From: [e--e] at [io.org] (eye WEEKLY) Newsgroups: ont.general,alt.drugs,alt.alcohol,io.eye Subject: Park: Addiction Research Foundation At It Again Date: 8 Sep 1994 09:17:02 -0400 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ eye WEEKLY September 8 1994 Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE PARK THE PARK POLLS APART -- ARF FUMBLES AGAIN Public opinion polls are everywhere. It's hard to watch the TV news or read a newspaper without being told how we are supposed to feel about this issue or that. But how accurate are these polls? The answer, it seems, depends on who pays for the poll and how credible the sponsor is. This was made very clear last month when two different public opinion surveys on the same issue were released within days of each other, showing very different results. The subject was alcohol and the surveys were sponsored by the Distillers Association and the Addiction Research Foundation. Needless to say, the results were very different. For example, the distillers found that 76 per cent of Ontarians wanted lower taxes on alcohol while ARF found that just 32 per cent wanted lower taxes, although ARF admitted that "there has been some fluctuation on this item." Yes, indeed. The two surveys also differed widely on how much we drink. The booze sellers said 16 per cent of us never drank while ARF said it was 12 per cent. The major difference however, was in the number of heavy drinkers that each found. ARF said 64.5 per cent had more than four drinks per week while the distillers said it was just 9 per cent, a number that they say has been constant for the past five years. That's a big difference: one in 10 versus six in 10. ARF also found that almost 19 per cent of the population had between 44 and 80 drinks a month, with 7 per cent drinking more than 84 each month. If you believe ARF, one in every five Ontarians is a heavy drinker and we have a public policy crisis on our hands. But wait -- you have to read the small print. The ARF survey says the real question they asked was how often people drank and how many drinks they usually had. "FROM THIS, AN AVERAGE 'DRINKS PER WEEK' VARIABLE IS CONSTRUCTED." So -- ARF manipulated the answers people gave to create a number that is 700 per cent higher than the Decima survey done for the distillers. But ARF has even more interesting small print in its survey. They say that their risk categories were computed using ARF's "best advice limit" guidelines. One of those guidelines says that if you have two or more drinks on a "drinking day" you are at risk of having a drinking problem. Well, that includes just about everyone who occasionally goes to a bar, restaurant or party, not to mention all the staff at eye. No wonder ARF is worried about the number of problem drinkers in the province. Having established that we are a province full of heavy drinkers, ARF then says "there is a correlation between typical volume of consumption and the extent of the support for alcohol policy measures." In other words, because we are all a bunch of drunken sods, we won't support what's good for us. "Thus we may conclude," in the world according to ARF, "that views on policy are to some extent driven by people's self-interests." Translation: don't listen to people who drink when it comes to making government policy on booze. Speaking of self-interest, the ARF study concludes that "further discussion, research and action are clearly needed to better understand how alcohol-related problems can be reduced." Yes. And who exactly would be the best people to undertake the research and action? ARF: Ontario's moral gate keepers. By comparison, the booze makers study starts to look very clear- headed. At least their bias isn't hidden in the small print. The distillers hit the nail on the head when they said, "76 per cent believe most people are generally in control of their own personal drinking." "Despite a belief among a minority that consumption would increase, should taxes be reduced, 88 per cent of Ontarians said there would be no real effect on their personal consumption." Just 4 per cent said their consumption would rise if taxes were reduced. Guess where the 4 per cent work? Not for the distillers. Both these surveys claim they were based on a scientific random sample of residents of Ontario. Really! PC MPP Chris Stockwell dismissed the ARF study as "hogwash." "ARF thinks they can intimidate governments and politicians into believing that this is what Ontarians think. But, I think there has to be some kind of moderation in their comments. They're zealots when it comes to alcohol sales." THE PARK RESPONDS TO ARF'S LETTER ARF is wrong again (see "ARF barks back," Not the Editorial Page in this issue). ARF now claims it is the "first in the province to provide scientific information on who among us gamble, how much and when." The truth is that the Toronto-based Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling, ARF's main rival in this field, conducted a comprehensive baseline prevalence study into gambling in Ontario a year ago and reported it in a much more scientific and less flamboyant way. Why does ARF choose to ignore this study and to pretend it doesn't exist? Tibor Barsony, the Foundation's executive director, told The Globe he was taken aback by the unsupported data in the ARF study. Both he and the government will now be shocked to discover that ARF is falsely claiming to have done the first baseline study of gambling in the province. This latest blunder will simply give the government yet another reason to block ARF's transparent attempt to extend its current mandate to include gambling. WE'RE PC, NOT CONSERVATIVE Mike Harris has stopped using the word "conservative" to describe his party. It's now the PC Party. In a campaign update sent to the party faithful, the term PC is used five times and the word is nowhere to be found. The PCs are also using a former Liberal insider to buck up their troops. "The Liberals now look like a party without philosophy, focus, conviction or principle," says the PC newsletter, quoting former Liberal pollster Martin Goldfarb. Current Liberal insiders respond that Goldfarb's negative comments are simply sour grapes now that he is no longer their pollster and no longer a party insider. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard copyright Full issue of eye available in archive ==> gopher.io.org or ftp.io.org Mailing list available http://www.io.org/eye [e--e] at [io.org] "Break the Gutenberg Lock..." 416-971-8421