Thank you all so much for the wonderful messages you left me on my Soberversary - I was totally overwhelmed. You're all amazing.
It's very easy to feel alone when you quit drinking.
It seems as if everybody else on the planet is quite happily sipping on a glass or two of wine a night, then stopping, without suffering any ill effects.
We, with our defective off-switches and hidden obsessions, feel like outcasts.
It doesn't help that the prevailing wisdom is that alcohol use is perfectly safe for the vast majority of people.
Only a poor, miserable handful, we're told, have a disease called 'alcoholism', and they must never drink. For everyone else, it's a sophisticated hobby. Chin chin!
Well, I came across two articles this week which have made me realise that we really are not alone, and we are not a tiny, sad minority.
The first was mailed to me by my friend J. It's an article in The Independent, headlined 'What the Five Most Addictive Substances on the Planet do to Your Brain'. Here's a link to the full article.
This article is based on research done in 2007 by Professor Nutt (I've quoted his well regarded, but largely ignored, study before).
Nutt's research showed that heroin is the most addictive drug available today. It increases dopamine levels in the brain by up to 200%, and only five times the level required to get you high will kill you.
Fair enough. Could have guessed that.
However, the next most addictive drug, more so than crack cocaine, barbiturates and nicotine is alcohol.
Studies showed that alcohol increased dopamine levels in the brains of laboratory animals by up to 350%, and the more the animals drank the more dopamine levels increased.
According to this research 22% of people who drink alcohol will develop dependence. That's nearly one in four people. Certainly not just a small, unfortunate handful.
The same point was reinforced by the second article, in the Evening Standard, headlined: NHS hospital hires Priory addiction expert to tackle rise in women drinkers.
Here's a quote: The hospital (St Helier) saw a near doubling of alcohol-related admissions of women aged 30-49 as part of a drink epidemic sweeping the capital.
So don't feel alone. Don't feel like you're different, that you were dealt a horribly bad card and that life isn't fair. There are millions of people in exactly the same boat as us, it's just that we're the ones clever enough to see it!
(And if you do feel lonely, just pop on here for a virtual hug).
Happy, sober Friday everyone!
SM x
Showing posts with label professor nutt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label professor nutt. Show all posts
Friday, 4 March 2016
Tuesday, 29 September 2015
Amy Winehouse - The Final Addiction
Last night I watched a programme called 'Autopsy.' It's a pretty ghastly series which looks at the controversial causes of death of various celebrities like Michael Jackson and Marilyn Monroe.
Usually I'd steer well clear of something so grisly and voyeuristic in favour of catching up goings on below stairs at Downton Abbey, but last night they were doing Amy Winehouse.
I'm rather obsessed by Amy. By her music, her tragic life, and her refusal to go to rehab.
Amy was plagued by demons. She did pretty much anything to take the edge off real life, and the huge pressures of fame achieved so young. She was bulimic. She cut herself, tattooed pretty much every inch of her tiny body, and took every drug available.
But it wasn't the heroin, the crack cocaine, the ketamine, or any of the myriad of illegal drugs that she'd taken over the years that killed her. It was the legal drug: alcohol.
It struck me that we talk about 'gateway drugs', and how smoking weed might lead to taking cocaine, which could end up leading to a heroin addiction, but what we ignore is that the real gateway drug is alcohol.
Can you imagine anyone snorting a line of non descript white powder (which could be anything from teething powder to rat poison) from the back of a toilet cistern in a grimy nightclub if they weren't already drunk? Does anyone ever have the nerve to inject heroin into a vein for the first time sober?
Isn't it alcohol - the legal drug - that gives society the taste for oblivion, and for false confidence?
Excessive alcohol use easily leads to illegal drug use, which then increases the alcohol use. Many heavy drinkers use cocaine, for example, for its ability to enable you to keep on drinking. And alcohol takes the edge off a drug comedown the following day.
Back in June I wrote a post called 'Relative Harms' (click here), about Professor Nutt's 2010 study, commissioned, then ignored, by the British Government, into the relative harms of various legal and illegal drugs.
Nutt concluded that alcohol was the fourth most harmful drug to the individual (after heroin, crack and methamphetamine), but was by far and away the most harmful drug to society as a whole, in terms of life expectancy, family disruption and road traffic accidents.
We look back at Amy's life and remember the pictures of her smoking a crack pipe, and stumbling along the road with bloodied feet from where she'd been injecting between her toes, and it's easy to assume that that's the behaviour that killed her.
But there were no traces of illegal drugs in her body when Amy died. Her GP says she'd been clean of drugs for two years. However, Amy's post mortem showed a blood alcohol level five times the drink driving limit.
Amy had managed, according to friends, family and doctors, to give up all the 'hard drugs'. The one that defeated her was the 'soft', sophisticated, acceptable drug: alcohol.
