid smiles

Tuesday, March 19th, 2013

The New York Times reported last year that psychedelic drugs were being trialled in cancer treatment – not to encourage remission, but to help people face their own mortality. Far from being smacked up to the eyeballs to achieve this anxiety release, patients undertaking the trials experienced long-lasting benefits in terms of mood and attitude towards life – and death – from a single administration of psilocybin, the psychotropic substance found in magic mushrooms .

When taken in controlled conditions which encourage the participants to think about their lives and those they share them with, an emotional catharsis appears to take place. Subjects report being able to experience the emotions felt by their loved ones relating to their illness, and a spiritual connection to the world which enables them to see life as part of a process, therefore removing the fear of death. Effects were immediate, and scores on depression and anxiety scales were consistently lower at six-month follow-up.

Now this research is only small-scale, but if you cast your mind back, some of you will have read about David Nutt(bag)’s campaign to enable LSD and MDMA (esctacy) to be used in clinical trials to look at their efficacy in treating depression. Now I acknowledge that it’s probably the fault of the media, and it’s not that I contest what he has to say – I just find myself frustrated that I can see the world isn’t ready for his outlandish statements, so why can’t he? The man needs Alistair Campbell.

However, below the media hysteria that hangs precariously off his every word like a failed snot-rocket, are some incredibly interesting points, which not only support the research findings around treating the fear of imminent death, but have some potentially broader-reaching implications. Psilocybin, for example, has been found to reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety disorders, by shutting down parts of the brain associated with the unhelpful and repetitive thought processes on which the illnesses feed. It has also given some insight into the neuropsychology of schizophrenia. MDMA appears to enable post-traumatic stress sufferers to revisit problematic memories without experiencing overwhelming fear. It seems that the drugs associated with free love may in fact be capable of breaking introspective thought patterns and giving us back our sense of perspective. (Which, let’s face it, most of us in the western world would benefit from.)

Now I am not suggesting that wigging oneself out on pills and mushrooms everyday is a health intervention. Far from it. We all know the pie-eyed star-gazers who went a bit too far for a bit too long and, after a brief spell of drug-induced psychosis, now shuffle around talking to themselves, looking constantly surprised, devising conspiracy theories about the Government. Too much of these substances can cause long-lasting damage to the grey stuff. But who is to say that measured doses of these active ingredients couldn’t have their place in mental health treatment? Or, for that matter, addiction treatment?

Anyone who has ever had cognitive behavioural therapy, solution-focused therapy, hypnotherapy – pretty much any psychological intervention – will know that the their fundamental bases are breaking unhelpful, engrained thinking patterns. If you can help people lift their heads to see above these negative cycles, they realise that life doesn’t have to be like this. Now if a controlled dose of psilocybin can achieve this, a) the massive financial burden of treatment for depression, anxiety and addiction would be minimalised, and b) I’d be out of a job. Sounds like a plan.

In his usual ‘all right David, tone it down a bit’ way, Professor Nutt has claimed that it’s “outrageous” and “a scandal” that further studies into this have not been done, but I think he has a profound point – the only thing complicating this research taking place is the illegality of the substances involved.

Whether or not you agree with decriminalising drugs as a whole, I think there can be little argument that these substances should not be made available to medical researchers. And this is in a country where George Osborne is making beer cheaper. (How thick and easily-pleased do you actually think we plebs are, George?) I increasingly struggle to understand the arbitrary disparity between the Government’s treatment of different substances… Maybe I’m going a bit Nutts.

%d bloggers like this: