Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

33 Year Old - 7the DUI Arrest - Face 12 Years Prison

Came across this drunk driving news report in
http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7786173&nav=menu239_14

Brian MacPhetridge, 33, arrested on his 7th DUI arrest now faces a maximum 12 years prison sentence.

If you release this young man most probably he will continue to fall into more such drunk driving incidents and could end up in a fatal DUI accident.

But can you blame it entirely on him? It is clear that he is definitely an alcohol vulnerable gullible person facing serious alcohol(ism) problems that including the drunk driving?

The drunk driving prevention advocates the DUI authorities cannot successfully prevent or deter the drunk driving much even by severely punishing such the drunk drivers. They are only the symptoms, its root-cause lies in the authorities licensing and marketing those extremely dangerous drunk driving causing high-alcohol standard drinks.

To know more this subject mater read the following papers provided in the links given below.

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcoholics-curewell-in-essence.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-authorities.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-behind.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/proposing-new-standard-alcohol-drinks.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Monday, January 28, 2008

Moon Refuse DUI Sobriety Tests on Valid Reasons…

Came across this Drunk Driving new report in:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jgLU5rIqm6xR-SPpsokqJvUFBIeA

There is a valid reason on which grounds Warren Moon can justify his refusal for this sobrity tests. The authorities have no moral high grounds to ask the drivers to submit to the DUI sobriity test while they keep an blind eye on the the basic facts or the root-cause that indeed creates all those drunk driving alcohol(ism) problem in the people.

To know more this subject mater read the following papers provided in the links given below.


http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcoholics-curewell-in-essence.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-authorities.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-behind.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/proposing-new-standard-alcohol-drinks.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Make Alcohol Drinks SAFE To Prevent Drunk Driving

The alcohol epidemiological research and its survey reports basically points to the fact that the high-alcohol drinks which contains around and above 5% alcohol, licensed under the banner of "Standard Alcohol Drinks" are potentially dangerous for human consumption as it causes almost all alcohol(ism) or the drunkenness problems including the drunk driving/accidents.

On the other hand there are no such research evidence that proves that the low-alcohol drinks preferably containing around and below 2% alcohol content causing any such alcohol(ism) drunken driving problems. This clearly points to the fact that the low-alcohol drinks are SAFE to drink most importantly when it comes to the driving situations.

Therefore the best solution to prevent the drunk driving/accidents and the other serious alcoholism problems is to BAN all those drunk driving causing high-alcohol standard drinks. At the same time promote the alcohol drinks preferably containing around and below 2% alcohol and it should be license under the name of as the SAFE Standard Alcohol Drinks for the public consumption. This would prevent the drunk driving/accident far more successfully when it is couple with the DUI preventions measures in operation today.

The root-cause of drunk driving lies basically in the “misconduct”, “vested interest” of the alcohol drink Governing Bosses. As long as they continue to license and market the above mentioned extremely dangerous high-alcohol (around and above 5%) content drinks for the public consumption in the name of standard alcohol drinks those alcohol(ism), DUI mayhem will continue more or less much the same!

Most important of all in this subject mater read the following papers provided in the links given below.


http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcoholics-curewell-in-essence.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-authorities.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-behind.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/proposing-new-standard-alcohol-drinks.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Friday, January 25, 2008

Proposing A New Standard Alcohol Drinks Licensing Policy

Please Note: - This article has been revised, updated and put forward newly in this post.

Here under the ‘Drunk Driving Root-Cause’ perspective I propose: ‘a new standard alcohol drinks licensing policy. It is basically aimed to root-out alcohol(ism) problems most importantly the drunk driving/accidents!

To begin with, all those alcohol(ism) problem causing high-alcohol drinks, i.e. the standard alcohol drinks having more than 5% alcohol should be banned. On the other hand the alcohol drinks having around and below 2% alcohol should be promoted under the license as “safe” standard alcohol drinks for the public consumption.

In this regard first of all the extremely high alcohol content distilled spirits beverages that generally contains around average 40% alcohol should be totally banned for the public consumption.

Secondly, wines may be licensed to public consumption (this would save the wine industry also it is to outwit the alcohol bootlegging mafia). Under the strict rule that none of it should contain more than 5% alcohol content. By the way all the wines containing more than 2% alcohol should be considered still potentially dangerous alcohol drinks (as they can still potentially cause alcohol(ism) problems) therefore taxed twice than the wines containing 2% and below alcohol. However in my opinion in the absent extremely high alcohol content (distilled spirits and high wine) drinks the demand for this high-alcohol(5%) wine would be quite high and its market will thrive.

Thirdly, the beers or any other drinks should not contain more than 2% alcohol content. However as I mentioned before it should be promoted by giving it a grand tax exemption. So a unit that contains a standard alcohol drink (10 to 13 grams Of pure alcohol) in the low-alcohol (2% or less, v/v) beer should cost two times less than the same amount in the high-alcohol wine (above 2% v/v. alcohol). This is to mainly encourage people towards opting for low-alcohol drinks in which alcohol becomes far more cheaper (and would be ideally a testing grounds for alcohol research) to buy than in the high-alcohol drinks!

Now the main question is whether this new alcohol drinks licensing policy would be able to basically root-out alcohol(ism) including the drunk driving/accidents problems? For its appropriate answer please read my previous blog post titled “LADs Success In DUI Prevention: Is A Premature Question” in <
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/lads-success-in-dui-prevention-is.html >.

Most important of all in this subject mater read the following papers provided in the links given below.


http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcoholics-curewell-in-essence.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-authorities.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-behind.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Thursday, January 24, 2008

LADs Success In DUI Prevention: Is A Premature Question

Please Note: - This article has been revised, updated and put forward newly in this post.

When I contend High-Alcohol Drinks (HADs) generally containing around and above 5% alcohol cause almost all alcohol drunk driving DUI accidents, perhaps a question preemptively jump up in many peoples mind; ‘how can any one be so sure that on the other hand the Low-Alcohol Drinks(LADs) containing around and below 2% alcohol do not cause any of those DUI problems’? What is the guaranty after all that taking all the difficult decisions, steps, measures of banning all the HADs and licensing only the LADs for public consumption would prevent all those drunk driving/accident problems?

To put it in other words; ‘where is the concrete research evidence that proves that the alcohol vulnerable, gullible people would not fall into any of the alcohol(ism) DUI problems by consuming the LADs instead of the HADs?


My answer to it is; first of all it is a very early or premature question! Although there are no concrete research reports which clearly shows that the LADs do not cause any alcohol(ism) problems but at the same time neither there are research evidence on its contrary! On the other hand the alcohol epidemiological research, surveys on this matter basically points to the fact that almost all the alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving/accidents caused by the high-alcohol drinks, licensed and marketed under the named of 'Standard Alcohol Drinks'. Most popular among is the standard beer containing around 5% alcohol content in the drink.

Hope I have made clear about my contention regarding HADs and the LADs, the main difference between the two based on my study on the alcohol research. On this ground I strongly urge all the people and the authorities concerned, to urgently look into this critical matter of Standard Alcohol Drinks Policy before they take any decision of licensing and marketing those high-alcohol content standard drinks.

I have explained this matter in more details in so many of my previous blog post in this month and in the previous month. Most important of all read the following papers in this blog WebPages:


http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcoholics-curewell-in-essence.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-authorities.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-behind.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Drunk Drivers A Tragedy Victims

Please Note: - This article has been revised, updated and put forward newly in this post.


They Have Nothing to Loose but Their Shackles

The tragic news of drunk driving accidents its fatal injuries, deaths widely published in the media. They mostly project the drunk driver as a marauding criminal who ‘intentionally’ go maiming, murdering people on their way! However this conventional stereotype image of the drunk drivers projected DUI prevention advocates and the authorities remains far from the truth. Many times the DUI victims are the co-passengers, traveling in the same fateful vehicle if not the drunk drivers themselves. They are the close family members, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, close relatives dear friends, and colleges of the drunk drivers rather than someone out side their vehicle, the public!

People who are close to the drunk drivers most of the times would say that the person never would do or did such a thing INTENTIONALLY. They had never thought human life would be lost as the direct result of their drunk driving even in their remotest dreams. Many of them would have preferred themselves to be dead instead of others becoming victims in this accident.

Of course this after remorse may sound meaningless specially to the innocent victims and to their families. The drunk drivers being portrayed as not trustworthy in those circles. Whatever may be the case, nevertheless the entire blame of the drunk driving accidents its fatal injuries and deaths legally and morally stamped upon them.

