America's Alcohol Czar Wants Stricter Federal Guidelines for Drinking
George Koob says the U.S. could follow Canada's lead and recommend no more than two alcoholic drinks per week.

The federal government might soon take an interest in how many cold ones you've been cracking open.
George Koob, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, tells the Daily Mail that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) might soon revise its dietary guidelines to recommend that adults consume no more than two alcoholic drinks per week. Canada's health authorities recently shifted to that guideline, and Koob says that the U.S. could follow suit.
"I mean, they're not going to go up, I'm pretty sure," Koob said of the ongoing reevaluation of federal alcohol guidelines, a process that likely won't be completed until 2025, according to the Daily Mail. "So, if [alcohol consumption guidelines] go in any direction, it would be toward Canada."
Currently, the federal dietary guidelines advise no more than two drinks per day for adult men and one drink per day for adult women. Revising that down to two drinks per week would be a dramatic shift, to say the least.
Thankfully, most Americans don't give a shit what the federal guidelines for drinking say. Following federal dietary guidelines to the letter of the law would mean a joyless existence devoid of many fine drinks (particularly if you're a woman), anything less than well-done steak, or eggs benedict. Oh, and don't forget to microwave your prosciutto!
It's also true, of course, that the government is in no way forcing Americans to follow these rules. This doesn't even rise to the level of a backhanded ban like the ones that are aimed at driving gas stoves into extinction. Still, these guidelines come with an air of authority to them—or, at least, the sense that they were made by people who know what they're talking about.
But, often, they don't. Remember the food pyramid? My entire generation was raised on the notion that we were supposed to eat six to 11 servings of starch per day, thanks to poorly researched government-based dietary guidelines
If the U.S. follows Canada in issuing dramatically lower guidelines for alcohol consumption, the USDA will likely justify the decision by pointing to a headline-generating 2018 article published in the British medical journal The Lancet that argued the safe level of alcohol consumption was basically zero. Indeed, in his remarks to the Daily Mail, Koob echoed that study by claiming there are "no benefits" to drinking alcohol in terms of physical health. The World Health Organization has been pushing a similar message in recent years.
Of course, that ignores many of the possible benefits that human beings derive from drinking—like social lubrication, relaxation, and fun.
"[Alcohol] helps us to be more creative. It helps us to be more communal. It helps us to cooperate on a large scale," Edward Slingerland, author of Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization told ReasonTV last year. "It helps to make it easier for us to kind of rub shoulders with each other in these large-scale societies that we live in. So it solved a bunch of adaptive problems that we uniquely face as a species because of this weird lifestyle we have."
As with so many other public health policies—many of which were on obvious display during the COVID-19 pandemic—alcohol guidelines focused exclusively on physical well-being at the expense of everything else that makes a life worth living will naturally be overly cautious and unrealistic.
Setting strict rules about alcohol consumption also requires ignoring other evidence that, actually, drinking might be good for you, as long as it's done in moderation.
A study published in June by the medical journal BMC Medicine comparing drinkers and nondrinkers found that "infrequent, light, or moderate drinkers were at a lower risk of mortality from all causes, CVD, chronic lower respiratory tract diseases, Alzheimer's disease, and influenza and pneumonia" when compared to lifelong teetotalers. Of course, heavy drinkers had a higher risk of dying "from all causes, cancer, and accidents."
Having more information about the ways alcohol affects our health—positive and negative—is essential for adults who want to make informed decisions about what they ingest. But there's no need for formal guidelines promulgated by government agencies, and that's especially true when the people writing those rules are only looking at part of the picture.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
George Koob could go Koob himself.
With a dry, shucked, prickly, Kold Korn Koob.
🙂
Why does the US have an alcohol Czar, and how is that not the coolest fucking job ever?
I'm not drunk! I'm researching!
I'm not chugging beer! I'm sampling a flight of gluten free German lagers with a French wine pairing. Its called a smorgasvine and its elegantly cultural.
There was a Kennedy scion in need of a job.
More like an anti-alcohol czar, and very far from cool.
No, being the Head Czar to rule over all the other Czars would be the coolest job ever.
The Czar czar?
...Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain.....
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name
The head czar would need knee pads.
The US has an alcohol czar because the US has the ACA.
In a libertarian or free market society, it would be your insurance companies that would make these determinations. And they would adjust your rates accordingly.
But this doesn't occur to Boehm. He takes the ACA as a given and then complains when a federal agency makes some sensible public health recommendations.
NIAAA was founded in 1970.
