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