Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: What the kids do, in reply to Russell Brown,
I think the most sensible way to see it is as a package of complementary measures.
I think that's what I said, yes. That's not the same thing as regarding one measure, i.e. restricting availability, as being the cause of evident reduction.
-
Hard News: What the kids do, in reply to Russell Brown,
How many 12-14 year-olds do we see “regularly getting drunk”?
I have no idea but I’d put money on it being more than get ripped on Kronic.
And are you suggesting allowing 12 year-olds to buy alcohol would not result in more drunk 12 year-olds?
No, that’s only your interpretation of what I said, filtered through being pissed off with me for allegedly saying that the stuff you’ve been posting on for years is “mere correlation”. Which I didn’t.
Your grip needs improvement.
ETA As to the underage drinkers, I'll listen to the ER specialists, alarmist though they may be. It's the best evidence I've seen so far. -
Hey, David Garrett was SST, wasn't he? And McVicar knew about his past, so isn't he an accessory after the fact? How come he wasn't charged?
-
Could someone please frame McVicar so that he gets to spend a little time actually inside Club Mt Eden?
-
Hard News: What the kids do, in reply to Russell Brown,
I do think the data are such that anyone who proposes a mere correlation needs to suggest some alternative causes.
Please return your high horse to its stall.
I did not "propose a mere correlation" - I warned against mistaking correlation for cause, as Sacha had said "Again, does not trump the evidence that restricting availability works". I don't see hard evidence that this is the case. I see genuine hypothesis and results that indicate it may be a factor. But equally, price is a factor, available income, health awareness and public prohibition are all factors, none of which I see as decisive, least of all the grotesque warnings on the packets.
And nothing dramatically reduces the consumption of tobacco like dramatically reducing the number of places you can consume it.
Persons under 18 are restricted from buying alcohol, yet we see 12, 13 and 14 year olds regularly getting drunk. So that really worked, didn't it?
-
Hard News: What the kids do, in reply to Russell Brown,
. Can you propose a cause that bears no relation to any smokefree policy?
No, but I don't attribute the drop-off to any one measure either. To state definitively that restricting access is having that effect would be to ignore all the other things that are going on in that area. Likewise, I honestly don't know if just restricting the sale of 'legals' would reduce use, but I have my doubts, as I've seen too many things go underground because it's impossible to continue with them publicly.
-
Hard News: What the kids do, in reply to Sacha,
Don't confuse correlation with causation. Just saying.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Susan Snowdon,
I couldn’t see any reason to hate on the interview really
It’s still wrong to rape drunk people.
When the discussion is all about the intoxication, the point of the rape is minimised.
ETA I'm glad to hear, though, that they weren't into blaming the victims, but it is avoiding the major issue.
-
Hard News: A Century Since, in reply to recordari,
That's what I love about PAS - you get to see some very weird shit.
#oddlycompelling #thatboyneedstherapy
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Kate Hannah,
Please someone who listened to Nine to Noon fill me/us in on the report
Sorry, I thought the same as you when I heard the promo and turned it off. You can download it here if you want to hear it.