Following on from Part 1….
The six afternoon parallel sessions were split into two rooms. As I couldn’t split myself in two I went to the following sessions which were very interesting.
Tobacco Control & Marketing – Linda Bauld
The aims of Tobacco Control are; to reduce the harm caused, reduce the uptake of smoking, increase the amount of people stopping and reduce the harmfulness.
Smoking rates have declined in recent years although 21% of adults still smoke.
The 2011 5 year plan includes looking at Tobacco promotion, making it less affordable, better regulation for the sale of Tobacco, more help to stop, secondhand smoke and effective communication.
B&H’s new way of opening a cigarette packet increased their market share to 57.5%!!! This equated to 180 million in 18 months. Just for changing the packet! I pondered putting in a picture but I don’t want to trigger anyone! I was a bit dubious but I’ve just found this comment which suggests that the cooler the packaging the cooler smoking is considered maybe??
A great unique pack. Slight problem in that cigs do occasionally fall out if its dark and you open up upside down, but to be honest, they are cool!!
The next step is to make the packaging less attractive. Much to the horror of the Tobacco companies they will soon be required to only use plain packaging. This is after research which suggests that the effect of branding is very strong in both the uptake of smoking and reinforcing the continued habit. The plainer the packet also means people are more likely to notice the health warnings. The British American Tobacco company employ many different tactics to draw people into Tobacco use and keep them in its grip.
Just look at their website.
Internet & Gaming Addiction – Professor Mark Griffiths, Nottingham Trent University
Now this talk was right up my street. The speaker (I don’t know whether I can call a Professor ‘Mark’ or ‘Professor’ so I will call him the speaker!) has years of experience studying and researching gambling as well as internet and gaming addiction. He made a lot of sense.
He identified what he calls six components of addiction.
Salience – where the activity is the most important thing in the person’s life
Mood modification Feeling a high or a buzz from playing or on the other hand an escape or numbing, tranquillising effect
Tolerance - Increasing amount needed to achieve the desired mood
Withdrawal - Unpleasant feelings and moods when they can’t play or have not played for a while
Conflict – Their gaming and/or use of the internet causes conflict in their relationships or affects other activities and responsibilities in their lives
Relapse – Returning to previous levels/patterns of gaming or use
On the definition of what would constitute a gaming or internet addcition it’s a shady area. It could be if it is the most important thing in a person’s life to the detriment of all other areas. If the activity adds to or enhances life then that would be OK but if the activity detracts from life i.e by affecting health, education, work or relationships then addiction is much more likely. He also disputed that the belief that the longer you play a game or use the internet correlates with how addicted someone is. More so that it will be dependent on the person and their life circumstances.
The average age for Internet and gaming ‘addicts’ is maybe surprising ly late 20′s to early 30′s.
Anyway enough of that, I need to get on with the rest of this post so I can play Skyrim.
Food Addictions – Dr Suzanne Higgs
‘Food & drugs have similar effects on brain reward systems’
There are similarities in the brain scans comparing Dopamine levels with obese patients and those addicted to drugs
The Yale Food Addiction questionnaire can be used to ascertain the likelihood of food addictions. You can see it here.
There is no evidence to suggest that certain foods are more addictive than others although high fat and high sugar foods seem to be more of a problem. This may also be down to the sheer amount of marketing that goes into unhealthier products. You only have to go to a supermarket and look at the special offers. The vast majority are for treat foods.
I’m copping out here slightly but I’d made so many notes during the day by the last couple of sessions I’d given up. Oh well at least I’m honest!
No trip to Liverpool is complete without a trip to The Brink so we spent an enjoyable couple of hours there and indulged in some yummy non-alcoholic beverages and food before it was time for me to get the train home.
Hope you enjoyed reading both posts.
On the 22nd March 2012 Liverpool John Moore’s University hosted Liverpool Addictions Conference. I spent the day with Tim Bingham INEF who had flown over from Ireland and the HIT girls Maddie and Lucy O Hare as well as the lovely Marie Tolman. In addition to Drugs including Alcohol the plenary and parallel sessions covered other forms of addiction such as Sex, Food, Gambling, Tobacco, the Internet & Gaming.
Here is a brief overview of each session, a combination of the messages the speakers were getting across and my own musings.
Dr. Harry Sumnall introduced the day.
‘Addictions beyond substance use as behaviours driven by the same underlying factors’.
