Archive for the ‘Mental disorder’ Category

Stephen Anderson Released (and about time)

July 26, 2009

The current media coverage given to Stephen Anderson’s community release (and the “Insanity” that that lead to the 1998 Health Select Committee Inquiry into Cannabis and Mental Health Report) needs to be seen in a much bigger picture… ” ill-treatment under criminal stigmatisation, labelling and duress “

Check out the context (and reference to Anderson) in a 2002 media release on Scoop.

Mark Burton killing: Govt let it happen (again)

Thursday, 7 November 2002, 10:10 am
Press Release: Mild Greens

“A worst case mental health scenario for at least half New Zealand‘s cannabis using teenagers would have to be their father working as a Cop”, says Mild Greens consumer advocate, Blair Anderson.

The Mild Greens say government Ministers must ultimately be held to account for maintaining and promoting a “toxic environment” which appears to have critically influenced Mark Burton’s decline into mental health/drug and alcohol “dual diagnosis”.

Inappropriate management of Burton’s well-being culminated in the killing of his mother in her Queenstown home, within hours of Burton’s release from Southland Hospital last year.

In a case with disturbing parallels to the Stephen Anderson Raurimu killings in February 1997, Burton was found not guilty of murder on the grounds of insanity, and subsequent inquiries have identified critical “shortfalls in the mental health system” leading to the family tragedy.

However, the Mild Greens say the real criminal in both instances is successive NZ Governments, for maintaining an unwarranted and corrupt discrimination regime – the state sanctioned “war on cannabis”. (c/f HSC 1998 Inquiry into the Mental Health Effects of Cannabis recommending “review of the appropriateness of existing policy on cannabis and its use“.)

Image via Wikipedia

Blair Anderson is speaking out in the lead up to this weekend’s cannabis law reform conference in Wellington at the Tapu Te Ranga Marae (Island Bay), in the hope that New Zealanders will recognise that the reform imperative extends beyond simply “keeping drugs out of the hands of teenagers”.

“Prohibition, while absolutely hopeless in terms of restricting general access to marijuana, has a matrix of detrimental side effects in a community where people are alienated from each other because of the law“, said Mr Anderson.

Although Burton’s father and former Policeman Trevor Burton has sought accountability for his son’s slack treatment and inappropriate release from Southland Hospital, the Mild Greens say the Health and Disability Commission should actually be inquiring into the broader social context of Mark’s ill-treatment under criminal stigmatisation, labelling and duress, on account of his cannabis use and cultural identification.

Discrimination is a crucial factor in Mental Health. A massive television campaign tells ordinary Kiwis that their attitude to the mentally ill makes all the difference.

But you’re allowed to discriminate against cannabis users in New Zealand: the weed is against the law because its use is “immoral”. Why is it immoral to use cannabis? – well, because it’s against the law…

What was on Mark Burton’s mind, ask the Mild Greens – and what circumstances precipitated his mental illness? Or perhaps more to the point, what was on the once happy, cherubic 17 year-old’s blue baseball cap? (for all who missed the repeated national television news coverage, or have suppressed the imagery, Mark’s baseball cap featured “the ubiquitous dope leaf” …)

Did overwhelming peer group pressure and the psychological conflict inherent in his father’s “police officer” status perhaps all too unjustly require Mark to prove himself in a terrible psychological conflict – as a staunch young dude, or as a narc? What is criminalisation policy, if not a terrible way to treat people?

Reform groups believe there is more than ample evidence that the Police are wrongly “at war” against the cannabis community. Evidence including reports such as the recent Canadian Senate Committee Inquiry strongly suggests that criminalisation policy is costly, ineffective, racially biased and unjust.

But with a 26-year precedent for (de-facto) legal cannabis in Holland, the law as it stands in Aotearoa appears moreover to be outrageously outmoded, idiotic and/or rotten to the core.

While it is generally acknowledged that marijuana (like alcohol) may have some detrimental effects on some people, drug law reformers say detrimental effects of prohibition have to be acknowledged once and for all by health professionals, crime prevention, social policy administrators and law makers.

The Mark Burton case, amongst many, exposes a terrible flaw in community mental health management, and the danger of right wing “family values” – much as it reveals that Labour, with its suppressed and stalled cannabis health promotion inquiry, does not understand the meaning of good governance.

The Mild Greens say that Ministers of Health have been further remiss in ignoring coroner Tim Scott’s concerns following Steven Anderson’s rampage at Raurimu in February 1997 where 6 were gunned down by a “patient obsessed with cannabis”. Mr Scott’s final recommendation in relation to preventing such outcomes in future was that “health professionals must find away to overcome a patients obsession with cannabis [prohibition], such as Stephen Anderson had.”.

