[Via Jason Soon at Catallaxy.] The SMH reports:
DRINKERS who quench their thirst with four or more middies of beer will be defined as binge drinkers under new national guidelines released next month.
The new top limit for safe drinking follows a review by the National Health and Medical Research Council and will apply equally to men and women.
In what one health professional has slammed as a message that “makes no sense at all”, the guidelines will say that more than four standard drinks per day constitutes a binge. A middie of beer is about 1.1 standard drinks and an average glass of wine is 1.5 standard drinks.
“That means that, if a man is sharing a bottle with his wife and takes a slightly larger share, that he’s had a binge,” said Paul Haber, the medical director of Drug Health Services, Addiction Medicine, at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.
It’s nice to see Stephen J. Dubner, of Freakonomics fame, lending some of his publicity lustre to sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh, who’s written what promises to be a fascinating book on his field work for his dissertation - as a participant/observer in the gang life of the Chicago projects:
Now a professor of sociology at Columbia University, Venkatesh ventured into Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes housing project in the 1990s to do research for his doctorate. He befriended the leader of the Black Kings, one of the country’s largest and most violent crack-dealing gangs, and led the group for a day. Venkatesh’s new book, Gang Leader for a Day, captures his years inside the projects and how residents and gang members interacted, coexisted and raised families.
Via barry at investigativeblog, you can follow this link to a podcast of an interview with Venkatesh. The purpose of the research is described in this piece from the Chicago Sun-Times, which also features a podcast of Venkatesh reading from his book.
Continue reading ‘“A rogue sociologist takes to the streets”’
Fresh from wedging African refugees, the government moved on to its next wedge target yesterday…the AFL and its drugs policy.
The AFL, in its infinite wisdom (or that of its sponsors) began testing its players all year round for illegal (recreational) drugs - marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine, and so on - drugs that might be enjoyable to take but don’t actually help the player perform. This is separate and additional to the in-competition tests in the same manner as the Olympic sports, where any drug offence leads to a two-year ban. However, the intervention of the AFL Player’s Association, who were reluctant to agree to any out-of-competition testing for recreational drugs, saw a reasonably enlightened policy on what to do with that information. Players who return a positive out-of-competition test for recreational drugs aren’t automatically disciplined. A player’s first two positive tests aren’t disclosed to anyone - including the player’s club, much to many coaches’ annoyance - and result in counselling. Only after three positive tests are players disciplined. The federal government, smelling an opportunity to get “tough on drugs”, has repeatedly attempted to get the AFL to impose a more punitive regime, and their latest attempt goes after the AFL’s hip pocket.
The actual chances of anything being implemented before the election are minimal, of course, so it’s a pure political stunt. But what genius at the government’s media unit decided to pull such a stunt the week after the Grand Final(s), where most of the footballing communities have disappeared on holiday, and the punters are more interested in mourning Australia’s early exit from the Rugby World Cup?
There’s been a vigorous discussion of the government’s “war on drugs” ad campaign on this thread, and on another we’re reflecting on the Coalition being 18 points down in Newspoll. Since it’s well known that Crosby/Textor help to upset our balance of trade with the US through continual import (allowed under the FTA) of American campaigning tactics, I’m wondering why this sort of moving, cogently argued and no doubt highly effective ad hasn’t been tried yet this year. If you squint, you can almost see a rabbit too (though not a hat).
[Via Feministe.]
Continue reading ‘Your drug habit supports teh terrrrism!’
BTW, ‘Goey’ Johns? He’s just undone every single anti-drugs message of the last decade. Yes kids, you can maintain a fearsome drug habit and still be the best rugby league footballer in living memory.
So that the post on the government advertising splurge doesn’t detour into a discussion about drugs, I’ve opened this post for discussion (and there’s plenty of it happening, if my own circles are anything to go by) of the Andrew Johns drug confession.
Some random questions:
What do parents who have themselves used drugs say to their offspring?
Is wanting to be “the best” the core of the problem?
Will our society ever face up to the sheer hypocrisy of having thriving economies based on drinking and gambling (and to some extent tobacco) while trying to say that all other mind-altering substances are evil?
What are going to be the longterm effects (if any) of what is apparently a huge subculture of cocaine use among urban Australians?
Recent comments
Chris (a different one), sublime cowgirl, Darin, Paul Burns, Kingsley, Chris (a different one) [...]
David Irving (no relation), Pavlov's Cat, Helen, Paul Burns, hannah's dad, Benedictus [...]
Mindy, Pavlov's Cat, Lefty E, Nabakov, Lefty E, joe2 [...]
sublime cowgirl, Fine, steveh, wizofaus, grace pettigrew, wbb [...]
Paul Burns, Baraholka, Paul Burns, Adrien, joe2, Paul Burns [...]
Ambigulous, suz, Colin, un ami des beaux arts, adrian, suz [...]
Legal Eagle, Michael Sutcliffe, Mark, Tyro Rex, Adrien, Posey [...]
Bilko, Paul Burns, Dave Bath, Bilko, Nabakov, Adrien [...]
Paul Burns, Darlene, Darlene, via collins, MikeM, glen [...]
Leon, Derek, Down and Out of Sài Gòn, tigtog, Bingo Bango Boingo, Mark [...]
rosieblue, Lefty E, wankaroo, What me banal?, FDB, Eye'm A Love Man, Ooh Baby, Eye'm A Love Man [...]
RobWindt, Pappinbarra Fox, Ai! Que Dolor!, Patrick B, peter jones, Paul Burns [...]