I disagree with their phrasing, but I tend to question positive or negative results. That way I can understand the data and how that fits into the overall system.

For example, it seems a lot of this study took place during the pandemic. Seeing the data on a year by year basis and understanding other possible effects of behavior would be good. It's not necessarily to disprove anything, but it could serve to strengthen position.

The way the linked article is written, it's like saying "I have a green marble in this box". You have no reason to doubt me and I have no reason to lie. But you're going to believe me more if I let you look in the box. Who knows, maybe I'm colorblind and it's actually red.

Drug related deaths kept rising after the minimum unit pricing. But they were raising pretty consistently before that though. A quick Google shows that they're finally plateauing now, which is great.

The confidence is pretty high, I find it a bit off putting.

> The methods we’ve used in this study allow us to be confident that the reduction in alcohol health harms we’ve shown is due to the introduction of MUP, rather than some other factor.

It's just too confident of a statement in my eyes. Whenever I read things like this, I'm immediately skeptical and beging questioning the motivations.

On a sidenote, I wonder if these changes made a noticeable difference when it comes to the Glasgow effect[0].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_effect

I don't think I've said anything that suggests I disbelieve what the study said about decreased alcohol related deaths. So sure, I believe that positive result.

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_effect . Yes nothing else is a perfect substitute for alcohol (some benzos are close though), but other substances are imperfect substitutes to become intoxicated. Substances substitution is a prevalent theme in drug abuse.