The great irony of conventional DUI prevention approach is that its advocates and the legal authorities seems not to care before the drunk driving what makes people “DRUNK” in the first place! No one can doubt it is absolutely those alcohol drinks! However the authorities don’t want to point it out because that in turn directly points to those people who license and market such drunk driving causing high alcohol standard drinks for the public consumption.

Nevertheless, the authorities defend the licensing and marketing those drunk driving causing alcohol drinks arguing that those alcohol drinks only meant for those who are able control and use them responsibly and safely! The alcohol vulnerable people prone to alcohol(ism) problems should not drink it at all.
However the authorities seem to conveniently forget that alcohol is a statutory drug. If its use causes any adverse harmful affect even in the minority of the people it’s licensing, marketing considered to be unlawful and banned until the authorities make it certain that it is safe to drink for the public consumption!
The crux of the matter is; all those alcohol(ism) drunk driving/accident problems primarily happens because of a ongoing “Alcohol Research Misconduct”, <
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html> , which in turn allow all those alcohol authorities to license those high alcohol content drinks in the name of ‘Standard Alcohol Drinks’, which causes almost all those alcohol(ism) problems including the DUI accidents.—The drunk drivers basically are the alcohol vulnerable gullible people made into the DUI scapegoats. I have explained about it in details in so many of my previous blog post one can find some of its links given at the end of this post.

Drunk driving and its accidents causes terrible destruction fatal injuries, deaths, which devastate hundreds of thousands of peoples life. I feel extremely sorry for those “innocent” victims and their families. However for various reasons they may not agree with this “Drunk Driving Root-Cause” position so not ready to give up their conventional DUI official, position that entirely puts the blame on the drivers.

Contrary to the DUI official position, the “Drunk Driving Root-Cause” perspective position basically contends that the drunk drivers are the most unfortunate misunderstood tragic victims of various alcohol(ism) problems the drunk driving/accidents epitomizes it. Along with others many times they loose their own life or the life of their loved ones. Subjected to heavy DUI penalties and torments branded as marauding criminals, murderers, sentenced to long imprisonments, their family falls apart into devastations, stigmatized for life.

To prevent the drunk driving/accidents, the drunk drivers and people close to them in their plight has to break away and come out of the authorities influence of the falsified DUI indoctrinations, which puts the entire blame on them while remaining utterly silent on the alcohol drink governing bosses who license and market those drunk driving causing high alcohol standard drinks. Expose their misconduct and to strike back. It would be a great fight for justice on the DUI principles in which they have nothing to loose but their SHACKLES!

To know more on this subject matter read the following most important papers in my blog WebPages:

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcoholics-curewell-in-essence.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-authorities.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-behind.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Four Main Question Answers Regarding Drunk Driving Causing Alcohol Drinks

Please Note: - This article has been revised, updated and put forward newly in this post.

Here are four main questions to the authorities on the matters of drunk driving/accidents. The answer to these question one by one can reveal the most important fact of the high-alcohol (generally having around 5% and the above alcohol content) drinks causing almost all of the drunk driving/accidents. But the final fourth questions answer can also reveal that they do not have any research evidence that the low-alcohol (preferably around 2% and below alcohol content) causing any of the drunk driving/accidents! On this basis a very best DUI prevention solution can be found! However the authorities remain totally silent about it for whatever reasons. Now let me put the four main questions before the authorities.

1). Do the authorities have any alcohol research evidence that proves that the distilled alcohol drinks or spirits that contains around 40% v/v alcohol cause any DUI incidents or accidents?--- The authorities answer immediately could be a yes! They can show you hundreds of such evidences even every day. So let us move on to the second question.

2). Do they have any evidence that the “Wines” that contains around 12% alcohol cause any of the DUI accidents?--- Of course the authorities answer to this also an affirmative yes, they can also show such evidences every day. -- Now the third question,

3). Do they have any evidence to show that the consumption of standard beer that contains around 5% alcohol can result in the DUI accidents? ----The answer is a resounding YES! --- In fact the authorities may contend that most of the fatal DUI accidents seems to have been caused by the drivers drinking excessive amount of this beer!---Therefore the beer probably is the most dangerous in this respect. Strangely enough this leads to the conclusion that the lower the alcohol content in the drink the more the drunk driving incidents or the accidents it causes!

4). So we arrive at the final and the most important question to complete this questionnaire :- Do the authorities have any evidence that the consumption of the low-alcohol drinks containing around 2% or less alcohol content cause any of these DUI incidents and most importantly its accidents? I am sure that they do not have any research evidence to prove it! Therefor most probably they would immediately try to evade this question! It is mainly because they do not have any such fundamental evidence despite their claim that the consumption of low-alcohol drinks also potentially cause the alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving/accidents.

Now to cut short the lengthy explanation about the root cause of all those drunk driving or the DUI problems. Let me straight away point out that it basically occurs due to a major “alcohol research misconduct” by the authorities. I have explained it extensively in the paper titled: “Alcohol Research Misconduct” and in its many other related papers in the weblink given below.

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcoholics-curewell-in-essence.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-authorities.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-behind.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html
Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Monday, January 21, 2008

Why Driving With High BAC Is Wrong - While Licensing of High-Alcohol Drinks Not?

Please Note:- This article has been revised, updated and put forward newly in this post.

Drunk Driving or Driving Under Influence (DUI) defined as having Blood Alcohol Count(BAC) over and above a given safe limit or levels. In the US having 0.08 BAC and above while driving is considered as a serious DUI offence whether it had caused accidents or not!

The BAC limit in driving and the DUI offence punishment over and above its limit, is mainly based on the DUI accidents research studies, which clearly points to the fact that people driving with the BAC above the given safe limit significantly increase their risk of getting into the accidents endangering their and the others life. The higher the drivers BAC the more the risk! On the other hand the comparative risk of the drivers getting into the accidents having the BAC levels below the given (.08) level almost same as people driving with no BAC. Therefore it scientifically and legally cannot be considered as “dangerous” so an offence.

However when it comes to the licensing and marketing the alcohol drinks that causes serious alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving/accidents, the authorities seem to apply a very different set of logic or a double standards! They proclaim all “alcohol drinks irrespective of the levels of the alcohol content in them high or low potentially cause the above mentioned alcohol problems!”

The authorities above official position is quite contrary to the available alcohol epidemiological research surveys, which basically points to the fact that almost all the alcohol(ism) problems caused by the high-alcohol drinks having generally around and above 5% alcohol content. On the other hand there are no such evidence that the low alcohol drinks having the alcohol content preferably around and below 2% causing any such serious alcohol(ism) problems. Therefore the authorities above stand claiming all alcohol drinks potentially causing the alcohol(ism) problems are outright fraudulent amounting to a serious misconduct on their part.

The main reason why the authorities do not want to impose a safe limit on the alcohol drug content in the drinks, which they license for the public consumptions is that (apart from their claims that all alcohol drinks potentially cause alcohol[ims] problem) it will heavily slash-down the high profit of the alcohol industry, which mainly rely up on the high-alcohol (generally having around and above 5% alcohol content) drinks marketing to obtain their super high profit. Therefore its powerful industrial lobby would not allow the imposition of this safe alcohol content limits on the alcohol drinks to happen. They cleverly argue that, it is up to the people to drink it responsibly! Most people who drink alcohol do not fall into the alcohol(ism) problems* therefore if anyone finds it causing any problems then they should immediately stop the drinking of it thereafter!

(*Most people drunk drive also do not fall into any such accident problems, does it make drunk driving safe? Or do they have to get into the accidents to stop them from the drunk driving thereafter? Advising the people to consume high alcohol standard drinks responsibly so they do not fall into the alcohol(ism) problems is like telling the drunk drivers to drive responsibly so they do not fall into its accidents!)

However the authorities seem to conveniently forget that alcohol is a statutory drug. If its use causes any adverse harmful affect even in the minority of the people it’s licensing considered to be unlawful until the authorities make it certain that it is safe to drink! However in the case alcohol drink licensing and marketing all its safety precautions thrown out of window to appease the alcohol drink governing bosses. To enable the industry bosses to obtain their high profit and to collect huge alcohol tax revenues to the Government bosses and not to mention the large sums(research grants, consultant treatment fees etc.) for the bosses working in the alcohol(ism) research its prevention, treatment field.

