Survey cobblers

I can believe six impossible things before breakfast, but I can’t believe it’s not butter. I can believe that there is an endless diet of pseudo-scientific tosh dedicated to establishing connections between the demon drink and most of the world’s woes. I am not a libertarian, and whilst I feel that there should be some restrictions and a good deal of social education, I am wary of the prohibitionist agenda that by distorting evidence and utilising bad science to create assumptions, seeks to control how the individual behaves at the micro-level.

There is a study purportedly showing a link between the number of off-trade alcohol outlets and violence in any particular neighbourhood. “The claim was made at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last week, with the study itself conducted in different areas of Cincinnati.

Professor William Pridemore, who led the study and meeting in San Diego, explained the density of shops, bars and restaurants selling alcohol in various areas of the research were recorded against police records of the number of assaults in each given area”.

Proving cause and effect is tricky at the best of times but the report’s conclusions seem to be holier than Swiss cheese.

Let’s examine some of the questions that hang like insolent seagulls in the air.

What is an off license? Is it what the Americans call a drug store? Might it be that rather than specifically causing or contributing to violence that these off-licenses have sprung up in areas which were impoverished and already had a history of violence. Isn’t it probable that the particular off-licenses which do not abide by the industry codes of conduct (not to sell intoxicating liquor to minors or to people who are drunk etc) may be responsible for skewing the figures?  Are there figures to prove that the violence is completely drink-related? Would the violence necessarily shift elsewhere if the off-licenses were removed? Is there violence in areas where supermarkets (which surely purvey more alcohol) are located? If not, is it because there are better controls over the purchase of alcohol? If violence isn’t taking place where the vast majority of alcohol is being sold what does that tell us? Isn’t violence always more likely in areas where large groups of people congregate – in city centres, outside pubs, clubs and bars?

Can we extrapolate any information from this survey and apply it to the United Kingdom? Probably not.  Does the existence, for example, of Oddbins, Majestic, Nicholas contribute to the violence in their local neighbourhoods? Or, is it more likely, centred around the small corner shops situated in sink estates perhaps selling alcohol irresponsibly to under-age drinkers? The violence, or rather bad behaviour, in this country, largely occurs in the large bars in the city centres with their extended happy hours (what a misnomer) where customers are enjoined to drink as much as possible within a limited period of time. Leery drink-fuelled groups and gangs then hit the streets and the result is inevitable. According to Professor Pridemore there is more social control in bars so violence and assaults gravitate to the off-licenses. I find that an extraordinary statement.

By demonising alcohol we have imbued it with an aura of illicit pleasure. You can either blame the provision of alcohol for all the ills of society or you look at the deeper malaise of a nation, a region, a street or an individual incapable of absorbing alcohol into their lives without deleterious consequences.  The fact that an off-license exists within a particular area of a city is not a cause for violence in itself. It is about who is dispensing the alcohol and in what quantities; it is about the predisposition of the individuals for violence who purchase it; it is about the nature of the area itself – whether there is already a certain amount of violence on the streets… it is about education and collective social responsibility.

Another survey that demonstrates that you can prove anything with statistics – except the underlying truth.