I do not agree with your analogy or theirs. First most people have to drive at some point in their lives. Driving is not a choice we get to make so the associated risks are not something we can deal with. While it is debatable if you can avoid drinking socially many people do for a variety of reasons. The article is fairly clear. Drinking alcohol will increase cancer risks. And like someone eloquently said above you the real critique is not it is stupid to point out drinking is an avoidable carcinogen but it is our free choice as people to make that trade off knowing you might enjoy it. I think the point about radiation is a better comparison but again like driving it is unavoidable to a degree. We will all go outside more in our lives then is recommended. Once again drinking is not unavoidable. I don't think the article makes a worthless argument and I believe your analogies are false comparisons but I still take your point. I agree drinking is not something people want to avoid so it is certainly up to each person to choose their own acceptable risk but honestly that is more a personal choice that science can advise then a magic number we can all follow.

Edit, I can't read