 |
| 21 11 2008 - 11.40 GMT |
Almost two in five people who drink to excess are lying to their doctors about how much alcohol they really consume, suggests a survey. Men and women drinking double the daily limit also admitted concealing it from partners, friends and colleagues. Makes you wonder, who are they trying to fool, eh? Well, according in one survey 19% of heavy drinkers have tried hard to fool themselves about how much they actually drank each day! |
| 19 11 2008 - 13.36 GMT |
Do you remember when earlier this year UN published a report suggesting the celebrities were to blame for widespread drug use among young people? This claim was kind of ridiculous and I doubt it had much to do with reality, or the root of problem we're looking at here. I mean, let's face it - if this guy is your role model, then I think not the drug use, but complete lack of reason, repeated failure to think for yourself and overall being a spineless moron should top the list of your worries! Today I read about yet another insane take on the drugs issue. Apparently, this time around you shouldn't be doing drugs because... it damages the rain forests! What on earth makes you think that anyone snorting coke will give a fuck about rain forest is entirely lost on me. I think this shows a high level of incompetence and lack of understanding of the realities of the problem. Or perhaps, on second thought, maybe it shows desperation? But either way, let me spell it out for you. People using drugs for recreational purposes don't give a damn about anything: their health, their life, their families, the social consequence, the misery they directly or indirectly inflict on other peoples' lives... so why would they suddenly stop and think because of the freaking rain forests? Please. They're out to have what they see as good time. They want to silence their fears and medicate their insecurities. Drugs provide that. This is the end of story and there's nothing else to it. If some forest gets cut down on the other side of the planet, if numerous people suffer around the globe, if lives are destroyed and families torn apart - who gives a fuck? Not these guys for sure. |
| 18 11 2008 - 11.20 GMT |
Last Sunday the Observer published a special edition called Drugs Uncovered. It featured several good articles, among them some that I found quite inspiring in their direct approach and blunt honesty (Isn't this just what we need, after all?). Here's a selection of interesting remarks from the opening piece: "Society adjusts to specific drugs in much the same way that the body does: it becomes more tolerant. That's not to say there is widespread sympathy for, say, heroin and crack use. But while their deleterious effects are well-known, the idea that they amount to a kind of super-virulent pandemic has been modified by experience. We know they can be addictive, and we know addicts are often desperate people, but we also know they form a tiny minority in society." "For a growing number of people, drugs form part of their portfolio of leisure: gym on Tuesday, cinema Thursday and cocaine Friday. Drugs, by this measure, are just another consumer choice for hardworking people with disposable income. This is the shiny, if not always happy, side of the equation. Then there are people whose lives, rather than income, seem disposable. The crack-addicted street prostitutes in almost every major city, the hopeless junkies on sink estates, the criminals who feed their habits with burglary and mugging, and the dealers who criminalise youth and kill one another. There's nothing glamorous nor appealing about this picture: it's a grim, monochrome advert for abstinence." "The poll the Observer commissioned shows that just over a quarter of all adults have taken illegal drugs at some point in their lives. That's a large number of people, but it only tells a quarter of the story. Almost half of those in the 16-34 group have consumed illegal drugs, while almost all of those aged over 55 have not. It might be expected that as young people come of age, bringing more drug users into the democratic realm, and older people die, reducing the number of non-users, attitudes to drug use will grow more permissive." "Until relatively recently drugs, as depicted in countless songs and films, were viewed as symbols of subversion. To light up a joint, or to slip into the lavatory for a line, was in some vague and unexamined way an anti-authoritarian, or countercultural, act of defiance, and not just because it was illegal. By dint of the fact that drugs were mostly restricted to an urban elite, they also represented a kind of informed transgression. But the great democratic march of global markets and consumer choice has spread drugs across classes and cultures, and not infrequently to ill-effect. However, this expansion in use has at least demystified drug-taking. It may sometimes be fun, but it's never clever." |
| 15 11 2008 - 12.58 GMT |
More people per capita drink and drive in Wisconsin than any other state in the US. More than 1,600 people have died from alcohol-related traffic wrecks since 2003. It's the only state where the first time you're caught drunk driving is not even a crime... Wasted in Wisconsin by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is an extensive and an in-depth piece of reporting on the culture of drinking that is well-known in that state. This ambitious project consists of five main stories that examine Wisconsin's drinking culture, its laws and the costs of drinking and driving. On top of that there are profiles of victims of drunken driving from every one of the state's 72 counties, adequately named as Sobering Reminders - small pieces with strong focus on the lost lives and families left behind. Oh yeah, and don't forget about the excellent videos. The whole thing is balanced and engaging, well researched and often frank. Do yourself a favor and check it out. Well worth the time. |
| 13 11 2008 - 16.34 GMT |
More on underage drinking: The UK has some of the highest levels of drunkenness among young people in Europe. By the age of 13, the proportion of those who drink exceeds the proportion of teenagers who do not. According to Frank Soodeen, former Alcohol Concern press officer: "There are more than 800,000 children below the age of 15 drinking regularly in the UK." |
| 10 11 2008 - 10.26 GMT |
BBC: "A child under 10 years old is treated in hospital for the effects of alcohol every three days". 648 children under 10 in England were hospitalised with alcohol problems between 2002 and 2007. Among the under-16s that figure rose to 24,000. 12,500 16-17 year-olds were admitted to accident and emergency after drinking too much (almost a 100% rise of 95% in five years). Over the same period, 600,000 adults needed hospital treatment for alcohol-related complaints. |
| 09 11 2008 - 11.28 GMT |
Couple more cocaine figures from UK: The proportion of adults using cocaine in the past year has increased nearly four-fold since 1996, to an estimated 810,000 people a year. Cocaine use among young people has increased in the past decade with 326,000 16-24 year-olds estimated to have taken cocaine in the past year. |
| 08 11 2008 - 10.25 GMT |
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction released its 2008 Annual Report on the current state of the drugs problem in Europe. Across the continent, an estimated 4 million people used cocaine last year (12 million EU citizens aged 15-64 had taken cocaine at some point, 11 million had used amphetamines and 9.5 million had taken ecstasy). Cocaine is associated with up to 20% of drug deaths in the UK, Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands. United Kingdom and Spain have the highest cocaine use rates. (UK has recorded the highest number of cocaine users in the EU for the fifth year running, not bad, eh?). Almost 5% of young people in England and Wales have tried the drug in the last year, while use among all adults has almost tripled in the past decade. (Two years ago an estimated 65,000 children aged 11 to 15 in schools in England said they had taken cocaine, and the trend was increasing). More than 30% of people aged 15 to 64 in UK use cannabis and ecstasy use remains consistently higher in the UK compared to other countries (btw. remember claims about ecstasy being a safe drug with no long term use effects?). I'm not sure if these figures need any comments. They speak for themselves. It's not like we don't see the evidence of all this on the streets we walk and in the neighbourhoods we populate. I refuse to be really surprised by most things I learn about the drug problems across the world - "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". What warrants further investigation is, first of all, the nature of drug demand across the layers of society and the common denominator sometimes seen in the patterns of abuse (I plan to elaborate on this in the near future). Secondly, another issue worth some consideration is the following: the scale of these numbers, as well as the damage inflicted to the society and individuals by the popular drug use, are of course significant, but could it be that perhaps all this pales in comparison with parallel figures relating to some perfectly legal, widely available and culturally accepted addictive substances? |
| 05 11 2008 - 10.40 GMT |
