Miller, Chikritzha, Droste, Pennay & Tomsen (2017) raise multiple methodological questions regarding our recently published study into the night-time entertainment districts (NEDs) of Queensland, Australia (Devilly, Allen & Brown, 2017). They also raise wider ethical concerns regarding working with police and allowing research participants to enter their own data into questionnaires. As reported in an earlier issue of this journal (Devilly et al., 2017), we conducted a point of entry study into NEDs which found: a high prevalence of preloading (79%); little meaningful difference between the genders in this prevalence and breath alcohol concentration (BAC); a much higher preponderance of people reporting to pre-drink for reasons of socialisation (rather than just price) compared to earlier research; and a large number of people to have no meaningful understanding of the BAC system. Here I respond to concerns raised by Miller and colleagues. First, I provide a context and common ground for this debate in the specific domain of Queensland. Next, I look at the sample we acquired in comparison to Miller (2013), explain motivations for preloading, and why our results are different, as well as more reliable than those reported by Miller. I further point out why the lack of clarity around rejection rates is important and demonstrate that having police involved in such research is a good idea. I also address issues of misplaced concern in relation to the engagement of the energy drink industry and media, and the multiple charges of ethics violations implied in the commentary by Miller and colleagues. Taken together, I provide a corridor for future research, informed by the use of our scientifically reproducible methodology.