Liquor Control Board still seeking comments about extending alcohol service hours

In August 2011, the City of Seattle petitioned the Liquor Control Board to consider allowing jurisdictions to extend alcohol service hours beyond 2:00 a.m.  (See posts from April 3, March 14 and November 15.)  The Liquor Control Board hosted hearings around the state and received evenly split testimony with about 50% testifying in favor of extended hours and about 50% testifying against extended hours.  The Liquor Control Board was to make a decision within the next two weeks but has postponed their decision until May 30.

From a prevention standpoint, the federal Community Prevention Services Task Force recommends against extending hours of alcohol sales/service.

In 2003, Vancouver, BC allowed bars in their Granville district to extend closing hours to 3:00 a.m. and, according to a 2007 report by the City and Police Department, between 2002 and 2006:

- The number of police calls between midnight and 6 am increased from 2,000 to over 3,500
- The number of fights doubled from around 140 to almost 300
- The number of disturbance and annoyance calls increased from approximately 310 to 410
- The number of requests for assistance to dispatch doubled from 80 to 160
- The number of stabbings and assaults in progress went from 40 to 100

The Liquor Control Board is still accepting public comments about the City of Seattle's petition.  Comments may be submitted to Liquor Control Board’s Rules Coordinator.  

Insured against Uninsured - The Segregation of American Health Care

Everyone, at some time in his or her life, will need to seek medical care. The American health care system is a billion dollar industry, and it discards people that can't afford its services. The current health care system is divided into two groups--health care for the insured and no health care or limited care for the uninsured.

Insured against Uninsured

The kind of medical and personal care that an individual receives under the current American health care system depends on the person's insurance status. In the land of equal opportunity, segregation is still practiced.

It is a well known fact that people that have health insurance receive much better medical and personal treatment from health care providers than people that don't have health insurance. The insured are treated with dignity and respect. Sadly, the uninsured are treated with indifference and disdain. For uninsured people, obtaining health care can be an extremely demoralizing and frustrating experience.

When a person calls a medical practitioner for an appointment, the first question of the medical office staff is if the person has health insurance. If the person doesn't have health insurance, the attitude of the office staff changes dramatically. A lot of times the person is asked abrasive and invasive financial questions. Cash payment is requested before the visit will be scheduled, or at the time of the visit prior to services being provided. Some medical offices refuse to provide medical care if there is no health insurance and the person is unable to pay cash in advance. Uninsured people seeking medical care face embarrassment because they cannot pay in full for medical services without benefit of a monthly payment plan. They are made to feel like their health does not matter because they are uninsured.

In some hospitals and physician's offices, the type of medical care that is rendered to uninsured patients is much different the medical care that is provided to insured patients. During a personal interview with Carolyn Hagan, an uninsured Oregon resident, it was revealed just how shoddily uninsured patients are treated. According to Hagan, because she doesn't have health insurance, she is unable to obtain the necessary medical care for her heart condition. Hagan stated, "I have so much trouble getting medical care because I am uninsured, and I can't afford the cost of health insurance. I can't afford the high cost of the medical tests that I need. None of the doctors will treat me except for occasional brief checkups because I am not profitable to them. Every health insurance company that I contacted to see if I could get insurance refused to insure me because I have heart trouble. I have had to cancel medical tests because funding that I applied for to help with the cost became unavailable. The care that I need is expensive, and it is so frustrating because no one is willing to help me. I feel like no one cares."

Hagan is a productive American citizen that works and pays taxes, and she is among the working middle class that is wrongfully victimized by the American health care system. Due to health insurance company exclusions, she is not insurable, and she is unable to pay cash in advance for the care that she needs. What the current health care system in America is telling her is that even though she is a hard working American citizen, she doesn't matter because she can't help increase the bottom line of the health care industry.

Many practitioners refuse to work with uninsured people, and won't allow them to pay for medical care on a monthly payment plan. This additional exclusion prevents thousands of Americans from obtaining necessary health care. The American health care system has become so convoluted and expensive that American citizens are forced to seek health care outside the United States. Places like Argentina, Singapore, Manila, Bangalore, and Costa Rica provide high quality, low cost health care to American citizens that America should be providing to its own people.

American society is insurance poor--people are unable to get health insurance. Private insurance policies are too expensive for most people to afford, and the policies that are affordable to people of middle class and lower are frequently inadequate in the medical services that they cover. American insurance companies have exclusions that prevent many people from qualifying for health insurance even though having the insurance would prevent further illness and allow maintenance for current illness, consequently reducing medical costs.

America has some of the best trained medical professionals, and the cost of their education is enormous. No one can expect them not to make a good living at their profession; however, the migration of medical care to countries outside the United States is a glaring indication that the American health care system needs to be revamped and made affordable to everyone.

There have been many attempts at health care reform in America; by the time it finally happens, there might not be enough people seeking medical care in the United States for the reform to make any difference. America will still be health care poor while other countries will be getting rich by providing Americans the health care that America places beyond reach.

