Search

Background: Low‐Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs) aim to reduce the harms caused by alcohol. However, considerable discrepancies exist in the 'low‐risk' thresholds employed by different countries. Argument/analysis: Drawing upon Canada's LRDGs update process, the current paper offers the following propositions for debate regarding the establishment of 'low‐risk' thresholds in national guidelines: (1) as an indicator of health loss, years of life lost (YLL) has several advantages that could make it more suitable for setting guidelines than deaths, premature deaths or disability adjusted years of life (DALYs) lost. (2) Presenting age‐specific guidelines may not be the most appropriate way of providing LRDGs. (3) Given past overemphasis on the so‐called protective effects of alcohol on health, presenting cause‐specific guidelines may not be appropriate compared with a 'whole health' effect derived from a weighted composite risk function comprising conditions that are causally related to alcohol consumption. (4) To help people reduce their alcohol use, presenting different risk zones associated with alcohol consumption instead of a single low risk threshold may be advantageous. Conclusions: National LRDGs should be based on years of life lost and should be neither age‐specific nor cause‐specific. We recommend using risk zones rather than a single drinking threshold to help people assess their own risk and encourage the adoption of behaviours with positive health impacts across the alcohol use spectrum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a paper by K. M. Keyes and M. E. Patrick on legal changes in the use of pyschedelics. Topics mentioned include the factors that contributed to the increase in non-lysergic acid diethylamide hallucinogen, the improvement in well-being of patients during the coronavirus pandemic after using hallucinogens based on psychopathology measures, and the need to consider structural factors producing racial and socio-economic disparities in the use of hallucinogens.

The article discusses comments on a paper by S. Allaf and colleagues about the comparison of legal cannabis markets from various countries. Topics mentioned include the impact of the increase in acute cannabis poisoning in pediatric patients on the decision to legalize and decriminalize cannabis products, the ban of cannabis products with high content of tetrahydrocannabinol, and the advantages of regulations to minimize harm caused by cannabis products.

Aims: The United Kingdom and Australia have developed highly divergent policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). To understand the historical origins of these differences, we describe the history of tobacco control in each country and the key roles played in setting ENDS policy in its early stages by public health regulations and policy networks, anti‐smoking organizations, 'vaper' activist networks and advocates of harm reduction policies towards injecting drug use. Methods: We analysed key government reports, policy statements from public health bodies and non‐government organizations (e.g. cancer councils and medical organizations) on ENDS; submissions to an Australian parliamentary inquiry; media coverage of policy debates in medical journals; and the history of tobacco control policy in Australia and England. Key discourses about ENDS were identified for each country. These were compared across countries during a multi‐day face‐to‐face meeting, where consensus was reached on the key commonalities and divergences in historical approaches to nicotine policy. This paper focuses on England, as different policy responses were apparent in constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular. Results: Policymakers in Australia and England differ markedly in the priority that they have given to using ENDS to promote smoking cessation or restricting smokers' access to prevent uptake among young people. In understanding the origins of these divergent responses, we identified the following key differences between the two countries' approaches to nicotine regulation: an influential scientific network that favoured nicotine harm reduction in the United Kingdom and the absence of such a network in Australia; the success of different types of health activism both in England and in Europe in opposing more restrictive policies; and the greater influence on policy in England of the field of illicit drug harm reduction. Conclusions: An understanding of the different policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in England and Australia requires an appreciation of how actors within the different policy structures, scientific networks and activist organizations in each country and region have interpreted the evidence and the priority that policymakers have given to the competing goals of preventing adolescent uptake and encouraging smokers to use ENDS to quit smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to a paper printed in a prior issue is presented, written by Berridge et al., which discusses policy around electronic nicotine delivery systems.