The advocacy tips at the end of the brief are shockingly anti-fun.

These ones?

> 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.

>hopefully we've learned prohibition doesn't work

As a world, we absolutely have not. And any insane policy will be backed up by very reasonable scientific evidence.

I am kinda curious what they mean by that? Would I no longer be able to get beer at the gas station or something?

Which ones? They say to regulate who can sell alcohol, raise prices/taxes, raise the drinking age, limit advertising, add prominent warnings...I guess those first few are arguably "anti-fun", but they don't seem especially so.

Speed limits are also anti-fun.

Being anti-fun isn't an argument against regulation

Speed limits are primarily environmental regulation and have little to nothing to do with safety. By extention, they happen to be anti-fun.

The Autobahn is still not a 24/7 disaster zone of dead bodies and scrapped cars last time I checked.

Sure, interstate speedlimits are somewhat about gas mileage. But I'm going to need some citation from you that a 25mph speedlimit in a residential area is about environmental impacts and not safety.

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.

https://ww2.motorists.org/issues/speed-limits/truth/#:~:text....

well, you can take it up with the National Motorists' Association, they have the stats.

I'm sorry, but that's an opinion piece written by a very biased source. This organization was founded to oppose the 55mph speedlimit back in the 80s and since then have moved on to things like opposing drunk driving laws. Sure they claim all kinds of stats in that blog you linked, but they provide no sources for those stats.

The problem is that a general statement like "no alcohol is good for the heart" is that it is probably factually wrong.And I base this on the fact that grapes for example is known to be a very good fruit for all-things blood and especially red cells.(Most notably iron here).This is not pseudo-science.

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.