The only people to loose in all this are the high-alcohol drink vulnerable, gullible people. As the result of their consumption of these high-alcohol drinks licensed and marketed under the banner of Standard Alcohol Drinks’ they inadvertently fall victims to serious alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving.

Finally let me conclude focusing on the title. The drunk driving accident research studies basically points to the fact that the people driving having the BAC over and above a given limit significantly increase their risk of getting into driving accidents. Therefore it is named as DUI a serious offence under the law, although most of the drunk driving does not result in any such accidents.---Similarly the alcohol epidemiological research basically points to the fact that almost all alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving/accident caused by the high-alcohol drinks generally having around and above 5% alcohol content, while there is no such evidence that the low alcohol drinks (preferably having alcohol around 2% or below)causing any such alcohol(ism) problem including the drunk driving /accidents.

Therefore people licensing and marketing the high alcohol drinks is as wrong or bad as people driving with having the BAC over and above the limit if not more!

I have explained this matter in so many of my previous blog post in this month and the last month citing many of the DUI news reports. Its principle document titled: “Alcohol Research Misconduct: Cause Drunk Driving” in
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-behind.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-authorities.html http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Friday, January 18, 2008

Alcohol Bosses: The Real Culprits Behind Drunk Driving

Please Note:- This article has been revised, updated and put forward newly in this post.


My above allegation in the drunk driving issue is based on the available alcohol epidemiological research and its surveys. It basically points to the fact that almost all alcohol(ism) problems caused by those extremely dangerous high-alcohol (generally around and above 5% alcohol content)drinks, which the authorities license for the public consumption in the name of “Standard Alcohol Drinks” (SADs). Popular among is the regular beer that contains around 5% alcohol, which treacherously lead the vulnerable people into excessive alcohol consumptions and into serious alcohol(ism) problems including the most notorious drink driving/accidents.

However “people” in the forefront of the drunk driving prevention advocacy, totally ignore the basic fact or part of the alcohol drinks involvement in it and put its “entire” blame only the drunk drivers! Of course they make some exemptions in the case of underage people falling into the drunk driving incidents. Considering their alcohol vulnerable, gullible young age, the parents or the party host or any one if they provide or in any way facilitated the underage drinking, stand accused as collaborators in its crime. In some other cases the bartenders or the owners of the pub made responsible for serving a person the alcohol drinks, if then he/she proceeds into drunk driving specially in case of its accidents.

It shows that the drunk driving can not be entirely blamed upon the drunk drivers alone. People who provide or facilitate those potentially drunk driving causing alcohol drinks also considered as responsible directly or indirectly collaborating in that crime. However when it comes to the Alcohol Drink Governing bosses those who license and marketing those drunk driving causing alcohol drinks for the public consumption totally exempted and exonerated from any of its responsibility or the blame!

In the list of “Alcohol Drink Governing Bosses”, I first name all the alcohol(ism) problems research, its policy making, and the licensing authorities responsible for allowing or sanctioning such extremely dangerous alcohol(ism) drunk driving causing drinks for the public consumption.

Thereafter comes the alcohol drink manufacturing marketing industry bosses. (despite their main role in supplying the drinks, I put them in the second place because without the alcohol authorities licensing, its manufacturing and marketing becomes illegal thus can not function as it is.) They in order to obtain their super high alcohol profit entice, bewitch the public into wanting to drink such extremely dangerous SADs by their deceiving, unscrupulous promotions campaigns! It promise to make them super heroes with its great pleasures that captivates the alcohol gullible people and prompts them into buying and consuming such a extremely dangerous high-alcohol content drinks.

Thirdly in this list I point to the Government officials to whom the alcohol drinks taxes are a great source of revenue income as their share in the alcohol drinks sales profit to aid the nations economy! Perhaps taxing heavily on those extremely dangerous alcohol drinks is a right thing to do under the circumstances. However at the same time they should equally share the responsibility and the liability to pay the compensation for the alcohol(ism) drunk driving victims!

The drunk driving prevention advocates who indoctrinate the public with their highly emotive, vindictive campaign that puts its entire blame on the drunk drivers. By doing so they very much serve the interest of the “Alcohol Bosses”! As it successfully hides or protects them from their misgivings or the “alcohol research misconduct” in this matters.

As long as those alcohol governing bosses license and market such extremely dangerous high alcohol drinks for the public consumption such tragic drunk driving accidents going to continue. The alcohol vulnerable gullible people who have unwittingly fall into the drunk driving made into the DUI scapegoats.

The drunk drivers branded as criminal or murders brought before the DUI law justice system and severely punished for the drunk driving/accidents whenever possible! However the real culprits hidden behind instigating it are the Alcohol Drink Governing Bosses. The drunk driving prevention advocates authorities remain totally silent about them. It makes them free and unrestrained to continue to cause their alcohol(ism) drinks problems that includes the drunk driving mayhem!

I have explained this matter in so many of my previous blog post in this month and the last month citing many of the DUI news reports. Its principle document titled: “Alcohol Research Misconduct: Cause Drunk Driving” in:

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Alcohol Drinking: Is It A Matter of Choice?

Please Note:- This article has been revised, updated and put forward newly in this post.

The “alcohol authorities” make the general public to believe that the alcohol drinkers have been given the “Choice” to select and consume any alcohol drinks made available in the market under their license! But at the same they seriously warn them not to “misuse” or indulge into high amount of (excessive) alcohol consumption that could lead them into serious alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving accidents! It would be their own fault if they fall into it so should take its full responsibility of its terrible consequences! They should not blame it on anyone else except on themselves!

However the basic facts about the alcohol drinks “choice” that the public doesn't know is: all the alcohol epidemiological research and the surveys basically points to the fact that almost all those alcohol(ism) problems caused by the “High Alcohol” drinks having around and above 5% alcohol content, licensed by the authorities under the banner of “Standard Alcohol Drinks(SADs). On the other hand there are absolutely no such research evidences that fundamentally proves that the consumption of “Low-Alcohol Drinks ” (LADs) having alcohol around and below 2% causes any of these alcohol(ism)

However quite contrary the above research fact the alcohol authorities proclaim; “all alcohol drinks irrespective of the alcohol content in them high or low potentially cause the alcohol(ism) problems”. It is mainly due to their “alcohol research misconduct” <
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html> so they don’t distinguish or demarcate between the high-alcohol drinks that causes serious alcohol(ism) problems and the low-alcohol drinks which does not and callously license both those drinks under the guise of providing the public with so many alcohol drinking choice!

The alcohol authorities who put forward such argument seems to completely forget the principles of safe drug policy. Alcohol is a statutory drug therefore its licensing and marketing (safety aspect) strictly monitored. If any drinks that contains this drug over a given safe limit that becomes dangerous for the public consumption then its license immediately needs to be revoked or cancelled!--- It is only below that dangerous levels when it is proven safe for the public consumption then only it should be licenced and made available for the general public consumption. Therefore any alcohol drinking factors or elements, which causes that causes the dangerous health (alcoholism) problems stand to be eliminated!

Indeed there are some very strict alcohol drinks regulations or the measures placed over the alcohol drinking . The most important among is its consumption strictly being prohibited to the alcohol vulnerable young or the underage people! Any adult who provide alcohol drinks to those young considered to be committing a serious offence specially when it involves drunk driving/accidents! The place and the times of its sales severely restricted, its consumption not allowed in the public places. Its drinking banned in all work places, academic institutions, etc. & etc.

Now comes the following question.--- If the alcohol is considered to be such a dangerous substance then why the alcohol authorities license it for the public consumption? Why not enforce total ban (prohibition) on all alcohol drinks so to eliminate the entire alcoholism problem?

There are two main reasons, which keeps away the authorities from imposing total alcohol prohibition! ---The first one is; majority of people who consume the alcohol drinks said to be consuming it safely or moderately without any such alcohol(ism) problems. Moreover the “Moderate” alcohol consumption provides great drinking pleasures considered as beneficial in many respects! The second main reason that is equally important is; it is a very well established fact that total prohibition or banning of all alcohol drinks gives raise to so many of the underground, illegal, alcohol smuggling trade, bootlegging criminal mafia, corruption etc., which are far worse than not having the alcohol prohibition!—---I have explained this matter extensively in my latest blog post titled; “Alcohol prohibitions: Mission Failure Reason” http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html

Therefore the authorities license the alcohol drinks and permit its consumption in order to prevent the criminalization of the total prohibition and on the other hand to allow the drink for a safe, moderate or healthy alcohol consumption.
To ensure this it places heavy supervision, stringent rules and regulations to prevent its misuse or the alcohol(ism) problems!

