Haraam E-Numbers List

Leave a comment

Haram E-Numbers List

The following is a list of products containing animal by-products, such as animal fat, gelatine and fatty acids (fats). It is by no means certain that they are Haraam. Only Allah (SWT) knows, and may we be guided by Him. It is better to avoid products these e-numbers, as there is doubt about them.

E No. Description Notes


  • E120 Cochineal (red colour) from scale insects
  • E140 Chlorophyll fatty acids & others
  • E141 Copper phaeophytins from chlorophyll


E252 Potassium Nitrate waste animal & vegetable material


  • E422 Glycerol (Glycerine) from soaps & fatty acids
  • 430 Polyoxyethelene stearate fatty acid molecules
  • 431 Polyoxyethelene stearate fatty acids
  • 433 Polysorbate 80 oleic esters of sorbitol
  • E470 Sodium salts of soap fatty acids
  • E471 Glyceryl Monostearate from glycerin & fatty acid
  • E472a Acetic esters of fatty acids esters of glycerol & acetic acid
  • E472b Lactic esters of fatty acids esters of glycerol & lactic acid
  • E472c Citric esters of fatty acids esters of glycerol & citric acid
  • E472d Tartaric esters of fatty acids esters of glycerol & tartaric acid
  • E472e Acetyltartaric esters of fatty acids esters of glycerol & tartaric acid
  • E473 Sucrose esters esters of glycerol & sucrose
  • E474 Sucroglycerides from lard
  • E475 Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids
  • 476 Polyglycerol polyricinoleate castor oil & glycerol esters
  • E477 Propylene glycol esters propylene glycol
  • 478 Lactylated glycerol esters glycerol esters & lactic acid
  • 491 Sorbitan monostearate stearic acid and sorbitol
  • 492 Sorbitan Tristearate stearic acid
  • E494 Sorbitan mono-oleate from oleic acid
  • 542 Edible bone phosphate steam-extract from animal bones


  • 570 Stearic acid fatty acid in animal fats & veg oils
  • 572 Magnesium stearate stearic acid


  • 631 Sodium 5_inosinate meat extract & dried sardines
  • 635 Sodium 5_ribonucleotide meat extract & dried sardines
  • 904 Shellac resin by lac insect

Additives or ingredients, which have not been allocated EEC numbers and may be derived from non-halal sources, are :

  • Edible / Animal fat or oil
  • Gelatin / gelatine
  • Enzymes of catalase, lipase, pepsin, trypsin, rennin (or rennet)
  • Please note that the E471 is also known as mono & di-glyceride of fatty acids (some manufacturers do not put the E-number but
  • put the wording instead). This can be of vegetable or animal origin. There are two ways of finding out : either the wrapper says
  • “suitable for vegetarians” or you have to ask the manufacturer.

The High Cost of Imprisonment in America

Leave a comment

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

State Prison Expenditures, 2001[Download Full Report in PDF]

June 2004, NCJ 202949

This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables.
A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format
(.wk1) and the full report including table and graphics in
.pdf format are available from:

This report is one in a series. More recent editions may
be available. To view a list of all in the series go to

By James J. Stephan
BJS Statistician


States spent $29.5 billion for prisons in 2001,
about a $5½ billion increase from 1996, after
adjusting for inflation

* Prison operations consumed about 77% of State correctional
costs in FY 2001. The remaining 23% was spent on juvenile
justice, probation and parole, community-based corrections,
and central office administration.

* State correctional expenditures increased 145% in 2001
constant dollars from $15.6 billion in FY 1986 to $38.2
billion in FY 2001; prison expenditures increased 150% from
$11.7 billion to $29.5 billion.

* Excluding capital spending, the average cost of operating
State prisons in FY 2001 was $100 per U.S. resident, up from
$90 in FY 1996.

* Outlays for new prison construction, renovations, equipment,
and other capital account activities amounted to less than 4%
of total prison expenditures in most States.

* Spending on medical care for State prisoners totaled $3.3
billion, or 12% of operating expenditures in 2001.

Correctional authorities spent $38.2 billion to maintain the Nation’s
State correctional systems in fiscal year 2001, including $29.5
billion specifically for adult correctional facilities. Day-to-day
operating expenses totaled $28.4 billion, and capital outlays for
land, new building, and renovations, 1.1 billion.