42,000 barred from classrooms over alcohol or drugs. Tens of thousands of pupils are being excluded from school for drinking, according to new research which undermines the government's claims that its efforts to curb alcohol-related antisocial behaviour are working. The figures also suggest there may be a close link between underage drinking and crime: half of all 10-17s who drank once a week or more are said to have committed a criminal offence. |
| 04 11 2008 - 13.29 GMT |
World's biggest public smoking ban came into effect two days ago. 20% of all deaths in India are smoking-related and tobacco products kill an estimated 1 million people every year. Do the math, that's two people per minute! |
| 03 11 2008 - 13.05 GMT |
2,000 people die each week in the UK of smoking related diseases. That's almost 300 people per day, and almost 12 people every hour. Couple of days ago the NHS aired a Halloween-themed advert, aimed at "scaring" parents into giving up smoking for the sake of their kids. I think this is a really good angle. Some people may think it's not worth quitting for themselves, or they can't get motivated enough if you just tell them "it's bad for you". But if you have family, if you have kids, partners, lovers, significant others - wouldn't you rather spend couple more years (on average, smokers die 12 years earlier than non-smokers) with them? See them grow up. See your relationships evolve. Go through some great moments together. Be there for them when they need you. "If you think giving up smoking is hard, maybe try telling your child you have lung cancer". |
| 09 10 2008 - 12.31 GMT |
According to a survey published couple of days ago by Addaction, one in five young people think their parents have taken drugs. 10% of young people said their parents still take drugs and this estimate seems to go hand in hand with government figures that find 10% of adults admit to having taken at least one illicit substance in the last year. It looks like the young people have a far better idea of their parents' drug taking history than vice versa. Whether you're a kid or a parent, I think you should try drugs. |
| 08 10 2008 - 08.11 GMT |
Links between meat consumption and increased cancer risk rates (colorectal, esophageal, bladder, liver and even lung cancer) have been widely documented but even if you've heard it all before, here's a new development in the field! Gentlemen, this one's for you: brand new research suggests eating meat and dairy products may increase the risk of prostate cancer. |
| 07 10 2008 - 07.16 GMT |
Over 80,000 people die from smoking-related disease in England every year. One in seven 15 year olds is already a regular smoker. Two thirds of regular smokers start before the age of 18 and almost 40% start before the age of 16. Treating smokers costs the NHS in England £2.7bn a year, compared with £1.7bn a decade ago. |
| 03 10 2008 - 10.03 GMT |
Drug related issues find their way to the mainstream of political agendas every couple of years. It happens in strange cycles, one could not help but think that maybe, just maybe, it's all connected to a cyclical event of some sort, I don't know, maybe... an election looming around the corner? I don't think the politicians grasp the depth of the problem, and I don't think they see substance abuse as one of their priorities, but one thing is for sure - when it comes to the polls, few things beat the results delivered by "tough policies on drugs", be it a new chapter of the war on drugs or a promise of another crack (did I say "crack"?) down on the supply chain... and then, there's always the wild card, the simple one-step solution to all drug problems, in the form of just putting more people in jails! So if you find yourself running for the office this term, don't forget about the Incarcerex. |
| 02 10 2008 - 09.01 GMT |
When graphic warnings showing gruesome pictures of failed organs, cancer and other smoking related illness appeared on cigarette packs in Canada, a survey showed that 30% of smokers who quit said that the hardcore images got them motivated to kick the habit. Smoking related disease is still UK's top killer, about 10 million of people continue to smoke. CNN reports on the new anti smoking campaign introduced in UK, featuring those direct graphic images. Please note the mandatory appearance by our dear friend Simon Clarke, described in the clip as "pro-smoking campaigner". Perhaps it would be more precise to provide viewers with his job title - "Director of FOREST"? |
| 01 10 2008 - 09.06 GMT |
"We know that substance addiction is a cause for concern for 86% of the public". But because people don't yet associate this concern with giving to a charity, as they might do with child abuse or environmental protection, Addaction is launching a major public fundraising campaign around drug and alcohol abuse, says Alan Booth (charity's director of marketing and public affairs). Drug and alcohol abuse is one of the public's least favourite charitable causes, so Addaction's campaign aims to "fundamentally transform the public's attitude to addiction, and is an attempt to challenge the idea that drug and alcohol addicts are unworthy of public funding and support". I think Addaction guys are running a tight operation, and, from what I can see, they are one of the leading forces in the public debate on drugs and alcohol in UK. What's even more important, they go way beyond the talking and have impressive education and outreach projects. This campaign touches on one of the crucial issues I often find myself going back to. Should the public pay the bill for what's essentially somebody's own failure to act responsibly? While sometimes this may be an oversimplified view, addiction is often a direct result of your poor judgment and your careless behaviour. So if you are to blame, why should someone else pay the price? Or, taking it to the next level, why should I rather give money to a charity dealing with people who brought havoc upon themselves rather than those who are in genuine need of help for reasons completely out of their control? Sorry you fucked up your life by thinking drugs will cause no harm and you won't get hooked on this shit, but indeed it's going to be a tough choice between your sorry ass and that of a starving child or some kid who needs crucial heart surgery to live pass the end of the year. It's easy to get carried away by thoughts like that. And yes, there's often some truth to that logic, too - but that's not the point. I believe that, regardless of our moral dilemmas and priorities, by supporting charities like Addaction we help out not only people addicted to drugs and alcohol, but we have a pretty good chance of supporting the ones who are affected by the problem in the "second degree" kind of way. You know, kids, partners, families of people who are so deep in trouble they can't seem to pull themselves out of it. If the addicts get help and ultimately beat the habit, it's not only their life that gets saved. Think about it. (Also, this only goes to show that all drugs should be legal and companies that provide them should be paying the NHS bill and be taxed heavy as hell to support education and support projects. Anyone has any ideas as to why we don't see this happening?) |
| 20 09 2008 - 09.15 GMT |
Of course, following the publication of recent "drinker types" research I wrote about in the last entry, it didn't take long for the backlash to kick in... Ok, so what - maybe UK has a bit of a problem with binge drinking, but at the same time it seems like the regular drinkers are put under too much pressure, don't you think? Look around you, it's doom and gloom. Everyone is against the poor drinkers. The Government? It wants tough new laws which will change how everyone buys and drinks alcohol! The politicians? They want there to be major restrictions and for prices to go up! (Don't even mention the media, we know what these guys are all about...) And as a result of the brutal siege on our civil rights, ordinary drinkers across Britain aren't being listened to! (Damn it!) Yeah, if that sounds about right to you, maybe you should join The Drinkers Alliance? It's one of many grass root organisations coming to life as a way for Ordinary Joe to fight back! You know, regular people, citizens, coming together, to fight for the right cause. Unless... hold on, unless... (in a way similar to "Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco" (Forest) which by what seems to me like the strangest twist of fate turned out to be a front for the tobacco industry!)... unless, The Drinkers Alliance actually is (act surprised now!) a PR stunt devised by none else than The Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA), "Established in 1824, the WSTA represents the whole of the wine and spirit supply chain including producers, importers, wholesalers, bottlers, warehouse keepers, logistics specialists, brand owners, licensed retailers and consultants". |
| 19 09 2008 - 09.59 GMT |
