'We are the most addicted society in Europe' (Centre for Social Justice)

Addiction as a mass phenomenon has been with us for several decades, perhaps from the late 1960s onwards, reaching the current epidemic levels it has mushroomed into today. Previously, people not only lacked the means to drink as much as they do now (in a world of ever rising prices, alcohol and other drugs continue to buck the trend, drink is now cheaper in real terms than it has ever been), but if it were simply a matter of affordability, there would be no such thing as the homeless addict. Rapid changes in our society have made us more affluent, but have exposed us to perpetual round the clock advertising and marketing, selling us innumerable fantasies and dreams, reminding us on a daily basis in often subtle and invisible ways that we lack something, miss something, need something more. Often the structures of community and spiritual life that once gave meaning to existence beyond hedonism have crumbled away, but have not been replaced by anything that nurtures the individual and connects him or her to others. A banal and egocentric self-centred-ness has been elevated by television and political discourse to be a virtue, not a flaw and the results of this toxic brew have been revealed by a government think tank this week. We are the most addicted society in Europe, be it in legal highs, street drugs or alcohol (the research doesn't mention gambling, but this government and the last have both made creating gambling addicts for the bookies to exploit a special priority) according to the Centre for Social Justice, which estimates that addiction costs Britain £36 billion a year. These stark figures would tend to suggest to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the government's drug policy has failed completely, but the official wisdom on how to treat addiction remains unchanged. Light touch regulation which allows the drinks trade to behave as it sees fit, combined with the criminalisation of other drugs to make millionaires out of a huge criminal class that recycles the money to finance every other kind of organised crime, allows the supply of addictive substances to flourish every year. At the other end of the addiction cycle, the government still insists on imposing a medical model of addiction on the growing numbers of addicts, where they are ministered unto by professionals who have no direct experience of addiction themselves. It is these experts who argue that a harm reduction approach, advising alcoholics to just try to have a few drinks instead of two bottles of vodka, is best. The only solution to alcoholism or any drug addiction is abstinence based recovery, one day at a time abstaining from intoxicating substances and working with other recoverers to build a new life from the ashes of the old. The Living Room Cardiff practices an abstinence based approach to recovery and it is a philosophy that needs to be adopted with more urgency now than ever before. Our society with all its constant demands on individuals to be smarter, funnier, better looking, richer, more successful and popular is an addict making machine, we have developed the settings on this machine to create a perpetual and ambient insanity that punishes children as they grow into adults for the crime of being who they are. This hurt is medicated in a myriad of different dysfunctional ways, leaving broken individuals, homes, families and communities. Not only is a different way of treating addicts needed, but a different language in society required in assessing the validity and worth of individuals.

A quarter of a million pounds.

Who authorised the investment of £250,000 of public money in the recently closed Westgate Street bar Fire Island? What was the rationale behind this decision? These questions need to be urgently answered by the National Assembly's investment body Finance Wales. The debt investment made in Fire Island was, even from a casual bystander's point of view, a high risk strategy. Why, in a town centre awash with bars, pubs and cut price alcohol deals, was it seen as a economically sound to invest tax payers money in another bar? No one celebrates or cheers when a business fails, jobs, dreams and ambitions are swept away by cruel economic realities and the owners of Fire Island and their other two businesses, The Buffalo Bar and Ten Feet Tall have no doubt shed many tears through these difficult times, and we must be sympathetic and caring. That said, it would appear that a collective madness has operated during this particular episode of questionable public expenditure and it is worth taking a moment to explore what these spending priorities really tell us about the Welsh Assembly Government. Public investment in private businesses