Tag Archives: Sir Ian Gilmore

The Guardian notified me of another issue ‘rising’ in the UK (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/08/government-dancing-tune-drinks-industry-doctors). It is a nice article on setting the minimum price of alcohol. Is it a bad idea? Nah, I do not think so, there is ample believe that setting a higher minimum price might (I state might) dissuade a few people from drinking alcohol, but the amount of people that alcohol abuse is impacted will for the most not be hit by such changes.

I found the issue that lobbyists were meeting with politicians a little laughable. Is that not their function? In the end, the fact that these lobbyists had such easy access is noticeable. Is it about the 130 meetings, or perhaps the implied 130 free lunches these politicians might have had?

The one passage that did get my attention was “In an open letter, 21 senior doctors and campaigners, including Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, special adviser on alcohol for the Royal College of Physicians, raised fears that ‘big business is trumping public health concerns in Westminster’.”

This is a matter of concern. The question becomes on what might be a solution that would actually work? I do not pretend to have the answer, or the wisdom to answer the issue as it could be resolved. The Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19699/Alcohol-abuse-costing-Britain-6bn-year.html, not the best source of academic like information) stated that it costs the government 6 million pounds (the BBC stated much higher numbers in Feb 2013), as well as a cost to the NHS of 207 million pounds.

Perhaps we should consider another method. Something more like the subtle message we see on cigarette packages in Australia. How about these people get a standard letter as their details are recorded? The letter should go something like this.

Dear drinker,

Thank you for soon drinking yourself to death. Even though you are (for now) still alive, the pressing shortage of houses and jobs will be slowly resolved as you die from alcohol abuse. At present, as the damage is voluntarily self-inflicted, you have no right to any medical support other than the one you can pay for through the use of cash or credit card, which must be paid for before you receive this aid.

Should these events result in your death, then your belongings must be collected from your apartment within 48 hours, or they are regarded as forfeit! We, the government are grateful that you vacated your job and housing for a person who wants to make life better for themselves and those around them.

Kind regards,

Your local politician (insert name here).

That letter might actually have two interesting effects. The first would be that the person scares him/herself into a state of perpetual soberness. The second one is that his/her direct family might also deal with this situation, which could help the drinker get a hold of him/her self.

Why this way?

Consider when we see the damage of alcohol and we keep on having this ‘soft’ approach on a group that will continuously binge drink themselves. The BBC in February 2013 (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21586566) stated an even grimmer picture, so clearly something is not working. Consider how much a person pays to drink and the additional damage a country receives. Why must this go to the taxpayer?

The current drop in legal aid funds in several nations (most notably in the UK). The drops in assigned budgets which are currently stopping mental health workers to continue do their job. It is also notable that people with a mental health issue (the non-alcoholics) are cut twice. On one side they lose out on legal aid, the other side they get cut on mental health assistance. The third side is added as the NHS has no money left.

I personally do not see the levels of alcohol abuse as a mental health issue. (Alcoholism is without question a mental health issue). The people who drink more because they can’t get laid, they are ignoring their temporary issues or they are just in a party race of who can drink the most are a massive part of the current cost of alcohol abuse as we see it happen. So, if they are left to die, less are there to compete in fast drinking, which solves that part. Less are alive to get noticed, so those alive might get laid (resolving the second issue) and when many people see that an issue gets them killed they work it out themselves which takes care of item three.

Seems like a nice simple package!

The reality is that this issue is not that simple, but the crux is that these money costing issues have to be resolved. The treasury coffers are empty and these transgressors need to be made aware that when you get in a state such as they get in, they might no longer get any support getting over it.

The time of ‘Whatever! Have another drink‘ is gone, not only do we need to be held accountable for our actions, a change is needed on the levels of support that is given to some as they abuse themselves and others. Consider that a refugee cannot get any legal aid when it has to deal with what is now known as a ‘rogue landlord’, then consider that the same landlord drinking his kidney using rogue rent cash into failure gets all the assistance he/she needs to do it again.

We as a population and politicians as a deciding group have been focusing on the wrong sides of the equation. With coffers empty, economy at long time low and groups of people burdening a system that can no longer support it, we must look into new directions.

They might work, they might not, but not changing anything is no solution, that part has clearly been proven.