Could you share any evidence-based arguments against the evidence-based statements and recommendations summarized in the article? What fatal flaws undermine the research in the linked CDC page[1] establishing a causal link between alcohol consumption and DNA damage and increased risk of cancers of the mouth and throat, larynx, esophagus, liver, colon and rectum, and breast in women?

[1] https://blogs.cdc.gov/cancer/2018/04/02/3-weird-things-about...

All sorts of things elevate all kind of risks of cancer, but this is one of the few we moralize this way.

because those other things, on the whole, do not destroy people and their families in as acute a manner as alcohol and alcoholism do.

Then make that argument, and leave the cancer argument, which is easily knocked down, aside.

What are you asserting?

That the "cancer" argument about alcohol is special pleading.

What would motivate false claims that alcohol correlates with cancer incidence?

I didn't say the science is wrong, I said the argument is special pleading.

What is special pleading? I’m a native speaker and think you are too but have no idea what you’re saying.

You can just Google the term.

On the other hand, what exactly is freedom?

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

No moralizing required. The pandemic measures in some states made liquor and drink delivery easier or legal and frankly glorified alcohol consumption. My friends in New York who own a liquor store 5x their sales and moved into an old big box storefront.

Returning to 2019 regulatory framework is not prohibition nor blue laws. It would likely reduce alot of human suffering without impacting moderate drinkers.

What in the regulatory framework substantively changed?

The only thing I can recall was to-go liquor sales with takeout - which I strongly suspect is not a big mover of change here.

In New York, bars are able to sell booze for off premises consumption. Delivery of packaged liquor also became more available.

It facilitates alot of work day drinking and bad outcomes for people with problems.

I think its worth studying - but I suspect that's nipping around the edges again - if you're dying of alcohol related illnesses, its from buying sizable quantities of booze at the place that sells booze - not a beer with lunch.

? Really? Neuroticism about health is one of the most common vectors for modern secular americans to moralize at all. Just look how worked up people get about obesity and smoking, both of which are very high risk factors for (among many other health risks) cancer. Alcohol is actually uniquely celebrated by people who are otherwise very concerned about health from my perspective.

talking past each other...

I don't think anyone here seriously doubts whether alcohol consumption carries health risks or whether increasing excise tax decreases consumption (although they might quibble on the degree for each). the question is more around how much the government should intervene to limit poor personal choices. there aren't enough peer reviewed studies in the world to answer that.

Or whether it's right to see it as just a "personal choice". How we should view alcohol (and alcohol profits) is a choice we take together as a society, whether through institutions or not.

This isn't the place for an academic forum. Your audience isn't here.

Also, he's not your monkey.

OP was the one to mention scientific research, not me. They effectively wrote "science? Policy? Ha! Prohibition was bad." Am I wrong to want to continue the discussion?

Prohibition cut alcoholism rates nearly in half in the states and also greatly reduced domestic violence rates, especially among poorer people. I'm not advocating for a return to this particular approach to societal management but the idea that it was some kind of obvious catastrophe is nothing short of ridiculous.

It also literally created the mafia. Single-factor analysis is really not smart.

No, that's just not true. And besides, that seems like a small concern compared to the enormously destructive effects alcohol has far from any organized crime. A wildly entertaining effect to be sure, but not one that touches the lives of every day people like alcohol does.

Here's an article about how it did:

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/how-prohibit...

And another from the literal mafia museum:

https://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/the-rise-of...

Don't move the goalposts.

> the idea that it was some kind of obvious catastrophe is nothing short of ridiculous

It was literally an unmitigated catastrophe, which is why it was the only constitutional amendment to be overturned.

It also led to government agents spiking ethanol with methanol, leading to blindness. Pure evil.

I highly recommend talking to actual historians or if you insist on only consuming pop culture the Ken burns documentary

I'm not going on an academic deep dive to prove that the mob in America was catapulted to power by prohibition. It's self-evident, and continues to be so as you go deeper.

This is simply untrue. The mafia started outside the US long before prohibition came along. It may have given the mafia an opportunity to accelerate and expand but it certainly did not “literally create” the mafia.