I think it's a reasonable guess that they went with the vague "involved" qualifier in order to make the number as big as possible, to bolster the core message that alcohol is dangerous and bad for people.
I don't say this to detract from their message, and it's not some major deception, but I think it's noteworthy that this kind of sales and marketing treatment is given to an idea that's sufficiently well-accepted and consistent with observed reality to where it shouldn't really need the help.
Personally, when I sense someone is trying to bolster their argument by cherry picking or other deceptive practice, I immediately question their motives and their message. Maybe the overall effect is that still more people get the message when it's "spiced up"? Regardless, it's unnerving to me that the tactics employed in marketing seem to be applied by default to so much public communication. I wonder how accurate my perception of this as a growing trend is, and how it might relate to the general erosion of trust networks in modern society.
I don't say this to detract from their message, and it's not some major deception, but I think it's noteworthy that this kind of sales and marketing treatment is given to an idea that's sufficiently well-accepted and consistent with observed reality to where it shouldn't really need the help.
Personally, when I sense someone is trying to bolster their argument by cherry picking or other deceptive practice, I immediately question their motives and their message. Maybe the overall effect is that still more people get the message when it's "spiced up"? Regardless, it's unnerving to me that the tactics employed in marketing seem to be applied by default to so much public communication. I wonder how accurate my perception of this as a growing trend is, and how it might relate to the general erosion of trust networks in modern society.