The average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was
$22,650, or $62.05 per day. Among facilities operated by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was $22,632 per inmate, or $62.01
per day.
In a followup to a study based on FY 1996 data, this report
presents unique statistics on the cost of operating State
prisons in FY 2001. Information was obtained by extracting
corrections data from each State’s responses to the U.S.
Census Bureau’s annual Survey of Government Finances. Item
categories were standardized across jurisdictions, and
reported figures were verified with State budget officials.

Expenditures are the total amounts paid for prison operations,
including interest on indebtedness. Figures are net of amounts
derived from revenue-generating activities such as farm and
industrial production and services.

The increase in cost of corrections outpaced
the cost of health, education, or natural

State spending for corrections increased from $65 per resident
in 1986 to $134 in 2001. Per capita expenditures for State
prison operations alone rose from $49 in 1986 to $104 in 2001.

At an average annual increase of 6.2% for total State correctional
spending and 6.4% specifically for prisons, increases in the cost
of adult incarceration outpaced those of health care (5.8%),
education (4.2%), and natural resources (3.3%).

Although correctional spending grew at a faster rate than many
other State payments between 1986 and 2001, it remained one of
the smaller cost items. For example, the outlay for education,
at $374.5 billion, was nearly 10 times larger, and that for
welfare, at $260.3 billion, was nearly 7 times larger.

State correctional expenditures include the cost of operating
prisons and related institutions. Such institutions are
reformatories; prison farms; centers for the reception,
evaluation, and classification of inmates; and correctional
facilities exclusively for the criminally insane or for the
treatment of drug and alcohol addiction. State correctional
expenditures are primarily for operating adult facilities.
Other spending pays for juvenile correctional activities,
adult parole boards and programs (including court programs),
and correctional administration not associated with specific
penal institutions.

States spent $29.5 billion on prisons
in fiscal 2001

State prison expenditures totaled $29.5 billion in fiscal year
2001. Adjusted for inflation, this was approximately $5.5
billion more than was spent in FY 1996.

California reported the largest prison expenditure, $4.2
billion, and North Dakota the smallest, $26.8 million.

As a non-State activity, correctional spending by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was outside the scope of this report.
However, outlays for its operations in FY 2001 amounted to
$3.8 billion, or about 11% of the Nation’s prison expenditure.

Operating costs averaged $22,650
per inmate in fiscal year 2001

State prison operating expenditures totaled $28.4 billion in
fiscal year 2001. This total, divided by the number of
prisoners, produced a nationwide average annual operating
cost per inmate of $22,650. Adjusted for inflation, the
equivalent figure in 1996 was $22,515.

The average operating cost to incarcerate one inmate in the
Federal Bureau of Prisons system during FY 2001 was $22,632.

The $28.4 billion State operating cost, divided by the U.S.
resident population, resulted in a nationwide average
operating expenditure of $100 per person. The highest costs
per resident were recorded in the District of Columbia
($251), Alaska ($243), and Delaware ($204). The lowest costs
per resident were in West Virginia ($34), North Dakota ($38),
and New Hampshire and Minnesota ($48 each).

State correctional systems with integrated jail-prison facilities
may have higher operating costs than other jurisdictions because
the costs of housing jail inmates are included as State
expenditures. Of the six States with integrated jail-prison
systems in 2001, four had average annual operating costs per
resident above the average for States not operating integrated

Compared to 1996, prison spending in 2001 revealed a greater emphasis
on facility operation

Over three-fourths of the States spent 96% or more of prison funds
on current operations such as salaries, wages, benefits, supplies,
maintenance, and contractual services. In 1996 State spending on
current operations accounted for 94% of total expenditures.

The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska, Tennessee, and Utah
allocated all or nearly all prison expenditures to current
operating activities. By contrast, Nebraska spent the lowest
proportion (79%), followed by Missouri (83%), Wisconsin (84%),
and Wyoming (86%).

