The alcohol withdrawal syndrome

The alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a set of signs and symptoms that typically develops in alcohol-dependent people within 6–24 h of their last drink. It may occur unintentionally if abstinence is enforced by illness or injury, or deliberately if the person voluntarily stops drinking because of an alcohol-related illness, or as a prelude to becoming and remaining abstinent. The signs and symptoms of the syndrome (panel) are largely, but not exclusively, those of autonomic hyperactivity, the reverse of the effects of alcohol intoxication. They represent a homoeostatic readjustment of the central nervous system (CNS) to the neuroadaptation that occurs with prolonged alcohol intoxication.1 RC Turner, PR Lichstein and JG Peden et al., Alcohol withdrawal syndromes: a review of pathophysiology, clinical presentation and treatment, J Gen Intern Med 4 (1989), pp. 432–444. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (39)1 They vary in severity from mild to severe.1

Comorbidity of mental disorders with substance misuse

The title of this editorial evokes the image of a patient with a psychosis, usually schizo phrenia, who abuses or is dependent upon alcohol or an illicit drug. The suffering of these individuals and their families is un deniable, as are the difficulties that mental health and addiction services face in helping them. None the less, this form of comorbid ity has overshadowed more prevalent and remediable patterns of comorbidity between substance misuse and mental disorders (Hall, 1996).

Long-term cannabis use and mental healthy

The mental health consequences of the daily or near-dailyuseof cannabisoveryearsand decades remain uncertain, and are likely to remain so for some time given the difficul ties involved in investigating them. Never theless, there is sufficient evidence that its effects are neither as benign as proponents of its legalisation often argue, nor as malign as some partisans of continued prohibition claim (Hall et a!, 1994).

The recent Australian debate about the prohibition on cannabis use

This paper outlines the ethical arguments used in the Australian debate about whether or not to relax the prohibition on cannabis use by adults. Over the past two decades a rising prevalence of cannabis use in the Australian population has led to proposals for the decriminalization of the personal use of cannabis. Three states and territories have removed criminal penalties for personal use while criminal penalties are rarefy imposed in the remaining states. Libertarian arguments for legalization of cannabis use have attracted a great deal of media interest but very little public and political support. Other arguments in favour of decriminalization have attracted more support. One has been the utilitarian argument that prohibition has failed to deter cannabis use and the social costs of its continuation outweigh any benefits that it produces. Another has been the argument from hypocrisy that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and so, on the grounds of consistency, if alcohol is legally available then so should cannabis. To date public opinion has not favoured legalization, although support for the decriminalization of personal cannabis use has increased. In the long term, the outcome of the debate may depend more upon trends in cannabis use and social attitudes among young adults than upon the persuasiveness of the arguments for a relaxation of the prohibition of cannabis.

The distribution of naloxone to heroin users

Overdose deaths are a manor contributor to excess mortality among heroin users. It has been proposed that opioid overdose morbidity and mortality could be reduced substantially by distributing the opioid antagonist naloxone to heroin users. The ethical issues raised by this proposal are evaluated from a utilitarian perspective. The potential advantages of naloxone distribution include the increased chance of comatose opioid users being quickly resuscitated by others present at the time of an overdose, naloxone's safety and its lack of abuse potential. The main problems raised by the proposal are: the medico-legal complications of medical practitioners prescribing a drug that is most likely to be administered to and by people other than the one for whom it is prescribed; the economic costs of distributing naloxone sufficiently widely to have an impact on overdose morbidity and mortality; and the potentially greater cost-effectiveness of simpler educational interventions. Given the possible benefits of naloxone distribution, it may be worthwhile considering a controlled trial of naloxone distribution to high-risk heroin users.