is nothing new and if managed correctly can see communities regenerated and new industries flourish, but neither of those outcomes were likely here, at best a bar is likely to produce a handful of minimum wage bar and catering jobs. The lack of immediate economic benefit is only the tip of the iceberg, however, the actual costs that investing yet further in the alcohol industry incurs are ones that we as a society can ill afford and yet seem to be largely blind to. Firstly there is the opportunity cost of every pound spent on alcohol. Drinking could be described as an economic 'bad', the negative consequences of an individual investing in alcohol outweigh any productive benefit to the wider economy. For every pound spent on alcohol by the individual, society has to match it with hundreds of pounds spent of policing, health care, unemployment benefits, social services, the court systems and more. The drinks industry privatises huge profits and socialises even bigger costs, so when a government lends money to facilitate this process it can be said to be involved in a conspiracy against the general public. Finance Wales' investment also demonstrates a staggering failure of imagination. No doubt the organisation invests in all manner of businesses across Wales, but the decision to pour money into yet another bar in Cardiff's city centre, already a no go area on a Saturday night for many people due to drunken violence, infers to the casual onlooker the idea that central Cardiff can't be, or do, or produce anything else. If this is the extent of our economic thinking about the country's capital city, Wales is in dire trouble, can it be that the epicentre of the industrial revolution, a city of coal, ships, steelworks, factories and engineers can't dream up something more productive? Finally, there is a cost that is felt keenly by the volunteers and service users at the Living Room Cardiff, which, like all charities devoted to undoing the harm caused by the alcohol industry, has faced a struggle for its financial future over the last few years. A quarter of a million pounds would finance the Living Room for two and a half years and this in turn would add more to the Welsh economy than a new town centre bar. The Living Room regularly sees people return to work after years in addiction, it sees addicts forced into crime become law abiding and productive citizens, it sees people who have neglected their duties at work due to addiction become model employees and takes the strain off the NHS's A&E Departments on a Saturday night. In short, the Welsh Assembly Government should be investing in recovery for the long term, not in promoting yet more drinking by subsidising an already bloated alcohol industry in Wales.

A high street weapon of mass destruction

A high street weapon of mass destruction. That the country is in the grip of an epidemic of alcoholism has long been understood by most health professionals. Almost every index relating to drinking show a steep rise in consumption and an equivalent rise in alcohol related illnesses, violence and death. The one million assaults in the UK every year and the involvement of alcohol as an aggravating factor in most recorded cases of child abuse are such large statistical abstractions that it makes it difficult for the mind to take in the scale of the carnage caused by Britain's soft touch approach to this drug. A particular court case this week however, might help to focus the thoughts as it involves a crime of horrendous and senseless violence, one fuelled by alcohol, but one where alcohol's involvement was at no point questioned challenged or condemned. Carl Mills yesterday began a life sentence with a minimum term of 30 years for murder after deliberately setting fire to a house, killing his estranged girlfriend Kayleigh Buckley along with their daughter Kimberley and her mother Kim. His relationship with alcohol was well documented, Torfaen social services were concerned about his heavy drinking, but little more was said about it than that. A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Carl Mills was responsible for starting a devastating fire that had distressing and tragic consequences. He did so knowing full well who was in the house at the time – and the evidence of his jealous and controlling nature makes it all too clear what his intentions were." That he was completely responsible for the crime and a cruel and sadistic man is beyond doubt, but the other silent accomplice, the alcohol industry yesterday slunk away largely unnoticed, its involvement in the crime going unquestioned in court and in all other arenas of public debate; the media and the government said nothing about the role of alcohol in the crime, even though social services reports had