Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Health

Brian Paddick needs to be tough on both crime AND drugs

Apr 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Governance, Health, Holyrood | 17 Comments

A guest post from Ewan Hoyle the founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform and author of their new drug policy (debated here: bit.ly/LibDrugs) who is also their council candidate for Glasgow’s Anderston/City ward. There’s a Glasgow Skeptics meeting on this topic on the 14th of May

The people of London would undoubtedly be better served by their police force if cannabis users were not being arrested and charged. And for the vast majority of cannabis users a criminal record would be far more damaging to their prospects than using cannabis will ever be.There is nothing factually wrong with Brian Paddick’s “Police are wasted on cannabis” campaign.

So de facto, turning-a-blind-eye, decriminalisation is a step in the right direction. But as a policy end-point it is starkly illogical. If a drug is illegal, but no one is ever prosecuted for using it, then there can be no justification for its continued illegality. A trade that could be regulated and taxed and contribute greatly to the national economy should not be allowed to be dominated by organised crime. We might be able to save money in not prosecuting users, but we would still be spending money and time pursuing and prosecuting the producers and dealers. This endeavour has not had any success in restricting cannabis supply to any meaningful extent in the past, and is highly unlikely to do so in the future. If the act of using is no longer immoral to the extent that society deems it should be illegal, then the act of supplying can not be deemed immoral if the responsibility lies in the hands of a supplier who has only the best interests of the customer in heart. A policy of strictly controlled legal supply can create such a supplier and is the one that government should be investigating with great urgency.

The motion passed by Liberal Democrat conference last September was determinedly “tough on drugs” in its intent. Past policies that implied tolerance of drug use were swept aside in favour of policies targeted at the restriction of the ability of drugs to do harm. Paddick’s proposals sadly take us back to our old ways, and may even increase the potential for harm caused by the drug itself. If we exclude the obvious harms of a criminal record, arrest at least focuses the mind of the user and their family on their drug use and might cause them to re-evaluate their behaviour. By removing the chances of that happening, any problems users experience are more likely to develop further and have serious implications for their health and happiness.

So, on the scale of “tough” to “soft” on the ability of cannabis to do harm, de facto decriminalisation as proposed by Paddick is probably a step towards softness. If we want to get tough on the ability of cannabis to cause harm, then we have to deploy policies which are more likely to prevent problems emerging and which are more likely to facilitate early intervention in order to halt the progression of any problems which do occur.

The model of decriminalisation adopted in Portugal – where possession is still illegal but an administrative and not a criminal offence – takes us back in the direction of toughness. Rather than turning a blind eye to cannabis use, the police refer users to panels tasked with determining whether treatment is appropriate and delivering education on harms and available services. In a situation where contact with the police can only be positive for a drug user’s prospects, concerned family and friends need have no qualms about seeking help for a loved one. In Portugal, prospects for cannabis users are better, but again their de jure decriminalisation policy is starkly illogical for the same reasons as the de facto decriminalisation proposed by Paddick.

It is only with strict government control and regulation of a legal market that we can optimise our restriction of the ability of cannabis to cause harm. Rather than have information on the harms of cannabis delivered only after an unpredictable encounter with the police, this information can instead be provided in the environment of a pharmacy, by someone trained for the purpose, prior to the first time a customer uses the legally supplied drug. The ability to advise customers on the potency of strains and encourage safer modes of administration, means the customer is far less likely to come to harm. The undermining of the illegal market combined with age restrictions should hopefully reduce availability of cannabis for children, while reducing further the necessity to expend police resources against the black market suppliers. If it is decided to educate first-time users on the early warning signs of psychosis, then the increased number of people in society equipped to identify these signs means those developing psychosis are more likely to be helped regardless of their drug use history.

So Brian. It is time to move beyond liberalising our drug laws. De facto decriminalisation is not the best answer for the people of London or anywhere in Britain. The policy that is the toughest on drugs and crime is a plea to government for the strict government control and regulation of a legal cannabis market.

I have strong suspicions that if it is communicated properly, it will garner you far more support that your soft-on-drugs, baby-step, 4/20 announcement.

Muddy Waters

Jan 11

Posted by Kirsty in Health, Westminster | 15 Comments

There’s plenty going on this week which demonstrates the Coalition government should pay more heed to where Scotland is and what she thinks. Nonetheless, David Cameron’s proposal on minimum pricing for alcohol is undoubtedly inspired by Scotland’s lead.

Maybe you missed it in a boozy blur between Christmas and New Year, but David Cameron has instructed civil servants to pull together plans for minimum pricing for alcohol sales in England. According to The Daily Telegraph, this could either be the Scottish model, banning the sale of alcohol priced below 45 pence per unit, or as taxes based upon the number of units in a drink.