Youth Affairs Minister Tamaheri has recently repeated the mantra that NZ has unacceptably high rates of suicide, teen pregnancies, drug and alcohol abuse and accidental deaths- and (doh) that a co-ordinated strategy is need.

The Mild Greens remind the concerned minister that on all accounts the Netherlands has better youth outcomes by an order of magnitude. Stony silence and delay in adjudication on Parliaments cannabis law review is cultural insensitivity, irresponsible leadership and abuse of due process on a scale which defies comprehension.

“Until NZ’s toxic cannabis law changes equitably and community bigotry is severely restrained, dual diagnosis killings will happen again and again” say the Mild Greens.

Ministers, and protectors of prohibition one and all, you have blood on your hands.

Mild Green Initiatives,

========= ends ==========

Some serious questions need to be asked, but they are not the ones you will see on dumbed down TV, NZHerald/Stuff or a Trademe Community Thread!

Someone please notice… Anderson and Burton are by ‘justice’ definition “health” consumers not criminals.

Get a life… its your prohibition, so live with it and stop complaining about or revisiting the unintended consequences! These patients are not yours, they do not belong to you. They are a product of ‘that what prohibitors do’.

When the day for true restorative justice comes, prohibitors will be asked to say Sorry, and Pay your Community Reparations. Then our Social Ecology can be restored.

Only when we learn to ring fence ‘any’ drug related difficulties under harm minimisation principles, can we say we are ‘safety first.’

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
Related articles by Zemanta

Addiction Science and the Problem of Perception (addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com)
Why we need a new approach toward handling mental illness – Article (untreatableonline.com)

Posted in Mark Burton, Mental disorder, mental health, Policeman Trevor Burton | Leave a Comment »

Creating Fears Where There Should Be None – CHCH STAR

March 6, 2009

The above Christchurch Star article published late last month was dangerously pre-emptive of evidence based discussion in the community – the journalistic flaw was the presumption there is good reason to reproduce this claptrap. The STAR’s “Cannabis, Mental Illness Link” [23rd Feb ] seems to be in anticipation of a New Zealand “talk to frank” public mental health message but sourced from the UK’s “Independent” newspaper.

Unquestionably written in a UK political context it has little relevance to New Zealand where drug policy is being reviewed by the NZ Law Commission, essentially to take the ‘politics out of drug policy’. The UK’s equivalent of our Expert Advisory Committee recommended that the status of cannabis remain at the new status of C, and that the move to B was political symbolism.

The slant in our community newspaper is without merit and couched in language which is clearly so inflated as to make it untruthful. It is creating fears where there should be none. As was stated in the 1998 Health Select Cmte report on cannabis and mental health, the harms are largely overstated.

THC in 3D,
‘despite there being a lot of it around these days, there has been no corresponding increase in mental health issues’ /Blair
Image via Wikipedia

Compare to a more honest piece of journalism from the UK, see here. It is notable that this is from a UK treatment provider who understands causation vs correlation and who should so succinctly with informed balance and reason make the shallow descriptive rhetoric of the Independent (and thus the CHCH Star) look infantile at best.

Given the politicised nature of the debate around the UK ‘reclassification’ and New Zealands public consultation surrounding drug issues about to begin, this ‘mental health pitface’ informed view is deserving of a wider audience.

“Reclassification [upwards to ‘B’ / Blair] is not ‘fit for purpose,’ it is no deterrent. There are no precise figures, but every survey shows that the use of cannabis has been coming down since 2002 and continues to drop. However, the number of incidents recorded by the police involving cannabis have rocketed, largely because of the use of sniffer dogs and the police’s policy of stopping people in the street.”

“There has been no rise in recorded figures for psychotic symptoms, or specifically, schizophrenia.”But there is no firm evidence that cannabis triggers mental illness on its own.”

Much has been made of the fact that ‘skunk’ cannabis is stronger. it has been bred to have higher levels of THC, which is likely to pro-psychotic. But it also contains levels of two other chemicals – CBD and CBN – which are anti-psychotic, and which probably cancel the effect of the THC.

“There is no evidence that cannabis kills anyone. On the other hand, it’s estimated that 40,000 youngsters die each year directly or indirectly from alcohol abuse,” said Mike.“In terms of all the drugs available to young people, cannabis is the least dangerous. I’m not lobbying for the legalisation of cannabis. But I do want us to keep the drug’s dangers in perspective.”

Beefing up the UK Class B reclassification… Talk to Frank indeed… Young people would find this multi million pound television pitch laughable. We are talking about what defines ‘teenage’ mental health where the diganostic standard [DSMIV] would even have us define being SAD as unhealthy and shy people, mentaly ill.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid12850338001

I can only but wonder what an advertising campaign might look like if the truth were told about Gin.