He spoke of a concept that I have often baffled my head over and that is why in society policy supports some addictive (and risky) behaviours but not others? Alcohol, Tobacco, Gambling are all risky and yet the Government legally allows them. Other (if we’re being honest and don’t read the Daily Mail) less harmful substances carry heavy penalties for their possession or supply. Well, we know the reason why. Money of course. Harry gave us some stats which were very telling. Annually the Government raise £15 BILLION on Alcohol tax, £800 MILLION is spent on Alcohol advertising. Unfortunately these figures equate to every £1 spent on education £100 being spent on Alcohol advertising. With the cuts in drug education this is even more depressing.
Professor Christian Muller talked about ‘Drug instrumentalisation’. Basically this means the non addicted use of pyschoactive substances as helpful tools for improving life and acknowledging there is a difference between addictive drug use and other use.
‘The vast majority of those who consume psychoactive drugs are not addicted’.
Really if you think about it we use drugs in this way legally all the time even if it is just Caffeine to wake us up in the morning. I’m interested in why people who use ANY psychoactive substance at all can judge another person. We all have our feelings of choice. Any of us can potentially take our pleasure to the point where it becomes more problematic to our lives. However, I think that we still need to get the message out there that there is a fine line (no pun intended) which can be crossed quite easily between less harmful use of drugs as ‘instruments’ and their problematic use. All use starts somewhere. We need to make people aware and as safe as possible. Another reason we need more preventative work out there.
He identified 9 behaviours that can be improved by the use of psychoactive drugs.
*Social Interaction *Facilitated Sexual Behaviour
*Improved Cognitive Performance/Counteracting Fatigue *Coping with Stress
*Self medication for mental problems *Sensory Curiosity/Expanded Perception
*Euphoria, hedonia & high *Improved physical appearance and attractiveness *Spirituality & Religion
Of course all of these are reasons people use substances but we need to prevent the use of any substances or behaviour becoming an ‘addiction’. We need to be pragmatic and not bury our heads in the sand.
You can see more about his research here.
Risk Taking Behaviour – Dr. Jon Cole Department of Applied Psychology LJMU
Now I liked this bloke. He began by defining risk taking as …
‘behaviour with an adverse consequence’.
He highlighted the irony of the acceptability of some risk taking behaviours as opposed to others (climbing Everest for example, life threatening situation yet people sponsor others to do it!).
Young people take risks to assert their independence, establish their own identity, gain peer approval, assuage peer pressure and immediate gratification.
As a society we want this, young people and old. We want to feel good as quickly as possible and get what we want as quickly as possible.
The concept of optimism bias explains a lot. He used the common example of smokers. They know that smoking can kill but will justify it by using a story of a 90 year old who smoked all their lives. While in most of my work optimism and positivity is important people need to get real too. Justifying the continuation of a risky behaviour using this optimism bias can only be a negative thing in the end. Literally the end in some cases.
The point he makes is that the immediate gratification, the good feeling we get from a substance or activity will far outweigh any thoughts of the adverse consequences. The ‘it won’t happen to me’ school of thought. This has implications for drug education too. Jon suggests that young people’s time perception will also mean that telling them about things that can happen to them in their distant future is basically futile. A combination of their skewed time perception and optimism bias will mean information and advice given really needs to be honed to be more effective. (Again this brings me back to thinking about the drug education cuts. Go the ConDems!…No, really, just go!)
Drug Policy – Professor Alex Stevens
After following him for a good while on Twitter this was the first time I had met Alex Stevens. His session was on Drug Policy and he compared the U.S model and the EU model.
U.S. Model – more abstinence based, poorer access to healthcare and benefits.
Consequences of this have been: Drug related deaths have increased, HIV rates have increased, prison population has increased. In short a FAILURE.
EU Model – Stronger welfare support, better health care & housing, pragmatic approach including harm reduction and psychosocial inteventions, Public health more of a priority and some countries successfully decriminalising.
Consequences are that drug related deaths are more stable and a decrease in injecting drug use and HIV.
It unfortunately looks inevitable that with the recent and future cuts in welfare support in the UK it will make things even harder for people and we’ll be taking on more of the U.S style of continuing to lock more people up and withdrawing support for the most vulnerable.
So it seems we need to cross our fingers that we adopt our European neighbours policies than our U.S overlords. How can I put this politely….? Surely we’re in bed with them enough? Where is the sense in continuing with failed policy?
‘Oh well if America are failing with it then why not us too?’
Next up Tobacco Control & Marketing, Internet Gaming Addiction & Food Addiction. My fingers are flying…..
Thanks for reading, as always.