Statists Begin Attack On Alcohol

Ha, ha You actually thought Prohibition was a thing of the past? Think again. It can and probably make some kind of come back.

Ha, HA! You actually thought government is run by highly efficient academics looking out for our interests?

The sooner you understand it's all about control while excusing this ambition under the guise of 'public health' the sooner you'll stop buying into progressive gibberish and become truly free thinking.

"For decades, beer, wine and liquor producers have been helped by a notion, enshrined in a number of governments’ dietary advice, that a little alcohol can provide modest coronary and other health benefits.

Rapidly, that advice is shifting as health-policy officials around the world scrutinize their previous advice in the light of research pointing to possible cancer risks.

The change is pressuring the alcohol industry in some of its biggest markets, including the U.S., the U.K. and Russia. Its response is as expensive and sprawling as the threat it perceives, including attacking anti-alcohol advocates’ research and working with governments to formulate policy. Alcohol companies are also funding their own research, including a plan by four companies to contribute tens of millions dollars toward the cost of a rigorous study."

Ah, there it is. What better disease to focus on than cancer? Never mind there's no proof (that never stopped them before for *insert righteous cause here*) Here's how it's gonna go down. The government is going to slowly start pulling the same crap they did with cigarettes thus creating a black market (and more crime). And all this will be fully supported by the brain-dead left who will lose their minds on industry research dismissing them because of profits and greed. But here's the kicker. They're all gonna find a way to get their booze and the poor will get screwed.

This is EXACTLY how interventionism and paternalism works.

"...Said Beer Institute President Jim McGreevy, addressing executives at an April conference about the alcohol critics: “We can’t let them gain traction.”


“There is no safe level of drinking,” U.K. Chief Medical Officer Sally Davies told a British television interviewer."

Fuck off, Sally, you slaver.

What is it with the British and their nannyism anyway?

"The threat to the alcohol industry isn’t as sharp as that faced by tobacco, which shrank due to rapidly changing public attitudes and government policy after it was determined that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease and other ailments."

It can be sharp hence the need to stop these morons in their tracks.

Smoking has never conclusively been found to cause lung cancer.

And now they're heading down the same deceptive path. It will evolve into 'alcohol causes cancer'.

"...Nonetheless, governments’ alcohol advice matters, even if few would-be bar patrons ever consult it. It filters into policy on liquor taxes, retail-sales hours and advertising restrictions. More subtly, it can inform public attitudes toward drinking. Brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev NV BUD, +0.85%  now includes in its corporate risk statement that the WHO seeks to reduce what it calls the harmful use of alcohol by 10%."

Of course they do. And not necessarily in a good way. Nothing worse than a panel of academic researchers fully backed by the potentially violent power of the state.

As for calculating risk, I do the same. I call it the 'Parasite Slider'. Except I go with 5%. You never know what kind of lie they throw at you. In Canada, the Liberals increased costs by at least 3% to my business. But they claim it's good for business looking at their big picture. Their picture is too skewed for my taste.

Last, this is exactly how you slow economic growth. Just put regulatory burdens.

Save this post.

"The near-consensus the industry enjoyed until recently—that light drinking can actually improve health in some ways—dates back to research four decades ago. A California cardiologist named Arthur Klatsky was trying to figure out what lifestyle factors might affect cardiovascular health. In what he says was a surprise, he discovered that light drinkers had fewer heart attacks than abstainers, as well as a lower statistical risk of dying from coronary heart disease.

It “changed the paradigm for studying the effects of alcohol,” according to the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation, whose precursor organization at times funded Dr. Klatsky.
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revised its alcohol guidance, eliminating the statements that alcohol had “no net health benefit” and that drinking “is not recommended.” 

/Places reader on T.C.'s lap. See how they do it?  Re-read carefully.

They're going back to their sham science.

Anyone who listens to 'government guidelines' is a fool for a client - or something like that.

“Science is on our side,” a beer executive told an industry conference the next year. Patti McKeithan of Miller advised convention-goers to start every meeting with legislators by saying that “alcohol can be part of a healthy diet,” according to documents in tobacco-litigation archives, where they can be found because Miller was owned by tobacco company Philip Morris MO, +0.20%   at the time.
Now, newer research is once again shifting the consensus.

Science has nothing to do with it. It in the 1920s. It didn't with cigarettes and doesn't with climate change.

It's all about managing vices and virtues. Power that is. They don't need science for that.

"One of the first signs came when WHO officials set out nearly a decade ago to develop a new alcohol policy. They planned to focus on “global burden of disease,” assessing a broad range of possible effects, including indirect ones such as rates of accidents and certain infections.

We're now ONE world now. It's all global, you see? It's complicated.

You can't kick these people in the ass hard enough.


  1. I think living in society is but one big "Stockholm Syndrome" phenomenon. You have to fall in and try to "understand" everything for the simple reason of the fact you really have no choice anyway since this is your home, where you were born-and-raised. Or the "lesser of two evils" you immigrated to.

    I really can't understand the mindset behind patriotism, being that "your" country will just-as-quickly disown you should you dare to exhibit any propensity toward any kind of independent thought or behavior, as it would "defy" the social mandates of the "unconditional conformity" decrees, both written and unwritten.

  2. The primary trademark characteristic of a society:
    Inside a public establishment is a big pile of shit just lying there.
    But no-one does anything about it. They simply step around it while going about their way, ignoring it for the most part.
    But if one person should exclaim out loud "What the hell's up with this? What kind of pig-fucking bastard did this? Why isn't anyone cleaning this shit up?" those-in-charge will come down on THIS PERSON for being "disruptive", "antagonistic" and "menacing". And also chide him for "using profanity" in a public setting "in the presence of minors". Not to mention possible banishment from this establishment and even criminal charges being brought about as well.
    In other words, it's not the mess itself that's the "problem". It's the person who reacted to it.
    The efforts of those-in-charge are not directed to finding out the real cause of the mess itself, of who's responsible for making it in the first place. Their efforts are all directed at the one who "rocks the boat" by making a scene and kicking up a lot of dust over the situation by their response to the immediate environment.

    That's the primary problem with societies. They often do nothing about the causations. They're always going after the affected. That's because, when someone reacts to anything that agitates or antagonizes them in any way, their outward behavior tends to be a bit radical or erratic in nature, giving said individual the appearance of "being disruptive". And "keeping the peace" tends to always be about "social aesthetics"---mainly cosmetic in nature.
    So the primary concern of those-in-charge is that of maintaining a "cosmetically-appealing" public atmosphere, more than anything.
    But it's also why most of society's problems will never actually be solved. You can't yell out "Can't you tell the emperor has no clothes?" without being stifled for "displaying offensive behavior in a public setting".
    As long as messenger's are stifled everything will continue to stay the same, including coexisting with the detrimental elements without the possibility of solutions or resolutions.

    1. I pretty much agree with this assessment. Reminds me of those 'We don't tolerate abuse' messages in public offices. Makes me wonder why this has to be put up. The ploy is always to make the citizen out to be the 'whacko'. It can't be because public institutions are unresponsive and unaccountable; never mind the questionable professionalism I often see.

      When I read those messages I interpret it as 'We know things are shitty but it's equally shitty for everyone so don't dare express anger thanks to our shitty system'.

      Also. About your pile of shit analogy. Tragedy of the Commons is all I can say. There's no incentive for people to pick it up. When you live in a society that believes the government ought take care of things, it's not surprising they walk around it. But remove the idea of shared spaces and put it in the hands of private interest and VOILA. The shit gets picked up.

      Incentives matter. With all due respect to Matt Damon who seems clueless on the concept.


Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.