IT’S THE SAME PHENOMENON THAT LEADS THE GOVERNMENT TO TARGET LEGITIMATE GUN OWNERS INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON CRIMINALS: Govt should be targeting problem drinkers, not moderate sippers.

The USDA bases its recommendations on the large volume of research showing moderate drinking can have health benefits. Studies published in the last year have linked low levels of alcohol consumption by some populations to lower heart disease risks, better control of diabetes, improved memory, and fewer instances of certain cancers.

The CDC considers drinking “excessive” if a woman consumes more than eight drinks per week or a man consumes more than 15. So while one drink per day is healthy, a woman who indulges in a second glass of wine some nights finds herself suddenly in the CDC’s “excessive” drinking category.

Government agencies contradicting one another isn’t a new phenomenon. And the CDC’s extremely conservative definition of binge drinking might not be so disconcerting if it weren’t being used by anti-alcohol activist groups to justify the elimination of alcohol advertising and raising alcohol taxes.. . .

Those who are addicted to alcohol — the ones who should be the focus of these large government agencies’ policies — are the least sensitive to price increases. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports that alcohol tax increases did not affect the 5 percent of consumers who are the heaviest drinkers. Instead, higher prices encourage abusive drinkers to switch to cheaper brands.

In other words, government agencies and anti-alcohol activists pursue policies that would disproportionately affect regular social drinkers having a couple of beers at a barbecue, a couple of glasses of wine at dinner, or indulging a bit on New Year’s Eve.

It’s always the normals who get the shaft.