I said it before and I say it again, "drinking" is not the problem. Excessive drinking is. Binge drinking is. When toxic substance plays a major role in your life, you have a problem. And people around you have a problem, too. If you're inclined to investigate this further, there's the question of "how do I know I'm crossing over the line"? It seems to me like most people abusing legal and illegal drugs don't seem to realise they are taking it a step too far. Part of it is due to the addictive nature of these substances, part of is due to the social conditioning, and part of it is just people being stupid or naive. Department of Health in England research with focus groups found that heavy drinkers often fell into one of nine categories. It's a pretty frank look at the "why" of drinking. The reasons and the circumstances, and what does it all mean. So, what type of drinker are you? Are you a "De-stress drinker"? - You use alcohol to regain control of life and calm down. This group includes middle-class women and men. You typically have a pressurised job or stressful home life, which leads you to feel burdened with responsibility. Partners often supported or reinforced your behaviour by preparing drinks to help relieve stress. Alcohol is a comforter and a form of self-medication used to help you cope. (My verdict: maybe you should change your job before it gets you killed?) Are you a "Conformist drinker"? - You are driven by the need to belong and you seek a structure to their lives. You are typically men aged 45-59 in clerical or manual jobs, and you tend to have traditional values and attitudes. Regularly going to the pub is a core part of your weekly, habitual behaviour. (My verdict: your self esteem needs a better boost than a shot of vodka, get a life!) Are you a "Boredom drinker"? - You consume alcohol to pass the time, seeking stimulation to relieve the monotony of life. Alcohol helps you to feel comforted and secure. You are typically in the 35-50 age bracket and come from both genders, although the bias is towards women. (My verdict: I feel sorry for you, but it's never too late to change your ways.) Are you a "Depressed drinker"? - You may be of any age, gender or social/economic group. You crave comfort, safety and security. Your life is in a state of crisis and your drinking tends to increase steadily over the period of your depression. You tend to drink very heavily, often at home and alone, over extended periods. (My verdict: seek help now.) Are you a "Re-Bonding drinker"? - You are driven by a need to keep in touch with people who are close to you. You are either male or female, of any age and social class. You drink most evenings as you catch up with different sets of people in your lives, including friends, family and partners. (My verdict: this is pathetic.) Are you a "Community drinker"? - You are motivated by the need to belong. You are usually lower middle class, either man and woman, you drink in large social friendship groups, seeking stimulation and release from everyday life in the company of others. If your friends are not in the pub in a particular evening, you probably wouldn't stay on drinking. Drinking provides a sense of safety and security and gives your life a meaning. (My verdict: cut the leash.) Are you a "Hedonistic drinker"? - You crave stimulation and want to abandon control. You are sometimes divorced, or with grown-up children, you want to stand out from the crowd. You frequently drink to get drunk and are doing this three or four times a week. For you drinking excessively is a way of visibly expressing your independence, freedom and "youthfulness" to yourself and alcohol is used to release inhibitions. (My verdict: hey, you just puked your kebab all over my shoes!) Are you a "Macho drinker"? - You spend most of your spare time in pubs. You are most likely male, of any age and you want to stand out from the crowd. But, unlike the hedonistic drinkers, you want to control and be in control, albeit of others rather than yourself. Your "alpha male" status revolves around your drinking, which is driven by a constant need to assert your masculinity and status to themselves and others. (My verdict: I almost feel sorry for the girls that fall for your kind.) Are you "Border dependent"? - You regard the pub as a home from home. You visit it during the day and the evening, on weekdays and at weekends, drinking fast and often. You have a combination of motives, including boredom, the need to conform and a general sense of malaise in their lives. (My verdict: I don't see how this can change, but don't worry, you probably have another 20 odd years of addiction in front of you before your internal organs fail.) |
| 11 09 2008 - 09.07 GMT |
Some time ago CNN aired this little piece that kind of goes well my previous entry - check it out. |
| 10 09 2008 - 12.25 GMT |
In the late 90s United Nations Environment Programme’s Unit on Climate Change started looking into strong links between human diet and methane emissions from livestock. The 2004 "State of the World" report made specific claims and provided clear figures showing that, while there are of course many human activities that contribute to global warming (electric power generation, the use of passenger and other vehicles, over-consumption, international shipping, deforestation, smoking, militarism), the animals we eat emit at least 21% of all the CO2 that can be attributed to human activity - and eating meat directly contributes to this environmentally irresponsible industry and the dire threat of global warming. Fast forward to couple of days ago and it's as official as it gets: The UN says eat less meat to curb global warming. The numbers don't lie. First of all - in terms of the emissions people tend to focus on CO2 a lot, but methane is a greenhouse gas with an effect 23 times greater than carbon dioxide. There are around 1.5 billion cows on this planet and each of them produces on average 100kg every year. 100kg of methane is roughly equal to the damage done by two return flights between London and New York, or driving 7,800 miles. Cows also produce two-thirds of the world's ammonia. You know, the stuff that's the principal cause of acid rain? Secondly - given the state of the world today, it's pretty damn hard to justify breeding all these animals from the resources shortage point of view. World water crisis? Nah, it only takes 990 litres of water to produce 1 litre of milk, and just under 500 litres of water is needed to produce 1 kilo of beef! World hunger? Oh, c'mon, but we only need 7 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef! Last, but not least - deforestation is killing the planet, guess what are its two principal human-related causes? Livestock grazing and growing crops... to feed the livestock. It's also quite amazing how pretty much every other day we hear about new developments in the auto industry that will make the cars greener. And there's a good reason for that: while the meat industry prefers to lay low and not to draw any scrutiny, the car manufacturers can always use exposure and advertising. But it's interesting how people are quick to jump on the latest car craze "to save the planet", while the scientific evidence shows that a vegan diet is way more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius (as researchers at the University of Chicago have determined). I know some people couldn't care less about the ethical reasons for going vegetarian or vegan. The paramount scale of human and animal suffering around the world can be of little concern to you. I know that some people really don't care to find out about the negative health impact products of animal origin have on you. Fair enough, some people are into exercise and healthy living, while some other don't see any value in it whatsoever. And I know that the newly highlighted "global warming angle" on this issue will not be seen as a factor for some people. Partly because some people in the privileged world just don't care about anything that's not affecting them directly (wait and see, that is set to change pretty damn soon), but because the biggest obstacle I see in terms of promoting vegan and vegetarian lifestyles is the cultural factor. You think it's personal. You think "we" are a self-righteous bunch convinced we know best, and "you" will not be told what to do, and how to live your life. This is a knee jerk reaction. This is the big dilemma. This is the big challenge. This, most crucially, is not personal. I sincerely hope that everyone will realise it one day, but I fear it is too late to reverse the tide. I refuse to apologise for this prolonged entry... but perhaps you will find some consolation in brand new series of food photos posted in the foodpix section! |
| 09 09 2008 - 09.27 GMT |
Despite the billions of dollars the United States has spent battling the drug cartels, it has hardly made a dent in the cocaine trade. 1,421 metric tons of cocaine were shipped through Latin America to the United States and Europe last year — 39 percent more than in 2006. UN estimates that the area devoted to growing coca leaf in the Andes expanded 16 percent last year. NY Times reports on problems with a strategy that focuses overwhelmingly on disrupting the supply of drugs while doing too little to curb domestic demand. |
| 08 09 2008 - 09.33 GMT |