So now comes the most critical question; if the main objective of licensing the alcohol drinks is to fulfill the above mentioned purpose then instead of licensing the extremely dangerous high-alcohol content drinks why not license only the low-alcohol drinks as it totally fulfills the main objective of the licensing the alcohol drinks. It specially provides maximum drink satisfaction pleasures with less alcohol consumption so mostly prevent the people inadvertently consuming excessive alcohol consumptions and prevent them from falling into the alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving/accidents.

However the authorities still stick to their old irresponsible position and argue that “we or any one do not force or compel any people to consume the high-alcohol drinks. It is primarily the drinkers choice if they want them! ----It is not right to impose ban or severe restriction on the high-alcohol drinks just because it leads the vulnerable people into excessive alcohol consumption and into the alcoholism problems.--- The vulnerable people should not drink the alcohol at all if they have any problems with it! Or to drink whatever Low-alcohol drinks if they find it safe at all!


It is mainly to defend or justify their “Alcohol Research Misconduct” that authorities put forward such unscrupulous argument. ---- However it is the alcohol industry that stands to mostly gain from it! Higher the alcohol content in the drink higher price and the profit margin they get!

To attain their super high profit margins, the alcohol industry mainly focus on manufacturing the high alcohol content SADs. The highly promote it in their marketing campaign, advertisements, hoardings, banners, sponsorship movies etc., All of them glamorize the high alcohol content SADs. They attribute all the imaginary qualities to it that boosts about its high powers, super strength that can provide great pleasures and make its drinkers super heroes.

In front of this SADs grandeur the image of the LADs becomes dwarfed, insignificant, inferior below the alcohol drinking standards. It is been made to look like it is mainly for those who can not handle their alcohol drinks, for the weak and the frail! The stronger adults do not choose such insignificant LOW alcohol content drinks, which lower their status!

Among its target are those alcohol vulnerable, gullible drinkers who easily fall into such high-alcohol drinks marketing ploy! The advertisements of the SADs captivates and beguiles them so much so that they readily make a choice of opting to it. But unfortunately the high alcohol content in the drink makes them to loose control over the drinking and consume alcohol in excessive amount get highly intoxicated , drunk that seriously impairs their judgment. In this state so many of become inadvertently suicidal and get behind the wheels and get into drunk driving. Here they not only endanger their life but most terribly endanger other innocent people to whom without warning they suddenly bring total devastation's deaths on thousands of those innocent peoples life.

Now suddenly the law enforcement authorities wake up and heavily come upon the drunk drivers. ---But it is already too late for the innocent victims! The authorities invariably catch the drunk drivers punish them in whatever ways possible. See to it that they are being publicly humiliated, branded as criminals, killers, murderers and sentenced to long years of imprisonment! Meanwhile the alcohol drink governing bosses who licenced and marketed such extremely dangerous alcohol(ism) problem causing drinks, totally exempted from any of its blame on the basis that drinkers have been provided with the choice of many kinds of alcohol drinks. If any of its proved dangerous then they should be entirely blamed for it and should face all its consequences.

The high-alcohol content drinks in essence extremely dangerous DRUGS far more deadlier than the illegal narcotic drugs especially when it comes to causing the fatal DUI accidents. Therefore the authorities should not permit it for the public consumption as a matter of customer’s choice.

Two most important blog post to read in this regard;

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html


Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Standard Alcohol Drinks Authorities Stipulations

Standard Alcohol Drinks* (STDs), which features at the forefront in the Gov. and other alcohol research, prevention, treatment institutions much publicized moderate (safe, low-risk, controlled) drinking promulgations indeed extremely dangerous for Human consumption.

My above contention based on the available alcohol(ism) epidemiological research and the survey reports, which basically points to the fact that almost all the serious alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving/accidents are caused by the high-alcohol content drinks (containing around and above 5% alcohol), which the authorities license under the banners or "Standard Alcohol Drinks". – On the other hand there absolutely no such evidence which proves that the low-alcohol (preferably around and below 2% alcohol)drinks causing any such alcohol(ism)problems. Therefore it is not the low-alcohol drinks but specifically the SADs that causes all most all alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving/accidents.


Now the most important thing to know in this is; whenever the alcohol(ism) epidemiological research, surveys points to the alcohol(ism) problems it basically points to the SADs unless it specifically mentions the name of the “Low-Alcohol Drinks”. The SADs remains so ubiquitous in all alcohol(ism) problems reseach that any one questioning its evidence is like questioning the evidence of salt water in the sea water!

It is the core contention of my have explained about it in so many of my previous blog post the latest under the title Alcohol Prohibition: Mission Failure Reason <
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html >

In this post I provide the authorities description or the stipulations of the Standard Alcohol Drinks here below.


*A Standard Alcohol Drink is calculated around 10grms to 13grams of pure alcohol in essence .
In general, its different levels of concentration in the drinks (V/V) categorized in distinct forms or kinds makes it essentially different from each other.



In the US scale of measurement it comes to:
1.5 ounce of 80-prof distilled spirit (around 40% alcohol v/v)
one 5-ounce glass of wine (around 12% alcohol v/v)
one 12-ounce bottle of beer (around 5% alcohol v/v)

In the European scale of measurement it comes to:
A single shot of spirits or liquor of 40ml. (around 40% alcohol v/v).
A glass of wine or sherry of 140ml. (around 12% alcohol v/v).
One can of beer of 300ml. (around 5% alcohol v/v).


It makes the people to think that the standard beer that contains around 5% alcohol
is the lowest alcohol content in the alcohol drink standards!
Please note, there is the conspicuous absence of Low-alcohol Drinks
in there, which can make the people to think it is inferior or the down-standards.
…………………………………

Read the most important artical in this blog titled: "Alcohol Research Misconduct: Cause Drunk Driving" in
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell.

Labels:

Friday, January 11, 2008

Alcohol Prohibition: Mission Failure Reason

Alcohol Prohibition: Mission Failure Reason


The ‘rights’ and the ‘wrongs’ of the Alcohol Prohibition remains one of the highly debated and hotly contentious issue. Historically it has been a long battle between the alcohol prohibitionist who advocated alcohol drinks are extremely dangerous for human consumption as it causes very many serious alcohol(ism) problems. Therefore all of them should be banded or totally prohibited! On the other hand the alcohol drink proponent and its industry advocates argued for its regulated, moderate and safe use mainly for its very many beneficial aspect and most importantly prevent its illegitimate trading and use for the social safety and security point of view.

History has proven again and again the fact, that the alcohol drinking cause serious alcohol(ism)problems so enormous harm to the society (more than tobacco smoking when compared with its violent crime, delinquency, DUI etc.). Nevertheless imposing the ‘ Total Alcohol Prohibition’ makes the problems still more worse as it gives raises to alcohol bootlegging corruption, crime Mafia etc! Therefore it is been realized that the better way out of it is; first of all to educate people about the harms, dangerous involved in the alcohol consumption, so to teach them about its moderate or safe use. Together with bring in strict regulation over its quality, sales to ensure its moderate and safe use and to prevent its misuse! With such powerfully convincing argument most importantly to stamp-out the bootlegging crime Mafia and the official corruptions the alcohol prohibition repealed! So the proponents of the alcohol drink had won and alcohol prohibitionist had to accept the defeat in their main battle to bring in total alcohol prohibition.

Nevertheless they succeeded in bringing in some very stringent alcohol policy regulation such as imposing high alcohol taxes, increase of legal drinking age, restricting the time and places of alcohol consumption, imposing stringent DUI, BAC limits and its law enforcemet with its sever punishment to the drink drivers etc. However the alcohol industry successfully adapted to these regulations mainly by exploiting a big “loophole” of their opponents own making!

The main reason or the big loophole that resulted in the alcohol Prohibitionists mission defeat or failure is their own dogmatic BELIEF, borrowed from the institutions alcoholism doctrines, which overzealously advocates; “all alcoholic beverages no matter the alcohol content in them high or low potentially cause alcohol(ism) problems”.