Salaries, wages, and benefits made up about two-thirds of State
prison operating expenditures, nationwide, in 2001. Other
operating costs comprised about a third. Other operating costs
covered a wide variety of outlays, such as inmate health care,
food, utilities, supplies, fees, commissions, and contractual

A majority of States spent 4% or less of prison expenditures on capital projects

Thirty-seven jurisdictions used 4% or less of all prison dollars
to finance new construction, renovations, major repairs,
equipment, land, buildings, and other nonrecurring outlays during
FY 2001. Among this group, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii,
and Utah spent less than 1%. Four other States allocated significant
proportions of prison funds to capital projects: Nebraska (21%),
Missouri (17%), Wisconsin (16%), and Wyoming (14%).

Spending on State prison capital projects decreased 25% from 1996 to 2001

Total capital expenditures of State prisons, adjusted for
inflation, declined 25% from $1.5 billion in FY 1996 to
$1.1 billion in FY 2001.

Many factors associated with variation in prison costs

Much of the variation between States in the cost of operating
prisons was outside the influence of correctional officials:
differences in the cost of living, variation in prevailing
wage rates, climate, and other factors. Although important,
they were beyond the scope of this study.

However, certain corrections-related factors were possible to
analyze. For example, employee salaries, wages, and benefits
consumed more than half of prison operating expenditures.
Their influence was measurable by comparing inmate-to-staff
ratios with operating costs per inmate. High inmate-to-staff
ratios were most common in States reporting low average costs
per inmate, and low inmate-to-staff ratios predominated in
States with high average annual costs per inmate.

Cost savings may also have been made from the operation of
larger capacity prisons. Eight of the 10 States with average
annual operating expenditures per inmate over $30,000 had an
average number of inmates per facility under 800. By contrast,
3 of the 7 States with average annual operating expenditures
per inmate under $15,000 had an average number of inmates per
facility over 800.

Transfer payments, which included intergovernmental monies
from one government to another as well as intra-governmental
payments from one department or agency to another, varied
significantly by State. In the 1996 State prison expenditure
study, when these payments were last identified separately,
departments of corrections in the South received about 8% of
their total expenditures from transfer payments, compared to
about 4% in other regions.

More than three-fourths of State prison capital expenditures were
for new construction, renovations, and major repairs, including
fees and services of architects, engineers, appraisers, and
attorneys. In FY 2001 these components consumed nearly the
entire capital account in Missouri (99%) and Washington (97%).

The second-largest capital expenditure was for equipment purchases
and installations, including furnishings, office equipment, motor
vehicles, and other devices having a useful life of more than 5
years. The average outlay was approximately 23% of total capital
spending. In Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, and Utah, however, equipment
accounted for the entire capital spending category in FY 2001.

The purchase of land, rights-of-way, existing structures, title
searches, and related costs (not shown in table 4)included less
than half of 1% of State prison capital expenditures, nationwide.
Four States reported outlays in this category that exceeded 2%:
Oregon (4.6%), New Mexico (3.9%), Florida (3.4%), and Arkansas

Over a quarter of prison operating costs for basic living expenses

Prisoner medical care, food service, utilities, and contract
housing totaled $7.3 billion, or about 26% of State prison
current operating expenses.

Inmate medical care totaled $3.3 billion, or about 12% of
operating expenditures. Supplies and services of government
staff and full-time and part-time managed care and fee-for-
service providers averaged $2,625 per inmate, or $7.19 per
day. By comparison, the average annual health care
expenditure of U.S. residents, including all sources in FY
2001, was $4,370, or $11.97 per day.***Footnote: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for
health Statistics, citing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services in Health, United States, 2003, table 116.***

Five States reported annual medical costs per inmate above
$4,000: Maine ($5,601), New Mexico ($4,665), California
($4,394), Massachusetts ($4,049), and Alaska ($4,047).
Three States spent less than $1,000 per inmate: Louisiana
($860), Montana ($922), and Kentucky ($960).

Factors beyond the scope of this report contributed to the
variation in spending levels for prisoner medical care.
Lacking economies of scale, some States had significantly
higher than average medical costs for everyone, and some
had higher proportions of inmates whose abuse of drugs or
alcohol had led to disease. Also influencing variations in
expenditures were staffing and funding of prisoner health
care and distribution of specialized medical equipment for
prisoner treatment.

