I wouldn't describe it as a particularly "progressive", "neo-puritanical", or "fringe" belief. Tyler Cowen advocates for abstaining from alcohol. While Matt Yglesias doesn't go as far as abstention, he does support higher taxes as a means to curb consumption, both as a way to balance budgets and curb some of the nastier public-health side effects. There's a public policy conversation to be had here.

Taxing alcohol is not straight forward because everybody can make it at home with everyday items. Raise taxes too much and people will start their own basement distilleries which will then send methanol poisoning cases through the roof.

Brewing beer for example is extremely easy. Everybody can do it and there is even a whole community around brewing at home.

As the article notes, at least in the UK, taxes in the 50's were three times as high. As someone who has distilled alcohol in a garage before, it's incredibly labor intensive at small scales. Brewing beer is doable, but it is not "extremely easy" by any measure, especially if the goal is reasonably decent tasting beer. Alcohol taxes would need to be extremely high before black market alcohol became an issue of any significance.

Cider is easy and quite good. Nothing as tasty as stuff you made anyways.

That's a strawman argument. I enjoy alcohol on occasion, but essays like this make me wonder if the limited pleasure I get from alcohol is worth it. I know a number of people who struggle or struggled with alcohol addiction. Do I really want to promote drinking by buying a round at the bar, bringing a case of beer to the party, or just conforming to the norm of drinking at parties? Maybe not.

I am not for any restrictions on any drug. That's puritanical, surely. However I am very much for BANNING all advertising from alcohol industry. Why do they need to market a drug that basically already sells itself via culture?

While I can't speak for the UK, the US has a small hurdle to bans on particular kinds of speech: the First Amendment. Add to that the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e. the Equal Protection Clause.) Alcohol producers have as much right to advertise as, say, someone selling chocolate bars (a 'sinful,' sugary food) or bacon (for all its alleged carcinogens) or prescription drugs (some of which have potentially lethal side-effects,) so it'd be tough to single them out for suppression. Not that Americans haven't tried using later constitutional amendments to prohibit things they don't like...

Not sure 1A is absolute here; there are many restrictions on advertising in the US around tobacco, at least.

You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it?

I also wonder if there's more to tobacco advertising then meets the eye: unlike alcohol manufacturers, Big Tobacco doesn't seem interested in challenging current restrictions to selling their product. And if they aren't interested, that says more about Big Tobacco than the First Amendment. But it's hard for me to say as I'm no expert on the tobacco industry.

> You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it?

Not super familiar with specifics around the restrictions because I can't remember the last time I saw a ad for tobacco; meanwhile I have seen 10+ alcohol ads today. I would say the restrictions effectively ban tobacco advertising

I agree with your point; from skimming Wikipedia [1] I would argue that restrictions were gradually imposed through acts of Congress and I would imagine largely uncontested by Big Tobacco because they lacked leverage due to the series of scandals involving them. I think you are right that the major alcohol brands would fight back largely because they don't have their hands behinds their back

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketi...

American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech.

But, i think there is precedent for advertising, there are restrictions on tobacco advertising. I don't see why it can't be extended to other things that are advertised.

> American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech.

Who defines 'reasonable'? As the federal government can't involve itself (which is at the heart of this so-called obsession,) the participants in the discussion will have to determine that for themselves. And if they can't agree on what is 'reasonable'?

> restrictions on tobacco advertising

There are restrictions, a brief history of which can be found at Truth Initiative[0]. I wonder, though, if these restrictions remain in place because no one in Big Tobacco will challenge them? Especially if these same restrictions help to keep smaller players out of the market...

[0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...

Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already

In reality the government is already discussing what is protected and what isn't. Free speech is an illusion. Otherwise we wouldn't have exceptions to free speech. There wouldn't an fcc if it it was truly free.

I think we should be explicit about what is protected and what isn't. We want to protect the expression of criticism of our government. I don't think we should be making choices about how society functions based off of ambiguous tweet sized one liners. This site your commenting on has higher expectations, maybe our bill of rights should too.

Is advertising really speech? It's ideas with the intent to manipulate people, commercial propaganda. What is speech, maybe we should define that better. It could be the ideas and opinions of individuals. Its a mistake to provide the same protections to a corporation.

There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous. The intent is protect people, government exists to protect people. The rest of the world is successful without a almost religious devotion to free speech, there's no reason why the us can't, if anything it's detrimental to our society.

> Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already

I picked 'reasonable' because the word has different connotations depending on the participants, for example, I may believe I'm being reasonable, whereas you may believe I'm being obstinate. And that's just talking about the word 'reasonable.' Toss the question of 'who's being reasonable?' into a heated discussion between opposite sides of a Covid-19 debate, or an immigration debate, or an abortion debate, or an Apple debate, and see where it gets you.

> There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous.

The FA is anything but ambiguous. 'Congress shall make no law...' That's Ten Commandments territory as far as clarity goes. Speech coupled with action, or with imminent action, or with likely physical harm is where the US Supreme Court has generally allowed lawmakers to go hog-wild. Burning the US flag (political speech,) using racial epithets (hate speech,) publishing graphic pornography (sex speech,) and refusing to testify against one's spouse (silence) have all been green-lit by SCOTUS.