Alcohol destroyed Amy's final years. It ruined her voice, and her ability to perform. Remember her disastrous, drunken and incoherent last attempts at performing live in Belgrade? (I thought about posting a link, but it's too awful to watch) Friends say she became increasingly alienated and lonely.
Amy must have known that alcohol was destroying her, because she quit drinking for two weeks before her final binge, and was taking (prescribed) drugs to manage withdrawal symptoms.
Experts believe that, as a result, her tolerance to alcohol had decreased. That's why her final, lonely, binge killed her.
Here's to you, lovely, talented, haunted Amy,
SM x
Usually I'd steer well clear of something so grisly and voyeuristic in favour of catching up goings on below stairs at Downton Abbey, but last night they were doing Amy Winehouse.
I'm rather obsessed by Amy. By her music, her tragic life, and her refusal to go to rehab.
Amy was plagued by demons. She did pretty much anything to take the edge off real life, and the huge pressures of fame achieved so young. She was bulimic. She cut herself, tattooed pretty much every inch of her tiny body, and took every drug available.
But it wasn't the heroin, the crack cocaine, the ketamine, or any of the myriad of illegal drugs that she'd taken over the years that killed her. It was the legal drug: alcohol.
It struck me that we talk about 'gateway drugs', and how smoking weed might lead to taking cocaine, which could end up leading to a heroin addiction, but what we ignore is that the real gateway drug is alcohol.
Can you imagine anyone snorting a line of non descript white powder (which could be anything from teething powder to rat poison) from the back of a toilet cistern in a grimy nightclub if they weren't already drunk? Does anyone ever have the nerve to inject heroin into a vein for the first time sober?
Isn't it alcohol - the legal drug - that gives society the taste for oblivion, and for false confidence?
Excessive alcohol use easily leads to illegal drug use, which then increases the alcohol use. Many heavy drinkers use cocaine, for example, for its ability to enable you to keep on drinking. And alcohol takes the edge off a drug comedown the following day.
Back in June I wrote a post called 'Relative Harms' (click here), about Professor Nutt's 2010 study, commissioned, then ignored, by the British Government, into the relative harms of various legal and illegal drugs.
Nutt concluded that alcohol was the fourth most harmful drug to the individual (after heroin, crack and methamphetamine), but was by far and away the most harmful drug to society as a whole, in terms of life expectancy, family disruption and road traffic accidents.
We look back at Amy's life and remember the pictures of her smoking a crack pipe, and stumbling along the road with bloodied feet from where she'd been injecting between her toes, and it's easy to assume that that's the behaviour that killed her.
But there were no traces of illegal drugs in her body when Amy died. Her GP says she'd been clean of drugs for two years. However, Amy's post mortem showed a blood alcohol level five times the drink driving limit.
Amy had managed, according to friends, family and doctors, to give up all the 'hard drugs'. The one that defeated her was the 'soft', sophisticated, acceptable drug: alcohol.
Alcohol destroyed Amy's final years. It ruined her voice, and her ability to perform. Remember her disastrous, drunken and incoherent last attempts at performing live in Belgrade? (I thought about posting a link, but it's too awful to watch) Friends say she became increasingly alienated and lonely.
Amy must have known that alcohol was destroying her, because she quit drinking for two weeks before her final binge, and was taking (prescribed) drugs to manage withdrawal symptoms.
Experts believe that, as a result, her tolerance to alcohol had decreased. That's why her final, lonely, binge killed her.
Here's to you, lovely, talented, haunted Amy,
SM x
Sunday, 21 June 2015
Relative Harms
Day 112, and happy sober Sunday morning to you all!
As a special weekend treat (you have to get your kicks somewhere!) I've been re-reading Professor Nutt's 2010 study into the relative harms of various drugs.
I remember when this study first came out. I stuck my fingers in my ears and chanted 'la la la la'. I did not want to hear it.
Funnily enough, the government did exactly the same thing.
They'd already sacked Professor Nutt from his government advisory role for suggesting that cannabis be declassified from a Class B drug to a Class C drug, and they absolutely did not want to know that, according to this study, alcohol should be a Class A drug, along with heroin and crack cocaine.
Nutt's study examines nine categories of harm that drugs can do to the individual "from death to damage to mental functioning and loss of relationships," and seven types of harm to others.
The most harmful drugs to the individual were heroin, crack and methamphetamine (with alcohol not far behind), but alcohol was far and away the most harmful to society.
When you combine the impact of individual and societal harms, then alcohol still comes out top with a score of 72 out of a maximum of 100.
(Next up is heroin, way behind at 55, 54 for crack, 33 crystal meth, 27 cocaine, 26 tobacco, and 23 cannabis.)
Prof Nutt states that "In Britain today, alcohol is a leading cause of death in men between the ages of sixteen and fifty, so it is therefore the most harmful drug there is in terms of life expectancy, family disruption and road traffic accidents."
