On: The benefits of light to moderate drinking might have been exaggerated

[DanBC]

Why do we need fewer drinkers?

[dingaling → DanBC]

> Why do we need fewer drinkers?

“We know that alcohol-fuelled harm costs society about £21 billion a year and are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers. The rise in admissions is very concerning and we are taking action to tackle cheap and harmful alcohol.”

UK Department of Health, October 2014

Total NHS budget in 2014 was around £104 billion.

For comparison, UK defence budget was £33 billion.

[DanBC → dingaling]

So we need fewer drinkers at the high risk end (more than 50 units per week) and fewer drinkers at the increased risk end (less than 50 but more than about 21 units per week).

Neither of these are light to moderate, which is what the title is talking about. You said that we need fewer moderate deinkers. So, why do we need fewer moderate drinkers?

[shawabawa3 → DanBC]

I would guess because almost all heavy drinkers used to be moderate drinkers

edit: Not siding with him, just guessing his opinion

[pfortuny → shawabawa3]

Yep, but remember that all heavy drinkers used to be milk-only drinkers also.

[CalRobert → dingaling]

We know that cars kill over 30,000 people a year in the US, and 500,000 people on Earth, every single year. Therefore, we should stigmatize responsible, considerate drivers.

[hnnewguy → dingaling]

>We know that alcohol-fuelled harm costs society about £21 billion a year and are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers

So you tax it, like Canada does. It's partly why our beer/wine/liquor is relatively expensive.

[msz-g-w → DanBC]

Because drinking causes more problems than it solves.