I came across an interesting, pretty balanced but not too detailed, analysis of the drug issue in the Independent: could it be that the "war on drugs" is really making the problem worse? Government officials are of course quick to highlight the great rise in drug seizures (the number of Class A drug seizures in England and Wales more than doubled between 1996 and 2005, according to recent UK Drug Policy Commission report) - but it's estimated that up to 80% of drugs would need to be seized regularly to put major traffickers out of business, and seizure rates on this scale have never been achieved in the UK or elsewhere. (My last entry featured an incorrect external link, it's been taken care of now, sorry.) |
| 15 08 2008 - 08.40 GMT |
2m Britons take illegal drugs each month. 1 in 3 adults has tried banned substances. 1 in 4 school-aged children has used drugs. Hospital admissions in England for drugs poisoning increased by 43 per cent in 10 years. Admissions for mental health and behavioural problems caused by drug abuse, more than doubled the figure of 10 years ago. Cocaine use trebles in a decade (btw. Transform note on their blog that DoH spokeswoman is not right when she says drug deaths are down). Former drugs policy director says legalisation would be less harmful than the current strategy. "Enforcement and supply-side interventions are largely pointless. They have no significant, lasting impact on the availability, affordability or use of drugs". |
| 30 07 2008 - 09.31 GMT |
More cheerful stories about Brits enjoy the holiday season: Two drunken British women went on a rampage on a charter plane, hitting one flight attendant with a bottle of vodka and trying to open a cabin door mid-flight. They were on their way back from Greece, where a mayor of Faliraki seaside resort says he's relieved to see fewer visitors from UK: "Mercifully our clientele this summer is a wonderful mix of people from all over Europe who know how to peacefully enjoy their time in the sun. There are far fewer Britons, which means no rapes, no accidents, no drunken debauchery, no going on the rampage." Good thing David Cameron, leader of the opposition in UK parliament, found the solution to all this - he says parents should introduce their children to alcohol at home in order to avoid it causing trouble when they are older. This idea has got "hypocrisy" written all over it in bright flashing toxic-waste shade of green! It may seem like it says "people abuse substances because they are forbidden fruit". This is, of course, true to some extent, but if this is what Mr. Cameron is aiming at, then why stop at alcohol? What about tobacco, cocaine and heroin? Surely, there's a hole somewhere in his logic, and seems to me like it's the size of a small lorry! |
| 28 07 2008 - 09.10 GMT |
The number of drug users being admitted to hospital with cocaine overdoses is four times higher than it was eight years ago. Up to 25% of heart attacks occurring in people under 30 may be due to regular cocaine use. But then - what do you expect, when cocaine is used in 95% of bars and clubs in London? |
| 25 07 2008 - 09.02 GMT |
Couple of months ago I wrote about the rising rates of alcohol related hospital admissions. The upward trend was evident and the numbers were pretty staggering. But hey - guess what! The latest NHS admissions data reveal that past assessments had vastly underestimated the impact alcohol abuse has on society and it turns out that more than 800,000 people are admitted to hospital with alcohol-related illnesses and injuries every year – that's four times the previous official figure! Adding insult to injury, drinks industry is flouting its own "voluntary code" on "responsible sales". Wow, the layers of absurd are pretty damn thick here! It's a little bit like the tobacco companies and menthol cigarettes - you know, the lighter, healthier smokes... that actually are just a more addictive way to target young people. |
| 24 07 2008 - 08.43 GMT |
It's middle of the summer and the holiday season is in full swing. It can be so much fun - go somewhere nice, chill out, maybe learn how to surf or just work on your tan, right? Or, if that sounds kind of boring, you can always overdose drugs or drink yourself to death. |
| 23 07 2008 - 12.17 GMT |
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable illness, disability and premature death in Canada. Each year, at least 40,000 deaths are caused by smoking - that's more than 20% of all deaths among Canadians. Tobacco kills three times more Canadians than alcohol, AIDS, illicit drugs, car accidents, suicide and murder - all combined. Let's break it down. Of every 1,000 Canadians who smoke and are now 20 years old, about half will die from smoking if they continue to use tobacco. That's 500 people. And approximatively 250 of them will not live pass the age of 70 (on average, deaths from smoking result in 15 years loss of expected life). In contrast, out of that 1,000 people, only nine will die in traffic accidents, and only one will be murdered. No wonder Canada is sick of smoke. |
| 09 07 2008 - 11.20 GMT |
Another predictable story, another avoidable disaster, another wasted chance. Jenna Foellmi, a 20-year-old biochemistry major at Winona State University, died of alcohol poisoning, one day after she had finished her last exam of the semester. Here's an interesting bit, as CNN reports: Analysis of hundreds of news articles about alcohol-poisoning deaths in the past decade found that not only the victims drank themselves well past the point of oblivion (an average blood-alcohol level of 0.40 percent, or five times the legal limit for driving). In nearly every case, friends knew the victim was drunk and put him or her to bed to "sleep it off". And that was the case with Jenna, too. Her mother, Kate Foellmi said: "Her friends were with her. It's not like they just left her alone". Now, just think about it. What kind of sick denial state are you in. You call people who let you die "friends"? You call them friends because, well let's see, they let you get all drugged up to the point of successfully putting your life at risk? Friendship is not about having a companion to get drunk and do drugs with, to go through your poison fueled pathetic rituals of passage. Screw that and screw your friends. Where are they when you really need them? |
| 07 07 2008 - 13.26 GMT |
A survey by the Local Government Association found the relaxation of the licensing laws has failed to reduce drunken violence - around seven in ten police authorities, primary care trusts and councils had seen either no change or an increase in alcohol-related disorder. The new licensing laws have stretched resources, with 86% of health authorities and 94% of councils reporting increased pressure. |
| 30 06 2008 - 15.44 GMT |
The largest fall in the number of smokers on record? The numbers don't lie, baby. More than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban. Smoking in UK fell by 5.5% in the nine months after the ban, compared with 1.6% in the previous nine months. |
| 30 06 2008 - 07.12 GMT |
Tomorrow evening BBC will show a report about how British American Tobacco is targeting youth in Africa - it certainly looks quite promising. |
| 23 06 2008 - 20.47 GMT |
Hey, I don't know if you've noticed, but smokers have been getting a bit of a rough ride recently, now haven't they? You know, there's the smoking ban, there's that talk about branding restrictions, and so forth. Everyday is a struggle, you know what I mean?! And do you remember couple of weeks ago when it was announced that some heroin addicts will get free gym? That must have been a real blow to the smokers out there. I feel for these guys. Think about it. They're addicted to some deadly stuff, there's a lot more of them than the junkies, they cost the NHS way more than the illegal drug users - and all for what? For nothing. They get nothing. Nothing. No thing. Until, that is, two days ago, when their miserable fortunes have finally turned! Now (at least in some parts of Scotland) they can get free money! Ok, jokes aside. I don't know what to think about this one. I mean, yes, these people are poor. And yes, poor people will smoke more than the rich ones. But is this a viable solution? And if it is, what kind of message is it sending? Well, forget about the message, this is probably not the focus here. Is this going to work? Because if it will, than it's a pity this can't be done on a larger scale. By "this" I mean "bribing people into not being stupid", because this is kind of what it boils down to. |
| 17 06 2008 - 09.48 GMT |
Yesterday, as I was leaving my local food shop, I saw a group of 5 or 6 teenagers (I'd say 14 to 17 years old) causing some serious commotion across the road from where I was. It looked like one of them was struggling a bit with two other guys. Suddenly he collapsed, I wasn't sure what happened and suspected maybe he got stabbed or knocked out, but they picked him up and rushed to the nearest car - I realised that the boy was high on drugs and maybe booze and his mates were trying to help him. Which they did, by hijacking the car together with the driver and rushing off toward a hospital that's just around the corner. Shortly after, two cop cars came, but by then it was all over, and the guy that got jacked was actually back and reunited with his family. In the meantime, the government launches a new multimillion-pound anti-binge campaign, aimed at 18-24 year olds. I have this feeling that by the time these guys I saw on the street are in their 20s it will be way too late to reach them, but still it seems like a pretty good effort - the add is seriously dumbed down ("don't get drunk, because you will look unattractive"), which is great, and you can check it out here. |
