Comments on: Have your say… From Big Tobacco to Big Booze http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/2009/have-your-say%e2%80%a6-from-big-tobacco-to-big-booze/ a blog about alcohol.org.nz Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:00:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Gerald http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/2009/have-your-say%e2%80%a6-from-big-tobacco-to-big-booze/comment-page-1/#comment-19476 Gerald Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:36:37 +0000 http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/?p=70#comment-19476 Hi I am trying to find out what New Zealanders think of a complete ban on drink driving. I have started a group on facebook. Any input would be most appreciated. http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=105247722831314&ref=nf Hi I am trying to find out what New Zealanders think of a complete ban on drink driving. I have started a group on facebook. Any input would be most appreciated. http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=105247722831314&ref=nf

]]> By: Roger Brooking http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/2009/have-your-say%e2%80%a6-from-big-tobacco-to-big-booze/comment-page-1/#comment-14495 Roger Brooking Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:38:15 +0000 http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/?p=70#comment-14495 Ben's comparison of the death and destruction caused by alcohol with the risk involved in playing sport is ridiculous. Very few people are killed playing sport and sport does not lead to the social harms which drinking does. Alcohol on the other hand is the equivalent of a class B drug. It kills over 1,000 New Zealanders every year. The BERL report claimed the harm caused by alcohol was around $5.3 billion a year. The writers acknowledged that their conclusions were very conservative. Economist Brian Easton's research said the figure was around $16 billion - and that was in 1989. The updated figure is $25 billion. Ben’s comparison of the death and destruction caused by alcohol with the risk involved in playing sport is ridiculous. Very few people are killed playing sport and sport does not lead to the social harms which drinking does.

Alcohol on the other hand is the equivalent of a class B drug. It kills over 1,000 New Zealanders every year.

The BERL report claimed the harm caused by alcohol was around $5.3 billion a year. The writers acknowledged that their conclusions were very conservative. Economist Brian Easton’s research said the figure was around $16 billion – and that was in 1989. The updated figure is $25 billion.

]]> By: ben http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/2009/have-your-say%e2%80%a6-from-big-tobacco-to-big-booze/comment-page-1/#comment-12794 ben Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:53:39 +0000 http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/?p=70#comment-12794 Any response, folks? This page still cites the discredited BERL and does not mention the substantial criticism of it. Does ALAC's message depend on leaving out half the story? Any response, folks? This page still cites the discredited BERL and does not mention the substantial criticism of it. Does ALAC’s message depend on leaving out half the story?

]]> By: ben http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/2009/have-your-say%e2%80%a6-from-big-tobacco-to-big-booze/comment-page-1/#comment-11164 ben Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:47:19 +0000 http://blog.alcohol.org.nz/?p=70#comment-11164 What industry does not produce a product that occasionally kills? If the criteria for (even more) regulation is simply that people are occasionally hurt by the product, then what isn't in line for control? People die from skiing, rugby, cricket, football, cycling, driving cars, flying, boating and swimming. 99% gain tremendous enjoyment from the activity. Perhaps you could explain why the enjoyment most people who drink alcohol receive should not be weighed against. The BERL report has been <a href="http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/search/label/BERL" rel="nofollow">completely discredited</a>. Its figures are produced by assuming anyone who drinks 1.8 pints of beer per day - one in six adult New Zealanders - derives no gross (not net) enjoyment, no social or economic benefit. Nothing. Just cost. Just how implausible does a report have to be before you stop citing it? What industry does not produce a product that occasionally kills? If the criteria for (even more) regulation is simply that people are occasionally hurt by the product, then what isn’t in line for control? People die from skiing, rugby, cricket, football, cycling, driving cars, flying, boating and swimming. 99% gain tremendous enjoyment from the activity. Perhaps you could explain why the enjoyment most people who drink alcohol receive should not be weighed against.

The BERL report has been completely discredited. Its figures are produced by assuming anyone who drinks 1.8 pints of beer per day – one in six adult New Zealanders – derives no gross (not net) enjoyment, no social or economic benefit. Nothing. Just cost. Just how implausible does a report have to be before you stop citing it?

]]>