Blair Anderson

(643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Student Association’s forum on drug and alcohol harm

April 30, 2008

Image via Wikipedia

Jim Anderton / 1 May, 2008 /Dunedin, Otago University Campus

I welcome this forum and I am grateful for the opportunity to join you here. I welcome it because I think the issue of the harm caused by drugs and alcohol is important.
So important that a couple of years ago I supported the police in allocating resources to fund a drug harm index. I supported this study because I take the issue of drug harm very seriously.
The money was used for research to quantify drug harm – not just how expensive the problem is, but also where the avoidable costs lie and what could be done to minimise them. The government’s ministerial committee on drug policy – that I chair – has this week received a report on that research.
I want to share the results with you – this is the first time they have been made public.
This was a formal research project by professional researchers (BERL) and peer reviewed – one of the peer reviewers was Des O’Day, a public health expert at Otago University.

The study concluded, “the harm from drugs consumed in 2006 is substantial and that illicit drug seizures may have prevented approximately another third again of harm.” In 2006 illicit drug use caused social costs estimated at $1,310 million.
That’s nearly one per cent of GDP.
Illicit drug production cost the country $519 million. Related crime cost us $414 million. Lost output due to illicit drug use cost $106 million. Another $53 million resulted from drug-attributable health care and road smashes.
Of course, as we know, not all drug use is the same. So the research is broken down into categories of drugs.
Over two fifths of social costs – 42 percent, or $551 million – is caused by illicit stimulants. We know them as meth, or P.
The researchers said stimulants stand out as the “the second largest source of tangible costs for the user” at $2640 per user in 2006. They caused $551 million of social costs in 2006. That’s over ten million dollars of harm every week.
Over a third of the social costs of illicit drug use are caused by cannabis. That’s $444 million of social costs in 2006 from cannabis alone. As we already know, cannabis is not as damaging as other illicit drugs such as opiods or LSD. The cost per kilogram and cost per user is lower than the others. That is why cannabis is a Class C, not a class A, drug.
But that figure of $444 million of social costs is one that we can’t go past. It is a very high cost mainly because cannabis use is so widespread. The more widespread the use of cannabis gets, the higher that cost will be.
Compare it to alcohol use. Alcohol is far and away our most destructive drug. If you ask the police, or medical authorities, about the times they are called in to crises, or to accidents, to clean up human harm they will tell you that alcohol is almost invariably involved.
Alcohol was not part of the study I am releasing tonight. But according to the Ministry of Health, the social costs of alcohol misuse total between $1.5 billion and $2.4 billion a year. So why do we make alcohol legal, when it causes much more damage than any other drug?
The answer should give advocates of drug use some pause for thought: Alcohol is not the most intrinsically harmful drug. It is the most harmful because it is the most widely used. It causes physical and mental health problems. It causes catastrophe on the roads. It causes drownings and violence in families and elsewhere. It leads to absenteeism and problems at work.
Over 80 percent of New Zealanders drink alcohol – and it causes as much as two billion dollars of harm.
Around 14 percent used cannabis last year. And it caused $444 million. Harm to individuals includes suicide and mental illness, respiratory problems including lung damage and violence. On a proportionate basis, cannabis is the more harmful drug, according to the best figures we have available.
Who pays the social costs of harm caused by drug use? We all do, in paying taxes for our hospitals and police and social agencies to pick up the pieces. The victims of crime pay the social costs.
The families of users pay the social costs. And the users themselves.
In the case of cannabis they pay around $1,750 a year on average each in social and economic costs. These include production of drugs, crime, loss of output at work, healthcare and road accidents.
I’m the minister of forestry – and I go and see the forestry companies and ask them to work closely with communities to hire more young people and train them with high skills, so we export higher value products, instead of raw logs. And one of the problems they talk to me about is the difficulty of training young people when drugs have ruined their motivation to even get out of bed. They can tell you of the dangers of forestry workers using chainsaws or heavy machinery while they’re stoned.
When young people use cannabis they do long-term damage to their brains. It causes memory loss, mood disorders and depression. Cannabis dealers don’t care. Police will tell you cannabis dealers don’t refuse to sell their product to children, even kids in school uniform. That is who is paying the social cost.
I’ve been trying to increase the minimum legal age for buying alcohol. I think that it’s wrong that teenagers can buy alcohol at the corner dairy. When we reduced the age for buying alcohol – the number of car smashes and the number of hospital admissions for 18-20 year olds shot up. So did the figures for the under-18s. Because, of course, they were more likely to get alcohol when their friends and siblings over 18 were buying it for them, or lending them ID.
And if cannabis were made more widely available, more young people would use it, and more would be harmed by it.
I am against making drugs more widely available because I think we should be strong enough to care for our community. We should be strong enough and caring enough to give our young people a future in their own communities.
We should be strong enough to care for our young people. We should be strong enough to try to minimise harm when we know we can.
Jim Anderton / Health

Posted in cannabis, Drug Harm Index, Health, Illegal drug trade, Lysergic acid diethylamide, Mental disorder, Otago University | Leave a Comment »

Caffeine withdrawal = Psychiatric disorder

October 1, 2007

(WebMD) Researchers are saying that caffeine withdrawal should now be classified as a psychiatric disorder.