The alcohol industry exploited this claim to their full advantage. So now the opponents can not blame them for manufacturing and marketing the extremely dangerous high alcohol content beverage under the banner of Standard Alcohol Drinks instead of the relatively safe low-alcohol drinks, as they themselves argue that the ‘low-alcohol drinks also can potentially cause alcohol(ism) problems!’ This allows the alcohol industry to manufacture and market those highly profitable, high alcohol content standard alcohol drinks, ironically at the expense of its own opponent’s claims which basically asserts that ‘there are not much safety difference between the high and the low-alcohol drink’! I have explained it extensively in my paper “Alcohol Research Misconduct: Cause Drunk Driving” http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/alcohol-research-misconductcause-drunk.html published in the previous blog post.

Therefore the main reason for alcohol prohibitionist mission failure is their own making! Their own preposterous and dogmatic belief that advocates “in the matters of alcohol drinking there are not much safety difference between the high and the low-alcohol drink”. This stands quite CONTRARY to the available alcohol epidemiological research and its surveys, which basically points to the fact that almost all alcohol(ism) problems caused by the extremely dangerous high alcohol content drinks named as the “standard Alcohol Drinks (SADs)”, very popular among is the regular beer that contains around and above 5% alcohol, which can treacherously lead specially alcohol vulnerable gullible people inadvertently into excessive alcohol consumption thus into very many serious alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving/accidents! On the other hand there are absolutely no such research evidences to prove that the Low-Alcohol Drinks (LADs, preferably having around and below 2% alcohol) causing any of these alcohol(ism) problems most importantly the drunk driving/accidents.


Now this gives an opportunity to the alcohol prohibitionist to turn the table and beat the alcoholism causing, high profit making high-alcohol Standard Drinks proponents and the industry at their own game! They should rectify their historical mistake by wisely following the alcohol(ism) epidemiological research and the survey.
On its basis they should demand all the high alcohol drinks which comes under the banner of SADs should be banned and only the low alcohol content drinks should be allowed essentially for the moderate and safe public consumption! Or at least the former should be taxed two or three times higher than the latter. In other words one alcohol drink unit (around 10 to 13 grams of pure alcohol) in the SADs should be priced two or three times higher than the same amount of alcohol in the LADs having 2% v/v or less alcohol content in it.

The greatest advantage of exempting the LADs from the prohibition is that it will significantly prevent the reemergence of the Alcohol Bootlegging, its Corruption, Criminal Mafia, which is the main enemy of the alcohol prohibition all the while that is why historically they could not succeed! If the good quality LADs legally made available that too at its cost price, most of the alcohol drinkers would not go for the illegal (prohibited) high alcohol content SADs that would be highly expensive. After all they will have the opportunity of consuming same amount of alcohol if they like, still it would cost them far less! This will win more alcohol drinkers into its fold. Therefore it will have greater chances of succeeding than the total ban or prohibitions on all alcoholic beverage drinking!

Overall the prohibition on the SADs would act like a double edged sword. On the one hand it would cut off most of the profit of the alcohol industry because the main secret of their high profit lies in the high-alcohol content drinks that they sell. In general higher the alcohol content higher goes their profit margins and vice versa. On the other hand it will cut down the fertile grounds of the all alcohol drink total prohibition on which the alcohol bootlegging mafia mostly flourish!

Basically, the imposition Alcohol Prohibition or stringent restriction over the SADs would greatly help in eradicating most of the alcoholism problems including the DUI Drunk Driving/accidents mostly out from our society, which I believe is the main historic mission of alcohol prohibition.

Valerian Texeira

Alcoholics Curewell.

Labels:

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Alcohol Research Misconduct:Cause Drunk Driving

Authors Note:- This is the Principle document of this “Drunk Driving: Root-Cause” weblog. It provides an alternative view on this Drunk Driving issue, fundamentally different from the conventional, official DUI, DWI perspective prevailing today. I regularly republish this document in this blog site so not to confine it to the archives. This is its latest updated version to the date.



Alcohol Research Misconduct: Cause Drunk Driving

By: Valerian Texeira.

Introduction

This is a major “Scientific Misconduct” Allegation Report (SMAR) made in good faith. It is the outcome of my long years of study into the alcohol research that finally uncovered that the worlds leading alcohol(ism) problems preventions treatment research ‘institutions’ most important among them is the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA); continue to carry on this major and most treacherous scientific/research misconduct. --- It causes various alcohol(ism) problems, notorious are the DUI or the drunk driving its fatal accidents are the deadliest among all!

Background

My quest started during the year1999 when I first discovered that by opting to the low-alcohol drinks, successfully removed my fast 15 years of chronic alcohol dependence or the alcoholism. Of course this Low-Alcohol Drinking (LAD) ‘wisdom remedy’ known since ancient times I only ‘re-discovered’ it with some modification and named it as the “Zero Alcohol Drink”(ZAD) method. In the year 2000, I was able to publish its book titled: “A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol: THE ZERO ALCOHOL DRINK THEORY”. Its book-review got published in THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS – Science Express on Tuesday 20th June 2000; and in the UK Journal “Addiction” (April 2001) 96, pp. 657-58. Thereafter its landmark website ‘Alcoholics Curewell’ http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell was launched in the year 2003.

However the ‘institutions’ dismissed this entire ZAD finding by basically saying that -- there are no such ‘academic’ research evidences to prove it. -- Even after two of my most important papers 1). “The WHO & USDHHS Promoted World Alcoholism Mess” 2). “Zero Alcohol Drink- Alcohol Detoxification Clinical Trial (ZAD-ADCT)” published in the year 2004 and 2005 subsequently, did not change their fundamental position on alcoholism prevention treatment.

Institutions fundamental Alcoholism Position

The Alcoholism prevention treatment research institutions fundamental position, (promulgations) on this matter basically asserts that; ‘alcohol drinks irrespective of the alcohol content in them high or low nevertheless cause alcoholism problems particularly in those vulnerable, “predisposed” people. Therefore, opting for low-alcohol drinking, to prevent or eliminate alcoholism particularly the dependence cannot succeed or such attempts bound to fail (due to the loss or “impaired control” symptom of the alcohol dependence), if the people try it’.

No Research evidence of Low-Alcohol Drinks Causing Alcoholism

My real breakthrough in this matter (uncovering or this scientific/research misconduct) came in 2006 when I started seriously searching for the institutions academic (empirical, clinical, epidemiological) research reports, evidences that supports their above mentioned fundamental alcoholism position. My search took me to look into those leading Alcoholism, preventions treatment research institutions peer-reviewed Journals reports publications. Thanks for the Internet, the world wide “web”, which made it all possible. My search included the most important “Medline Plus” . “PubMed” <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/Pubmed.htm>. “ETHO” <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/About.htm>. However to my utter shock I found absolutely NO such research evidence that basically suggest that the alcohol dependent people who opt for the Low-Alcohol Drinks in order prevent alcoholism problems nevertheless fail in their attempt! On the contrary there are quite a few research that I found, which clearly suggest that opting for the low-alcohol drinks indeed prevent people from most of the alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving and so from its fatal accidents!

“Standard Alcohol Drinks” Cause Alcohol(ism) Problems

The most important thing that I learned from my study in this regard is that all the institutions alcohol(ism) problems prevention treatment research conclusions seems to based on the outcome of consuming the “standard alcohol drinks”. The most popular among them is the “standard beer” drink, which contains around 5% and above alcohol (v/v) content. Meanwhile, all these “alcohol research” seems to have totally omitted, ignored or neglected to verify or to check it out whether any of the excessive alcohol consumption, drunkenness, drunk driving its accidents etc. alcohol(ism) problems occurs in the people who prefer, choose or opt to drink the low-alcohol drinks, say containing around 2% or less alcohol v/v, (which is almost around half of the alcohol content of the standard beer) to prevent alcoholism.

All these research strongly confirms to the fact that the excessive alcohol consumption, drunkenness, alcohol(ism) problems in people most probably occur from consuming the “standard alcohol drinks”, which generally contains around and above 5% alcohol (Ironically, these are the same drinks, sanctioned by the institutions, in their much publicized “How to cut down, control, limit or moderate alcohol drinking”) and on the other hand there are NO such research evidences to prove that the alcohol “dependence” (ICD-10, DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria) or the alcohol(ism) problems occur in the people who choose to drink the ‘low-alcohol drinks’.

A Major Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation Report

It took me some time to realize that this principle “omission”, negligence or failure to conduct the alcohol research on this most critical e Low-Alcohol drinks, brings in a basic default or the “FALSIFICATION” into this entire alcoholism prevention, treatment research, which under the principles of “Ethics in Science” is defined as a Scientific or “Research Misconduct” on the part of the institutions. Thereby in a ‘good faith’ I wrote its extensive complaint titled “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report” (SMAR) containing two parts, (now made available in http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct website) explaining in details many of its different aspect, fundamental points, basic facts, of this matter and send it to the Universities/Institutions most importantly to the NIAAA asking them to immediately undertake an inquiry into this SMAR under the US. Policy of Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation PHS CFR Part 93. <>.

