January marks the 98th anniversary of the
ratification of the 18th Amendment, more commonly known as Prohibition. While
Prohibition is remembered as one of America’s greatest failed experiments,
today we’re seeing something of a revival of prohibitionist thinking among the
public health community who have begun to attack even moderate alcohol
consumption in earnest. I found this article to be very interesting and a really good read.
There is long-standing consensus about the
negative health and social impacts of excessive alcohol consumption. But for
decades there has also been widespread agreement about the health benefits from
a regular glass or two of your favorite beer, wine or spirit. Studies tout that the moderate consumption
of alcohol can lead to a healthier heart, a reduced likelihood of Type 2
Diabetes, and protection from the common cold. Most notably, moderate drinking has been
shown to decrease all-cause mortality. This “health halo” has provided a détente
between public health officials and the beverage alcohol industry. Both groups
condemned excess and touted moderation. Alcohol companies have spent billions
advising the public to “drink responsibly,” while the USDA proclaimed that
moderate alcohol consumption can have health benefits.
But in 2016 this system started to break
down as a handful of researchers began pushing dubious science suggesting that
even small amounts of alcohol could increase the risk of various cancers. But before you swear off the occasional glass
of wine at dinner, consider that there may be more driving the sudden
anti-alcohol-even-in-moderation narrative beyond disinterested science. The hysteria was partially fueled by an
analysis performed in New Zealand by Jeannie Connor — an anti-alcohol
researcher who has claimed that “alcohol causes cancer at seven sites in the
body and probably others.” Connor alleged causation admittedly without
“confirmation of specific biological mechanisms by which alcohol increases the
incidence of each type of cancer.”
Anxiety about alcohol was further nurtured
in 2016 by a host of stories about women and drinking. A Washington Post
headline from last month blared, “Heavy drinking among women has been
normalized, and it’s killing them in record numbers.” But in reality the
“record number of deaths” is a record exaggeration. It is true that there is an
increase in the number of white women aged 35 to 54 dying from alcohol-related
causes, but only by about one-one hundredth of a percent over the course of 15
years.
But if you want to push for big government
solutions, you need people to think the problem is bigger than it actually is. This is leading some researchers and public
health officials to go outside the bounds of good science or fair reporting to
try and undermine the moderate drinker vs. the excessive drinker paradigm. Take the latest Surgeon General’s report
“Facing Addiction in America.” Rather than focusing on solutions to alcohol
addiction, which only affect 3.5 percent of U.S. adults, the report’s
recommendations took aim at anyone who drinks by calling for a wide variety of
new regulations on the sale of alcohol.
The health benefits of alcohol have long
flummoxed public health officials in more activist circles who believe alcohol
should be regulated as the new tobacco. Bans on alcohol advertising and Sunday
sales, sky high taxation, further lowering the legal BAC limit, and restricting
alcohol access, are primary goals of many in the public health community.
To the dismay of activists, the public
understands that alcohol and tobacco are apples and oranges. They can’t be
linked or compared. Even the most moderate of smokers are damaging their
health. And, unlike alcohol, there is no way to incorporate smoking as part of
a healthy lifestyle.