| 16 06 2008 - 12.39 GMT |
Couple of nights ago I was returning home on a night bus full of drunk party people. This girl sat next to me and tried to start a conversation - she was so drunk she couldn't really build a coherent sentence. She stumbled off the bus at some random bus stop, barely avoiding falling over as she stepped onto the sidewalk. She looked around, appeared really confused, and a little bit angry, as she tried to find her way to wherever she wanted to go. The bus moved on and I found myself wondering: who's to blame if she gets her bag stolen tonight, or if she gets assaulted, or if she ends up strolling onto the road and getting hit by a car? Here's what I think. When you're getting all fucked up (swearing you're having the time of your life but tomorrow you won't even be able to recall what happened last night) and getting into trouble for no better reason than being stupid - someone, somewhere needs real help, and the resources used to baby-sit your sorry ass are not available to people who need them. By all means, I should look at you as a victim of the process the society is shaped today by alcohol and drugs. But my pity for you will not change your ways, and I would be lying to myself if I believed that my compassion could be a worthy substitute for your responsibility. So go out there, learn your lessons the hard way. This is about living, this is about choosing, and you're failing to prove me wrong each and every time. (Sorry kids, I can't always keep my guard up and stay positive no matter what. It just doesn't work like that. Now, please go and read this.) |
| 11 06 2008 - 13.45 GMT |
More crazy news from the War On Drugs frontlines. Gym membership vouchers for drug users! Drug addicts are going to be offered bonus vouchers, allowing them to get a gym membership or pay their utility bills, as a reward for staying in treatment. This is bonkers. I've been drug free for more than a decade, where's my free gym tickets, huh? Ok, it's easy to dismiss this as a completely stupid idea, but on a serious note - do they really think someone who is, let's say, trying to give up heroin and just signed up on methadone treatment will decide to stick with it because of freaking gym membership? |
| 02 06 2008 - 10.19 GMT |
Check this out - as part of a government effort to tackle teenage drinking, parents in England are going to be told how much alcohol to give their children. And, that they're going to be prosecuted if the kids drink in public. (Local governments have an even better idea: let's just tell drinkers booze makes them fat). Bringing this to the ground level, some parents say it's all nonsense, because they can't stop their son drinking. It's always sad to see someone you love or care for come to any harm, but the real issue here is - this guy is quite likely to end up in a bad way, but he's an adult and he's refusing help, so there's no way to tackle this, is there? (I mean, what's the cure for being stupid in the first place?) It's not drinking that's the problem. It's drunkenness that we should be worried about. Some people like to drink, and there's not much we can do about it. It actually is problematic, it terms of health impact, family relations, self-esteem, etc. But then, some people like to get drunk. And there's little we can about it. And the best excuse after whatever stupid shit they do is always: "Oh yeah, I'm sorry I was drunk. I'm sorry I run over your child, I'm sorry I raped your daughter, I'm sorry I stabbed your brother, I'm sorry I slept with that girl, I'm sorry your house went up in flames, I'm sorry... I was drunk! I'm sorry, ok?". This bullshit approach really winds me up. |
| 26 05 2008 - 09.32 GMT |
Here's a big question: is changing our diet the key to resolving the global food crisis? The Independent ran this piece about how what we eat affects the planet's food resources and it was refreshing to see the issue tackled from this angle. Usually, when you read about diet links to global warming (guess what's worse for the planet - methane or CO2? and how does that link to millions of animals you keep for food?) or world hunger, it's on a leaflet at your local veggie health food shop, not at a national paper. So I give credit to the Independent for venturing into this territory, but I'm disappointed to conclude that, ultimately, their piece smells of hypocrisy. The article explains how eating meat causes hunger: "It is a very inefficient way of producing food. It takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef, and large tracts of forest have been cleared for grazing land that might have been used to grow crops. Chicken is more efficient to produce – it takes 2kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. To maximise food production it is best to be vegan. According to Simon Fairlie, in his magazine The Land, it would take just 3 million hectares of arable land to meet Britain's food needs, half the current total, if the population were vegan". Very well indeed, what would the logical conclusion be then? Apparently, that we should not go vegan! And why? "It is not realistic to expect people to switch to a diet of vegetables, pulses, fruit and nuts". Please...! What you're saying is here's a way to stop hunger, save lives and resources, it's pretty straightforward and would have massive impact on those issues.... but, "it's not realistic" to expect people to "change their diet"?! |
| 25 05 2008 - 21.50 GMT |
You know drinking is a factor when it comes to all kinds of ailments, right? I just learned that medical experts who gave us Foetal Alcohol Syndrome now say that women who drink alcohol during pregnancy may be putting their babies at risk of developing autism. According to the Department of Health data, more than half of all mothers drink alcohol while pregnant. A recent survey showed 8% of women aged 18 to 24 had consumed at least 35 units of alcohol, the equivalent of about 15 glasses of wine, during the previous week. Binge drinking among young women has resulted in the number of alcohol-related deaths in women aged 35 to 54 doubling between 1991 and 2005. And, once again, NHS says hospital admissions linked to alcohol use are on the rise. Alcohol was the main or secondary cause of 207,800 NHS admissions in 2006/7, compared to 93,500 in 1995/96. There has also been a 20% rise in the number of GP prescriptions for treating alcohol dependency in the past four years. Of hospital admissions in 2006/7 specifically due to an alcohol-related diagnosis, almost one in 10 were in under 18 year olds. In 2006 there were 6,500 deaths related to alcohol, of which two thirds were men - a 19% rise from 2001 figures. 12% of men and 7% of women reported drinking on every single day in the previous week in recent "Statistics on Alcohol: England 2008" survey (download pdf version here). It also brings some interesting numbers regarding teenage drinking: more pupils aged 11 to 15 years say they have never had an alcoholic drink increased from 39% in 2001 to 45% in 2006, but those who admit to drinking are drinking more - out of 8,000 teens questioned, 30% of 15 year olds said it was fine to get drunk at least once a week. |
| 23 05 2008 - 16.44 GMT |
Are you ready for this? I don't think you are, so hold tight. Avocado Anonymous proudly brings you a massive food pictures update, it's pretty insane in terms of the amount of new images and the quality / diversity of food photographed this time, so do yourselves a favor and check out the foodpix section now! |
| 22 05 2008 - 07.56 GMT |
In UK, the government launched a £10m advertising campaign targeting older drinkers, "warning wine lovers who consume two or three glasses a night that they may be failing to recognise the risks they face". In one advertisement, three martini glasses will be shown, each containing an olive, with each olive larger than the last, to illustrate how heavy alcohol consumption over time can cause liver cirrhosis. In another, a pair of large glasses full of red wine, which resemble breasts, are used to remind women of the link between excess alcohol intake and breast cancer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't euphemisms most often used by those who feel guilty about what they're describing? Hey, it's not rocket science. Alcohol is bad for you. It terms of your health, moderate drinking is better than heavy drinking and not drinking is better than moderate drinking. End of story. How come no one tells it like it is, eh? "We hope that the campaign will bring about a shift in attitude to alcohol, gently steering, guiding and educating people, but without wagging a finger at them" - yeah I know, scare tactics don't work, but it seems to me like the main concern here is not to step on anyone's toe! It's a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We apologise for the inconvenience of your pending demise, and in the meantime - please grab a seat and enjoy the ride! 160 people die in India after drinking contaminated alcohol. Now, it can be argued, that this is an unfortunate incident. You know, the booze was contaminated, right? After all, if it was ok, most of them should be still alive today. This brings me back to the story of 5 prostitutes recently killed by a serial killer in UK. All the girls were drug addicts and worked in their field to support their habits. They were, by all means, killing themselves every single day. You can argue they didn't die because of drugs. It's not overdose that killed them, it's some psycho dude, right? But - do you think that they would find themselves in this unfortunate position in the first place, if it wasn't for the drugs? It's like killing somebody's kid while driving under influence. It's not the booze that killed the child, but surely it wasn't just poor driving and bad judgment, was it? I hope my logic is not flawed and I hope I'm not coming through like I know it all, it's just that it looks to me like people are content with looking at (and tackling) the outcomes, without ever investigating the reasons. |