And one bad law doesn't justify another.
Poor Emma's never going to get that drink!
Lol.
+1
Glad to see somebody else remembered that. Stupid kid.
🙂
😉
he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) might soon revise its dietary guidelines to recommend that adults consume no more than two alcoholic drinks per week.
I do that now. 2 really big drinks, that I space out throughout the week.
You can average the numbers out after I'm dead.
Two fingers (in the shape of 'V For Victory') tall.
🙂
😉
Same. I try to make my 750ml tequila beverage and my 750ml whiskey beverage both last a full week.
You're practically a teatotaller. My 18% Oranjeboom beers count as soft drinks.
My brother handles all the liquor orders for the store he works at as well as the other partner stores. I'm sure the amount of booze he's going to be ordering will decrease.
There are a lot of very heavy drinkers up here in Northern Michigan.
Alt-Text on picture: "A woman carrying two large mugs of beer"
... and two large jugs of something else.
Thanks for “pointing” that out.
Dang, those are some BIG jugs...of beer.
Now I'm hungry for German food. Damnit.
And now I wanna sing "Danke Shöen" on a float full of these FrauleinsI
🙂
😉
A monumental pair.
Can I borrow your dirndl? My car just hit a water buffalo.
That photo is fake isn't it
Well, duh. The 'AI' image generators like their women on the top heavy side. I assume a lot of porn sites in the material they scraped for input.
It was the face that was faker than the tits
They're practically pitchers!
Yeah, like that's going to be upheld with Kavanaugh on the USSC. Good luck.
I like beer.
I typically only have about 2 drinks per week, though that's mostly because kids and activities make alcohol out of place most days. I don't care that the government has guidance on how much people should drink. My problem would be if there was any sort of carrot or stick legislating or regulating it. I also take issue with the existence of an alcohol czar. On a tangent, drinking age should be 18 at a minimum (or whatever the age of majority is set to.)
I don't care about any of the arguments here. I will drink as much as I want because I enjoy the taste and effect. Also, you don't have to bullshit your way into pretending that alcohol is good for your health. It isn't healthy and it is our right to put it into our body at the expense of our health
That is a reasonable argument, except that under current US law, others are forced to pay for the costs associated with your choices.
In a free society, health insurance would be private and free market, and it would take your alcohol consumption into account when setting rates. Under current US law, almost no lifestyle choices can be taken into account for rate setting.
health insurance would be private and free market,
Health insurance doesn't work in a free market. Or at least not a regulation-free market. For reasons that are very well understood by everyone except the moron brigade. That failure is why we have both Medicare (high users of medical) and Medicaid (both high users and poor). And why the employer-subsidized market (which only covers the healthiest, lowest use, and high-enough-income-even-if-subsidized) leaves Americans the sickest people in the world once Americans drop from that market into Medicare.
America hasn't had free market healthcare in a century. The majority of its healthcare is a government-run system, and the rest is so heavily regulated and subsidized that it might as well be. That is why Americans are suffering from so many chronic illnesses and why Americans are getting sicker and sicker. You have to be a "moron" not to understand that.
But this is also irrelevant from a libertarian point of view: healthy people should simply not be forced by law to subsidize sick people, period.
You do know that everything you said is all pops and buzzes to Jfree, right?
America hasn’t had free market healthcare in a century.
So if that's your golden age, then please explain the patent medicine (the word was by definition a fraud then since patents didn't even apply to chemical formulae until the 1930's) market failure that led to the FDA labeling requirement in 1906.
Or the 1910 Flexner Report (funded by Rockefeller and Carnegie who at the time were in their 70's) which privately/successfully tried to eliminate widespread quackery among doctors. But which because it was serving the needs of two old billionaires, created an America with very very few GP's and way too many specialists. None of which has changed with Medicare/Medicaid. Those two simply fund the then-existing system and perpetuate it.
Or the 1918 Spanish flu impact on private hospitals/admissions/deaths/etc - which led directly to a huge increase in muni hospitals because private charity hospitals did a crappy job when it came to admitting people with a contagious disease.
The 1944 law that created employer paid financing - but that was a reform of a 1939 law that expanded charitable tax deductions from merely building hospitals to providing hospital funds for medical care. Which changes the story from unions/commie pols to billionaires and their tax deductions for charity.
That's pharma, doctors, hospitals, and insurance. Fairly big parts of the dysfunctional medical pie. You conservatives don't give a shit about history. You idolize it and mythologize it. But you don't give a shit. If someone tells you that George Washington didn't chop down the cherry tree, then you call them a commie.
I didn't say anything about a "golden age", I simply pointed out that you cannot attribute the problems of the US healthcare system to free markets.
I'm an immigrant. I spent a couple of decades of my life in a completely private health insurance system, a system that worked a lot better than the crap that American progressives have created in the US.
But you don't give a shit about facts.
I simply pointed out that you cannot attribute the problems of the US healthcare system to free markets
The failure of those free markets is what led to where we are. There could be a lot better than what we have now - hell every place on Earth has done that better. But wishful delusion abut what happened then is not a better option because those failures are what got us to change to here.
I spent a couple of decades of my life in a completely private health insurance system,
No you didn't. The closest example of that might be Switzerland. But if that is the country then I can show you the tons of ways the govt intervenes in that insurance system. CH may well be the best possible way to do an insurance-based system - but it has all the same bad trends happening there as here. And the main reason it appears to (and does) work better is because of what happens in the TAX system not the health insurance system. CH tax system encourages people to rise out of poverty. We make that punitive. And a big effect is that the cost of medical coverage is more reasonable there than here for the poor because income mobility and private safety net is MUCH better there.
Nonsense. The employer-based healthcare system was created as a workaround to FDR's wage controls. Medicare/Medicaid was created for political cronyism under LBJ. And as you observe, both have led to massive cronyism, cronyism that didn't exist before.
That's the closest example your ignorant little mind knows.
The majority of its healthcare is a government-run system,
Government PAYS FOR IT. It doesn’t run a damn thing. It didn't even spend one nanosecond over the last 65 years expecting that boomers might get old one day and need geriatricians instead of GP's if they wanted to deal with medical costs. It doesn’t allow any public discussion AT ALL about anything. That’s the sign of cronyism and damn expensive cronyism at that. And you assholes don’t even recognize that if you want to move to ‘free market’, then you damn well better understand the existing cronyism.
But no – you people don’t give a shit about that either.
The most useless ideology I have ever imagined. Whatever shit you all are advocating is NOT classical liberalism. It has nothing to do with anything Hayekian either.
Just fucking stupid beyond belief. And venal.
healthy people should simply not be forced by law to subsidize sick people, period
Cool. Another ideological rant that evinces not the remotest understanding of how/when people demand medical care.
Government doesn't pay for anything, our taxes do.
Government runs Medicare/Medicaid, and it dictates to doctors and hospitals how they have to operate.
I agree: that is the kind of cronyism that government-run institutions create.
We do understand the cronyism. That is why we want to move to a free market.
I understand how private health insurance works because I was covered by it for many years. You obviously have no idea, because you actually believe the nonsense peddled under the Obama administration, that health insurance somehow involves healthy people subsidizing sick people. This is the kind of nonsense people like you use to justify the cronyism that goes on in the US healthcare system.
No, JFree, you are fucking ignorant.
We do understand the cronyism.
Libertarians are like the three monkeys when it comes to even mentioning cronyism in any specific terms.
I have written at length here about how the current US healthcare system results in massive handouts to government cronies in industry.
In any case, no matter the form of cronyism, the solution is the same: cronyism refers to government handouts to industry in a market and it is eliminated when government leaves that market and lets it operate freely.
Also, I don’t consider myself a Reason/LP-style “libertarian”. I’m more of a classical liberal.
I count one drink as one liter of hard liquor.
Raise your hand if you knew we had an Alcohol Czar.
we probably have a lieutenant alcohol czar and an assistant alcohol czar as well
Am I the only one who finds naming countless positions in the federal government after 19th century Russian tyrants a little weird?
No you are not.
And my hand is not raised, DRP. This is the typical horseshit spawned by our current administration.
I think it's "typical horseshit" that our current administration supports or pays attention to this clown but in fairness, you can't say it was "spawned by" the current administration. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was established in 1972. That makes it another enduring 'gift' of the Nixon administration.
Help yourself to the scotch, Doctor Kissinger.
It was an Obama thing that got ratcheted into being status quo. But of course the democrats aren't commies....
A free country has no need for czars of any kind.
This ain't one any more.
I knew there had to be at least a Mini-Czar covering the 'A' in the BATFE.
Someone else we can do without.
Just more great spending of taxpayer money.
yeah...his name is George Thorogood !
One scotch, one bourbon and one beer.......
I never heard the position referred to that way, at least.
I raise my appenndix, which was renoved 5 decades ago.
Hope they don't imitate Canada on their liquor pours. 1.5 Oz is a single, and they charge you like it was a double.
While Justin Trudeau does a table dance in rainbow themed, assless chaps.
*barf*
Why?
Why would you do that to us?
But what color is his face?
Wearing black face!
Didn't you "reluctantly" vote this guy's boss, Boehm? Why did you expect any different?
What I'd like to know is, why are these guys called Czars? Why not Shogun, Jarl, Pharaoh, Sultan, Khan, Rajah...?
Fuhrer seems rather appropriate.
Or Obergruppenfuhrer.
Either of those would be too honest.
Or Muschigrabbenfuhrer
Czars had absolute power.
And drank a lot too.
Following anything Canada is doing under Trudeau is wrong on so many levels. That little tyrant needs to be removed.
++
Watch your tongue! We have world leaders popping planes out of the sky now. That is apparently the new cool. Trudeau is a vindictive fuck. Don't fly near Canada. Just sayin'...
I'll drink to that! And most anything else. An excuse to drink? I'll use them all!
Sarcasmic hardest hit.
You're so clever. Makes me hard.
I heartily invite Mr. Koob to go fuck himself.
-jcr
With the prosthesis from’Seven’………
I work 6 day weeks, I do maintenance, repairs and ordering. I do real work and 2 beers at the end of the day is normal. Off today, maybe some whiskey or wine on the patio tonight. Oh, and I had a Sam Adams with lunch at Out Back. All in all a good day off.
What I object to is wasting taxpayer money on bad advice from clueless bureaucrats. My father who retired from the Air Force with thirty years of service used to refer to it as “Seven-level Thinking” – first you find out what your boss wants in the report, then you find (or make up) evidence to support it, then you write the report to prove what your boss wants to prove. Same thing with US and UN “expert consensus reports.” The “scientists” whose research funding comes from government agencies know exactly what their funding agencies want them to say. They don’t want you to follow the science – they want you to have faith in the scientists.
Or, as a buddy of mine used to say when writing up labs in college "Things work out so much nicer if you draw the line first, then plot the points".
What I object to MORE is being forced to pay for poor lifestyle choices because health insurers cannot take them into account when setting rates.
What you care about costs maybe a few million dollars and no deaths.
What I care about causes upwards of a million deaths a year and hundreds of billions in wasted money.
I too object to that more! [random “I can haz cheezburger” image here]
+1 vatnik/wumao
The Canadian "2 drinks per week" thing only comes from some hardcore temperance activists who hide behind the legitimacy of the University of Victoria. But this is just their opinion which the unquestioning press ran with on a slow news day. It's not official policy or anything, not even an official recommendation outside some government whackjobs who live to micromanage the lives of Canadians.
Day ain’t over yet. And never underestimate the retarded totalitarianism of PM Zoolander.
Fuck you Boehm.
You ‘strategically’ voted for this.
"George Koob, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, tells the Daily Mail that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) might soon revise its dietary guidelines to recommend that adults consume no more than two alcoholic drinks per week."
George Koob can stuff his self-righteousness up his ass.
Using a 40 ouncer
+1 vodka tampon
I smell a Fauci.
So… raccoon dogs are behind this?
Mine goes for rabbits, I think a coon would be more than she could take on.
Generally, hounds are pack animals; she shouldn't try to go it alone.
Only 2 drinks a week?
Well, as long as she brings 'em....
My weeks identify as days.
I would agree with two two liter drinks of hard liquor.
The only good thing to come from the bullshit responses to the Communist Chinese Virus is that nobody gives a damn what any federal agency says about anything.
On a more sober note, *ahem!*, I quit drinking entirely when I got my Type 2 Diabetes and hypertension diagnoses 7 years ago. One, I was concerned that alcohol could make me hypoglycemic. Also, I didn't want liver problems on top of the pancreatic problems.
All that said, I don't consider my abstinence to be an identity or Crusade like Teatotalling or Straight Edge. I have nothing against responsible drinking in others and I still despise Prohibitionism, both Old School Coerced Alcohol Temperance and New School Drug Warriorism.
Also, I do hold out hope that all my conditions are temporary. I'm already off 3 prescriptions and hope to be off everything but Metformin soon.
And if my Transhuman brethren, sisteren, and Transeren (?) can make steel-plated livers and pancreases and brain cells that replenish instead of dying, maybe I and everyone else could give up abstinence of everything!
Remember, just 100 years ago, we only had hook arms, peg-legs, tin ears, and Iron Lungs for prostheses and only skin and teeth were transplantable. Success with more organs is bound to happen and when it does, if will be more than worth a drink!
I think all here will raise a glass filled with something potent to celebrate your progress towards rejoining the rest of us in our daily tot.
Hang in there!
Thanks and much obliged on that! And we humans are all holding out together for the advancement of medicine and health technology.
Lol. No, abstinence from alcohol is not your “identity”, encog. You have a different crusade that defines you, and we are all well familiar with it, M’lady.
That said, good luck with your health.
Well, if there were no Prohibitionism, Paternalism, and “Victimless Crime” laws–almost entirely started and supported by organized religion–there would be much less for me to raise Hell against, especially regarding organized religion.
It also doesn’t help things for organized religion that The “Bible Belt” from whence I hail is also The Heart Attack Belt, The Hypertension Belt, The Diabetes Belt, The Obesity Belt, The HIV/AIDS Belt, The Gout Belt, The Kidney Stone Belt, The Sleep Apnea Belt, The COPD Belt, etc., etc., etc.
Somebody sure doesn’t love us back for all the love The South gives Him. It’s almost as if putting faith in God leads to taking health for granted. Fancy that.
Anywho, I hope you have the best of health too. While Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair, you can always increase your odds for the better with rational thoughts and effort.
Before inviting an Alcohol Czar, to dinner use your microwave to parboil it in a Scorpion Bowl.
Which of George Koob's degrees qualifies him to make pronouncements on the physical and neurological effects of alcohol: The BS in Zoology or the PhD in Behavioral Physiology?
This falls under the "Rules Exist to Be Ignored" category.
They aren’t “setting strict rules”. They aren’t setting rules at all. They are publishing guidelines and recommendations.
Yeah, and those results do not say that moderate drinking improves your health. But, hey, you believe whatever unscientific fairy tales you like.
And, gosh, “more information” is what the federal government is trying to provide. And in this case, they actually got it right (they get it wrong in many other cases).
They would give a shit if their health insurance rates would go up if they drank more than two drinks a week. But under current US law, the cost of poor lifestyle choices is socialized.
That is what actual libertarians would be complaining about. You, of course, celebrate it.
In my 70 plus years I have found that when the government recommends something, it is wiser to do the opposite.
Well, that is why insurance companies should be allowed to operate in a free market. That way, your health advice wouldn't come from government bureaucrats but instead market price mechanisms.
One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer
I ain't seen my baby in nigh on a week.....
I wanna drunk so I can hardly speak
I was tired!
I been walking all day!
This is why we Libertarians object to agencies such as this:
"After receiving a budget allocation under the NIH Fiscal Operations Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 that implements the H.R. 2671 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, signed by the President on December 29th, 2022, the NIH and NIAAA established the financial management plans. The FY 2023 appropriation for NIAAA provides $595.3 million. This represents a $21.66 million or a 3.8% increase over the FY 2022 actual budget level. "
A half a *BILLION* dollars.
Why don't you object to something that actually matters: the elimination of pricing mechanisms in the health insurance market?
But, hey, ignoring the thing that kills a million people per year but obsessing about a government agency making recommendations: that is "libertarianism" today.
Because this article WASN'T ABOUT "pricing mechanisms in the health insurance market", or do you *always* write off-topic comments?
Until you learn how to stay on the topic at hand, hon, you win MUTE.
If you have government regulations that prevent pricing mechanisms to operate in the healthcare market, you need to have to have government health czars. That's why the two are connected. A libertarian would understand that.
Good idea: stay ignorant and stupid.
Canadians drink a lot. It can be a bit of a shock when you first encounter it, but they do hammer them back. It sort of belies the goody-two-shoes image they so carefully cultivate. The government’s suggestion that they only have two drinks a week might be deliberately extreme in the hopes that they can get the population down to two drinks an hour.
Oh Christ! This is so typical of the insufferable moral busybodies so enamored by the left.
" They will torture you without end for they do so with the approval of their conscience." C.S. Lewis
So what's next? Are they going to appoint a masturbation czar? How about a fucking czar? Maybe they should appoint an over-eating czar. How about an oral sex czar? I think it would nice to have a porn czar. Maybe Kamala Harris might be a good candidate.
Up next: Joe Bribeme appoints a bestiality czar followed with a BBQ czar.
FJB
You can shove the vaccine up your ass
This is so typical of insufferable libertarians: we have anti-free market regulations that easily kill a million people per year and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But all you do is whine and complain that someone from the government suggested that you limit your drinking.
So why don't you go back to your totalitarian country you came from.
Why are you so angry? I suggest you seek help from a certified health maintenance organization run by a large corporate entity, backed by a massive hedge fund.
I have problems with those like you, who would, if you had the power, inflict your busy body moralism on everybody else. You
are no different than the moral busy bodies in Denmark, U.K. and Canada.
I was simply echoing your language as a rhetorical device. I'm glad you recognize the anger. You should ask yourself: why are you so angry?
I'm not inflicting anything on anybody. I didn't call for alcohol or drugs to be banned. I am simply pointing out that you are not a libertarian, you are simply a useful idiot for communists.
Coming from a totalitarian country, I recognize that it is people like you who make countries totalitarian. And I would like the US not to become totalitarian.
Move to Russia and preach your bullshit.
"You can only have two glasses of wine per week."
And that, my son, was how the great Housewife Rebellion began. It was a bloody and violent time, full of bitter 30 somethings rioting in the streets. A shrieking cacophony of unrealized dreams, glass ceilings, personal potential traded for family values, and broken relationships all gone unmitigated by the sweet numbing embrace of a glass of evening cheer.
lol
Absolutely, let's follow Canada's lead. How could that go wrong?
"We" had those from June 1919 through March, then December 1933. All it took was the complete collapse of the stock markets and banking system and a 700% increase in communists for mystical conservatives to stop taxing billions to send goons with guns to kill people over beer! Only shitcanning Hoover conservative republicans did the job. They want to bring back prohibition just like they itched to again shoot doctors and kill women in forced reproduction. The same grapeshot that is the appropriate response to socialists also works on nationalsocialists. This was demonstrated from 1939 through 1945. Dems want to ban electricity and Grabbers of Pussy to ban everything else. Only an idiot would hand either a vote.
The temperance movement was a progressive movement, not a conservative movement.
+1 reality
I earn $5000 per hour while taking risks and travelling to remote parts of the world. I worked remotely last week while in Rome, Monte Carlo, and eventually Paris. I’m back in the USA this week. I only perform simple activities from this one excellent website. see it,
Click Here---->>> https://www.dailypay7.com/
"It's also true, of course, that the government is in no way forcing Americans to follow these rules."
Yet.
Indeed. Just like masks, social distancing, lock downs and forced clot shots.
Up next: The Biden administration has instructed the DOJ to arrest everyone who attends Trump rallies for insurrection.
Tony Fauci states " those who refuse to wear masks and ignore lock downs are insurrectionists."
"recommend no more than two alcoholic drinks per week."
Recommend anything that tickles your fancy. I agree with this recommendation. In fact, I recommend no alcohol at all.
Mandates are another matter all together. Drink all you want, but don't expect help from me if you end up in the gutter.
Sadly, we are all forced to subsidize the consequences of drinking, because health insurers are prohibited from using lifestyle choices as the basis for setting rates. And, more importantly, people who make poor choices don't get the information they need via price signals.
Of course a doctor would say this. They don’t make any money off alcohol. If it were an addictive, mind altering, insanely expensive prescription drug it would be a whole different story. You know it has to be at least somewhat politically inspired when rather than make similar statements about marijuana, the government just keeps on legalizing it. I don’t know what the heck the point would be in two drinks per week anyways. If you’re not drinking to catch a buzz, you might as well not drink at all. But apparently that’s how much he drinks every week, so I guess that’s what we all should drink now. Yep. His opinion isn’t justified by any scientific findings. It’s just that that’s how much he likes to drink every week. Well whoop-de-do. Someone needs to tell this yo-yo that as long as people are drinking responsibly no new recommendations regarding alcoholic consumption are needed. So he can take his opinion about how much he thinks people should drink and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Huzzah!
I don't drink, maybe 1 a month so I don't have anything in this fight but
"Of course, that ignores many of the possible benefits that human beings derive from drinking—like social lubrication, relaxation, and fun."
Is social lubrication really what we are going with or is it just a norm for people?
Plus they left off Florida man, sport fans trashing cities (Looking at you Philly), and drunkblogging debates
The Best opportunities To Earn $62,000/Month. We all spend a lot of time on social media every day – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and the list goes on. If you’re used to getting a lot of likes or comments, or if you’re great at motivating others through your posts, you might want to consider turning this into a profession. It appears unbelievable but you won't forgive yourself if you do not check it...
.
.
.
Here————————————➤ https://Www.Topearn7.Com