A new study that analyzes some 170 years’ worth of research concludes that caffeine withdrawal is very real — producing enough physical symptoms and a disruption in daily life to classify it as a psychiatric disorder. Researchers are suggesting that caffeine withdrawal should be included in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), considered the bible of mental disorders. “I don’t think this means anyone should be worried,” says study researcher Roland Griffiths, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Image via Wikipedia

“What it means is that the phenomenon of caffeine withdrawal is real and that when people don’t get their usual dose, they can suffer a range of withdrawal symptoms.”

His research, published in the October issue of Psychopharmacology, analyzes 66 previous studies on the effects of caffeine withdrawal. One Coffee Sets the Stage Griffiths’ analysis shows as little as one cup of coffee can cause an addiction, and withdrawal from caffeine produces any of five clusters of symptoms in some people:

Headache, the most common symptom, which affects at least of 50 percent of people in
Image via Wikipedia

caffeine withdrawal

Fatigue or drowsiness

“Unhappy” mood, depression, or irritability

Difficulty concentrating

Flu-like symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, muscle pain, and stiffness.”

Onset of these symptoms typically occurs within 12 to 24 hours of stopping caffeine and peaks one to two days after stopping,” Griffiths tells WebMD. “The duration is between two and nine days.”

A new revelation in Griffith’s analysis may be what upgrades caffeine withdrawal from its current “more study is needed” status to “disorder” status: These withdrawal symptoms are severe enough in about one in eight people to interfere with their ability to function on a day-to-day basis.

“The withdrawal symptoms can be mild or severe, but it’s estimated that 13 percent of people develop symptoms so significant that they can’t do what they normally would do — they can’t work, they can’t leave the house, they can’t function,” he says.

Interference, Not Just Symptoms

That’s key for inclusion in the DSM, says John Hughes, MD, a University of Vermont psychiatrist and addiction specialist who serves as a medical consultant for the book. “Caffeine withdrawal was proposed for DSM-IV [the current edition of DSM], but the major objection to including it as a disorder was an absence of good data showing clinical significance,” says Hughes, who was not involved in Griffiths’ study. “Not only do you have to show it produces symptoms, but you have to show that those symptoms can interfere with daily function.”

Image via Wikipedia

This study, co-authored by American University researcher Laura Juliano, PhD, does that, says Hughes. “It shows very nicely that the effects of caffeine withdrawal are consistent, that several symptoms are of large magnitude, and that a minority of people cannot perform daily functions when they go without caffeine,” he tells WebMD.

Their study shows no difference in withdrawal symptoms based on the source of caffeine, which includes coffee and sodas, some teas, chocolate, and medications such as Excedrin and NoDoz.

“Caffeine is caffeine, from a pharmacologic point of view,” says Griffiths.

In the U.S., average daily caffeine intake is about 280 milligrams — what’s in two mugs of coffee or three to five cans of soft drinks. Up to 90 percent of people regularly use caffeine, and about 100 milligrams is enough to trigger withdrawal symptoms, says Griffiths.

Image via Wikipedia

Should You Quit? Still, both experts say just because caffeine withdrawal can produce symptoms doesn’t mean it’s dangerous. “I’m hesitant to even call caffeine an ‘addiction,’ because addiction has to do with the inability to stop or control,” says Hughes. “Most people can stop drinking coffee, even if they have symptoms when they do.” Griffiths agrees. “The fact that caffeine produces physical dependence isn’t necessarily grounds in and of itself to quit,” he says.

“But if you want to, the best way is with a gradual withdrawal — just slowly change the proportion of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee until you’re only drinking decaf. Don’t stop abruptly; that will likely cause more symptoms.”

The real message of Griffiths’ findings: “It’s that people should realize the possibility that caffeine withdrawal may be responsible for some symptoms,” says Hughes. “If you have recurring headaches or fatigue, you really to think that it may be due to caffeine withdrawal.”

SOURCES:
Juliano, L. Psychopharmacology, October 2004.
Roland Griffiths, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.
John Hughes, MD, professor, department of psychiatry, psychology and family practice, University of Vermont, Burlington.