| 21 05 2008 - 13.34 GMT |
Research from the University of Bath found that the government's constant emphasis on the dangers of drunkenness had failed to change people's behaviour and suggests that ministers should accept that people enjoy getting drunk from time to time and stop labelling Britain a 'nation of binge drinkers'. According to the study, public health messages instructing people to stick to moderate drinking were widely ignored, especially among young people who thought the number of units recommended were "unrealistically low". It seems to me like everyone's just going along with what they find to be the easiest way to deal with the issue. Drinkers say "limits are too low!" - like they are the ones to know. Government says "you're bing drinkers!" - like it's going to change anything. Researchers from Liverpool John Moores University warned that the culture of binge drinking and drug use among young people in Europe is increasing the risk of a sexual health crisis. Young people are drinking alcohol to increase the likelihood of having sex, using drugs to enhance their sexual pleasure, their study found, and this behaviour is linked to practising unsafe sex. This is, basically, nothing new. You lack confidence. You get drunk. (Suddenly, the world belongs to you and you're life and soul of the party!) You go to bed with someone. You wake up. "Oh shit, who's this guy/girl?". The cycle of regret and self loathing continues. And there's of course a fair chance for an unwanted bonus couple of weeks down the road. Pregnancy. Sexually transmitted disease. Who knows, maybe even both - if it's your lucky day. |
| 08 05 2008 - 13.57 GMT |
The UK home secretary, Jacqui Smith, just upgraded cannabis from class C to class B - against the advice of drug workers and government's own panel of experts, who warned that the move would not work in curbing its widespread abuse. Strange, huh? |
| 07 05 2008 - 07.59 GMT |
According to Harvard medical school in Boston study of more than 100,000 women, carried out between 1980 and 2004, people who give up smoking begin to improve their health almost immediately. Some interesting figures emerge: If you smoke one pack a day you are 115 times more likely to develop chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and your lung cancer risk level goes up by 40 times. 64% of deaths among current smokers could be attributable to cigarettes, and 28% of deaths among former smokers. (Newsflash for those of you in the UK: According to the British Medical Association, smoking-related illnesses kill more than 90,000 people each year, and cost the NHS £1.5bn a year - Office for National Statistics said in January this year that 22% of Britons are smokers). Still with us? Here's some good news: the health benefits of stopping appear quickly. For coronary heart disease, 61% of the full potential benefit from quitting happens in the first five years; for strokes 42%; for lung cancer 21%. |
| 06 05 2008 - 09.36 GMT |
More bad news for meat eaters. A New York food company is recalling 143 tons of meat and poultry because it might be contaminated with the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes. Listeriosis can cause high fever, headache, nausea, and in some cases, death. Couple of days ago this guy was mocking me a bit for being vegan. You know, the usual, "but meat is healthy", "you need meat", blah, blah. We spent couple of days together, he was working for a professional acquaintance of mine, anyway to make the long story short: in two days time he got really upset stomach... twice. Once over a lasagna. Once over a steak. Other than that, we ate all the same food, drank the same fluids, etc. And he was giving me some more drama about how skinny I am, while he was trying to do some exercise in order to shed couple of pounds. The irony of it all was somehow lost on him, but I got the last word anyway - when we were about to part our ways he said "for a vegan, I must say you're pretty strong" as he saw me carrying some 60+ kg on my back in blistering sun. I said "for a meat eater, I must say you're pretty strong, too - but one of us didn't get two food poisonings in a row, and can exercise to stay in shape, not because he's got to lose some weight!". Don't thread on me! Haha. |
| 04 05 2008 - 12.09 GMT |
According to stats released by Police, the number of women arrested for being drunk and disorderly has risen by more than 50% in the past five years. In some areas the number has leapt tenfold - the most dramatic surge was in the West Midlands which experienced a 1138% (no, this is not a typo!) increase. Alcohol campaigners and medical experts warned that binge drinking among young women has reached epidemic proportions and females who follow the example of male binge-drinkers were creating a time-bomb of serious health problems, including soaring rates of liver disease. It's not uncommon for some in their 20s and 30s to suffer liver conditions which doctors usually expect to see among far older, hardened drinkers. (And then there's cases like Natasha Farnham, whose liver failed when she was 14). And you know what the best part is? "What goes around, comes around". There seems to be no end in sight to this cycle. |
| 29 04 2008 - 11.18 GMT |
Here's a good read: "By the time I realised that ketamine was ruining my life, I no longer cared. I didn't want to die as such, I just didn't mind if I did". Sounds like fun, doesn't it? And I also came across this short but interesting piece about the link between smoking and drinking and the development of Alzheimer's disease. After studying almost 1000 people, aged sixty or more, who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's, scientists found that drinkers developed the disease almost five years earlier and smokers just over two years earlier, while people who checked all risk areas (heavy drinking and smoking, history of alcohol use in family, etc.) developed Alzheimer's eight and a half years earlier than those with none of the risk factors. |
| 14 04 2008 - 19.34 GMT |
Imagine this: your girlfriend has a cocaine-induced heart attack, while taking a hot bath, and suffers 60% burns all over her body, resulting in her death... all this while you sleep in another room... after you both consumed a mixture of cocaine, sleeping pills and alcohol at your flat. I can't blame you for not being able to cope with it - but, surely, there must have been warning signs that were ignored along the way. Maybe he should have asked himself at some point, "where is this going"? Or maybe his friends and family now wish they had talked to him about it? |
| 09 04 2008 - 08.26 GMT |
It’s estimated that more than four out of every five American 21-year-olds drink alcohol to celebrate the birthday milestone, which is the the legal drinking age in the United States. A new study from University of Missouri shows just how extreme the celebrations can be for some of those involved. NY Times looks at the drink fueled rite of passage ritual and its outcome. Now, isn't it insane? You can drive a car in US when you're 16, in most states you only need to be 18 to purchase a shotgun, but you can drink legally only when you're 21. Surely, there must be a good reason for that. Like, let's say - "people who are in their 20s will act reasonably and will know how to handle a drink or two"... right? Wrong. It's not about the legal drinking age. It's about the fact that people are made to think it's what they need to do to be grown-ups, to be seen as part of the cool group at school, to make their mark, to celebrate. (What a bitter irony, when you think about it). And honestly, I don't care if you drink or not. Do what you wanna do, do what you gotta do. I do not care. If you haven't got the brains to, at the very least, use drugs in moderate manner, then I don't expect you to have any concern for a child you'll kill one day while driving under influence or your own family that will have to cope with attending your funeral. So, yeah, it scares me and makes me angry. But believe it or not, with all that said, I don't think these young people are to blame. They know no better. They think this is "normal". They think that's the way it's supposed it be, that's what's expected of them. I believe it's not because they're infinitely stupid on their own terms, I believe it's because no one ever showed them any alternatives. |
| 07 04 2008 - 16.52 GMT |
BBC reports on more evidence showing that binge drinking damages memory. |
| 02 04 2008 - 08.40 GMT |