strongly hinted towards it being a key factor in Mills' violence. British society operates in many ways like a family riven with dysfunction caused by addiction, in both instances everyone secretly knows the truth, but the unspoken rules that are all pervading prohibit all of us from speaking it. If we explore some statistics and focus on some uncomfortable truths, however, we may be able to break this toxic silence. Alcohol, globally, is a weapon of mass destruction. How can we say this with any conviction? Landmines, costing anything between $3 and $10 to buy and now some 120 million in number, kill, worldwide some 800 people per month, the majority of whom are children and almost all of whom are poor. Alcohol kills just under 210,000 worldwide per month according to the World Health Organisation, some staggering 2.5 million people per year (when next year we take stock of the millions killed from 1914-1918, it might be interesting to revisit this statistic and contextualise it, a different kind of carnage for our time but no less deadly). Another way of thinking about it is this: alcohol will kill, in the next twelve months, roughly 25 times as many people as the conflict in Syria has currently claimed. It will kill, in the next decade, roughly as many Russians as were lost in the Second World War, and in the next year kill six times as many people as the Ethiopian famine in 1984. All the dictators we revile, the famines that shock us when we watch the Six O'clock News, all the tsunamis and earthquakes and civil wars that cut a bloody swathe through mankind, all of these have a tough time competing with alcohol for sheer destructive power. Britain, mercifully, has none of the above horrors to contend with, but it does have one of the most acute alcohol problems in the developed world. With this in mind the decision this week, the same week that Mills was convicted, by Prime Minister David Cameron to backtrack from minimum pricing legislation was one of the greatest abandonments of the British public to the interests of private profit in modern political history. Peer reviewed and evidence led research has clearly demonstrated in a number of cases that the level of injury, illness and premature deaths fell with even modest increases in minimum pricing, indicating that poor, vulnerable drinkers already drinking excessively were unable to consume the levels of drink that they had previously been able to. The various faux-libertarian arguments that have sprung forth over this issue repeatedly emphasise that the government has no right to rob the working man of what little pleasure he has in life, i.e. a cheap drink, and that good sensible drinkers should not have to be penalised because of a handful of bad apples. Firstly, as an addictive substance that is catastrophically damaging to the social fabric of the nation, is linked to a million assaults in the UK each year and costs the taxpayer annually some £12 billion, alcohol absolutely should be the subject of strict pricing, all other measures to limit its consumption have failed, including farcical attempts to involve the industry in 'self-regulation'. Secondly, if the drinkers who feel persecuted by the threat of a marginally more expensive pint of beer or glass of wine haven't got problems with alcohol, what actually is the problem? A few pence on the price of a drink is surely a small price to pay to curb the death-toll caused by drinking. The objections, no doubt, come primarily from the alcohol industry itself and from powerful and invisible lobbyists who have access to the Prime Minister and the rest of the political class (a U-turn this week on plain cigarette packaging and the convenient presence of tobacco lobbyist Lynton Crosby in the PM's inner circle gives us a clue as to how the rest of the government's 'health' policy works). It was perhaps too much to hope that our government, hopelessly in thrall to private concerns, was going to take a brave, necessary and potentially unpopular stand on alcohol and show real leadership. The game of modern politics may once have been about making harsh, necessary decisions (Cameron and Osborne seem adept at doing this when it comes to slashing state spending) but now it is far more a struggle for popularity over policy. Every time there is a car crash, a stabbing, a mugging or a rape, or every time a family of three is murdered in their beds by a young man sick with the disease of alcoholism and with endless cheap booze to feed it, think of the Prime Minister. Think of him and of an entirely superficial, glib and unconvincing political class, owned by big business concerns whose only interest is in privatising the proceeds of their weapon of mass destruction, and socialising the costs to the rest of us.