As has propaganda. Why do you suppose the press is given such wide latitude in libel cases against them by public figures[0]? The press can sway public opinion for or against a politician via lie by omission, reliance on alleged anonymous sources, outright lies and later retractions, out-of-context quotes, associating irrelevant stories or images with a politician, interpreting the politician's words, non-reporting, etc. What is this other than outright manipulation (of both facts and people) and propaganda?

We can further discuss the propaganda(s) of national holidays, of political treatises (e.g. Das Kapital,) of American invasions into the Middle East, all of which are seemingly allowed by SCOTUS, but I'll wrap up by sticking to television commercials--why should ASPCA or The Humane Society be allowed to tug at my heartstrings via dogs in cages? Why should the Reverend Franklin Graham be allowed to preach the word of Jesus to me when I've lost a loved one? Why should a PAC be allowed to run ads associating my pick for the US Senate with forest fires, an abhorrent murder or the decisions of another unpopular politician? Should non-profits and tax-exempts be allowed more/better free speech rights than commercial entities when they engage in the same manipulation techniques as those entities?

[0] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

reasonable was probabaly a bad word choice on my part then, sure we can have unreasonable view points in a a discussion, but even if your not talking from an extreme point of view it gets shut down, people believe free speech is all or nothing, where "all" is ambiguous. There is plenty of middle ground of expression.

I don't know why you think im talking about the first 5 words. Look at the relevant part

> Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...

That is all it says, its open to interpretation. Free speech for who, and how is speech defined. What did the they have in mind when they wrote it, it likely wasn't 21st century communication. It is ambiguous. Did they even have businesses in mind? We already not all forms of expression are covered.

Yes all those points you bring up suck about advertising. Why should it be allowed? Why is the news able to be misleading. Why are are we being emotionally manipulated by corporations to buy? Because we can't have a discussion about free speech in America and it nuances. People are so die hard about their right (that doesn't even exist the way they think it does) and fall for slippery slope fallacies. We absolutely should real in advertising, both corporate and political, we should real in manipulative news reporting. None of these freedoms are helping the world, and if anything chipping away at others.

100% Free speech is a detriment to society, it is too idealistic. We can start with these ideals, but the need to figure out how they apply in a world with moral-less actors. We should figure out what we want in regards to forms of expression and content, be clear about it and protect society from entities that want to abuse their rights to take advantage of others.

As this thread has died, I'll leave off with a couple of parting comments--as I previously mentioned, the idea of 'reasonable' will change depending on who you ask. When you say 'We should figure out...,' rather than leave reasonableness to an individual 'I,' now it's given to a multitudinous 'we.' That is, the idea is given a democratic flavor, wherein if a majority (even by just one person) thinks this or that speech act is unreasonable, it can enforce its prohibition.

Given your reasonable fear of manipulation/propaganda by those in power, can you see where this might go wrong?

Thus, as Americans, we've done more or less what you've asked--we laid out the ideal, 'Congress shall make no law...,' then we set our local, state and federal bodies of government on the problem of how to work within this ideal. Which, if the solutions are reasonable, will remain law. Which, if an individual (e.g. a flag burner) or a multitude (e.g. a religious sect) thinks are unreasonable, will be challenged through later legislation or through the courts. Potentially landing at the doorstop of a nine-member group called SCOTUS who, using their collective wisdom, will tell us whether we've (or our bodies of government have) gone too far. (And if we as a nation disagree with their decisions, we as a nation have remedies for that as well.) All in a world of moral-less actors.

Is this not reasonable?

Agreed. If we ban tobacco ads we should ban alcohol too

Could be made socially unacceptable like smoking.

Or maybe just let be? What's up with this militant righteous, virtuous drive to force ideals upon others. Humans have been getting drunk on fermented crops since the dawn of time. But now, thanks to social media, people can comfortably invent some imaginary moral high ground from their homes, proclaiming the lifestyle of millions of fellow people unacceptable.

Maybe expand the mind a bit, visit a strict Arab country or something. They don't drink much there. Has nothing to do with health though. It might help get a picture what kind of society they are advocating for.

I don't think the point here is some righteous/virtuous one. The argument is that alcohol causes billions of dollars in increased health care costs and decreased productivity, and is a leading cause of death and other health issues.

I'm all for dropping restrictions on things that people can do that don't harm anyone else, but frankly I don't care to spend more money on health insurance because a bunch of people want to drink too much.

smoking really only became fashionable post-ww1. Alcohol consumption may have motivated early agriculture.

It's unlikely that something as ingrained as alcohol will be made unfashionable except on multi-generational time scales.

That being said, the current trend of alcohol in every aspect of life might become pase, as more individuals seek to avoid drunkeness/temptation outside of a bar.

Yes, of course. Because one person doesn't like it, everything must come crashing down. Overreact much?

The article isn't pushing prohibition. It's arguing for disincentives (higher taxes, minimum unit pricing, restrictions on when and where alcohol can be purchased), which has shown to reduce drinking vs. a lack of those restrictions.

Another option it pushes for is for people to abstain voluntarily, if they are of the type of person who doesn't get much out of alcohol, but mainly drinks it out of social obligation.

Your overreaction is unnecessary here.