The striking discrepancy between the glamorous "wow factor" associated with drug use and the stark reality of its consequences have long been a reoccurring theme on this website. It's safe to say that using drugs is considered a cool thing to do. I know plenty of people who do it simply because of that - they see other folks doing it, and in their eyes these other folks are so damn cool. Peer pressure is a strong factor too, but peer pressure is actually only an extension on the cool factor. So many times it just boils down to this - using drugs is cool, fun, sexy and glamorous. By all means a great way to spend your free time, and meet some fabulous people in the process, too. Therefore, I always think of those dudes, who seem convinced they're cooler than the iceberg itself, when I read stories like this. Maybe I'm missing the point, maybe I just can't see it - but where exactly is the cool factor in having 35 members of your family die because of drugs? Where precisely is the glamour in seeing at least one hundred people you know lose their life to addiction? Where is the fun when you see your 20-something son, who should have all the world at his feet, just stand there in line to get some fresh needles? Please check this multimedia piece out - it's as good as it gets. |
| 01 04 2008 - 09.12 GMT |
The New York Times reports on recent developments in the search for alternatives to animal-derived drugs. Metro ran a front cover story yesterday about how eating one sausage or three pieces of bacon a day increases the risk of developing cancer by a 20%. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of older people are becoming alcoholic and - surprise, surprise - drinking when pregnant is not such a great idea, after all. The NHS warns women not to drink any alcohol during the first three months of pregnancy (abandoning its own guidelines published last year), and says that women should be much stricter about what they drink from the fourth month onwards. Apparently, "a small amount of alcohol is safe, but never more than one or two days a week". Blah, blah, blah. I don't understand. If alcohol is proven to have negative impact on your own health, why on earth would you drink any of it when you have an extra passenger on board coming along for the ride? Ever heard of common sense? Or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? |
| 29 03 2008 - 10.15 GMT |
Results of a new study into underage drinking and violence show that in some areas of UK as many as 40% of teenagers binge drink - almost half of those surveyed drank at least once a week, with 40% of girls and 42% of boys later involved in violence. Teenagers are drinking an average of 44 bottles of wine or 177 pints of beer a year each. Last week's Time Magazine cover story was an in-depth look at the social landscape shaped by violent teenage behaviour often fueled by alcohol and drugs. There isn't a day here when we don't hear about stabbings, shootings, or assaults involving teenagers. We had 11 teenagers stabbed to death on the streets of UK so far this year, which means we're looking at an average of one every 8 days - if we carry on like that it should almost reach a total of 50 by the end of the year. |
| 23 03 2008 - 12.49 GMT |
Ooops, after the rise of taxes on beer, wine and spirits two weeks ago (following warnings from doctors that supermarkets and corner shops were selling drink too cheaply and irresponsibly) shops are defying attempts by the government to clamp down on cheap alcohol and binge drinking. Rather than putting their prices up, they're attempting to force suppliers to absorb the cost of the rise so that they can carry on aggressively price-cutting. I guess I should have predicted that. In the meantime, more evidence pointing to alcohol and cancer link emerges, as Department of Health launches a £10m advertising campaign targeting middle-aged women who might underestimate their drinking. Women who drink above "the government's recommended limit" (what a joke, on its own terms) are 50% more likely to develop breast cancer. Rheumatoid Arthritis affects around 350,000 people in the UK. Can vegan diet reduce their high risk of heart attacks and strokes? Please note the obligatory disclaimer "A vegan diet may be helpful in reducing cholesterol, but it can be difficult to get enough of some important nutrients on a vegan diet." Like what - bovine growth hormones and antibiotics?! |
| 17 03 2008 - 12.34 GMT |
Could it be that, no matter how hard I try not to sound judgmental, the sole purpose of some people's lives is only to serve as a warning to others? It seems like there's a link between binge drinking and eating disorders - some women offset the calories from drinking by skipping meals. |
| 14 03 2008 - 13.45 GMT |
In Britain and Ireland, young people are drinking more than ever before - and often substantially more than in the US, France and Mediterranean countries. According to the Lancet, 27% of British 15-year-olds admit to having had at least five alcoholic drinks in a row in the past month, up from 22% in 1995, and 29% of teenage girls binge drink. Lancet, one of the world's leading medical journals, urges parents to act on underage drinking. For me, drinking is just not worth it. I'm having a blast living sober. I know people can enjoy drugs in moderation, but with the risks involved - why would I ever go back to that? Life is too good, too precious, too fun and too exciting. I know some people seek and find those those things in legal and illegal drugs, but I honestly admit - I just can't understand how you're willing to cope with all the consequences. Couple of weeks ago, on a weekend night, I was coming back home on a night bus full of drunk people. One girl was sitting on a stairway (we have double-decker buses here in London) and got puked on from upstairs. And the best thing about it? It wasn't all that much of a big deal - she was too drunk to be upset. You think you're being sold a magic potion that will take away your pain and make you have a great time, right? You are being lied to. Where exactly does hangover, alcohol fueled violence or devastating impact on your health fit into this picture? I never saw an alcoholic drink advertisement boasting about somebody vomiting on the back of your coat or assaulting you for no reason or hitting your child with a car while driving under influence. "Life is truly more rewarding when not viewed through the bottom of a glass" - what a great way of putting it. |
| 13 03 2008 - 15.41 GMT |
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced increases in duty tax on alcohol and cigarettes. Public health experts welcomed the move, but say it will take long time to influence drinking habits. Better this than nothing, I guess. International studies have found that even moderate tax rises can reduce road accidents and fatalities caused by excessive drinking, as well as deaths from cirrhosis and alcohol-related violent crime. Also, if you think you're too old to stop smoking - think again, because latest research suggests that reaching retirement presents a golden opportunity to finally kick the habit. |
| 12 03 2008 - 14.48 GMT |
Every once in a while I check the Avocado Anonymous website stats to see if we're getting linked (you can track referring sources) or to monitor general site use patterns and traffic. Google Stats also allows you to look at "keywords" - this shows you what people who come to the site looked for through a search engine, while they ended up on your site. Example: I want to find out a cool protein shake idea. I type "protein shake recipes" and when I click on one of the links provided, admin of that site will note that someone came to it after searching for "protein shake recipes", right? Of course our biggest keyword combination is "Avocado Anonymous". No surprise here. People don't know/remember if it's .org or .net, or they just use Google search instead of browser address bar, this is all very well and dandy. Another popular search combination is... "Avocado Addiction". Wow. This got me thinking. But if you think this is a weird one, you better fasten your seat-belts and hold tight now. While popular keywords combination are listed several times, there's a long tail of one-time hits that still get registered and sometimes they are really, really strange. Here are some examples. Extasy-themed search keyword combinations seem to be quite popular, but just look at the contexts: "taking extasy while pregnant", "if you take extasy while pregnant what does it do to your baby", "extasy with antibiotics side effects", "number of deaths from extasy per year uk", "what's the probability of having a heart attack on ecstasy?" or "the effects of orange juice on exstasy" - yeah, I know some are pretty bizzare. But how about gems like "daughter just overdosed" (mmm, I dunno, maybe you should, like, call the fucking 911 instead of going on the internet?!), "getting cocaine in croatia" (one of the best ones out there for sure!), or "avocado poisoning in chickens" (say what?). Luckily, apart from all these (and believe me - there's plenty more) curve balls there's still a ton of totally relevant keyword combos, too. It's kind of cool to see people come to this site after searching for "growing rates of drink and drug abuse amongst youngsters", "4400 people die each year from drunk drivers" or "how long till liver cirrhosis kills you". |