Food service in FY 2001 cost $1.2 billion, or approximately 4%
of State prison operating expenditures.

As a percentage of total prison operating costs, South Dakota
and Hawaii allocated the largest proportions to food services,
11.3% and 8.2%, respectively, and North Carolina and Oregon
allocated the smallest proportions, 0.7% and 1.8%.

On average nationwide, State departments of correction spent
$2.62 to feed inmates each day. Pennsylvania ($5.69) and
Washington ($5.68) reported the largest amounts, followed by
Maine ($5.03), Hawaii ($4.87), and Iowa ($4.81). North
Carolina indicated the lowest cost ($0.52), followed by
Alabama ($0.72), Mississippi ($0.81), and Louisiana ($0.96).

Reports of low food costs often reflected prisoner-operated farm
and food processing operations. or example, Mississippi State
Penitentiary, Parchman, and South Mississippi State Penitentiary,
Leakesville, grew a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and grains,
and raised livestock for other Mississippi prisons. Prison
enterprises in North Carolina operated a cannery, a meat
processing plant, warehouses, and trucks to deliver food and
equipment to correctional facilities statewide.

Utility services for electricity, natural gas, heating oil, water,
sewerage, trash removal, and telephone in State prisons totaled
$996 million in FY 2001.

Utilities accounted for about 3.5% of State prison operating
expenditure. Among individual States, they consumed the most
in Alabama (5.7%), New Hampshire and Virginia (5.6%), and the
least in Rhode Island (0.5%), and Montana (1.5%).

Daily utility costs ranged from a high of $5.43 per inmate in
Massachusetts, $4.52 in Alaska, and $4.50 in Maine to a low of
$0.55 in Rhode Island, $0.89 in Louisiana, and $0.92 in

40 State correctional systems paid others to house some prisoners

All but 11 States had expenses relating to the contract housing
of prison inmates in private facilities, local jails, other
States’ facilities, or Federal facilities. The 11 States not
reporting con- tract housing costs for inmates in FY 2001 were
Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia.

Contract housing averaged 6% of operating expenses, nationwide.
However, seven States spent more than 3 times this proportion:

Montana spent $26.1 million, all of it to house inmates in
private facilities. Louisiana paid $171.1 million, 81% of
it to house inmates in local jails; and Tennessee spent
$150.7 million, about a third of it to hold inmates in
private facilities and two-thirds in local jails.


Following a procedure similar to that used to produce State
Prison Expenditures, 1996, BJS asked government finance
specialists at the U.S. Census Bureau to identify each
State’s corrections function codes, as reported in the FY
2001 Survey of Government Finances. Census staff entered this
information into a data base, using a standardized format
provided by BJS.

The data to produce the graph in the Highlights on page 1 are
available with other tables of the report on the BJS
website <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ bjs>. These data include inflation-
adjusted costs for total State corrections and prisons as well
as costs per U.S. Resident.

This data extraction procedure included both inter- and
intragovernmental transfer payments, and clarified missing,
repetitious, and out-of-range data items.

Both department of corrections and State central office budget
specialists were asked to review the originally submitted numbers.
These officials worked with the Census Bureau to eliminate
duplicate reports, interpret expenditure codes, and understand
organizational functions and accounting procedures.

Budget officials sharpened the scope of the study by including
expenditures for central office personnel who performed prison
activities and deleting outlays that pertained to probation and
parole services, juvenile corrections, and nonresidential
community corrections — areas outside the prison function.

Upon final approval by each State’s designated financial
reviewer, Census staff completed the data adjustment
phase of the project with a 100% response rate for total
and operating expenditures.


Correctional expenditures shown in the Highlights figure may be
underreported. As the result of discussions between State budget
officials and U.S. Census Bureau specialists in government
finance who collected the data for this report, the total cost
to operate State prisons in FY 2001 was 1.1% higher than
originally reported to the Census Bureau in the 2001 Survey of
Government Finances.

Factors which contributed to the revised FY 2001 State prison
spending figure included adjustments for central office staff
assigned to prison, probation, parole, and juvenile activities;
elimination of duplicate fund reporting; and access to final
numbers following State submissions of preliminary numbers in
the Survey of Government Finances.

