>
What is this literal global agenda?It's basically "some bureaucrats want to secure funds for their agencies and have some global mission to justify them, so they invent new targets when the previous ones have dragged too long, so like the "war on drugs", "war on fat", etc. before, you now have more "war on alcohol", etc. And since those control a lot of money, and public policy, they get to decide where grants go, and you get to up your chances of a career if you go along. Plus all the private interests that can be attached to that (e.g. selling non-alcoholic versions of beverages, etc).
>but it’s very obvious that alcohol is literal poison and best to be avoided
No, it's not "very obvious" at all. It's just the residuals of the tee-totaling puritanical view of alcohol ("it must be bad!"), or considering alcoholics at the canonical example of what happens when you consume alcohol (and not e.g. the blue zone diets, where people live more than anybody else on the planet on average, and still regularly consume alcohol). In other words, it's as obvious as "fat makes us fat".
Science is not about accepting some "obvious", it's about investigating what's actually the case.
And there's the historical perspective:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/09/3-questi...
Or:
To our fruit-eating primate ancestors swinging through the trees, however, the ethanol in rotting fruit would have had three other appealing characteristics. First, it has a strong, distinctive smell that makes the fruit easy to locate. Second, it’s easier to digest, allowing animals to get more of a commodity that was precious back then: calories. Third, its antiseptic qualities repel microbes that might sicken a primate. Millions of years ago one of them developed a taste for fruit that had fallen from the tree. “Our ape ancestors started eating fermented fruits on the forest floor, and that made all the difference,” says Nathaniel Dominy, a biological anthropologist at Dartmouth College. “We’re preadapted for consuming alcohol.”