| 26 02 2008 - 11.36 GMT |
I saw an ad by the NHS yesterday in the the underground. It said: "One Londoner dies every hour from a smoking-related disease and smoking costs the NHS in London over 100 million pounds a year". I thought about it and was quite impressed how well it was put together. It provides a big picture but hits home, too - it was probably around 6 pm when I saw it, so almost 20 people already died on that day in London because of smoking. In other news, women in their thirties and forties are to be targeted in a government anti-drinking advertising campaign featuring graphic warnings that drinking could lead to breast cancer and liver failure. Do guys have it any easier? Nope. Doctors say you shouldn't smoke or drink, if you want to be a father. |
| 15 02 2008 - 10.09 GMT |
Starting in 2010, smoking will kill one million people in India per year. It already accounts for one in five male deaths and one in 20 female deaths in India and on average cuts 20 years from the lives of those it kills. |
| 12 02 2008 - 11.07 GMT |
Check this out. According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), smoking in Britain has fallen to its lowest level since records began - 22% of Britons are smokers (down from 27% at the end of the 1990s) and two-thirds say they would like to give up. And can you blame them? World Health Organisation says tobacco use will kill 500 million of the world's current population and a further 500 million over in the course of the century. |
| 08 02 2008 - 08.57 GMT |
I've just posted some more food photos in the Foodpix section for all of you vegan pervs out there. My girlfriend makes most of these. Don't hate the player, hate the game! I think I'm gonna start accepting submissions for this section, as I had a couple of folks holler at me with offers of sending me their pics, it sounds like a good idea. |
| 07 02 2008 - 10.58 GMT |
I watched this doc on BBC couple of nights ago, it was titled "Britain's worst drug" or something along those lines. It was all about how irrelevant the current drug classification system is. The scientists (from several universities and research institutes, government's top advisory committee on drug classification, and more) featured on the show have looked at 20 of the UK's most dangerous drugs. They considered three main factors: 1. health impact on individual, 2. addictiveness, 3. social consequence. As you can imagine, going over 20 substances in some 45 minutes was at times a little bit superficial, but still it was a piece of interesting reporting. Of course the main conclusion the show arrived at was that the current ABC system is entirely arbitrary and not based on any scientific evidence. From Avocado Anonymous point of view (we were not invited to take part in the programme, please petition the BBC so we can be featured in the next edition! ok, just kidding, do not petition the BBC) I was curious to see how legal drugs would rate in the ranking. Cigarettes didn't get all that much attention and scored 9th - still pretty good, and beating the likes of cannabis, LSD, extasy and couple of others hands down! With 10 million users and 114,000 fatalities per year, not a bad result. But alcohol really turned out to be the dark horse of the competition. Scoring at... glorious 5th place (pretty close to the podium!), booze kills more people than all illegal drugs combined. It's enjoyed by some 40 million people in this country... and 40,000 of them die because of it. Nice! The consensus reached by the panel of scientists was that it deserved a very high spot because of the ill effect it has got on people using it, because of its highly addictive qualities, and because of its devastating social impact (not to mention the booze fueled violence and related costs, it is "the biggest public health problem we face" - hey, I'm not surprised, with 180,000 booze inflicted hospital admissions per year it probably eats your common flu epidemic for breakfast!). What's more - should alcohol be invented today, it would surely be illegal, and adding insult to injury, it would then be ranked as Class A drug! And yet, despite coming close to the likes of Heroin (similar death rates, even bigger social impact), it is a legal, popular substance - its use is aggressively promoted and actively encouraged. Non-drinkers are seen as social pariahs or weirdos, those in power fail to address the issue, and a handful of companies make their fortunes while you wreck your lives. It is a strange world we live in, isn't it? |
| 31 01 2008 - 09.38 GMT |
A record number of people are drinking themselves to death in UK. Recently published report by Office for National Statistics shows that 8,758 people died directly from excessive alcohol intake in 2006, twice the number in 1991. Death rates rose in all age groups but the biggest increase for both sexes was among people aged 35 to 54, a legacy of heavy drinking in their 20s and early 30s. "A life spent consuming poisons, the slow suicide of modern man - Everybody wants to dance with the devil, but no one wants to pay the band". |
| 30 01 2008 - 19.38 GMT |
Some good news from UK, for a change: Nearly 165,000 people in England gave up smoking last summer, when smoking ban was introduced in enclosed public spaces. But in case you don't know how addictive smoking is, remember that perhaps as many as 50% of quitters will be smoking again six months down the road. Knowing the risks (and c'mon, how can you say you "don't care"?), why on earth would anyone start smoking in the first place? It just doesn't make sense. |
| 29 01 2008 - 11.45 GMT |
The big tobacco firms have been positioning themselves in the developing world for the past decade to offset declining sales in Europe and the US, where trade has been hit by anti-smoking campaigns, advertising bans and smoking bans. World Health Organisation estimates that tobacco consumption in developing nations is rising by 3.4% per year. The majority of the world's smokers (80%) now live in low- or middle-income countries, according to research published in the British Medical Journal. In the first legal case of this kind in the developing world, the government of Nigeria has launched a £22bn lawsuit against British American Tobacco (BAT), Philip Morris and International Tobacco Ltd. - the case is built around documents demonstrating that tobacco firms identified teenagers as a target market. |
| 28 01 2008 - 15.12 GMT |
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. Up to ten times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption. An estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, which generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation. The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people.... This, my friends, is only the tip of the iceberg, and your world is set firmly on a collision course. Here's an excellent piece from NY Times I read today: Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler. Highly recommended. |
| 25 01 2008 - 11.09 GMT |
In all honesty, I never thought I'd be dropping the name of David Attenborough on this website, but here it is - a voiceover impersonating Sir David is used in Frank's new campaign. Drug party gets wild is a tongue-in-cheek style spoof wildlife doc looking at "the human habitat after sunset". I think it's quite funny. Frank's approach is a bit different than most drug charities. They try not to sound too patronizing and aim at providing a relevant message to teenagers and youth. They actually even avoid being labelled as a charity organization. Anyway, I think they're on the right track. Recent study, commissioned by Positive Futures, another Home Office-funded programme, reveals a picture of widespread binge drinking among pre-teens and teenagers with parents ignoring or even condoning the habit, specifically in some of the country's most deprived areas. Half of young people questioned said they had been involved in fighting, violence and aggression as a result of drinking, almost one in five said they had been sexually irresponsible after drinking. I'm sorry, but I'm not shocked or surprised. This is the world we live in - if you tell me you don't see it, I'll tell you you're blind. |
| 06 01 2008 - 13.26 GMT |
Turkey is about to ban smoking in enclosed public places. The BBC has got a sideline briefing about couple of other countries, and I learned that some cities in Italy have made smoking illegal in public parks. That sounds great. Seriously, last thing I want on a sunny day when I'm chilling in the park with my back on the grass and my eyes fixed on the tree tops and my mind hundreds of miles away... is some dude next door to me puffing smoke in my face. So long, suckers! |
| 04 01 2008 - 14.58 GMT |
Hey, teenage smokers! Smoking is bad for your health. Smoking is bad for your health. Smoking is bad for your health. Yeah, that's right, sometimes you just gotta repeat something couple of times, you know, like especially when you're dealing with people who have hearing or understanding problems because they smoke! That explains a lot, doesn't it? One two, one two, mike check! Smoking is stupid, smoking is stupid, smoking is stupid. Can you hear me? Hello? |
|
powered by k-log |