Data limitations

Expenditure data published in State Prison Expenditures, 2001
and State Prison Expenditures, 1996 were reported by State
budget officials, based on categories established by the
Census Bureau’s annual Survey of Government Finances. Previous
State prison cost data published by BJS were reported by
correctional facility operators.

Adjusting for inflation

State government expenditures for fiscal years 1996 and 2001
were inflation-adjusted in 2001 constant dollars, as
appropriate for State and local government spending. The
following annual chain-type price indexes for gross domestic
product were employed as divisors and unadjusted
expenditures as dividends to produce inflation-adjusted
expenditures in 2001 constant dollars:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical
agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Lawrence A.
Greenfeld is director.

James J. Stephan wrote this report and coordinated
data collection, under the supervision of Allen J.
Beck. Tracy L. Snell provided statistical
verification. Tina Dorsey and Tom Hester produced
and edited the report. Jayne Robinson prepared the
report for final printing.

Howard Trott, Shelley Blake, and James Batton of the
U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, Finance
Branch coordinated the data extraction process and
verified the information reported by State officials,
under the direction of Steven Owens. Pamela Butler
prepared the data for review by State contacts, under
the direction of Charlene Sebold.

June 2004, NCJ 202949 C

How Cool is Alcohol?


Here are some great presentations on the Effects of Alcohol on the Human Body and Soul. To view the slides in full view doubleclick the SlideShare logo.

Energy Drinks and Alcohol Marin Institute Presentation

Slideshow Transcript

Slide 1: Michele Simon, JD, MPH James Mosher, JD Marin Institute Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation


Slide 3: Three-point-plan for targeting youth 1) create brand confusion with nonalcoholic versions 2) provide a cheap alternative to mixing energy drinks with alcohol 3) deploy youth-friendly grassroots and viral marketing

Slide 4: Exploding Popularity of Energy Drinks • 500 new energy drink products introduced worldwide in 2006 • Energy drink sales = $3.2 billion • 31 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds are regular consumers v. 22 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds — Mintel Group

Slide 5: The Energy Drink Market: Youth Driven • One in three teens are likely to use energy drinks compared to one in ten adults. • Youth consumption is rapidly increasing. • Energy drinks help teens augment their rebellious image—legally.

Slide 6: Youth/Adult Energy Drink Consumers 35% 30% 25% 20% Youth (12-17) 15% Adults (18+) 10% 5% 0% Regular Heavy Users Users (10+/month)

Slide 7: Brand Confusion Which Contain Alcohol?

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Slideshow Transcript

Slide 1: Alcohol and Drug Abuse Diabetes & Heart Care Clinic Dr.R.Ravindranath M.D. Consultant in Cardiac & Diabetic Care H2, Turnbulls Road , 1st Cross street, On Chamiers road (Next to Canara Bank) Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 Phone: Clinic 24355368 Residence 42112244 Mobile 9381047102

Slide 2: Alcohol Alcoholic drinks have been prepared and drunk for thousands of years, and the problems that can accompany excess alcohol intake have undoubtedly been around just as long.  Alcohol (Arabic al-kuhul), term applied to members of a group of chemical compounds and, in popular usage, to the specific compound ethyl alcohol, or ethanol.  The Arabic word denotes kohl, a fine powder of antimony used as an eye makeup.  The word alcohol originally denoted any fine powder; the alchemists of medieval Europe later applied it to essences obtained by distillation, and this led to the current usage.

Slide 3: Types of Alcohol By destructive distillation of Methyl (wood Solvent for fats, oils, resins, nitrocellulose. wood. Also by synthesis alcohol, Manufacture of dyes, formaldehyde, from hydrogen and carbon methanol antifreeze solutions, special fuels, monoxide under high ) plastics. pressure. By fermentation of sugar, Solvent for products such as lacquers, paints, starch, or waste sulfite Ethyl (grain liquor. Synthesis from varnishes, glues, pharmaceuticals, alcohol, explosives. Also as ‘building block’ in ethylene or acetylene. ethanol) making high-molecular-weight chemicals. Direct hydration of ethylene. By hydration of propylene from Isopropyl Solvent for oils, gums, alkaloids, resins. cracked gases. Also as by- (isopropa Making acetone, soap, antiseptic product of certain nol) solutions. fermentation processes. Solvent for lacquers, resins, coatings, films, As a coproduct of air oxidation waxes. Also as brake fluid, in Normal propyl of propane and butane manufacture of propionic acid, mixtures. plasticizers. By fermentation of starch or Solvent for nitrocellulose, ethyl cellulose, Butyl (n- sugar. Also by synthesis, lacquer, urea-formaldehyde, urea- using ethyl alcohol or melamine plastics. Diluent of hydraulic butanol) acetylene. fluids, extractant of drugs.

