Yeah, currently there are three people using the same data to "disprove" the parent, which is baffling to me. As I said in another reply, 45% of people had no alcohol in the past month, so "most Americans drink a little or not at all" seems plausible, or at least not disproved by this data. I understand disagreeing with that sentiment (there are plenty of rational arguments that most people drink more than "a little"), but why harm the image of one's motivation by purposefully omitting critical details from the post one is responding to?