Comments on: Cocaine overdose hospital admissions rise 400 per cent in just four years

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:58:06 +0000

Wow – as someone working directly with young people I find it a bit worrying how one reply from Sarah aimed at untangling some figures, open to media and political spin, can suddenly turn into a bit of a tit for tat legal debate. Yes we are in the business of delaying or preventing use of substances, both legal and illegal, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t a service for those who have chosen to use something like cocaine, particularly where this is an uninformed choice. As a drug worker, I find it a bit insulting to read a post claiming harm reduction messges are being given to non-users without taking account of the complexities each young person brings. I’m sure most of the readers of this blog would agree that someone working with a young person would be assessing whether they are using, and their safety around any identified use, before embarking on any work around HR over and above general education and normative messages.
Additionally, most young people I have been working with have been influenced more by the negative images of celebrity use rather than the positive ones ie. the media reports are acting as a protective factor. Therefore the ‘normalising’ of cocaine use has been fudged by reports of celebrity use. Andrew’s initial higlight of Hario Shapiro’s comments need to be considered than making snap assumptions around what young people are influenced by, however well meant they are.

By: Peter O'Loughlin

Peter O'Loughlin — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:32:05 +0000

Yes, David, the liberal use of meaningless semantics to promote drug use is noted, but then again that is common with the pro drug lobby in general.

The current attempts to divert attention from the damage cocaine is causing by the introduction of a shoal of ‘red herrings’, is typical. neverteless the scientific factual evidence which cannot be denied, clearly shows how drugs of addiction, or as I believe they should be termed, drugs of destruction,destroy the complex interacting systems of the brain.

Whilst it is true that in the early stages of the destruction process caused by the pathological increase in dopamine brought about by drug use, is relatively speaking, minor, as the addiction progresses with continuing ingestion of the drugs, all of those brain systems are eventually destroyed, thus rendering the addict powerless over the ability to make a rational choice regarding continued use. In short the addict’s free will has been eroded through the use of drugs of destruction. quite how ‘harm reduction’ can assist those unfortunates escapes my comprehension.

By: David Raynes

David Raynes — Sun, 25 May 2008 17:46:42 +0000

Misrepresentation Peter? Malfeasance more like.

Quote from their website:
“Transform exists to reduce harm and promote sustainable health and wellbeing”

It is a form of newspeak, words apparently mean whatever Steve Rolles and Transform think they mean. Legalising more drugs can never “promote sustainable health & well being”. Messages are corrupted and even fabricated, “some of the abstention evangelists are unable to incorporate harm reduction”. Not true. I know of no one who debates these things who does not support some harm reduction methods for existing users, I myself was probably the first law enforcement officials to accept heroin prescription for some users in carefully controlled circumstances. I debated the subject with Arnold Trebach, (the father of the Transform legalisation position) when Steve was in short pants or even earlier. Understanding the history would helps deal with the present.

By: Peter O'Loughlin

Peter O'Loughlin — Sun, 25 May 2008 16:19:57 +0000

Semantics cannot hide the fact that the pro drug lobby in this country is desperate to see all drugs legalised. It is absolute rubbish to say that young people can be protected from the increased use arising from legalisation, not unless that is dealers in the secondary market suddenly develop scruples, and agree not to sell to young people and also ask their non registered punters to enter into a contract that any supplies they buy will not be provided to young people, and of course a pig has just gone flying by the window.

Harm reduction cannot repeat cannot reduce the harms already caused by drugs of destruction, nor can their ongoing use, reduced or otherwise, prevent further mental damage and collateral suffering. to suggest otherwise is misrepresentation.

By: David Raynes

David Raynes — Sat, 24 May 2008 19:55:27 +0000

Steve
You know or should, that “harm reduction” for existing users is considered acceptable by most people, even those you label “abstention evangelists” (me presumably?). The trouble with the phrase is that it has become corrupted by those who preach harm reduction to non users as a form of proselytising about drugs use generally, often in pursuit of their nirvana of legal drug use for all. The term “harm reduction” got corrupted and devalued. I suggest you read Peter Stoker’s all encompassing 3 part series on it starting here :http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/4.php
It IS a fact that cocaine availability and use is increasing across all social classes, it is extraordinarily disingenous to suggest that celebrity use has little or no effect on the drug using culture. Drug use is ALL about the prevailing culture around use. Regular stories about celebrity drug use subtly normalises drug taking behaviour. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of common sense. More use of drugs, which your position would inevitably bring, would mean more total harm. it has been like that with tobacco & alcohol. More use = more harm. Examine the evidence.

By: Steve Rolles

Steve Rolles — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:12:04 +0000

no drug education I’ve ever come across talks about safe drug use, only safer drug use. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise – and there is an important difference. whilst not using should be encouraged for all young people, we have to pragmatically accept that some people will use regardless, and for those people, harm reduction advice can, unsurprisingly given the name, reduce the harms they will face. To not do so – as some suggest – on the unfounded basis that this would encourage use in others is a rather appalling and profoundly unethical proposal. Effectively a policy of drug education by human sacrifice. Harm reduction concepts can and do fully incorporate aspirations to abstinence within a realistic hierarchy of goals (no use, reduced use, safer use etc). It is a shame that some of the abstention evangelists are unable to incorporate harm reduction.

By: Peter O'Loughlin

Peter O'Loughlin — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:47:48 +0000

‘Through the roof’, is only accurate when used in the comparative of the rise in cocaine and drug use generally. However you seem to be missing the point, which is the total harms being caused by escalating use.

This writer suggests it would be a far more positive contribution if all ‘drug education’, focused on the total harms caused by use, rather than so called safe ways of using addictive, psycho active drugs.

To suggest or imply that there are safe ways in which to use such drugs, is an oxymoron, All drugs have side affects, addictive, psycho active drugs, are no exception, but will subliminely ecourage use.

By: Sara McGrail

Sara McGrail — Sat, 24 May 2008 08:53:15 +0000

This is similar to the claims last year about increased numbers of hospital admissions for cannabis use. There can be a lot of reasons why these figures would rise. First of all, lets not underestimate the possibility of a rise in prevalence – though I agree with you Andrew, other evidence doesn’t suggest this level of increase. There is a strong possibility that rather than there actually being a increase in admissions, there is an increase in A+E codifying of certain symptoms as cocaine related. A heart attack may have simply been codified as a heart attack in the past – greater awareness of cocaine use among A+E staff could be enabling them to be clearer now about the underlying causes. If cocaine use is becoming more acceptable, though not necessarily more widespread, people could be more willing to admit using the drug when in A+E. There could have been local changes in responses within units that mean that drug use is more readily picked up – I know a number of places where drug referral workers are attached to A+E units, or where drug screening has been brought in as part of triage. All of these factors, singly, or in combination could bring about an increased level of reporting.

I didn’t see the original Druglink article as I don’t subscribe but I would hope DrugScope were able to point out the story underneath the figures – numbers can mislead.