The headline point has to be "alcohol is so the worst".
And of course, beer bloggers, chains firmly yanked, cages rattled, leap up yelping "No! that's not science!" and "Him! he's a discredited neo-prohibitionist". *
So, what do you think we should do?
Should the alcohol industry speak with a unified voice?
Should we (brewers of lovely "craft" products) join up with the industrial producers of fermented corn syrup? Should the beer bloggers carry on saying (in effect) "since beer is good, dangerous drinking must be allowed", and "it's not the state's job to tell me what to drink, although I suppose it should be allowed to tell me what to smoke, snort or jack-up".
Do we really mean that limiting access to my psycho-active substance of choice is bad, whereas those other drugs (other's choices) need controlling. Is this something to do with the "Narcissism of small differences"?
* Answers: (a) no, it's about a way of using "knowledge" to make decisions.
(b) he's not really, is he?
4 comments:
It's all a mute point really. Once the Prof has developed his synthahol, the days of brewers big and small are numbered. Why would I want to awake with a hangover? Why not take the antidote and drive home?
synthahol? There's me thinking it was called soma
How can sensible drinking be allowed without also allowing dangerous drinking? I don't see any solution to that that isn't worse than the problem.
Barm, I guess it would be something like the way driving is allowed, but ploughing your car into a group of pedestrians is frowned on. Rules, laws, social control. That kind of stuff.
Post a Comment