Alcohol Consumption In Nz.

Now, I would not have believed that the current discussion of the alcohol 'problem' in NZ was simply a replication of the contrived 'obesity epidemic' wherein the scale used to indicate obesity was changed, and this to the extent that those subsequently categorised as within the healthy range were having more health problems than those within the slightly obese range. But then I saw this ...





“… our nation’s appalling drinking statistics” would appear to be almost totally derived from surveys and anecdotal evidence, and from this a rather tenuous leap made to attribute cause.



The survey statistics themselves,(http://www.aphru.ac.nz/projects/alcohol%202000%20results1.htm#_ftn1and http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5855/File/alcohol-use-in-new-zealand-2004.doc), could very well reflect changed attitudes towards drinking rather than be indicative of increased consumption, let alone ‘bing drinking’ - there does not appear to be available absolute quantities of alcohol sold juxtaposed with reputed consumption. This would proffer some validity to the consumption figures presented as most alcohol purchased is reputedly consumed within 24 hours of purchase. An increase of 2 litres per annum may well be a 21% increase in consumption (1995-2000) but it is not a great deal - two and a half bottles of wine over a year. It may also reflect a change in the definition of a standard drink, from 15 gm absolute alcohol to 10 (2004).I would have thought the postulated relationships with disease entities are simply that, ‘postulated.’Alcohol is an hypnosedative that has both predicable (tiredness, slowness of response) and unpredictable effects (disinhibition or reduced impulse control). Alcohol being associated with an event does not make it causative of that event. Intent is more often than not pre existing, and alcohol or other consumption occurs to expedite that event e.g. burglaries, violence, suicide, etc.I guess with no or minimal corresponding reduction in cancers resulting from the anti tobacco lobby it is easy to attribute their occurrence to anything else that can be seen as a ‘commodity of potential abuse.’ ‘Have you had more than six standard drinks at one sitting? Has this happened more than x times? Have you ever been unable to recall everything that occurred the day after?’ Poorly quantified correlation studies can be overly inclusive and quite specious.The charge of Sir Geoffrey and cohorts I see as quite populist and simplistic … the impact of unemployment, DPB., pretended high numbers in tertiary education and other ‘hidden’ means of taking structure or routine and meaning and value out of peoples lives is more the essence of this issue than what is being addressed.This is simply ‘well-intentioned’ wowserism, fortified by applying different criteria as to what constitutes ‘excess.’



And indeed ... a



Standard drink
In New Zealand, a standard drink is defined as the amount of beverage that contains 10 grams (or 12.67 millilitres) of absolute (pure) alcohol (ALAC 2004).

This definition of a standard drink differs from the definition used in the previous national surveys on alcohol use in New Zealand (Habgood et al 2001; Wyllie et al 1996), where a standard drink referred to 15 grams of absolute alcohol.



So now, drinking the same, we are drinking one third more!



Perhaps it is time that our political scientists returned to their core business, to endeavour to regain considerable of their lost integrity ... for this is simply appears more mirepresentation of information in pursuance of an agenda.