Alcohol and Young People

Slideshow Transcript

Slide 1: Alcohol and Young People Andrew Brown Coordinator Drug Education Forum

Slide 2: The following charts have been developed using figures from Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2006, Information Centre 2007 CONTEXT

Slide 3: Proportion of pupils who had ever had an alcoholic drink

Slide 4: Proportion of pupils who had drunk alcohol in the last week

Slide 5: Proportion of pupils who had drunk alcohol in the last week, by age

Slide 6: Proportion of pupils who drank alcohol in the last week

Slide 7: Proportion of boys who drank alcohol in the last week

Slide 8: Proportion of girls who drank alcohol in the last week

Slide 9: Proportion of pupils who drank alcohol in the last week, by sex and age

Alcohol and the Family

Slideshow Transcript

Two middle school students present their Health Report using Storytelling and some Hyperlinks

Slide 1: Papa Mama Jr.

Slide 2: Part one • Once upon a time, in a place where everyone smiles, lived a normal family. • With a PAPA, a MAMA, and a JR. (son) The perfect family, or so one would think….

Slide 3: Part two • But they weren’t; PAPA and MAMA drank way too much and JR got stuck in the middle of all of it. ur Not again d yo an You drinks I thi MAR nk we’re y k wea the wa TINI S!! T out of is EER o go Last glass his is th B T e ahhh !!

Slide 4: Part three • One day, as JR was on his way to school, he heard his parent’s fighting again. You’re al ways me Oh, no not again! ssing up my lif g as e; why d I wish they would ve as lon on’t lea you just Fine, I’ll you. leave and stop fighting! ay from Go I am aw Away This always happens OU!! I HATE Y Forever!! when they drink too ! much **sighs**

Slide 5: Part four • JR is used to his parents fighting, but sometimes they go too far and his PAPA will hit his MAMA or they both might hit him. Waaaaaaaaaaaa This is what you get! We wish we Aaaaaaaaaaaa never had a child like you. . . Aaaaaaaaaaaa We hate you!! Help!

Slide 6: Part five • JR would not let anyone near him until one day when his teacher Ms.Smiley asked what was up. What’s wrong JR.. You can trust me I won’t tell anyone, teachers Well okay I guess I can trust you; it’s honor! My parents……..

Dangers of Alcohol

Slideshow Transcript

Slideshow transcript

Slide 1: alcohol by: Kaitlynn H. Period and Mr. Gammill

Slide 2: alcohol abuse • parental alcohol abuse may be associated with the physical or sexual abuse of children. • The experience of being abused as a child may increase a person’s risk for alcohol-related problems as an adult. • May lead to antisocial behavior; and psychological problems.

Slide 3: short-term effects of alcohol • chemicals affect mucosal lining, tongue, gums, and throat • brain becomes less able to control the body • alcohol causes the heart to beat faster and the blood vessels to widen

Slide 4: alcohol content of beverages • beer 5% alcohol • wine 12-15% alcohol • vodka or whiskey 40% alcohol

Slide 5: alcohol and the individual • speed. Drinking a lot in a short amount of time causes the alcohol to remain in the bloodstream longer • quantity. The metabolism of alcohol takes place at a fairly constant rate • food. A person who has eaten recently has food in the stomach, this slows down the passing of alcohol into the blood stream

Physiology of Addiction by Carl Christensen

Slideshow Transcript

Slide 1: Physiology of Addiction Carl Christensen, MD PhD Dawn Farm Education Series October 25, 2007