Whitehall’s strategy on alcohol will be published in February. The Scottish Government’s Bill is at Stage 1 at Holyrood, after being introduced by Nicola Sturgeon back in October. Labour at Holyrood don’t believe minimum unit pricing is the answer to Scotland’s alcohol issues as “it will not target problem drinks”. But might they be compelled from February onwards to take an opposing view to Labour at Westminster?

Despite introducing 24 hour drinking in England while in government, in early 2010 Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, indicated that Brown’s government were at least open to considering the introduction of minimum alcohol prices, saying:

“We need to balance the rights of people who drink responsibly with those who buy ludicrously cheap booze and go out and harm themselves and others… There is no shortage of research that shows the link with price and people drinking harmful levels of alcohol – there is no debate about that.”

Back then, Andrew Lansley, now Health Secretary, dismissed calls to set a minimum price for alcohol from both the Chief Medical Officer and the Commons Health Select Committee. Although the Coalition has banned supermarkets selling booze as a loss leader, and introduced higher duty on super-strength beer and cider, Lansley reportedly favours a voluntary approach on the part of the seller, indicating that Cameron has over-ruled him with the minimum price move.

A split between government ministers is always fun for oppositions. But with his previous comments, as well as many Labour-controlled councils within Greater Manchester and Merseyside considering the introduction of bylaws to set minimum alcohol prices, it won’t be so easy for Burnham to dismiss Cameron’s move for minimum pricing if it is included in proposals come February.

Of course, Burnham didn’t do anything when in power about minimum pricing, and his somewhat cool comment above could mean Labour will oppose any move by the coalition to introduce minimum pricing. But Burnham’s performance during Labour’s leadership elections in 2010 sees him regarded as a considerate centrist, while his recent campaign for the full disclosure of Hillsborough papers means he’s unafraid to grab emotive, powerful public issues. I would bet he won’t oppose minimum pricing just because Cameron wants it.

Meanwhile, Scottish Labour is gone too far on record opposing a minimum unit price to adapt to it developing from a Scottish to a UK debate. If Burnham backs Cameron’s measures, Jackie Baillie has to stand alone.

Labour in Holyrood’s not wrong in saying minimum pricing isn’t enough on its own to tackle Scotland’s demon drink problem. But I think they are mistaken to not back minimum pricing.

To survive Scottish Labour needs to develop an identity, both political and on policy, to distinguish itself from the Westminster party. But trying to do that on legislation that will save people’s lives should not be the place to start.

Never brought to mind

Aug 31

Posted by Guest Blog in Health, Holyrood | 11 Comments

A guest from Kirsty Connell, former Labour candidate and Vice Chair of the STUC’s Young Workers’ Committee. Thanks Kirsty!

Calton Hill campaign picBigotry, booze, a better wage. The SNP’s priorities as they return to Holyrood after recess are clear. Tackling sectarianism, introducing minimum pricing for alcohol and bringing in a Scottish Living Wage across the public sector.

Noble causes. But behind each of the social ills these three priorities attempt to remedy, a wider malaise lingers. The same sickness that infiltrated the riots earlier this month, the same that has and will continue to haunt Scotland.

Poverty. Discrimination. Violence. Poor health. All can be entwined, with one leading to the other. Equally they can be separate, afflicting an individual with one but not another. Each however has a common factor, snarling alongside each evil: the black dog of poor mental health.

The link between joblessness and poor mental health is both obvious and stark, especially among young people. According to The Future You, an online mentoring service, one in four young unemployed Scots has considered suicide. Although Scottish unemployment fell between 7.7% in early 2011, the rate of youth unemployment is stuck at 20%. In fellow devolved nation Wales, the Prince’s Trust found 48% of unemployed respondents to the 2011 Macquarie Youth Index claimed their lack of work led to panic attacks, self harm and self loathing.

It’s not just a problem for devolved nations, nor does it just affect those out of work. According World Health Organisation data published recently in Lancet, mental health disorders make up almost half of the diseases affecting the world’s adolescents and young adults.

It might not just be Scotland’s problem, but that doesn’t mean it’s a crisis the Scottish Government can ignore out of supposed powerlessness.

The push for improvements in young people’s mental health is still from outwith government. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy continues to call for a trained counsellor in every school. Family Nurse Partnerships and the early detection of cancer are welcome and necessary health policies, announced by the SNP during the election campaign. But no party in Scotland has a national strategy to implement the 2005 report The Mental Health of Children and Young People, which called for provision of confidential and accessible counselling for all young Scots by 2015.

