A recent study in The Lancet evaluating the risks of alcohol use has led to a number of media headlines stating that “drinking any amount of alcohol isn't good for people under 40.” The authors have called for “alcohol consumption guidelines to be revised to emphasize consumption levels by age.”
This may come as a surprise to those young (legally allowed to drink) and old who have derived some pleasure from an occasional alcoholic drink. Worse, despite the numerous headlines, the Lancet researchers came to their conclusion because they only studied health risks in a vacuum and placed no value on any other consideration.
It is obviously up to lawmakers to decide if “research” like this should weigh into policies, but, as with this Lancet study (and many others), public health academics routinely append policy recommendations to their conclusions nowadays despite their research not remotely looking at the whole picture. Undeterred by this basic limitation, the press release accompanying the study even goes so far as to claim that “alcohol consumption carries … no benefits for young people.” To be clear, young folks under the legal age of drinking should never drink alcohol. That does not mean that a person of legal age shouldn’t be allowed to drink alcohol.
There are obviously personal and social benefits to any behavior which should always be factored in. But, it is often argued by the public health industry that it is difficult to adequately put a value on them, so they do not attempt to.
It may be tricky to accurately measure the worth of a few beers with your friends on a weekend, or the lavish food and drink catering at a family celebration, but the value to a population can be quantified. The value of alcohol to the person who is buying it is higher than the amount they spend on it or else the purchase would not take place. Such decisions will have considered the trade-offs they may encounter in terms of alcohol-related disease in the future, but the consumer benefit of alcohol simply cannot be any lower than the amount that people are willing to spend on buying it. In the United States, that value of booze-related pleasure in 2022 is estimated to be$261.10 billion.
Recommended
There are costs and benefits to everything and before launching into restrictions and prohibitions policymakers need to include the benefits as well as the costs. Unfortunately, it seems that modern day public health activists are mostly not interested in such balance.
For example, the World Health Organization’s global alcohol plan makes no attempt to consider any benefits of alcohol at all before demanding “at least a 20% relative reduction (in comparison with 2010) in alcohol per capita (among those aged 15 years and older) consumption by 2030.” In calling for alcohol consumption to be curtailed, there is no mention of the commensurate loss of enjoyment that goes with it.
Increasingly, and not just in the alcohol policy realm, single interest health lobbyists are encroaching on personal and societal enjoyment of consumer products solely on the basis that all risk, however benign, must be avoided at all costs.
When did local, national, and supranational authorities decide that the sole focus of humankind is to live as long as possible, irrespective of the quality and enjoyment an individual derives from their life choices?
More than 150 years ago, John Stuart Mill observed in his classic work, On Liberty, that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” This appears to have been forgotten by the public health establishment who use often flimsy pretexts to incessantly demand overly restrictive regulations and taxes on consumer products to save us from ourselves.
From sugary drinks taxes, and bans on processed foods to ever lower arbitrary speed limits, it seems that in every area of consumer choice, a bizarre situation occurs where “if it saves just one life” is the mantra of public health rather than considering that making millions of lives drab, frustrating and miserable is unhealthy for society as a whole.
Martin Cullip is the International Fellow at The Taxpayers Protection Alliance's Consumer Center and is based in South London, UK.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member