NIAAA, Institutions Total Irresponsiveness to My SMAR

However to my total dismay, majority of those university/institutions members most importantly the NIAAA Director (to whom I send my SMAR and its connected documents) completely ignore it to the extent they don’t bother to send me even an initial acknowledgement response to it! This amounts to a reckless disregard or “violation of due process” by these institutions in such matters under the PHS scientific/research misconduct policy, including the Whistleblowers Bill or Rights, as it commands the institutions to send a written notice or acknowledgment in response to a scientific/research misconduct allegation report in the part of its ‘allegation assessment’ regulations.

Health Action

Meanwhile, a beckon of hope to my SMAR comes from a leading health institution in India <http://www.chai-india.org>, which has shown a healthy interest and tried to help me by publishing it under the title: “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report”(in two parts) in the November and December (year 2006) issue of their health magazine called the "Health Action" in its ‘Research & Ethics’ section.

Final Appeal

I am a lay person committed to social justice most of my life, now ended up with this major SMAR, which further escalated by its Whistleblowers complaint. From my disadvantaged position from India, it is most difficult for me to pursue this major public health research misconduct carried out by the leading alcohol research institutions mainly in the US. Ironically it is the US, which faces the drunk driving/accident problems due to this alcohol research misconduct more than anyone in the world today. So there is a serious need of the concerned people media to take up this major public health issue and to see to it that the concerned authorities undertake “A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response” mandated under the US Policy [PHS CFR Part 93. 300 (b), 304 (b)] of “Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation” for the sake of the worlds public health. Further more details documents most important on this matter available in the website: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct.

Last update on January 2008.

Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell

Labels:

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

ZAD-ADCT Part-IV

ZAD-ADCT Follow-Up

The end of the three weeks “ZAD-ADCT” marks the beginning of the “ZAD practice”. --- Here, it would be more appropriate tto call the former as the precursor or the vanguard of the latter, in the overall ZAD model. --- The essence of this ZAD “practice” or method, importantly summed up in the “principle key notes” of this paper, which states: -- “WHENEVER TAKING TO DRINK ALCOHOL, ALWAYS MIX (OR SIMULTANEOUSLY CONSUME) ‘PROGRESSIVELY ADEQUATE PROPORTION’ OF APPETIZING NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO REDUCE ITS ALOCHOL CONTENT SUFFICIENTLY SAFE ENOUGH LOWER LEVELS AND DRINK IT STOMACHFUL, FOR SATIETY”. IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE WHILE IN THE ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE NEVER TO DRINK HIGH-ALCOHOL PERCENTAGE BEVERAGES INSTEAD ALWAYS TO CONSUME SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH LOW-ALCOHOL BEVERAGES (“LAB”, HAVING 2.5% OR LESS ALCOHOL CONTENT BY VOLUME) WITH THE APPEALING, DELICIOUS TASTE AND FLAVOR THAT PRIMARILY FULFILLS ITS DRINKERS OVERALL DRINK SATIETY DESIRE.

By the way, most of all I should acknowledge in here that; while originally proposing and devising; ‘A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol: THE ZERO ALCOHOL DRINK THEORY”, seven years ago, it had never imagined about such three weeks ZAD alcohol detoxification clinical therapy. --- Only the ZAD method or the “practice” has been considered to be its sole prevention and treatment approach! The alcohol dependent alone had been assigned to conduct the entire alcohol detoxification by their own, by self-administrating the ZAD practice towards achieving its complete cure. --- Now the intriguing question that I face is; whether any of these alcohol dependents would have ever adapted to this ZAD practice without having the opportunity first to undergo into this three weeks ZAD-ADCT therapy.

In brief; the ZAD-ADCT follow-up is nothing but adapting to the simple “LAB drinking or the ZAD practice” at least for the forthcoming one year period. Maintaining a dairy of the daily drinking accounts perhaps may be the main hallmark of this follow up period. Here the person can continue to follow it in its various forms or modifications termed as; ZAD Flexible Practice[3]. However it is also very important to follow the ZAD practice basic principles through out their life. --- In this follow-up of the first three-months, the participants asked to meet once in a week evening preferably on Sunday. Thereafter once in every month in a Sunday evening, till the year. --- The association may continue to exist in the form of a general assembly conducted once in a year for as many years. Perhaps they have this life long mission to spread the ZAD message among the alcohol drinking population!

Finally, the limitations of this paper, my non-academic, non-professional underprivileged background, hard-pressed resources and my poor English language skills impose so many restrictions upon me from elaborating and exploring much deeper into this subject matter. --- Hence once again here I repeat that; basically the ZAD therapy/practice/policies are highly pragmatic and dynamic which could be modified to suit the particular environment. Therefore, it would be impossible to take accounts of all its possible spectrums. --- Its strategies can vary, as it needs to be applied prudently to suit the particular practical treatment situation. --- Here I have only laid down its principle guidelines, and the basic “therapy manual” structure as far as I can see it. --- Now I must leave it to the researchers including the alcoholism prevention and treatment administrators, therapist, counselors whoever interested and come forward to conduct this ZAD-ADCT therapy in the future.

Lack of LAB Drinking Research in the Prevention of Alcoholism
Before concluding this paper I have a very important grievance to put before the alcoholism prevention and the treatment establishments or concerns. It is mainly about the lack of the Lower Alcohol Beverage (LAB) drinking research particularly in the prevention and treatment of the “alcohol dependence”! In “The ZAD Evidence surveillance” section of my previous paper[2], I have pointed out many fundamental empirical evidences, which somehow endorse the validity of the ZAD model. People all over the world choosing to the low-alcohol beverages drinking; popularly assume that it would reduce their overall alcohol consumption. Enter the word “ how to reduce (or cut-down) drinking” in the Google search engine and you will be inundated with thousands of hits which prominently lists the low alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks/beverages drinking among its advices! The NIAAA [64] and the WHO [65] also have their own share in them. Particularly that WHO sponsored website under its “How to reduce your drinking” banner advises alcohol drinkers to “have non-alcoholic drinks before each alcoholic drink, dilute your drinks, add soda to wine and mixers to spirits”. Nevertheless, almost all of these establishments controlled moderate drinking doctrines, which advices low-alcohol drinking as one of their tips, to reduce or cut down the general drinkers alcohol consumption, at the same time sternly warns; ‘this advice definitely not meant for those vulnerable people at risk and particularly to those having or predisposed to the alcohol dependence’.

However so far I could not find any alcoholism websites documents that provides any evidence that the people at risk particularly the alcohol dependents are not able to reduce their alcohol consumption by adopting or opting to the LAB drinking. I have extensively searched in the WHO, NIAAA and also other alcoholism prevention and treatment websites for any documents for any research evidence, which proves that the alcohol dependent people cannot reduce their overall alcohol consumption by opting for this LAB drinking but could not find any. If there are any chances of locating such research findings which prove that the alcohol dependent people cannot cut-down or reduces their alcohol consumption by drinking the low-alcohol beverages, then it would be mainly in the NIAAA Databases, Resources/ ETOH Archive! Here too, for my extensive search from top to bottom (“title” to “abstract”) for the words like, “low alcohol drink alcohol dependence treatment” or words of that sort, returns with absolutely nothing (Did I miss those very important research documents, which is some where else? I don’t know.). To get any thing nearer on the subject matter, one has to go down reducing the title search words finally to “low alcohol”. Suddenly one finds more than thirty hits but awfully most of them pertaining to the research or experiments on the Low Alcohol Preferring (LAP) or Drinking (LAD) animals (rats or mice) which has mostly nothing to do with the low-alcohol beverage drinking in the prevention and treatment of the alcohol dependent human subjects. Regrettably in my search I could not find any noteworthy research experiments conducted for the fast 10 years to find out the impact of the low-alcohol beverages on the human subjects overall alcohol consumptions! Nevertheless there are some significant research study of low-alcohol beverage drinking outcome on peoples overall alcohol consumption conducted by, Geller, E.S. et al. titled “A time and place for low-alcohol alternatives” (1991) which concludes among other things that “Since those assigned to the low-alcohol conditions did not consume more beverages than those in the regular alcohol conditions, ……exit BACs were significantly lower for parties in the low-alcohol conditions.” [48]. Another distinguished study conducted in this direction is by Adrian, M.; et, al. under the title “Effect of low alcohol beverages on alcoholism levels in Canada in 1986” (1992) remarkably concludes; “The study results indicated that the drop in alcoholics exceeded the drop in alcohol consumption, and it is suggested that as the market share of low alcohol beverages increases, both consumption and levels of alcoholism will decrease” [50]. Another most important research on this field are carried out by Kalsher-M-J; et al. (1988) [49] Also by Van Houten, R.; et al., (1994)[51]. Apart from which the research findings of Skog-O-J. (1988) [37, 66, 67] seems to be very favorable to the ZAD perspective more than any in numbers with different angles i.e. low-alcohol, substitution hypothesis, as well as in the field of alcoholic appetite, loss of control concepts etc. There are many other research findings which offers some glimpse over my subject matter among them are the Schaefer-J-M. 1985[68] WHO project (1997) [69], Barrucand-D; et, al. (1982)[70], Frankel-Alan (1976)[71], Ahlstrom-Laakso-Salme (1976)[72] etc. Apart from these there are many other important research findings even though not directly dealing with the low-alcohol beverages nevertheless they could endorse the validity of the ZAD model for example the research on “Animal Models” one among them is the research carried by Herman H. Samson[74] but I leave out rest for not to overcrowd the reference list.