Arf stryd fawr o ddistryw mawr

Mae mwyafrif y gweithwyr proffesiynol iechyd wedi deall ers amser y ffaith bod y wlad wedi bod yng ngafael epidemig o alcoholiaeth. Mae bron pob mynegai sy’n ymwneud ag yfed yn dangos cynnydd mawr mewn yfed a chynnydd cyfatebol mewn salwch, trais a marwolaeth yn ymwneud ag alcohol. Mae’r miliwn o ymosodiadau yn y DU bob blwyddyn a’r ffaith bod alcohol yn ffactor yn y mwyafrif o’r achosion a gofnodwyd o gam-drin plant yn ystadegau mor fawr fel ei bod yn ei gwneud hi’n anodd i’r meddwl amgyffred graddfa’r drychineb a achosir gan agwedd cyffyrddiad ysgafn Prydain at y cyffur hwn. Mae’n bosibl, fodd bynnag, y bydd achos llys yr wythnos hon yn helpu i ganolbwyntio meddyliau gan ei fod yn ymwneud â throsedd o drais dychrynllyd a disynnwyr ond yn un lle na chafodd perthynas alcohol ar unrhyw adeg ei gwestiynu, ei herio na’i gondemnio. Ddoe, dechreuodd Carl Mills ar ddedfryd o garchar am oes gyda lleiafswm o 30 mlynedd am lofruddio ar ôl cynnau tân mewn tŷ’n fwriadol, gan ladd ei gyn gariad Kayleigh Buckley, eu merch Kimberley a’i mam Kim. Roedd cofnodion clir am ei berthynas gydag alcohol, roedd gwasanaethau cymdeithasol Torfaen yn bryderus am ei arfer o yfed yn drwm ond ni ddywedwyd llawer mwy na hynny. Dywedodd llefarydd ar ran Gwasanaeth Erlyn y Goron: "Roedd Carl Mills yn gyfrifol am ddechrau tân dychrynllyd oedd â chanlyniadau trallodus a thrasig. Gwnaeth hynny gan wybod yn iawn pwy oedd yn y tŷ ar y pryd - ac mae tystiolaeth o’i natur genfigennus a chynllwyngar yn gwneud ei fwriadau’n llawer rhy glir. " Roedd y ffaith ei fod yn gwbl gyfrifol am y drosedd ac yn ddyn creulon a sadistaidd yn ddiamheuol ond roedd y cyd-droseddwr tawel arall, y diwydiant alcohol yn dianc i bob pwrpas yn ddisylw. Ni chwestiynwyd rhan yr alcohol yn y drosedd yn y llys nac yn unrhyw faes arall o drafodaeth gyhoeddus; ni ddywedodd y cyfryngau na’r llywodraeth unrhyw beth am rôl alcohol yn y drosedd er bod adroddiadau’r gwasanaethau cymdeithasol wedi awgrymu’n gryf bod hwn yn ffactor pwysig yn natur dreisgar Mills. Mae cymdeithas Brydeinig yn gweithredu mewn sawl ffordd fel teulu sy’n cael ei yrru gan gamweithredu o ganlyniad i ddibyniaeth, yn y ddau achos mae pawb yn gwybod y gwir, ond mae’r rheolau nad sy’n cael eu llefaru ond sy’n drwch yn ein cymdeithas, yn ein hatal ni i gyd rhag siarad amdano. Os byddwn yn ymchwilio i rai ystadegau ac yn canolbwyntio ar rai gwirioneddau anghyfforddus, fodd bynnag, mae’n bosibl y gallwn dorri ar y tawelwch gwenwynig hwn. Yn fyd-eang, mae alcohol yn arf o ddistryw mawr. Sut gallwn ni ddweud hyn gydag argyhoeddiad? Mae ffrwydron tir, sy’n costio unrhyw beth rhwng $3 a $10 i’w prynu ac yn awr tua 120 miliwn mewn nifer, yn lladd tua 800 o bobl y mis dros y byd i gyd, y mwyafrif yn blant a bron bob un o’r rhain yn dlawd. Mae alcohol yn lladd ychydig llai na 210,000 dros y byd i gyd bob mis yn ôl Sefydliad Iechyd y Byd, rhyw 2.5 miliwn o bobl y flwyddyn (pan fyddwn ni'r flwyddyn nesaf yn cyfrif y miliynau a laddwyd o 1914-1918, mae’n bosibl y bydd yn ddiddorol ail ymweld â’r ystadegyn hwn a’i roi yn ei gyd-destun, lladdfa wahanol i’n hamser ni ond nid yn llai angheuol). Ffordd arall o feddwl am hyn yw: bydd alcohol yn lladd, yn ystod y deuddeg mis nesaf, tua 25 gwaith cynifer o bobl ag y mae’r gwrthdaro yn Syria wedi’i wneud. Bydd yn lladd, yn ystod y degawd nesaf, tua chynifer o Rwsiaid ag a gollwyd yn yr Ail Ryfel Byd ac yn y flwyddyn