TOPIC:

James reilly talkin shite on the front line right now.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk

10 radical solutions to binge drinking[/url:1xh8x26t]
I dont think these people know what radical means

1. Legalise marijuana 9% reduction in traffic fatalaties[/url:1xh8x26t] should imply reduction in drinking alcohol

2. Increase the IBU's of all alcohol sold. Anything less bitter than guiness foreign extra is banned. Added bonus beer will be so hoppy you'll fall asleep after a few.

3. Invade France. Bound to help by pushing up the price of wine.

4. Increase IQ/education
'In men, the less educated and those[/url:1xh8x26t] in unskilled manual occupations were substantially (up
to 3 times) more likely than those with higher qualifications to binge drink up to early middle
age'
This could be done by increasing breast feeding
'children who were breastfed[/url:1xh8x26t] continued to enjoy a significant test score advantage of 3.24 (p < 0.001) and 2.23 (p < 0.001) percentage points on reading and mathematics respectively compared to those who were never breastfed'

and 5. by increasing game playing[/url:1xh8x26t]

6. Redefine binge to be 20 pints

7. Put Coprinopsis Atramentaria, Inkcap mushroom[/url:1xh8x26t], in all foods

8. Put Antabuse in the water supply

9. Give everyone a yearly dose of peyote[/url:1xh8x26t]

10. Allow free immigration from cultures that do not drink much. By adding loads of people to our population with near zero alcohol consumption we will reduce our average consumption hugely.

I cannot imagine any of these ideas being controversial.

Introduction of Medical marijuana reduced beer sales in California by 5.3%[/url:2eluc5cl]


While on the subject if you want to reduce drunken fights you could reduce drunkeness or stupidity[/url:2eluc5cl]

I have been looking at the Rand Report[/url:2hmqqpyo], which is one of the pieces of evidence most referenced by the anti alcohol lobby and it makes interesting reading. A blog post on it is in the offing.

What I would like to ask you is if I am missing something when I look at this graph from the report:

[img:2hmqqpyo]http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb318/irishbrewer/lcirrhosis.jpg[/img:2hmqqpyo][/url:2hmqqpyo]
[size=85:2hmqqpyo]Click to enlarge.[/size:2hmqqpyo]

As far as I can make out, this graph seems to be saying that the rate of cirrhosis in Ireland went up between 1990 and 2003, but that we have the lowest rate in the EU. That can't be right, can it?

Looks like that, or at least that our 2003 rate is among the lowest. However, it got worse the fifth-fastest.

Interesting graph. I'd love to see up to date figures.

You are: the word "deaths".

That graphs the death rates, not the actual levels of cirrhosis in each country.

That graph is a function of cirrhosis levels and the health services of each country.