One in eight U.S. adult deaths aged 20 to 64 involved too much alcohol

I don't say this to detract from their message, and it's not some major deception, but I think it's noteworthy that this kind of sales and marketing treatment is given to an idea that's sufficiently well-accepted and consistent with observed reality to where it shouldn't really need the help.

Personally, when I sense someone is trying to bolster their argument by cherry picking or other deceptive practice, I immediately question their motives and their message. Maybe the overall effect is that still more people get the message when it's "spiced up"? Regardless, it's unnerving to me that the tactics employed in marketing seem to be applied by default to so much public communication. I wonder how accurate my perception of this as a growing trend is, and how it might relate to the general erosion of trust networks in modern society.

The alcohol result is a corollary of the fact that people who die between ages 20-50 usually die in graphic accidents versus "natural causes" like heart attack, stroke, that are actually the unconditional largest causes of death.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age...

For me, I find that a lot of people blame alcohol for other negative behavior in ways that doesn't make sense. It is fair to say alcohol gets too free of a pass, at large, while also thinking it is too quickly blamed for things, too.

It's a difficult subject to touch without one side soundy too preachy/judgy and the other side getting defensive and irrational.

The way I see it is this -- our brave new world is tough, and many people need their happy juice to cope with the burden of it. Maybe better work/life balance and better mental/emotional health resources would improve this, but unfortunately both those things get in the way of the rich becoming richer so don't expect much.

Prohibition is also taught in American schools as THE failure of government policy. The barest suggestion that alcohol regulation might be necessary to prevent some problem is going to be immediately viewed through that lens.

It's fathers and mothers who should be teaching their children about the dangers of alcohol and living an example worth following.

They're constrained. There aren't terribly many policy levers to pull! At the extreme, we outright tried banning it in North America once; that didn't work very well. Taxes and minimum pricing do work to reduce consumption, but they're quite unpopular with the public. A political party in my part of the world recently won an election by promising to expand retail availability of alcohol and to lower the price.

I'd note that the majority of the cost of alcohol is already taxes. The untaxed cost of alcohol is kind of frightening and is enough to make me reconsider my more libertarian inclinations with drugs. Pure grain alcohol of the kind used to make cheap spirits or for industrial purposes is literally around $1 a litre to make. Sells for $30 a litre here -- swill vodka has a 3000% markup imposed due to tax policies designed to curb consumption. Cranking it up higher has negative consequences too. I know that with tobacco, among the most dedicated cigarette smokers, increases in prices have little impact on consumption; the addicts we'd want to incentivize the most to quit with price signalling are the most resistant to price signalling due to their addiction -- they just get poorer. It becomes a dichotomy/trade-off. How how hard do we kick the homeless alcoholic when he's down vs. how much we stop college kids from taking up binge-drinking? Booze is also pretty easy to make at home so there's the consideration of prices being high enough to push people to the grey/black market, too.

I would like to see our governments go after alcohol advertising; it's basically a free-for-all in many jurisdictions. It's interesting to compare the new regulations in Canada on cannabis advertising (essentially banned in all forms) vs. the regulations on alcohol advertising (what regulations?) Yet which is the more addictive and compulsive drug?

I think your focus is misplaced. It is not policy issue, it is the general public itself that is the problem.

Policymakers tried, via prohibition, would you mark this as a success?

I dont drink, and never have so i am on the outside looking in. It is astonishing how "alcohol" is front and center in many things.

Hard day at work and you want to go out with coworkers.. Where do you almost always end up?

Want to celebrate something? Head over to the bar?

The root issues with alcohol are the same with other drugs, smoking, etc. Peer pressure, societal norms, etc.

Policymakers hands are basically tied.

On one hand they LOVE the revenue. Here (Canada) we have "sin taxes" and alcohol is heavily taxed. No government will want to forfeit this revenue.

Manufacturing alcohol provides jobs, inspecting it provides jobs...

If it is not legal, bootlegging will return.

I would also like to see a decline in Alcohol consumption, much as we saw with smoking.. but you need to take the successful aspects of the "quit smoking" program and apply them to alcohol.

Unlike alcohol it have no positive value

Predictably, people continued to consume alcohol in less safe ways, illegal "speakeasy" bars flourished, and moonshining became a very popular occupation. NASCAR was born when bootleggers started racing the cars that they had modified to outrun the police.

Eventually, the 21st amendment was passed to repeal the 18th.

https://thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2818%293...

To have the effect you're pondering, the actual transportation mode needs to change. Like being in a city and perhaps driving to meet up would be the most convenient, but you take public transportation (even though it takes twice as long) so that you can drink.

How about: 95% of murder victims killed by husband

Then: * of women, married to men, between the ages of 18-65, with less than X income, of Y race, Z religious affiliation