nesaf, chwe gwaith cynifer o bobl â’r newyn yn Ethiopia ym 1984. Rydyn ni’n gwaredu at yr holl unbeniaid, y newyn sy’n ein syfrdanu pan fyddwn yn gwylio Newyddion 6, pob tswnami a daeargryn a rhyfeloedd cartref sy’n tynnu gwaed yr holl ddynolryw, mae pob un o’r rhain yn cael amser caled yn cystadlu gydag alcohol fel arf o ddistryw. Drwy drugaredd, nid oes gan Brydain un o’r trychinebau uchod i ymgodymu â nhw ond mae ganddi un o’r problemau alcohol mwyaf dwys yn y byd datblygedig. Gan gofio hyn, mae penderfyniad y Prif Weinidog David Cameron yr wythnos hon, yr union wythnos yr euogfarnwyd Mills, i dynnu’n ôl o ddeddfwriaeth lleiafswm prisiau yn un o ymadawiadau mwyaf pobl Prydain er budd elw preifat mewn hanes gwleidyddol modern. Mae gwaith ymchwil a adolygwyd gan gyfoedion ac ar sail tystiolaeth wedi dangos yn glir mewn nifer o achosion bod lefel anaf, salwch a marwolaethau cynamserol wedi gostwng gyda chynnydd bychan iawn mewn lleiafswm prisio, gan ddangos bod yfwyr bregus, tlawd sy’n barod yn yfed gormod, yn methu ag yfed lefel y diodydd yr oedden nhw’n gallu ei wneud ynghynt. Mae’r amrywiol ffug-rhyddewyllyswyr sydd wedi ymddangos dros y broblem hon yn pwysleisio’n barhaus nad oes gan y llywodraeth hawl i ddwyn oddi wrth y gweithiwr yr ychydig bleser sydd ganddo mewn bywyd h.y. diod rad ac na ddylai yfwyr synhwyrol da gael eu cosbi oherwydd llond llaw o afalau drwg. Yn gyntaf, fel sylwedd dibynnol sy’n niweidio’n ofnadwy ffabrig cymdeithasol y genedl, sy’n gysylltiedig â miliwn o ymosodiadau yn y DU bob blwyddyn ac yn costio rhyw £12 biliwn y flwyddyn i’r trethdalwr, dylai alcohol yn bendant fod yn bwnc prisio llym, mae pob mesur arall i gyfyngu ar ei yfed wedi methu, gan gynnwys ceisiadau chwerthinllyd i gynnwys y diwydiant mewn ‘hunan-reoli’. Yn ail, os na fydd gan yfwyr sy’n teimlo eu bod yn cael eu herlyn gan fygythiad peint o gwrw neu lasiad o win ychydig yn fwy costus, broblemau gydag alcohol, beth yw’r broblem go iawn? Pris bychan yw ychydig geiniogau ar bris diod i dalu am ostwng y nifer o farwolaethau a achosir gan yfed. Mae’r gwrthwynebiadau, yn ddiamheuol, yn dod yn bennaf o’r diwydiant alcohol ei hun a gan lobïwyr anweledig sy’n gallu mynd at y Prif Weinidog a gweddill y dosbarth gwleidyddol (tro pedol yr wythnos hon ar becynnu plaen i sigarennau ac mae presenoldeb cyfleus y lobïwr tybaco Lynton Crosby yng nghylch cyfrin y Prif Weinidog yn rhoi cliw i ni ar sut mae gweddill polisi ‘iechyd’ y llywodraeth yn gweithio). Efallai ei bod yn ormod i obeithio bod ein llywodraeth, sy’n drwm yng nghôl diwydiannau preifat, yn mynd i gymryd safiad dewr amhoblogaidd ac angenrheidiol ar alcohol a dangos arweinyddiaeth go iawn. Mae’n bosibl bod gêm gwleidyddiaeth fodern wedi bod unwaith yn ymwneud â phenderfyniadau angenrheidiol, llym (mae Cameron ac Osborne yn ymddangos yn fedrus ar wneud hyn pan mae’n dod i dorri gwariant y wladwriaeth) ond nawr mae’n llawer mwy o ymdrechu am boblogrwydd ar draul polisi. Bob tro y mae damwain car, achos o drywanu, mygio neu dreisio, neu bob tro mae teulu o dri’n cael eu llofruddio yn eu gwelyau gan ddyn ifanc sy’n dioddef gan salwch alcoholiaeth a digon o alcohol rhad i’w fwydo, meddyliwch am y Prif Weinidog. Meddyliwch amdano ac am ddosbarth gwleidyddol hollol arwynebol, ffraeth ac anargyhoeddiadol, yn eiddo busnesau mawr lle mae eu hunig ddiddordeb yw preifateiddio elw eu harfau distryw mawr a chymdeithasoli costau i’r gweddill ohonom.

