Mephedrone and the number 25

This is how the saga played out in the news.

• 17 March BBC: How has mephedrone affected users?
• 17 March BBC: Review of mephedrone drug pledged.
• 29 March Guardian: Mephedrone to be banned and made class B drug after link to 25 deaths.
• 2 April Guardian: Mephedrone ban prompts latest drugs council resignation.
• 7 April BBC: Mephedrone ban backed by Commons.
• 16 April BBC: Drugs: The facts.
• 16 April BBC: Mephedrone ban comes into effect

Then this today from the BBC:

Teenagers' deaths 'not caused by mephedrone'

Back in March hue and cry over the possibility that 25 people might have died as a result of taking mephedrone, and another of the Govt drug advisers resigned in disgust at their advice being ignored by a Govt keen to curry favour with a disaffected public. Now it turns out that at least two of them had not taken the drug, but the law has still been changed.

• 23 July (Guardian) Mephedrone not to blame for death of teenager, say Cumbria police.

Let's compare with other mortality stats in the UK. The Office for national statistics tells us:

The number of alcohol-related deaths in the United Kingdom has consistently increased since the early 1990s, rising from the lowest figure of 4,023 (6.7 per 100,000) in 1992 to the highest of 9,031 (13.6 per 100,000) in 2008. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

That's 9,000 in 2008. That's actually 25 deaths definitely from alcohol per day, every day. And rising, having doubled in the last 16 years.

By contrast there were 2075 drug related deaths in 2008: some details include 897 deaths from heroin, 378 from methadone, 242 from paracetamol. On the face of it paracetamol is far more likely to kill you than mephedrone, but you need to take into account the vast quantities of it that are consumed each year. (Still it can kill you).

Deaths from road accidents:

The total number of deaths in road accidents fell by 7 per cent to 2,946 in 2007 from 3,172 in 2006. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years.

That's almost 250 per month, or about 25 every 3 days.

The Office for National Statistics doesn't publish tobacco death rates on it's website but the NHS reckons the deaths attributable to tobacco in England in 2008 was 84,000. That's about 236 a day, or 10 per hour! So 25 in 2.5 hours. Assuming the same smoking patterns in the rest of the UK that's about 98,000 for the UK, giving 268 per day, 11 per hour, and 25 in 136 minutes.

So to summarise, in the UK, according to official statistics:

• Tobacco kills 25 people every 135 minutes.
• Alcohol kills 25 people a day.
• Road accidents kill 25 people every 3 days.
• Heroin kills 25 people every 10 days.
• Paracetamol kills about 25 people a month.

Maybe we need to reassess our priorities? The question for the new government is given the policy on drugs which do much less harm to the population: why are tobacco, alcohol still legal? (Indeed given how many deaths are caused by cars, why are they still legal?) Why is there such a fuss about these small time party drugs which we have yet to prove harmful, when 11 people an hour, almost 1 every 5 minutes are dying from tobacco.

BTW I do not endorse drug use. I think taking drugs is stupid unless you have to for medical reasons, and even then they are problematic. But I also think it is stupid for taking drugs to be a criminal offence. Two stupids don't make a smart.

Welfare Review

I feared that a conservative government would institute a welfare reform aimed at taking benefits away from people, and this seems to be the drift of the Queen's speech as it relates to welfare.

It's hard not to start feeling anxious before any details are announced. All I can think is "Oh God, they're going to take away my benefit and make me get a job." Who would employ me, and for what? How long could it possibly last when I could seldom work 2 days in a row (at present capacity)? If I do work part-time then that adds a layer of complexity to my dealings with other agencies like the Council (who pay my rent via Housing Benefit).

I hate being so vulnerable to the machinations of politicians and bureaucrats. I can't tell them to fuck off because I'm so dependent on the handouts they give. I had just started getting used to my situation and was beginning to cope a bit better, but it seems like I'm never allowed to get too comfortable.

Well who knows, perhaps simplifying the benefits system will be an improvement. But here is my prediction:

When it all shakes down a lot of us will be worse off, and we will be jumping though a lot more hoops to get our daily bread.

Election - bit of a non-entity from a health/benefits pov

BTW... I found the election compelling and exercised my right to vote. Being used to PR back in the old country I had no qualms about a hung parliament. As much as I hate the conservatives, a change was very much needed. Who knows what the current government will actually do? The election gave me no fodder at all for this blog as no one mentioned benefits, or mental health, or chronic illness. The NHS was mentioned but only in terms of targets and finances.

I'm hoping that the rhetoric of "choice" with regard to the NHS will be dropped. I don't give a fuck about choice. I want treatment. I want access to a specialist or two. I don't much care who it is, as long as they're competent, I mostly care WHEN it is.

Re benefits: I guess I'm not the only person wholly dependent on state handouts who feels anxiety at the broad rhetoric of public spending cuts and the complete lack of detail. We wait to hear whether it's the poor and the beneficiaries who will pay for the excesses of the financial markets with a sinking feeling. Let's hope we don't see anything like the California solution! (i.e. having run the 8th largest economy into the ground Greek style, refuse to raise taxes, and slash welfare - Arnie surely won't be back after this mess).

On the up side Fentimans now make their ginger beer in quart (750ml) bottles, and is stocked in the local supermarket; and I finally found somewhere that sells Rochester Ginger.

Men and Depression

I was very pleased to see this article in the Observer a couple of weeks back: Depressed men missing out on treatment. The problem is that the descriptions of depression and the diagnostic criteria are heavily skewed towards women's experience of depression. Men often do not experience depression in the same way. In particular while women tend to turn in on them selves, men by contrast "can become animated, aggressive and angry". This sums up my own experience of depression. The negativity gets played out! And no one seems to understand, least of all me.

The article came from a press release by Paul Farmer of the charity Mind, who have a campaign to try to improve access to mental health help for men.