1) Insulting people when they attempt to take a less popular viewpoint in an argument is a very mature way to get your opinions across.

2) By your own admission, there are some very bad statisticians with PhDs running around. Clearly, you know much more than these people, and so therefore not only are they undeserving of their PhDs, which came from years of study and hard work, but because you are so obviously immune to mistakes that your view is always right, you must therefore pass judgement upon everyone, including those statisticians and random people on the internet who like debating psychology?

3) "It was argued that the data from human and animal studies indicated that the causal basis of alcohol-related violence was most complex and it was unlikely that this drug should influence such behaviour through a single mechanism eg by increasing �aggression�. It seemed that within the same category of violence a number of plausible explanations for the action of alcohol existed and that this drug might simultaneously contribute to the completion of violent acts in a number of ways."

Clearly you haven't read the argument carefully. This is part of what I was saying - the issue is too complex to effect a causal relationship, and that it is possible alcohol as a whole might have some mitigating effects that we have yet to test for. I know it is possible for someone to get less aggressive/violent while drunk.