A Hidden Accomplice

A hidden accomplice Following the death in prison of Myra Hindley the Moors Murderer, the veteran Labour politician Tony Benn was asked on BBC's Question Time by an audience member whether it would have been better simply to execute her instead of paying for her to languish in jail for decades. Benn responded that the one crime that is probably beyond the ability of any human to forgive is the murder of a child, but that the greatest mistake for a nation that has to endure the pain of such events is to give in to blind hatred. Far better, he said, to forget about Hindley and allow her life to have been one of irrelevance. These are undoubtedly wise words, timely, as once again we encounter the horror of an adult purposefully and deliberate killing a child for their own sexual gratification. It is doubtful that anyone could ever forgive this crime and few will be able to forget it either. Today the murderer of April Jones, Mark Bridger, will begin what will probably be the rest of a lifetime behind bars, just a brief review of the court case indicates that the police were dealing with a calculating and dangerous man, but another aspect of the case was continually mentioned throughout the trial and was scarcely raised as a contributory factor, and that was Bridger's drinking. Bridger was heavily dependent on alcohol and was consuming large quantities of beer, cider and wine at the time of the killing, the Guardian background feature on Bridger's Walter Mitty fantasy world mentioned drinking twice, but at no point (probably in the interests of securing a prosecution for murder) has anyone from the CPS or the media explored whether alcohol has had some part to play in this most horrific of crimes. The purpose of this article is not to provide this wicked and monstrous man with any form of mitigation, drunk or sober, there is no mistaking this act as a premeditated deed. However, if the relationship between alcohol and violence against children were isolated to this case we might reasonably call it an aberration, but evidence from the NSPCC tends to suggest that it is a contributory factor in most cases of sexual or physical violence against children. The World Health Organisation states that: "In London, parental substance abuse was a cause of concern in 52 per cent of families on the Child Protection Register, with alcohol as the principal substance used." This report refers to cases that range from neglected children in chaotic homes to a minority of others who are in direct physical harm. In the past few months murder trials have revealed that alcohol has been a contributory factor in the Philpott family murder and the horrific killing of schoolgirl Tia Sharp by her grandmother's boyfriend. In both the April Jones and Tia Sharp cases the media have been quick to highlight the downloading of child porn images as a main contributory factor, which it undoubtedly is. There is less desire to examine how the most accesible and widespread drug in the country affects the judgement of people who go on to commit horrific acts. Put simply, there seems to be no desire to question whether heavy drinking enables people to act out harmful and violent acts that may well have remained suppressed otherwise. The evidence would tend to suggest that alcohol has been a facilitating substance in these crimes and in other cases. Drunkenness in the home can often be the means by which dangerous people, friends of the family or acquaintances from the pub, are first brought into contact with children as judgement is impaired and the needs of the young take a back seat to the priorities of the drinker. Alcohol is a powerful, dangerous and addictive drug that cuts a bloody swathe through our communities year on year, and it is a drug that Britain's moral coward-in-chief David Cameron has backtracked on introducing minimum pricing over. Perhaps if we as a society were to have an open and honest debate about how much and how often this drug really harms our children, we might be less fond of trotting out pseudo-libertarian arguments about 'the drinker's right to choose', and be more concerned with the rights of children to happy, safe childhoods.