Slide 2: History: Tommy Walker Tommy Walker has been sent to you for  addiction evaluation.  He began drinking when he was 13.  His mother also admits to drinking during her pregnancy with him.  When he was born, he was small, irritable and was “slow to grow” Dawn Farm Education Series Oct 25, 2007 2

Slide 3: Neuroplasticity/Neurotoxicity Neuro = brain   Plasticity = change  toxicity = damage  Exposure to drugs and alcohol in the womb can cause permanent damage  Most extreme example: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) Dawn Farm Education Series Oct 25, 2007

Slide 4: FAS Dawn Farm Education Series Oct 25, 2007

Slide 5: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Dawn Farm Education Series Oct 25, 2007

Downsides of alcohol outweigh health benefits

Leave a comment

I post this article since Shaykh Hamza Yusuf spoke about it at the RIS 2007 Knowledge Retreat.

The irony of the this article for me is that this article’s message is a totally Islamic message is that it is being stated in plain english by non-muslims.

Where are the muslims advocating for curbs on Alcohol abuse and advertising?

This was part of the point Shaykh Hamza was making that we have to be a part of this community.

Which means actively participating in and protecting the interests of Canada.

We are living here and must do what is in our “capacities” to effect positive change as Dr. Hakim Jackson also reiterated in his lectures.


Downsides of alcohol outweigh health benefits

We ask the experts to settle common questions we’ve all wondered about.


Recent studies have found a link between alcohol consumption and a higher risk for certain cancers. Is alcohol the new smoking?

Print Edition – Section Front


“Cocktails anyone?” the promotions ask. During this season of celebrations, it is easy to think about alcoholic beverages solely in the context of their glossy and enticing holiday-oriented promotions.

And while it’s true that there are health benefits for some older adults who have a few drinks a week, our culture’s overwhelming emphasis on the positive side of drinking can lead to an imbalanced and dangerously misleading perception of alcohol.

The downsides include the still-too-common risks of drinking and driving, domestic violence, fights and public disruption, as well as the lesser-known risks for prevalent chronic diseases such as cancer. Research conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organization has identified more than 70 types of trauma and chronic disease where alcohol is a contributing cause.

In developed countries including Canada, alcohol is considered the third-highest factor in contributing to death, disease and disability (of 26 examined), just below tobacco and high blood pressure, and above high cholesterol, obesity, physical inactivity and illicit drugs.

A study based on 2002 health and law-enforcement statistics produced a conservative estimate of $14.6-billion in costs attributed to alcohol in Canada (not including social problems), compared to $17-billion for tobacco.
Since that time, both the overall consumption of alcohol and the incidence of high-risk drinking have continued to increase in Canada, and both have been shown to contribute to damage. There are a number of cancers where alcohol is a contributing cause, such as cancers of the digestive and gastrointestinal tracts. The WHO-affiliated International Agency for Research on Cancer recently highlighted alcohol as a contributing cause for colorectal and breast cancers.

For breast cancer the IARC found that “even for regular consumption of 18 grams of alcohol per day, increase in relative risk is statistically significant.” Eighteen grams is less than one-and-a-half glasses of table wine, mixed drinks or beer. The health benefits for older adults can largely be achieved by drinking 13.6 grams, such as a glass of table wine or can of regular-strength beer, every other day.

It is possible to reduce overall consumption as well as high-risk drinking, defined as five or more drinks per occasion. For example, France and Italy – once among the heaviest alcohol-consuming countries in Western Europe – have reduced their overall rate of alcohol consumption by about two-thirds over 30 years.

However, in Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently called a crisis meeting to deal with serious alcohol issues. Britain is struggling to contain high rates of trauma, public disruption and chronic disease resulting from easy access to alcohol, long hours of sale and heavy promotion.

The advice to “celebrate responsibility” will only produce the desired results if reinforced by responsible public policies such as more effective controls on alcohol promotion, prices that keep pace with the cost of living, and no further increases in hours of sale or density of alcohol outlets.

Until then, the negative aspects of alcohol will substantially outweigh the protective effects on cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes associated with moderate consumption – such as less than two drinks a day.

Drs. Juergen Rehm and Norman Giesbrecht are senior scientists at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.

© Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON Canada M5V 2S9
Phillip Crawley, Publisher