The office of Lt. Governor and the Governor's rant

The South Carolina House and Senate recently passed a bill that would submit to the people of South Carolina a measure that would amend the State Constitution to allow Lt. Governors to run on tickets with Governors, like Washington does, so called conservatives contend. That alone makes you wonder. People who rail against Washington want Columbia to be more like Washington. We will get into the merits of electing a Lt. Governor and why things are set up the way they are further in this post. But, first we will address the tantrum on social media Governor Haley threw when she found out the State Senate passed the bill effective for 2018. On the surface, it appears the Governor got what she wanted, wise or unwise, conservative or not. But, the Governor was angered by not getting to pick her own running mate in 2014, and launched into hyperbole with a statement that went “they don’t want the girl to get it.” Frankly, the Governor’s remarks are pathetic. Her sophomoric ranting embarrasses her and the state. The fact is fundamental changes to officers of state and federal government have always excluded the current office holders. Why does Governor Haley think she is different? Indeed her ranting makes one think that perhaps the office of Governor ought not to be elected and some sort of state manager should be hired by the General Assembly. I am, of course, using the Governor’s logic to come to that idea. The office of Lt. Governor of South Carolina is part time. It is to most an afterthought. Ken Ard did embarrass himself and the state with his antics, but legislation in the wake of such things has always proven to be shortsighted and rather dimwitted in the long term. When passions run high in public life, thinking things through runs low. The crafters of the State Constitution did not fear some Black man’s election, as the false propaganda of the pro federal government types say. There are papers, there are records. They feared egos and demagogues. They wanted the executive power of the state government to be not only spread out, but for the holders of it to be answerable to the people, not one politician who appointed them. The Lt. Governor, as President of the State Senate, was to be elected by the state at large, sort of a State Senator at large, if you will. The Howard Rich funded crowd will go on about efficiency and things like that. Fair enough. But, under the current structure, South Carolina has not created any George Wallaces or Herman Talmadges. We have not had the corruption seen in places like Illinois and New Jersey. Sure, the people of South Carolina have made some mistakes at the polls. Ravenel, Sharpe, Ard, they come to mind. That said, those mistakes, made by men who were in the political bed with the folks who want to change how our state works by the way, does not warrant us to throw out the structure of our state government. It was the very structure of our state government that protected the people from further harm. Indeed, who are these people who want South Carolina State Government to be like the federal government? Aren’t they the ones railing against the federal government? I believe in the people of this state. I swore to defend its constitution. I think the people are smart enough to elect their own executives, and I believe, that for their protection, South Carolina should not have concentrated executive power like Washington or New Jersey. Indeed, the point of federalism, and of states’ rights, is that we do what is best for South Carolina, not mimic other states or the federal government. When it comes to our leaders in this state, I think of what John Adams once said, “I look around and wonder if you all have gone mad.”

2012 National Drug Control Strategy

Earlier this month, the Office of National Drug Control Policy released the 2012 National Drug Control Strategy.  There are a few items from the strategy that I will share through this blog and I thought I'd start with the introduction to the chapter entitled, "Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Our Communities".

Youth illicit drug use up since 2006
 . . . while overall youth drug use did not statistically change between 2010 and 2011, past-month use of any illicit drug among 10th graders increased from 16.8% in 2006 to 19.2% in 2011.  


Youth marijuana use up
Marijuana typically drives the trends in estimates of any illicit drug use, and, accordingly, past-month use of marijuana among 10th graders increased from 14.2% in 2006 to 17.6% in 2011.  


Perception of risk down
In addition, there continues to be a decline in the perceived risk of marijuana use among teens.  This is troubling, as research shows drug use trends among youth typically increase one to two years after a weakening of the perceived danger of using drugs.  


Few prevention messages
One possible influence on this observed trend in drug use and perception of risk is the decreased exposure of youth to prevention messages and the presence of messages and policies that downplay the consequences of drug use.  


Legalization not the answer to youth drug use
The Administration also recognizes that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use. 

The paragraph from which this information came is heavy with citations.  To view the citations, the strategy is available online and the excerpt above appears on page 5.

For additional information about youth marijuana use:

-- I blogged about local youth marijuana use data earlier this month.  Statewide data about youth marijuana use are available through the Healthy Youth Survey website.

-- The University of Washington's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute's website contains multiple science-based fact sheets about marijuana.

-- The American Academy of Pediatrics published an article about Marijuana Legalization: The Potential Impact on Youth.

Get rid of unused medications at police precincts on Saturday

From the Seattle Police Department:

On April 28 from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm the Seattle Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will give the public another opportunity to prevent pill abuse and theft by ridding their homes of potentially dangerous expired, unused, and unwanted prescription drugs.  Bring your medications for disposal to any one of the five Seattle Police Department precincts. The service is free and anonymous, no questions asked.

Last October, Americans turned in 377,080 pounds – 188.5 tons- of prescription drugs at over 5,300 sites operated by the DEA and nearly 4,000 state and local law enforcement partners.  In its three previous Take Back events, DEA and its partners took in almost a million pounds- nearly 500 tons- of pills.

This initiative addresses a vital public safety and public health issue.  Medicines that languish in home cabinets are highly susceptible to diversion, misuse, and abuse.  Rates of prescription drug abuse in the U.S. are alarmingly high, as are the numbers of accidental poisonings and overdoses due to these drugs.  Studies show that a majority of abused prescription drugs are obtained from family and friends, including from the home medicine cabinet.  In addition, Americans are now advised that their usual methods for disposing of unused medicines-flushing them down the toilet or throwing them in the trash-both pose potential safety and health hazards.

Four days after the first event, Congress passed the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, which amends the Controlled Substances Act to allow an “ultimate user” of controlled substance medications to dispose of them by delivering them to entities authorized by the Attorney General to accept them.  The Act also allows the Attorney General to authorize long term care facilities to dispose of their residents’ controlled substances in certain instances.  DEA is drafting regulations to implement the Act, a process that can take as long as 24 months.  Until new regulations are in place, local law enforcement agencies like the Seattle Police Department and the DEA will continue to hold prescription drug take-back events every few months.