As a result, Nutt believes that far more effort has to be put into reducing harm caused by alcohol. To start, taxation of alcohol is "completely inappropriate." Strong cider is, for example, taxed at a fifth of the rate of wine.
Another area highlighted for urgent action is the low cost and promotion of alcohol such as Bacardi Breezers to young people.
Don Shenker, CEO of Alcohol Concern, says that "successive governments have mistakenly focused attention on illicit drugs, whereas the pervading harms from alcohol should have been given a far higher priority. Drug misusers are still ten times more likely to receive support for their addiction than alcohol misusers, costing the taxpayer billions in repeat hospital admissions and alcohol related crime."
Shenker recommends making alcohol less affordable, and investing in prevention and treatment services to deal with rising alcohol dependency.
According to Nutt's scale, alcohol is 3 times as harmful as tobacco, and yet we (now) accept that nicotine should be heavily taxed, regulated and restricted.
Cigarettes are being forcibly de-branded in several countries and huge amounts of money are spent trying to persuade young people not to start smoking.
But the British government have even ruled out minimum pricing on alcohol, let alone more drastic measures.
Drinking hours have been increased rather than decreased. Our children are still raised to believe that drinking alcohol is normal, almost to the point of obligatory, and alcohol is aggressively marketed, even to teenagers.
To my shame, I remember sitting next to the global marketing director of Diageo at an industry dinner. We discussed the success of the alcopop campaign that my Agency had produced, and I agreed wholeheartedly that it would be 'madness' for the government to interfere in the 'free market' of alcohol sales.
The truth is that putting regular drinkers (like the British cabinet) in charge of alcohol regulation is like putting a toddler in charge of the cookie jar. You can only see the madness once you're no longer a willing participant in it.
And that's why things aren't going to change anytime soon.
Have a great day everyone!
Love SM
As a special weekend treat (you have to get your kicks somewhere!) I've been re-reading Professor Nutt's 2010 study into the relative harms of various drugs.
I remember when this study first came out. I stuck my fingers in my ears and chanted 'la la la la'. I did not want to hear it.
Funnily enough, the government did exactly the same thing.
They'd already sacked Professor Nutt from his government advisory role for suggesting that cannabis be declassified from a Class B drug to a Class C drug, and they absolutely did not want to know that, according to this study, alcohol should be a Class A drug, along with heroin and crack cocaine.
Nutt's study examines nine categories of harm that drugs can do to the individual "from death to damage to mental functioning and loss of relationships," and seven types of harm to others.
The most harmful drugs to the individual were heroin, crack and methamphetamine (with alcohol not far behind), but alcohol was far and away the most harmful to society.
When you combine the impact of individual and societal harms, then alcohol still comes out top with a score of 72 out of a maximum of 100.
(Next up is heroin, way behind at 55, 54 for crack, 33 crystal meth, 27 cocaine, 26 tobacco, and 23 cannabis.)
Prof Nutt states that "In Britain today, alcohol is a leading cause of death in men between the ages of sixteen and fifty, so it is therefore the most harmful drug there is in terms of life expectancy, family disruption and road traffic accidents."
As a result, Nutt believes that far more effort has to be put into reducing harm caused by alcohol. To start, taxation of alcohol is "completely inappropriate." Strong cider is, for example, taxed at a fifth of the rate of wine.
Another area highlighted for urgent action is the low cost and promotion of alcohol such as Bacardi Breezers to young people.
Don Shenker, CEO of Alcohol Concern, says that "successive governments have mistakenly focused attention on illicit drugs, whereas the pervading harms from alcohol should have been given a far higher priority. Drug misusers are still ten times more likely to receive support for their addiction than alcohol misusers, costing the taxpayer billions in repeat hospital admissions and alcohol related crime."
Shenker recommends making alcohol less affordable, and investing in prevention and treatment services to deal with rising alcohol dependency.
According to Nutt's scale, alcohol is 3 times as harmful as tobacco, and yet we (now) accept that nicotine should be heavily taxed, regulated and restricted.
Cigarettes are being forcibly de-branded in several countries and huge amounts of money are spent trying to persuade young people not to start smoking.
But the British government have even ruled out minimum pricing on alcohol, let alone more drastic measures.
Drinking hours have been increased rather than decreased. Our children are still raised to believe that drinking alcohol is normal, almost to the point of obligatory, and alcohol is aggressively marketed, even to teenagers.
To my shame, I remember sitting next to the global marketing director of Diageo at an industry dinner. We discussed the success of the alcopop campaign that my Agency had produced, and I agreed wholeheartedly that it would be 'madness' for the government to interfere in the 'free market' of alcohol sales.
The truth is that putting regular drinkers (like the British cabinet) in charge of alcohol regulation is like putting a toddler in charge of the cookie jar. You can only see the madness once you're no longer a willing participant in it.
And that's why things aren't going to change anytime soon.
Have a great day everyone!
Love SM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)