“The Lancet” Publishes More Junk Science Re Minimum Pricing of Alcohol

http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673613624174.pdf?id=aaakR4MeoxZJOb8tRN3qu

Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on different income and socioeconomic groups: a modelling study”

It says …..

I don’t suppose that it will do any harm to publish the abstract from this study:

Sorry, there is no such. Better to read the whole thing.

======

These studies are all well and good, except that they all have a MASSIVE fault (and this applies to tobacco studies as well). All of these studies require a “STANDARD HUMAN BEING”. That, to me, is the Achilles Heel of all these prohibitionists. They fail to, and cannot, ‘factor in’ the differences between individuals because these factors are un-knowable.

About these ads

4 Responses to ““The Lancet” Publishes More Junk Science Re Minimum Pricing of Alcohol”

  1. beobrigitte Says:

    Sorry, the link does not work for me…..

    • junican Says:

      Odd …. Sometimes I don’t know how these links work! Anyway, I have changed the link by downloading the pdf version. Seems OK now.

  2. beobrigitte Says:

    I did find something, though:

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2962417-4/abstract

    Interpretation
    Irrespective of income, moderate drinkers were little affected by a minimum unit price of £0·45 in our model, with the greatest effects noted for harmful drinkers. Because harmful drinkers on low incomes purchase more alcohol at less than the minimum unit price threshold compared with other groups, they would be affected most by this policy. Large reductions in consumption in this group would however coincide with substantial health gains in terms of morbidity and mortality related to reduced alcohol consumption.

    In other words, lets trumpet that it is the poor who “benefit” from minimum alcohol pricing.

    Whoever reached this conclusion forgot to give the “poor” some credit for getting cheap alcohol by home brewing. And the strength does vary from batch to batch.

    This short abstract does not address a question I have: In Austria you get a crade (20 bottles) of really good beer for about 10 Euros. The week I was there, we 3 drunk less than half a crate. The 3 evenings we went out we drunk 2-3 small glasses of beer (mainly because I wanted to stay in a place that provided an ASHTRAY for me). Drinking is unimportant there – it’s REALLY cheap and no-one is bothered.
    English people have lived with extortionate alcohol prices for a long time; it’ll take a while until they reach this “can’t-be-bothered-with-it” attitude. The same applies for tobacco.

    • junican Says:

      What annoys me is that they equate ‘health gains’ with ‘pleasure’. The poorest people, who are the ones who drink the cheapest alcohol, will gain the most ‘pleasure’ from being forced to pay more for alcohol.
      In that article, the Zealots actually state their intention to punish the poorest people.

Comments are closed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 99 other followers

%d bloggers like this: