My last thought is this: for some alcohol is a boogie man and for others it is a panacea. In my personal life I uses it as a form of relaxation, a treat at the end of a long day but something to be respected as potentially dangerous and personality altering if consumed in too high a volume. In terms of culture and civilization...it is hard to separate alcohol from either of those things, it is part of the human experience for better or worse and trying to eradicate it with supposed "Health" and "Wellness" is just as disingenuous as saying it is for "God" and "Humanity". Also, worth noting they also used "health" arguments for prohibition historically so that isn't really new either...basically all they dropped is the religious angle (wonder why?). Sorry for the three posts but I had a lot of thoughts I wanted to clarify and I do not believe we disagree as much as it may appear.

I do appreciate you taking my concern seriously and addressing it straight on, apologies for not having seen the comments on your last article before this but my response here will cover for both I think. First, I am neither anti-science nor pro-Trump and I agree that there is a link to cancer with alcohol and am not opposed to updating the existing warning label to reflect that out of hand so long as that is where it ends. What I am trying to say is that the hysteria and hyperbole coming from some quarters of the anti-alcohol groups is not warranted and to me it looks like a trojan horse for more regulation on something they hate based in ideology. I am fine with people drinking less or choosing NA or other alternatives as well. What bothers me is groups not admitting their issue is really the social cost of alcohol more than anything else. I want an honest debate not one that uses the scariest medical condition as a form of shock to tilt the debate their way.

Look my point is humans have been drinking for at least 8,000 years, whatever cost this has placed on our social or medical system is essentially priced in at this point. We have an aging population and yet death from chronic diseases is falling and life expectancy continues to rise all of this while people continue to imbibe. To me that is the real point, whatever the drawbacks of alcohol are, either social or medical, they are clearly negated. I do also still stand by the point that cancer is a disease of aging as much as dementia and the reason "alcohol related" cancer rates have climbed at all is because of our aging population, worth noting all of those cancers also have a bunch of other factors related to them as well. The cost of our medical system is really a different argument in my opinion and should be separated from the debates about what people consume that makes them fat or gives them heart disease, diabetes, or cancer.