No doubt, the overwhelming numbers of research on the matters of peoples low-alcohol beverage drinking endorse the ZAD position. Nevertheless there are some rare dissenting voices; I have already cited the research document of the NCA [45]. The other one I would like to mention in here is conducted by Whitehead, P.C., and Szandorowska, Barbara (1976) who in their research report[73] concludes that; “the introduction of low content beer has led to an increase in consumption, and suggest that alcohol-related problems may be aggravated in the future”. However the greatest irony of their claims of the low-alcohol content beer (3.9 percent alcohol by volume) is that it is almost near to the 4 percent mark of the Standard beer drink.

Apart from these above sparse research findings here and there, I could find no direct or comprehensive research study conducted to basically find out the effects of low-alcohol beverage drinking, on the humans alcohol use disorders, abuse, and in the alcohol dependence treatment in particular! However one can find more than 150 Controlled Drinking (CD) research ‘title’ documents which employs therapies like Self-Control Training (BSCT), Moderation-Oriented Cue Exposure (MOCE), Guided Self-Change (GSC), Moderation Management (MM) and Harm Reduction (HR) to train the alcohol drinkers to cut down, reduce or moderate their alcohol consumption to a safe drinking levels, dismally however the ZAD models LAB drinking seems to have not any place in their Controlled Drinking treatment! They rather seem quite annoyed by our low-alcohol drinking ZAD treatment claims.
Now at the end under these situations, I appeal to all the concerned establishments its researchers whoever interested especially those who involved in the research of LAB and the CD field please to come forward and take up this issue. The ZAD-ADCT therapy is first of its kind that uses the alcohol as the treatment drug for the alcohol detoxification (AW) and its dependence treatment, which carries the prospect of a complete cure for alcoholism. This Trial would greatly contribute to our knowledge of alcohol dependence and in any way benefit at least in the “Project MATCH” treatment perspectives! This treatment has the great potentials that ‘it could open up a entirely new treatment paradigm’ for human addictions. This could save billions of dollars of cost burden to the entire world nations prevent the immense suffering and the ‘life lost to the death and disability’[4] and save the life of those millions by setting them free from the decadence of alcoholism.


