Is there really "no safe level" of alcohol use before the arbitrary age of....40? And do the risks always outweigh the benefits from the outset? A new study, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, seems to claim that, just four years after the same "experts" claimed that there is no safe level for anyone of any age. But again, as we already noted back then, the specious claim of "no safe level" is a classic red flag for manufactured junk science with a hidden or not-so-hidden agenda, dressed up in the guise of the precautionary principle.
First, the ontological criticism: It is well-known that excessive alcohol consumption is harmful in so many ways, for all ages. But if even (gasp!) radiation supposedly has a safe level for practical purposes, why on Earth can't that be true for alcohol as well? Our own bodies actually produce small amounts of the stuff endogenously, after all. (Ok, so they concede maybe a shot glass of beer (lol) per day might be safe.)
Second, there is of course reporting bias: heavy drinkers tend to play down how much they drink in surveys, so the safe drinking thresholds may very well be higher than survey results suggest. Who knows? Also, they notably did not distinguish between different patterns of drinking either. There is a world of difference between having two drinks every day, and having all 14 drinks (!) in one night per week, despite them both being the same average amount of alcohol per week. (Not that Twenty-One Debunked actually encourages anyone to do either, by the way.)
Third, conveniently and arbitrarily walking back the original conclusions for the dominant age group in society, but not for younger folks, really smacks of special pleading and card-stacking fallacies.
Fourth, even if it were true, it does not follow that prohibition, age based or otherwise, is the solution. I mean, since when did "give me liberty of give me death" become "give me absolute safety or else"? Even from a strictly utilitarian perspective, people who sometimes choose pleasure over longevity to one degree or another are not necessarily irrational or even immoral. Like it or not, the alcohol genie is out of the bottle, and banning it or unduly restricting it will only make it that much more dangerous by driving it underground, as we learned the hard way.
If the powers that be are so concerned about the "externalities" that even light to moderate drinkers supposedly impose on society, simply tax alcohol more then. Problem solved. Otherwise, they really need to stay in their lane and leave people alone.
And finally, consider the source. The Gates Foundation may want to look in the mirror before pointing the finger at others, and particularly look into the contents of the vials of their favorite experimental product du jour, if you catch my drift.
Oh, and notably, they did seem to distinguish over 21 versus under 21 either, so anyone who has the gall to try to use this specious study to somehow justify the 21 drinking age is really grasping at straws.
