> Cost-effective interventions to reduce alcohol consumption include strengthening restrictions on alcohol availability, enforcing bans on alcohol advertising, and facilitating access to screening and treatment.
"Restrictions on alcohol availability" could be anti-fun if implemented in the extreme (hopefully we've learned prohibition doesn't work), the other two are pretty standard.
As a world, we absolutely have not. And any insane policy will be backed up by very reasonable scientific evidence.
Being anti-fun isn't an argument against regulation
The Autobahn is still not a 24/7 disaster zone of dead bodies and scrapped cars last time I checked.
Sure the autobahn isn't a meat grinder, but there's a difference between safe and unsafe, and unsafe doesn't mean everyone dies.
Regardless, doesn't matter if the regulation is for safety or environmental protection, being "anti-fun" isn't an argument against them.
well, you can take it up with the National Motorists' Association, they have the stats.
And while yes, you could say "that's not alcohol itself" and that's correct, but obviously not all alcohol is equivalent, and also you cannot exactly separate alcohol and examine it in a vacuum.Alcohol is not consumed purely in the vast majority of cases.
Generally speaking if the institution name starts with "World" or "Global", it's more likely to say something to be accepted by virtually everyone, and most often that will sound dystopian and bullsh1t.The prohibition did not work(and i say this as someone who drinks maybe <=5 times a year, very much liking to stay lucid but also acknowledging the benefits of such an experience when i do).The drug on war did not work.Institutions want to regulate any substance that deviates thought from the mainstream hivemind narrative.Your statement can easily be deconstructed by more than 2000 years of written history where people battled whether consumed drugs and especially alcohol is or not beneficial for health.With the exceptions of exaggeration in certain cultures(see alcoholism in russia) this is not an issue.The other exaggeration happened in US with Prohibition and we've seen that's also not desirable, and it promotes drinking irresponsibly.
It’s important to give people correct medical information. I’m now off the wagon completely.
And I mean, cigarettes are cool. There's a reason they still exist as a trope in movies and it's not all due to marketing. It lends something to the character.
That's not to say there isn't or can't be a healthier replacement, of course.
* 85.6 percent of people ages 18 and older reported that they drank alcohol at some point in their lifetime
* 69.5 percent reported that they drank in the past year
* 54.9 percent reported that they drank in the past month
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sh...
Consider this: I am in the group that can say "they drank in the last month." It is also simultaneously true that I "drink little or no alcohol" (by any reasonable standard).
How can that be? Well, if you took my last 12 months worth of alcohol consumption and calculated my "average drinks per month" the number would round to 0. So yes, I do drink, and by happenstance it happens that I've had a drink in the last month. But I think that easily qualifies as "little or no alcohol".
Most Americans do drink.
That doesn't contradict what the person you are replying to said. They said most Americans drink "little or no" alcohol, not "no alcohol".
Why is it that on the Internet almost everyone seems to silently remove/ignore qualifiers like that, and treat everything as a binary dichotomy???
[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sh...