New start, new challenge

Carol Hardy believes if her local Minister hadn’t the confidence to talk about and support her battle with alcoholism, her life would have likely taken a very different course. Her personal experience of the importance of being able to turn to religious leaders in the community, and for them in turn to feel they have the ability to talk about addiction, form part of Carol’s main aims as she takes up a new post with Living Room Cardiff. There has been a recent increase in individuals with addiction problems approaching the clergy and other church leaders for help and this is often the first time they have asked for help from anyone (NAADAC, The Association for Addiction Professionals, 2007). However, there is a significant knowledge and skills gap among clergy in regard to dealing effectively with individuals who have alcohol, drug and other addiction problems. Some clergy lack confidence and are not personally equipped to help individuals deal with deeply personal and disturbing problems. Carol, said, “Personally, I was fortunate. My Minister had a background in addiction issues. However, I know this was and is very much a rarity. The natural tendency amongst our religious leaders is to avoid getting involved in people’s personal business, but much of this is down to a simple lack of experience and confidence in dealing with addiction issues. “Part of my first duties will be to make contact will all denominations in Wales to pilot a course on how to improve skills in discussing addiction. I am looking for any support to kick-start the pilot, but the aim is to create a framework of courses and a handbook, the first of its kind to be published in the Welsh language. “As addiction problems increase, I want to ensure clergy understand the issues involved and are ready and able to respond appropriately in a timely manner.” ENDS For further information, please contact Rhodri Ellis Owen, Cambrensis Communications on 029 20 2570785 or rhodri@cambrensis.uk.com Notes to editor: Stafell Fyw Caerdydd/Living Room Cardiff, the community-based recovery centre for Cardiff and South Wales, is setting up workshops to upskill and increase the confidence of clergy and other church leaders throughout Wales, in how to respond more effectively with those addicted to alcohol and drugs (prescribed or illicit), or other harmful behaviours, within their congregations and in their surrounding communities.

NEGES O OBAITH

Sut gallwn ni ddweud ffarwel wrth un flwyddyn a chroesawu un arall sydd eto i ddechrau? I nifer, mae’r ateb yn syml, gyda hwyl sy’n ymylu ar hedoniaeth. Mae’r wythnos fwy neu lai rhwng Nadolig a’r Flwyddyn Newydd yn aml yn troi yn un parti hir. Ar gyfer y rhai sy’n gallu delio â chyfnod hir o yfed a dal i weithio ym mis Ionawr, gallwn ddymuno lwc dda i chi; mae cyflawni camp fel yna’n dasg anghyffredin iawn yn wir, oherwydd mae nifer eraill fydd yn cael eu gorchfygu gan dymor yr ŵyl a’r yfed y mae’n ei gynnig. Mae’r addewid arwynebol aml o amser da, ewyllys da a hapusrwydd yn aml yn syrthio o dan bwysau tymor y partïon i wirioneddau llai cyfforddus. Gall siom, unigrwydd a dicter hir-dymor hefyd