"DUH!" of the Week...

Check out this headline from the BBC:

Heavy drinkers seek out bargains

This study found that people who drink heavily bought cheap booze: vodka, mostly but "White cider is the beverage to which our patients appear to have particularly cheap access, along with whisky." (Really? Whisky? Why the hell is whisky cheap? It's because distillers dump it to 'own brand' schemes in stores for quick cash; incredibly short-sighted, because it keeps the price of better whisky down as well).

Did anyone really think most drunks -- all the people surveyed were being treated for alcohol problems -- bought high-end booze-o? Heck no! These are the folks who skew the numbers, the 20% that consumer 80%, and they buy the cheapest buzz they can get, something the UK government has made even easier by mandating "units" of alcohol per bottle/serving being shown. Makes it easier for the drunk to spot the bargain, y'know?

So the study is supporting the government's latest plan, which goes beyond raising the UK's already stiff drink taxes: minimum booze pricing. Raise the price per unit to a higher minimum price. Wonder who pockets the difference? Bet it's not the booze producers...

More exaggerated anti-alcohol numbers? NO WAY!!

http://www.just-drinks.com/ is reporting that a New Zealand government study on the "social costs of illegal drug and alcohol abuse" grossly exaggerated those costs, according to an independent study by two researchers at the University of Canterbury.

Social costs of excess alcohol consumption cost New Zealand's economy NZ$662 million (US$421m) annually, not the $4.8 billion cited in a report commissioned by the Ministry of Health, according to a study published this week by two researchers at the country's University of Canterbury. The Government study, completed by Business and Economic Research Ltd (BERL) and published in March 2009, found that social costs of illegal drug and alcohol abuse were a combined $6.8 billion.

"We find substantial flaws in BERL's method that together account for well over 90% of BERL's calculated costs of alcohol use," said researchers Eric Crampton and Matt Burgess, of the University's Department of Economics and Finance."The BERL report is wholly inadequate for use in assisting policy development," they said, adding that New Zealand recoups $516 million annually in alcohol duty taxes.

The researchers claimed that the BERL study contained "serious deficiencies" in methodology, including double-counting the cost of insurance and insured losses and not accounting for differences between alcoholics and the rest of the drinking population. Several differences between the BERL and Canterbury studies rest on what can be counted as a cost directly related to alcohol consumption.

I am shocked -- shocked! -- to find misrepresentation of numbers going on here! Now...would some U.S. researchers please do the same kind of analysis for the bizarrely huge numbers always thrown around by New Dry groups like CASA, PIRE, and NIAAA? And learn how to put out a decent press release when you get the results? Might be interesting to take the "cost of" numbers put out by various groups -- cost of alcohol, drugs, back pain, improper office furniture -- add them all together, and see if it's true that we're not actually producing anything in this country because it's all being eaten up by lost productivity and healthcare expenses.

New Drys Right About One Thing...

We went to an end-of-year party for my daughter's robotics team (they compete in the FIRST competitions) last night out in the country, not far from the Spinnerstown Hotel. There were about 20 girls and an assortment of parents, friends, and little kids, all hanging out at the home of the school's physics teacher. We had a potluck dinner (all highly organized, with signup by spreadsheet and e-mail), with ice cream made on the spot by a compressed air-driven churn one of the mentors had built (we are talking about a picnic with engineers!).

Then there was a big bonfire (really big; there were whole trees in it, a pile of wood about 20 feet high), the girls presented awards and team gifts, some of them sang/rapped, there were fireworks. The girls walked down the road to a 'haunted house' (where planted friends who'd slipped away earlier screamed and jumped out at them) and shrieked so loud we could hear them a quarter mile away.

The one thing we didn't do was drink. There was no beer, wine, or spirits served. And you know...it's true. You can have fun without drinking. You don't have to drink. I've always agreed with the New Drys on this.

So why don't they understand that you can drink, and have fun, and not have it turn into a tragedy or an embarrassing evening? Perspective. Rationality. Some even-handedness.

There are real problems that stem from alcohol abuse. The New Drys don't help the situation by contending that there is no safe level of alcohol use. We the booze drinkers don't help the situation by pretending that alcohol is not really dangerous. We need to meet in the middle. Because you can have fun without drinking. And because you can be safe while drinking.

Please don't split that bottle, Mommy!

A UK government health study (done by the governments "Know Your Limits" alcohol campaign) found that -- get this! -- stress leads people to drink. Amazing.

But look, that's the usual waste of government money to learn something every frickin' idiot on the planet already knows; nothing to see here. It's the follow-up statement that just killed me.

Experts said if a couple shared a bottle of wine they would both be put over the recommended daily limit. Siobhan Freegard, of Netmums, said, "The extent to which this research showed modern moms are drinking really surprised us. It shows many moms and dads are developing a 'bottle a night' habit without really thinking about the health consequences. Getting used to juggling work and home life again after the summer break can be stressful for parents, but it's important not to allow yourself to slip back into the routine of relying on alcohol to help you unwind."

Dr. Sarah Jarvis, with the Home Office and Department of Health "Know Your Limits" campaign noted, "If you're returning to work, turning to the bottle can actually increase your stress levels. Try exercise or a nice warm bath to unwind instead."

Does this woman have any idea how risky the bathtub is? No, seriously, what really sent me round the bend was referring to splitting a bottle of wine with your spouse as "turning to the bottle." Get serious. It's bluenoses like this who make me wonder how we'll ever get anywhere on the truly serious problems of alcohol abuse. This is like calling for a crackdown on speeders who are two MPH over the limit.