Drinking because there’s nothing else to do. Invoking seventeenth century Irish politics as invective because sights are so narrowed. Struggling to even access a wage.

If Salmond and the SNP truly want to transform Scotland’s wellbeing, beyond mere physical health to a truly fit society, more thinking with – and for – the head is required.

David Cameron is standing at the (Southern) cross roads

May 25

Posted by Jeff in Economy, Health | 4 Comments

Let’s say there are two tribes. One goes to great lengths to ensure that no-one goes hungry, no-one goes homeless and the sick and the elderly are looked after in a caring, compassionate and unconditional manner. The second tribe is quite the opposite; everything is about survival and competition. The tallest get the best fruits, the strongest kill the meatiest animals and build the best homes and those who don’t measure up are effectively cut loose.

On the face of it, a private investment deal that went from a valuation of £1bn in 2006 to £18m today would attract little sympathy. Some rich group, that presumably doesn’t know what it’s doing, that belongs to the latter tribe in the above paragraph and that has deep pockets backed by Qatari investors is it? Well, yes and no.

The situation I am referring to is Southern Cross Healthcare, a UK company that has had a dizzying fall from grace but runs a huge number of care homes, including some 100 in Scotland, so any financial implosion would have unthinkable consequences for the tens of thousands of elderly residents that are now at the mercy of open markets. This is more than a case of schadenfreude at the rich getting poorer, much more.

Southern Cross is, to use a well worn phrase, too big to fail. Many of these care homes have no obvious new owner and many of the areas involved have no alternative provision. The residents can surely only stay in the buildings they currently live in but a liquidated company will surely want to sell off its assets to meet its debts.

Figures quoted in The Guardian suggest around ~£240m is required to prop up the Group to pay rent for another year which is surely better value for money for the Government compared to the tens of billions pumped into banks, much of which has continued to puff up over-inflated salaries in the financial sector.

This issue epitomises the mistrust and distaste that many either side of the border reserve for the Conservatives, reckless private financing of a very public concern. The same could be said for the railways (30% more expensive in the UK because of privatisation). And, worryingly, the issues surrounding this company could easily apply to the NHS in future (south of the border) if private involvement is allowed to infiltrate the Health Service. It is good to know that nurses, doctors, the Greens, Labour and even the Lib Dems are wise to the complicated risks at hand but Britain stands at a crossroads and a public NHS and a country that still competently looks after its weakest is at risk.

I know which tribe that I believe the Conservatives are regrettably closer to and I know which road I believe they are trying to take the country down. The fate of Southern Cross is Cameron’s first test and 31,000 elderly residents await his Government’s next move.

This is one issue where a Government going tribal is acceptable, it just depends which tribe it picks.

The Scottish Government’s first 100 days

May 12

Posted by Jeff in Health | 34 Comments

For some reason, a reason that has always bewildered me, Governments are often judged on the delivery of their promises within their first 100 days.

In 2007, the SNP was able to rhyme off a dizzying list of achievements in its first 100 days, wrongfooting its opponents who no longer taunted ‘the biggest thing they’ve ever run is Falkirk Council’. I don’t think we’ll hear that barb’s ilk again either.

It is perhaps unfair to throw down a short-term gauntlet to the new majority Government when Scotland’s problems are largely structural, are partly out of the Government’s hands and require more than a quick-win -> moving away from PFI, increasing education standards, increasing health and well-being and powering the renewables revolution, for example.

So, if the SNP is to be conscious of delivering a 100 days that will stand up to the Scottish media’s scrutiny, what might they contain?

For me, a key debate and a winning vote on minimum pricing, even at a stage of the Bill before finalisation, would be more than enough. What a way for the SNP to put a marker down that this term will see more progress thanks to insufficient opposition to the most sensible of policies. Pats on the back from numerous stakeholders from the BMA to the police would be sufficient to tick that 100 day box.

The only non-political opposition that I have seen recently is from the Scotch Whisky Association, odd you would think given whisky is largely a premium product so its pricing would be largely unaffected by minimum pricing. My suspicion is that some of the members of SWA also sell deep-discounted alcohol away from the whisky line and a clever use of that respectable-sounding umbrella organisation is being made. Either way, they are in the minority, politically as well as from a civic perspective.

But what else could these 100 days bring? Or is it only 93 now? Well, feel free to make some suggestions because despite a plethora of manifestoes and a long election campaign, I am somewhat stumped.

Not that it ‘really’ matters of course. As JFK put it:

“All this will not be finished in the first hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”