atalnodi ‘amser hapusaf y flwyddyn’ ac mae digonedd o alcohol wrth law i leddfu’r poenau hyn ac, mewn llawer achos, eu gwaethygu. Felly, beth yw’r dull gorau o ymchwilio i’ch teimladau am y tymor a’r Flwyddyn Newydd? Mae’n bosibl mai drwy edrych yn ôl dros yr amseroedd lle’r ydyn ni’n byw, tra bod eraill yn ceisio negyddu pwy a beth ydyn nhw mewn alcohol, dim ond i ddiweddu’n cael eu goresgyn a’u niweidio ganddo, y gallwn ni weld yr ‘amseroedd da’ fel yr hyn ydyn nhw. Bob yn hyn a hyn, mae gwirionedd yn dod i’r amlwg sy’n chwalu’r propaganda sy’n ein hamgylchynu fel bwled a daeth un i’r amlwg ychydig cyn y Nadolig gan Sefydliad Iechyd y Byd. Ym mis Rhagfyr, cytunodd 193 aelod-wladwriaethau’r WHO yn unfrydol fod: "Defnydd niweidiol o alcohol yn bwysau iechyd difrifol a’i fod yn effeithio ar bron i bob unigolyn yn rhyngwladol.” Cyhoeddwyd hwn tra hefyd yn datgelu bod y cyffur yn lladd rhyw 2.5 miliwn o bobl dros y byd i gyd bob blwyddyn gyda 300,000 o’r rhain yn blant a phobl ifanc. Darllenwch hwn eto: 2.5 miliwn. Mae’n holocost cudd, anweladwy, trosedd yn erbyn dynoliaeth sy’n cael ei normaleiddio a’i drin fel busnes fel arfer; fel ffrwydradau tir. Mae’n siŵr bod pwynt wedi’i gyrraedd dros y byd i gyd gyda pherthynas dyn gyda’r ddiod feddwol na all gynnal ei hun pan fydd mwyafrif llywodraethau’r byd yn sôn am beryglon alcohol, mae’n rhaid ei bod yn amser i’r cyfoethocaf o’r llywodraethau hyn ddechrau wynebu’r anghenfil y maen nhw wedi’i greu? Tra bod lleiafswm y polisïau prisiau gwannaf wedi’u cyflwyno’n dawel gan ein llywodraeth, ni all unrhyw un fod â llawer o ffydd go iawn y byddan nhw’n cymryd camau difrifol i adfer rhywfaint o ddoethineb i ddeddfau trwyddedu Prydain. Nid yw’r ffaith bod ein meistri etholedig yn gwasanaethu’r rhai sy’n cyfrannu fwyaf at gronfeydd partïon gwleidyddol, prin yn syniad dadleuol, mae’n hysbys a phrin yn gyfrinach. Mae hyn yn golygu bod yn rhaid cael newid ystyrlon, fel mae wedi bod erioed, a hynny oddi wrth y cyhoedd. Mae’r fasnach ddiod wedi denu mwyafrif Prydain yn gyfrwys neu’n ddibynnol neu wedi cyfaddawdu, ond mae un ddemograffeg lle mae’n rhaid i ni osod ein gobaith, pobl ifanc. Mae’r defnydd o alcohol yn gostwng ymhlith pobl ifanc. Yn ddiweddar, roedd Alcohol Concern yn cyhoeddi ystadegau’n dangos bod y defnydd o alcohol ymhlith pobl ifanc 16-24 oed yn gostwng a bod llwyr ymataliad ar gynnydd, tuedd nad sy’n berthnasol i’r amseroedd anodd economaidd presennol ond un a ddechreuodd bron i ddegawd yn ôl. Er y gall alcoholiaeth achosi llawer o dristwch dros gyfnod y gwyliau, a gall achosi gofleidio’r byd yn waedlyd, mae’n glir bod rhywbeth wedi newid yn dawel, yn raddol ac yn anesboniadwy. I ble bydd hyn yn arwain y flwyddyn nesaf neu’r ddegawd nesaf? Beth all hyn wneud o’n cymdeithas? Pwy all ddod i’r blaen i ddangos i ni eu mawredd? Pwy fel arall fyddai wedi’i golli i ddibyniaeth? Bydd yn rhaid i ni aros i weld. Mae llawer i feddwl amdano'r Nadolig a’r Flwyddyn Newydd hon a llawer i obeithio amdano yn y misoedd i ddod. Rhaid i ni gofio am alcohol a dioddefwyr dibyniaeth a gwneud cyfraniadau bychan, graddol, ond bob amser hanfodol i fyd dynol mwy caredig a diogel yn 2013.