When we talk about drug deaths and alcohol deaths, drug addiction and alcohol addiction, the issues are very carefully couched in terms of the tragedy of it all.

Much is made of how people who drink to excess or become dependent on illegal substances have had terrible, difficult experiences or lead hard lives, blighted by trauma.

There is sympathetic clucking about poverty and the correlation between being from a deprived socio-economic background and having a drink or drug problem.

Certainly, that correlation is prevalent in the figures: there are 4.3 times as many deaths from an alcohol-specific cause in the most deprived communities as in the least deprived communities, as we saw from the drugs deaths statistics released this week.

Can Glasgow be transformed with 'world class' facilities? 

Partly this is a way to engage people of conservative mindsets in the conversation. That is, a way of persuading people who, for example, think all drug users should be punished to the full extent of the law, towards a public health approach.

It's a sort of appeal to the better nature of those of a crime and punishment bent, rather than a health and safety bent, by framing people with addictions as poor souls.

And partly the framing is a way of giving comfort to the non-addicted majority. This could never happen to us, is the subtext, because we are middle class or from stable homes or have jobs.

It's along the same lines as the insistence that every abortion is the result of some terrible circumstances. People who don't subscribe to full bodily autonomy for women need to be persuaded that they are doing women a favour by being supportive of the right to choose when something has gone terribly wrong.

So again, much is made of how this is the most difficult choice a woman might make, it is always sprung from necessity, the woman might be living in poverty or perhaps she was assaulted.

It's less often argued that, actually, the right to choose is absolute and, actually, some women just don't want to be pregnant without any gruesome extenuating circumstances.

In that vein, we don't often say, actually, there are plenty of people who take drugs because they enjoy taking drugs. Recreational drug use - how do we factor that in to the discussions on dealing with drug deaths, an issue that begins with drug use? At the moment the narrative is that if drug use is problematic then we have sympathy for it, but if it is recreational we have none.

My 25 year love affair with American rock band the Eels

This is despite the lean to de facto decriminalisation policy for personal drug use in Scotland.

Ditto alcohol. So much is made of Scotland's problematic relationship with drink. But drinking is fun. People enjoy it. It feels irresponsible and wrong to say it so bluntly but that's the crux of the issue. Listen to a radio phone in segment on alcohol use and you'll find a harsh juxtaposition of callers talking about how problematic alcohol use has devastated their lives with presenters joking about how much they like a gin and tonic.

It's hard to have mature and sensible conversations about these hard topics when judgement and entrenched extremes are such a feature.

Not everyone uses drugs and alcohol because they are trying to escape the reality of their terrible life - people just really enjoy it. That's more difficult to legislate for but needs to be acknowledged in non-judgemental manner to ensure an adequate policy response. In fact, more than acknowledged - accepted.

Every year the drugs deaths figures garner more attention than alcohol deaths. There is a sense of both scandal and novelty to drugs deaths. Most of us either drink or know people who drink and most of us will know someone whose drinking is problematic; far fewer know someone who takes Class A drugs or has an opioid addiction.

The class issues around drinking make solutions more difficult to agree on too. We're seeing that now with the debate around minimum unit pricing's (MUP) effectiveness. The middle classes don't particularly mind paying a little bit more for alcohol and the policy brings in more money for those in the drinks sector, securing and creating employment.

Those who are most affected by MUP - those on limited incomes who are choosing whether to supply their addictions or eat, for example - are not those who will be shouting the loudest for change. Nor are they those whose voices are heard.

This year it was the number of women who died an alcohol-related death that prompted the rise in the overall numbers. The number of men killed by alcohol related conditions remained the same, at 836 each year. For women, the death toll rose by 31 to 440.

There has also been a rise in female binge drinking. The drinks industry has relentlessly targeted women over the past 10 or so years with "mummy juice" and "girl beer", framing drinking as a well deserved reward for all the addition labour - childcare, housework, emotional labour - that being female brings with it.

Marketing is, according to the World Health Organisation, a crucial factor in dealing with tackling problematic alcohol use but the Scottish Government, while bullishly defending MUP despite the opaque measure of its "success", was quite willing to return to the drawing board on plans to regulate alcohol marketing after pressure from the industry.

One of the resolutions put forward for drug deaths and addiction is to provide safe places to allow people to take illegal substances in a controlled environment. Another is decriminalisation, because there is an acknowledgement that insisting on abstinence is not reasonable or realistic.

To reduce consumption of alcohol - an addictive drug in liquid form - resolutions include providing safe spaces that are alcohol free and encouraging reduction to the point of abstinence. God knows, there are enough safe spaces available for alcohol consumption but very few now without it.

The harms of alcohol have become more widely talked about and there is a more widespread, albeit a bit sheepish, acknowledgement that drink isn't entirely one big, hilarious lark.

It's far, far more common now to be teetotal and the teetotallers are becoming the new vegans: you know they are teetotal because they've told you. At the same time, drink is now available everywhere, in previously booze-free activities like bowling alleys and the movies.

The alcohol deaths figures have prompted a robust discussion on MUP and whether it is a success or failure. There is distrust around the Public Health Scotland evaluation of the project and MUP has been the stand out focus of Scotland's ability or not to tackle the issue of alcohol addiction. It's incumbent now on the Scottish Government to lay out and rationalise any analysis so that people feel confident in taking a position on the outcome of MUP one way or another.

In addiction, prevention is far better than cure but, on cure, there is hardly enough resources invested in rehab facilities and counselling to ensure everyone who needs help gets it exactly when they need it. This needs to form a crucial part of the debate because, like or not, MUP is going to stay in the spotlight.

The five-year sunset clause in the legislation arises next May and there will need to be a measured discussion on what comes next. It's hard to be optimistic about any public debate when the issue - and let's remember we're talking about life-saving health measures here - is used for political point scoring by increasingly fractious party opponents.

Caution, more caution and common sense don't generate the sexy headlines produced when politicians shout strident slogans at one another but somehow, come next year, that's what we'll need.