References:
[1] Zero Alcohol Drink Alcohol Detoxification Clinical Trial (ZAD-ADCT): 2005. By: Valerian Texeira, Alcoholics Curewell St. Joseph Nagar Mangalore – 575002 INDIA.
[2] ZAD Alcoholism Research Paper: The WHO & USDHHS Promoted World Alcoholism Mess (The Biggest World Health Blunder): 2004. By: Valerian Texeira, Alcoholics Curewell St. Joseph Nagar Mangalore – 575002 INDIA.
[3] The ZAD Practice Paper Series: The ZAD Practice: 2004. By: Valerian Texeira, Alcoholics Curewell St. Joseph Nagar Mangalore - 575002 INDIA.
[4] About Global Alcohol Database: http://www3.who.int/whosis/alcohol/alcohol_about_us.
World Health Organization 20 Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland.
[5] Dependence Syndrome definition: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/
World Health Organization 20 Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland.
[6] ALCOHOLISM Getting the Facts:
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/booklet.htm National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 9304 Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9304. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) is a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS).
[7] Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s):
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/faq.htm National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 9304 Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9304.
[8] World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases, (ICD-10) (Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines, Tenth Revision.) Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1992. WHO.
[9] American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Washington D.C.: The Association 1994.
[10] Alcoholics_curewell website (Homepage): 2003.
http://.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm
[11] AUDIT The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care: Thomas F. Babor, John C. Higgins-Biddle, John B. Saunders, Maristela G. Monteiro. World Health Organization Department of Mental Health and Substance
[12] Moderate Drinking
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa16.htm National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 9304 Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9304
[13] A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol: The Zero Alcohol Drink Theory: 2000. By Valerian Texeira, Published by Alcoholics Curewell, St. Joseph Nagar, Mangalore 575002 INDIA
[14] Addict_L Mailing List.
http://listserv.kent.edu/archives/Addict-L.html ADDICT-L@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
[15] Alcoholism Treatment in the United States: Richard K. Fuller, M.D., and Susanne Hiller-Sturmhofel, Ph.D. Alcohol Research and Health Vol. 23 No. 2 1999.
www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh23-2/069-77.pdf
[16] Alcohol Detoxification
http://www.recoveryresource.org/alcohol_addiction_detox.html
[17] An Overview of Outpatient and Inpatient Detoxification: Motoi Hayashida, M.D., Sc.D. Alcohol Health & Research World Vol. 22, No. 1, 1998. Www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh22-1/44-46.pdf -
[18] Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal: By Hugh Myrick, M.D., and Raymond F. Anton M.D. Alcohol Health & Research World Vol. 22, No. 1, 1998.
[19] DETOXIFICATION FROM ALCOHOL: A COMPARISON OF HOME DETOXIFICATION AND HOSPITAL-BASED DAY PATIENT CARE: By Carole Allan, Iain Smith and Michael Mellin Alcohol and Alcoholism Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 66-69, 2000.
[20] Home Detox: Burns FH, Flamer HE, And Morey S & NOVAK H. The Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Australia. Members.optusnet.com.au/~apfdfy/Homedetx.htm
[21] Schuckit Addresses State-of –the-Art Addiction Treatments: By Claire Ginther Psychiatric Times April 1999 Vol. XVI Issue 4.
[22] Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome (1989): Alcohol Alert No. 5
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa05.htm
[23] Way Back from A Drink Too Far:
http://www.castlecraig.co.uk/aboutus/drink_too_far.htm
[24] FDA Approves New Drug for Treatment of Alcoholism; Addict-L 2nd Aug 2004. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2004/ANS01302.html
[25] Finally A pill for Alcoholism? Addict-L; 5th Aug. 2004. http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/meds/a/aa030517.htm
[26] Edward Rowland Sill; 19th Century American poet: Addiction Treatment Forum (AFT) On-line A. F. T. vol. 1 winter 1999 Stewart B. Leavitt, PhD, Editor. 1750 East Golf Rd., Suite 320 Schaumburg, IL 60173
http://www.atforum.com/SiteRoot/pages/current_pastissues/winter99.shtml
[27] Appetite-Linked Gene Also Tied to Alcoholism: September 18, 2002 http://reuters.com/news.jhtml. Al Turner post in the Addict-L; 25 September 2002
[28] A liking for sweets, combined with novelty seeking, may predict alcoholism. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. Public release date: 14-Sep-2004.
[29] Sweet tooth, a marker for alcoholism. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2003
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=283343!
[30] Alcohol and taste-mediated learning: Baker-T-B; Cannon-D-S. Addictive Behaviors, 7(3): 211-230, 1982
[31] Designerdrinks un Modegetranke (Designer drinks and fashionable beverages) Blutalkohol:
Glenewinkel, F.; Iffland, R.; Grellner, W. Alcohol, Drugs and Behavior, 35(1): 36-47, 1998.
[32] "Alcopop" use in Scottish bars: A pilot study. MacCall, C.A. Journal of Substance Misuse for Nursing, Health and Social Care, 3(1): 21-29, 1998.
[33] Alcopops in Sweden-supply side intiative: Romanus, G. Addiction, 95(Suppl. 4): S609-S619, 2000.
[34] Report of Investigation: Investigation Summary. File No: 2000/0879 Complaint No: 12271 Investigation No: 935
www.aba.gov.au/tv/investigations
[35] Complex PK/PD models: An alcoholic experience: Holford, N.H.G. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 35(10): 465-468, 1997
[36] Ethanol in blood after ingestion of light alcoholic beverages (maximal 2.25 percent v/v): Magnusdottir, K.; Johannesson, T. Pharmacology and Toxicology, 87(6): 297-298, 2000.
[37] Effect of introducing a new light beer in Norway: Substitution or addition? Skog-O-J. British Journal of Addiction, 83(6): 665-668, 1988.
[38] Innovation in Europe: Research and Results. Confirming low alcohol levels
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/success/en/agr/0166e.html
[39]
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Apr 1990http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm198990/cmhansrd/1990-04-20/Debate-1.html.,
[40] On the potential health effects of consuming "non-alcoholic" or "de- alcoholized" beverages. Alcohol: Schaefer-J-M. An International Biomedical Journal, 4(2): 87-95, 1987. (092108)
[41] Ethanol analysis following consumption of "alcohol-free" beer: Nordt, S.P.; Williams, S.R.; Manoguerra, A.S.; Clark, R.F. Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 41(2): 94-96, 1999.
[42]. Discriminability of regular, light, and alcoholic and nonalcoholic near beer. Klinger-E; Cox-W-M Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44(3): 494-498, 1983.
[43] Chamber Of Secrets Forums: Butter beer-Alcoholics? Postings from April 8th, 2003, to October 4th 2004. http://www.cosforums.com/archive/index.php/t-7783.html
[44] Tape 3014”: “Near Beers” and Low-Alcohol Beverages Information Center, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St., Toronto, Ont. M5S 2S1 http://sano.camh.net/infoline/tp14.htm
[45] National Council on Alcoholism's (NCA) position statement on the marketing and consumption of low alcohol content, no alcohol content, "non- alcoholic", and "de-alcoholized" alcoholic beverages. Apr 1985. 5 p. (077736)
[46] Links between teen drinking, alcoholism6/23/2004 5:00 AM By: CNN
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/
[47] Alkohol und alkoholismus (Alcohol and alcoholism). Schadewaldt-H. Medizinische Welt, 37(23): 747-751, 1986. [48] Beer versus mixed-drink consumption at fraternity parties: A time and place for low-alcohol alternatives: Geller, E.S.; Kalsher, M.J.; Clarke, S.W. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(3): 197-204, 1991.
[49] Environmental determinants of alcohol consumption at college parties. Kalsher-M-J; Geller-S; Glindemenn-K-E. 35th International Congress on Alcohol and Drug Dependence, "Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety," Volume II, Oslo, Norway: Jul 31 - Aug 6, 1988. 198 p. (pp. 143-155).
[50] Effect of low alcohol beverages on alcoholism levels in Canada in 1986. In: C.A. Naranjo and E.M. Sellers, Eds., Adrian, M.; Jull, P.M. Novel Pharmacological Interventions for Alcoholism, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992. 378 p (pp 251-253) (115622)
[51] Effects of low alcohol beverages on alcohol consumption and impairment: Van Houten, R.; Van Houten, J.; Malenfant, J.E.L. Behavior Modification, 1994 Oct; 18 (4): 505-13. (125035)
[52] Something of value: The introduction of contingency management interventions into the New York City Health and Hospital Addiction Treatment Service. Kellogg, S., et al. (2005) Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28(1): 57-65.
[53] Drunkenness-related alcoholic beverage choices among adolescents: Lintonen, T.; Konu, A. Journal of Substance Use, 6(1): 16-21, 2001
[54] Influence of dose and beverage type instructions on alcohol outcome expectancies of DUI offenders: Guarna, J.; Rosenberg, H. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61(2): 341-344, 2000.
[55] Intoxication power of alcoholic beverages: Image and reality: Giacopassi, D.J.; Stein, P.M. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 17(4): 429-438, 1991.
[56] Social occasions and the perceived appropriateness of consuming different alcoholic beverages: Klein, H.; Pittman, D.J. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51(1): 59-67, 1990.
[57] Make a Difference:
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures.htm National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 9304 Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9304.
[58] Controlled Drinking: More Than Just a Controversy: Michael E. Saladin; Elizabeth J. Santa Ana Curr Opin Psychiatry 17(3):175-187, 2004. © 2004 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/473554
[59] Controlled Drinking Strategies
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/litrev/treatmod/lit5e_e.shtml
[60] Moderation Management (MM) Network, Inc. c/o 22 W 27th street New York, NY 10001 http://www. moderation.org/
[61] ZAD Alcohol Policy Safe Drinking Bars! <
vtexeira@sancharnet.in> 23 November 2004 ADDICT-L@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
[62]. Social and cognitive learning processes. Collins, R.L.; Bradizza, C.M. In: N. Heather, T.J. Peters, and T. Stockwell, Eds., International Handbook of Alcohol Dependence and Problems, Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2001. 892 p. (pp. 317-337)
[63] MODELING INFLUENCES ON ALCOHOLICS' RATES OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION: CAUDILL-B-D; LIPSCOMB-T-R. J. APPL. BEHAV. ANAL., LAWRENCE, KS, 13: 355-365, 1980.
[64] How to Cut Down on Your Drinking http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/handout.htm National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 9304 Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9304
[65] World Health Organization, 1998, Metal Disorders in Primary Care: a WHO Education Package and Andrews G and Jenkins R, eds, 1999, Management of Mental Disorders (UK Edition) World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Mental Health and Substance Abuse.
www.who.int/msa/mnh/ems/primacare/edukit/wepalc.pdf World Health Organization 20 Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland.
[66] Skog-O-J. Changes in alcohol and coffee consumption in the 19th century: A case of beverage substitution? 1985.44 p.[67] Addicts' choice. Skog, O.J. Addiction, 95(9): 1309-1314, 2000. (156329)
[68] Schaefer-J-M. Merchandising alternatives. Proceedings of the Second Northeast Conference on Responsible Beverage Service, Cambridge, MA: 14 Nov - 15 Nov 1985. 156 p. (pp. 63-71).
[69] Public drinking, problems and prevention measures in twelve countries: Single, E.; Beaubrun, M.; Mauffret, M.; Minoletti, A.; Moskalewicz, J.; Moukolo, A.; Plange, N.K.; Saxena, S.; Stockwell, T.; Sulkunen, P.; Suwaki, H.; Hoshigoe, K.; Weiss, S. Results of the WHO project on public drinking. Contemporary Drug Problems, 24(3): 425-448, 1997.
[70] Les boissons non alcooliques: Que Choisir? (Non alcoholic beverages: Which one to choose?): Barrucand-D; Thouvenin-A. In: D. Barrucand (Ed.), Alcohol science. Texts of lectures for the optional certificate, Riom, France: Riom Laboratoires, 1982. 254 p. (pp. 25-30)
[71] SUBJECTIVE RESPONSES TO ALCOHOLIC AND NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY ALCOHOLIC RESPONDENTS. FRANKEL-ALAN. BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY, 14(1): 73-76, 1976.
[72] ALCOHOL POLICY AND THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BEVERAGES IN FINLAND IN 1951-1975: AHLSTROM-LAAKSO-SALME; OSTERBERG-ESA. BANK OF FINLAND MONTHLY BULLETIN, 50(7): 20-28, 1976
[73] INTRODUCTION OF LOW ALCOHOL CONTENT BEER: A TEST OF THE ADDITION- SUBSTITUTION HYPOTHESIS: WHITEHEAD-PAUL-C; SZANDOROWSKA-BARBARA. 11TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE: CANADIAN FOUNDATION ON ALCOHOL & DRUG DEPENDENCIES, TORONTO, ONTARIO: 20-25 JUN 1976
[74] ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING RESEARCH The Microstructure of ethanol drinking: genetic and behavioral factors in the control of drinking patterns: Herman H. Samson. Research Perspectives on Alcohol Craving S61-S72 Addiction Vol 95. (Supplement 2), August 2000.


© Copyright 2005. Valerian Texeira. All rights of this publication reserved by the author

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Labels: