A Richmond-based consumer advocacy group is applauding Virginia for a new approach to beer regulation and delivery.

The recent budget passed by Virginia’s General Assembly allocates funding for the creation of a Virginia Beer Distribution Company, or VBDC. The VBDC will be a branch of the state’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and will set Virginia breweries free to self-distribute limited quantities of their products directly to retailers and restaurants.

“This is a huge win for consumers and beer lovers in Virginia,” said Yael Ossowski, the deputy director for the Consumer Choice Center. “The “three-tier system” is an archaic system for getting beer in front of consumers, a remnant of Prohibition that still holds back many of Virginia’s neighbors from having the best market for beer possible.”

Read the full text here

Last month, on World No Tobacco Day, federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Carolyn Bennett announced on Twitter that Canada would become the first country in the world to mandate that each individual cigarette sold carry a warning label, mirroring what consumers already see on the front of the pack. This would seem to be the end of the road in terms of warning labels for tobacco: there really isn’t much left to put a label on — unless someone can figure out a way to make exhaled cigarette smoke spell out “C-A-N-C-E-R.”

Unfortunately for consumers, this push doesn’t end with tobacco. There is a very active lobby for tobacco-style health warnings on alcohol, too. What started in Ireland is slowly spreading in Canada, with regional health authorities and groups like the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) advocating mandatory health warnings.

The issue here isn’t whether or not consumers should be given the facts about when drinking can be harmful to your health. The issue is whether they are presented in a truthful manner that realistically explains how drinking can cause negative health outcomes.

Those lobbying for enhanced warnings invariably quote the relative rather than absolute risk of drinking. For example: “Fourteen drinks a week for women increases the risk of breast cancer by 27 per cent.” Taken at face value that is a jarring figure, one that will likely spook some drinkers. To many people, it will sound as if drinking two drinks a day produces a 27 per cent chance of developing breast cancer.

But looking at that increase in absolute rather than relative terms, starting with the baseline risk for each illness, communicates a very different and much less shocking message. Using the CCSA’s own data, breast cancer is responsible for 17.3 premature deaths for every 100,000 Canadian women, which is a baseline of 1.7 one-hundredths of a per cent. A 27 per cent increase in that risk takes it to 22 premature deaths for every 100,000 women, or 2.2 one-hundredths of a per cent, which is still very small.

That extra risk — which is from drinking 14 drinks a week, remember — is similar to the breast cancer risk associated with taking birth control, as pointed out by Chris Snowdon from the Institute for Economic Affairs. Understandably, the researchers who studied that slight change in risk arising from use of the pill concluded that “Such risks need to be balanced against the benefits of using contraceptives during the childbearing years.” For hundreds of millions of women, avoiding an unwanted pregnancy evidently is more than worth the small change in breast cancer risk.

For men, the same relative risk versus absolute risk difference holds true. Take colorectal cancer, for example. It accounts for 13.9 premature deaths for every 100,000 men. According to the CCSA, men drinking 14 drinks per week increase their risk of colorectal cancer by 20 per cent. But again, when looking at absolute risk, 14 drinks per week shifts the baseline risk from 13.9 deaths per 100,000 to 16.7 — an increase of 2.8 deaths per 100,0000. In terms of percentages, the increase is 2.8 one-hundredths of a per cent.

Ironically, the CCSA’s report contains a piece of information that fundamentally undermines the “no safe use” narrative that it and other temperance groups are pushing. For men, consuming up to seven drinks per week actually reduces the risk of premature death from intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke and ischemic heart disease. This is important because ischemic heart disease is responsible for 47.5 premature deaths per 100,000 men. Seven drinks per week lowers the risk of premature death from ischemic heart disease by five per cent, moving that baseline figure down to 45.12, a decrease of 2.38 deaths per 100,000.

Heart disease is the largest premature killer of men among all 19 health issues evaluated in the CCSA report. It accounts for more premature deaths in Canada than liver cirrhosis, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, and oral cancer combined. Should the health benefits from reducing its deadliness not also be included on a health information label?

There are two different ways to inform consumers about the risks associated with drinking. One is with the largest, scariest number the data will sustain that while technically true doesn’t do much to educate consumers or encourage informed choices. The other is giving consumers the full depth of absolute risk information available. Better yet, we can communicate this information to consumers without following the tobacco playbook, which falsely equates smoking and drinking. Europe has already started this process, where beverage alcohol can have a QR code on the bottle that links to information about nutrition and alcohol risks and abuse. Given that the program is still new, we don’t have data on how frequently it is used, but it is a good step forwards for consumers wanting more information.

More information is generally a good thing for consumers, but only when that information isn’t misleading — which is what cancer warnings on bottles would be.

Originally published here

It is increasingly clear that the temperance lobby is increasing its influence both globally and domestically

Since last August, when the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Abuse (CSSA) published its updated alcohol guidelines, telling Canadians that having more than two drinks per week is a problem, alcohol policy has been placed back under the microscope. It’s certainly important to discuss what Canada’s alcohol guidelines should be, and what is or is not considered low-risk drinking, but it would be wise to first put anti-alcohol lobby groups under the microscope before proceeding with any type of policy change.

It is increasingly clear that the temperance lobby, those who think drinking any amount of alcohol is unsafe, is increasing its influence both globally and domestically.

Internationally, the World Health Organization has moved from declaring the COVID-19 pandemic over to narrowing its sights on alcohol. The latest example of the WHO’s mission creep is its alcohol “guide for journalists,” which Christopher Snowden of the Institute for Economic Affairs has describedas “a catalogue of anti-drinking tropes, half-truths, and brazen lies.”

The guide starts off by stating that “no amount of alcohol is safe to drink.” But this “no safe amount” claim has been repeatedly debunked by peer-reviewed research that finds a “J-Curve” relationship between moderate drinking and all-cause mortality. Those who consume moderately, usually one to two drinks per day depending on the study, actually have a lower mortality rate than those who abstain entirely, with the risk then increasing after that one-to-two drink threshold. The J-curve has been found in peer-reviewed studies going back as far as 1986, and has been confirmed since in at least eight different studies. The J-curve is not reason to drink if you don’t, but it does undermine the premise of the WHO’s policy on alcohol consumption.

The WHO’s departure from evidence-based policy wouldn’t matter much to Canadians if those half-truths weren’t making their way into our politics, but they are. The CCSA’s new guidelines, built on many of the same false premises as the WHO’s, are gradually becoming what is considered the gold standard for alcohol policy.

Take, for example, B.C. Cancer’s new campaign in partnership with the province’s ministry of health. Focused on how drinking causes cancer, it cites the CCSA’s report, stating that it “provides evidence-based advice on alcohol.” But it doesn’t, so much so that the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) called it “a pseudo-scientific amalgamation of selected studies of low scientific validity that fit their preconceived notions.”

And what are those preconceived notions? In sum: temperance, the idea that no one should ever drink, under any circumstances. In fact, the WHO officially partners with temperance lobby groups like Movendi, an international temperance group that preaches a zero-consumption approach to alcohol. Movendi was founded in the 1800s under the name “The Order of Good Templars,” but rebranded itself in 2020, likely because the old name sounded too fusty to be taken seriously. But fusty is what temperance is.

Unfortunately for those who drink responsibly, these groups are being taken more seriously both here and abroad. There is no question that alcohol, when misused, is dangerous. Alcohol policy should therefore always be on the table (as it were). But serious discussion about it should be based on accurate information.

Originally published here

Earlier this week, local Joplin businessman Jon Thomas Buck proposed that the Joplin City Council ban the sale and distribution of mini bottles of liquor.

Buck wants Joplin to follow the “nip ban” as adopted in the Boston area.

When asked about the proposal, Buck said, “We all know Joplin has struggled with issues related to litter and cleanliness in recent years. … One of the biggest culprits is the abundance of these small, single-serving bottles of alcohol. They are often consumed on the go and then discarded without a second thought, contributing to unsightly and unhealthy conditions in our city.”

But Joplin residents must ask themselves: Is this a good justification for banning what is essentially a small version of an otherwise legal product? The answer is no.

A mini-bottle ban is just another encroachment from the nanny state, this time aimed at adult consumers who prefer smaller bottles because they are convenient, ultimately punishing drinkers who want small serving sizes.

For public health, there is little evidence to suggest that prohibition of smaller-sized products works, certainly not from a harm reduction angle. If Joplin does go down the road of banning mini bottles, consumers will ultimately make one of two choices in response. The first is that they will buy these convenient bottles beyond Joplin’s city limits. This is obviously irritating for consumers and problematic for Joplin retailers as this motion tilts the scales against them.

The alternative to buying mini bottles elsewhere is, ironically, buying larger bottles of alcohol. It is hard to see how fewer alcohol-related incidents will arise from a policy that mandates consumers buy bottles of liquor 3 ounces or larger. Imagine trying to curb obesity by mandating that no meal can be fewer than 800 calories?

By stomping on convenience for consumers, Buck’s motion will actually end up nudging drinkers to larger bottles, and the possibility of more consumption and more alcohol-related incidents. This is a lose-lose scenario.

The second major critique of mini bottles is disposal. Because they are small, too many drinkers dispose of them by simply throwing them out on the street. Of course, this is unacceptable. There are laws against littering, and they need to be enforced. But surely the City Council can identify a problem that needs to be solved without deferring to prohibitionist policies? Other options, such as the expansion of trash bins on city streets or more by-law litter enforcement, should be exhausted before going down the route of a complete ban of a product consumers clearly love.

Those who support the ban highlight that because these bottles are small, they are virtually impossible to recycle. Some municipal websites across the United States explain that they often fall through the cracks of the sorting machines, and thus should be put in your trash bag as opposed to being recycled.

This is only true using dated machinery and recycling technology. Through chemical depolymerization, the repurposing of the bonds in plastics, virtually all plastic can be recycled. Take for example Alterra Energy in Ohio. Their advanced recycling plant takes in 40-50 tons of hard to recycle plastics (like mini bottles) and transforms them back into the building blocks for new plastic production, extending the life cycle of these hard to recycle plastics indefinitely.

Is Buck trying to reinvent the wheel of prohibition?

The prohibition of alcohol 100 years ago failed. The mindset of banning products that were deemed a nuisance caused more harm than good, which is why alcohol was then legalized.

Prohibition always promises results, but ends up creating a long list of negative second-order effects, many of which are worse than the initial issue of substance use.

Buck’s campaign to treat us all like children when it comes to the purchase of nips is going to have all the glory, majesty and success of previous prohibitions. The nip ban motion should be thrown in the trash can, along with your empty nips.

Originally published here

Early in March, Boston city councilor Ricardo Arroyo filed a motion to ban the sale and distribution of  mini bottles of liquor, aka nips.  Arroyo wants Boston to follow the nip ban as adopted in Newton, Chelsea, Falmouth, Wareham and Mashpee.

When asked about the proposal, Arroyo said the small bottles often end up as litter and that by banning these bottles Boston will experience fewer alcohol-related incidents.

But Bostonians must ask themselves: is this a good justification for banning what is essentially a small version of an otherwise legal product? The answer is no. The nip ban is just another encroachment from the nanny state, this time aimed at adult consumers who prefer nips because they are convenient, ultimately punishing drinkers who want small serving sizes.

For public health, there is little evidence to suggest that prohibition of smaller-sized products works, certainly not from a harm reduction angle. If Boston does go down the road of banning nips, consumers will ultimately make one of two choices in response. The first is that they will buy these convenient bottles beyond Boston’s city limits. This is obviously irritating for consumers, and problematic for Boston retailers as this motion tilts the scales against them.

The alternative to buying nips elsewhere is, ironically, buying larger bottles of alcohol. It is hard to see how fewer alcohol-related incidents will arise from a policy that mandates consumers buy bottles of liquor 3 ounces or larger. Imagine trying to curb obesity by mandating that no meal can be less than 800 calories?

By stomping on convenience for consumers, Arroyo’s motion will actually end up nudging drinkers to larger bottles, and the possibility of more consumption and more alcohol-related incidents. This is a lose-lose scenario.

The second major critique of nips is disposal. Because they are small, too many drinkers dispose of them by simply throwing them out on the street. Of course, this is unacceptable. There are laws against littering, and they need to be enforced. But surely the city council can identify a problem that needs to be solved, without deferring to prohibitionist policies? Other options, such as the expansion of trash bins on city streets, or more by-law litter enforcement, should be exhausted before going down the route of a complete ban of a product consumers clearly love.

Those who support the ban highlight that because these bottles are small, they are virtually impossible to recycle. Municipal websites across the state explain that they often fall through the cracks of the sorting machines, and thus should be put in your trash bag as opposed to being recycled.

This is only true using dated machinery and recycling technology. Through chemical depolymerization, the repurposing of the bonds in plastics, virtually all plastic can be recycled. Take for example Alterra Energy in Ohio. Their advanced recycling plant takes in 40-50 tons of hard to recycle plastics (like nips) and transforms them back into the building blocks for new plastic production, extending the life cycle of these hard to recycle plastics indefinitely.

Is Councilor Arroyo trying to reinvent the wheel of prohibition? The prohibition of alcohol 100 years ago failed. The mindset of banning products that were deemed a nuisance caused more harm than good, which is why alcohol was then legalized. The prohibition of cannabis in Massachusetts failed, as well.

Eventually legislators learned that the consequences of criminalizing cannabis were far worse than the harms associated with cannabis use. Prohibition always promises results, but ends up creating a long list of negative second-order effects, many of which are worse than the initial issue of substance use.

Councillor Arroyo’s campaign to treat us all like children when it comes to the purchase of nips is going to have all the success of previous prohibitions. The nip ban motion should be thrown in the trash can, along with your empty nips.

Originally published here

Minor wine and beer companies operate with thin profit margins and cannot afford the extra costs of complying with Irish rules on the one hand while maintaining their foothold in the European industry on the other, writes Emil Panzaru

The European Commission’s passive reaction to upcoming Irish alcohol labels is a sobering development for the future of the European Union. In July last year, the Republic of Irelandsubmitted a draft law called Public Health (Alcohol) Labelling Regulations 2022 to the Commission for approval. The new draft follows Section 12 of the 2018 Public Health (Alcohol) Act. It adds mandatory health wrapping on all drinks, cautioning consumers about the health dangers of alcohol, such as cancer, liver disease, and fetal alcoholic disorders. The Commission has given the proposal its green light in the most surprising way possible. It has done so by failing to comment on the text despite objections from Italy, France, and Spain, the EU’s biggest alcohol producers, and no less than five other member states.

Set aside the fact that people often don’t pay attention to packaging, so the policy will likely be ineffective. Allowing Ireland to change trade rules unilaterally throws a spanner into the usual Single European Act mechanisms that are supposed to operate at an EU-wide level.

This interruption of the Single Market represents a blow to an already fragile agricultural sector. The European Union claims to support small and medium-sized businesses in its single-market strategy. Yet, unlike multinationals, minor wine and beer companies operate with thin profit margins and cannot afford the extra costs of complying with Irish rules on the one hand while maintaining their foothold in the European industry on the other. Artisanal producers from Italy or Spain will have to exit the Irish market altogether. When the bloc is barely recovering from the higher food and beverage prices due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, any further disruption would be a self-inflicted wound. 

In the long-term, the ruling creates a dangerous political and legal opt-out that countries besides Ireland may find fitting to exploit. Nothing will stop other member states from one-sidedly amending trade rules whenever doing so suits domestic politics and objectives. As Europe’s agricultural powerhouse (accounting for 18% of all produce), France may decide that its champagne is not just special because of the designated place of its origin. Indeed, champagne could enjoy a unique position on the market and be bought and sold strictly with French packaging under French rules. Of course, countries will find ways to apply the same logic to non-agricultural items, too (like electric vehicles). Each state stands to gain from interventions, restrictions, and demands for special treatment, but the outcome would make everyone collectively poorer.

To prevent this scenario, the European Commission should uphold and ensure the harmonization of Single Market rules. At the very least, it must stop being quiet when real objections need answers. Instead, the Commission’s Department for Growth ought to respect provision 138 from the rules and procedures for the European Parliament, allow MEPs to submit 20 questions on the matter, and answer their queries within three months.

At best, the Commission must stand firm on its legal and political principles. Article 41 of 1169/2011 EU food labeling regulation only allows for national measures regarding the listing of ingredients and packaging when there are no existing EU regulations. Ireland must, therefore, refrain from pursuing a campaign that overwrites regulation 2019/787 and code 1308/2013 of EU law. Of course, Ireland can pursue other strategies compatible with EU law to achieve its objectives. For instance, the Taoiseach’s office could launch a nationwide educational campaign on alcohol or revise the country’s health guidelines.

We all want people to lead happier, healthier lives. But we should not let the Union’s grandest achievement, the free movement of free people, goods, services, and capital, be squandered. 

Originally published here

Avertissements sanitaires obligatoires sur l’alcool : les nouvelles règles de l’Irlande ne sont qu’un début.

Le gouvernement irlandais avance dans son projet d’apposer des étiquettes d’avertissement sanitaire obligatoires sur les boissons alcoolisées telles que le vin et la bière. Ce mois-ci, la période d’objection de la Commission européenne concernant les modifications proposées à la loi irlandaise sur la santé publique (sur l’alcool) a expiré, ce qui permet à Dublin d’aller de l’avant avec sa nouvelle réglementation.

En substance, les étiquettes d’avertissement ressembleraient à celles déjà connues dans de nombreux pays européens pour les cigarettes – probablement de grandes images chocs ainsi que des messages décrivant les dangers de la consommation d’alcool.

Dans l’Union européenne, l’idée qu’un pays modifie unilatéralement la législation sur l’étiquetage des denrées alimentaires est mal vue, car elle est considérée comme une distorsion de la dynamique du marché commun. Il est donc d’autant plus surprenant que la Commission n’ait pas répliqué au gouvernement irlandais et ait laissé la proposition aller de l’avant. Cela est d’autant plus frappant que de grands Etats membres producteurs d’alcool, tels que l’Italie, l’Espagne et la France, ont déjà soulevé des objections contre cette proposition d’étiquetage.

Une première étape 

Pour moi, ce qui est le plus flagrant dans cet exemple, c’est qu’il contredit bon nombre des réactions que j’ai entendues au fil des ans lorsque j’écrivais sur les raisons de mon opposition au paquet neutre pour les cigarettes. Je crois que lorsque nous permettons à l’Etat de prendre des mesures aussi générales contre ce qu’il considère comme un vice, où cela s’arrêtera-t-il ? A l’alcool ? Aux bonbons ? Ceux qui ont qualifié mon argument de pente savonneuse se retrouvent aujourd’hui confrontés au premier pays à déclencher la chute de dominos juridiques.

L’Etat providence ne connaît pas de limites – il légifère et réglemente votre choix de consommateur, de la manière la plus condescendante qui soit. Le principe sous-jacent des bureaucrates qui élaborent ces règles est que vous, en tant qu’individu, ne savez tout simplement pas faire mieux. Cela dit, et pour le bien de l’argumentation, les étiquettes d’avertissement pourraient-elles être efficaces ?

Les partisans de ces mesures citent des études qui ont des limites importantes… Cliquez ici pour lire la suite.

Lorsqu’il s’agit d’étiquetage, les « défenseurs de la santé publique » sont prompts à citer un certain nombre d’études prouvant l’efficacité d’un avertissement sanitaire particulier, qu’il s’agisse d’un texte ou d’une image. Toutefois, cela suppose que l’avertissement soit déjà examiné, ce qui ne va pas de soi.

C’est similaire au cas de la médecine : pour qu’un médicament soit efficace, il semble évident que le patient devra le prendre en premier lieu. Prenons l’exemple de cette étude de 2018, qui fixe la quantité de personnes interrogées qui étaient réellement au courant des étiquettes d’avertissement pour l’alcool.

« Le eye-tracking a identifié que 60% des participants ont regardé l’étiquette d’avertissement d’alcool actuellement sur le marché […]. L’étude actuelle jette un doute sur les pratiques dominantes (essentiellement l’auto-déclaration), qui ont été utilisées pour évaluer les étiquettes d’avertissement sur l’alcool. 

L’attention ne peut pas être utilisée pour évaluer l’efficacité des étiquettes d’avertissement de manière isolée dans les cas où l’attention n’est pas présente 100% du temps. »

Banalisation

Mais une mauvaise conception ne peut pas être la seule explication de la diminution de la sensibilisation. Prenons l’exemple des consignes de sécurité dans les avions. Les grands voyageurs le savent bien : après quelques vols, les consignes de sécurité passent totalement inaperçues parce qu’elles sont répétitives.

Une inflation d’étiquettes d’avertissement peut désensibiliser ceux qui sont censés y être attentifs, par manque de nuance. Les messages « le café peut être mauvais pour la santé » et « fumer des cigarettes peut être mauvais pour la santé » n’établissent pas une hiérarchie des dangers pour la santé. En fait, placés l’un à côté de l’autre, les deux messages pourraient laisser entendre que les deux sont aussi nocifs l’un que l’autre.

Nous devons essayer de ne pas banaliser les avertissements sanitaires : s’ils perdent de leur signification pour les consommateurs, nous courons le risque que des avertissements sanitaires importants soient en fait ignorés.

En outre, en dehors de la question de savoir si cette mesure serait efficace, nous devrions également dire la chose suivante : ce n’est pas beau.

De nombreuses sélections de vins et de bières constituent un patrimoine culturel non seulement par leur qualité, mais aussi par leurs étiquettes. Les étiquettes sont le moyen par lequel nous apprécions le caractère désirable d’un produit ; c’est ainsi que nous nous sentons souvent liés à un aliment ou une boisson traditionnels. Il est inacceptable de nuire à toute l’esthétique du produit pour la remplacer par une énième annonce de service public, pour les objectifs zélés des nounous de la santé publique.

La consommation d’alcool comporte des risques, c’est un fait admis par tous, y compris par ceux qui ont tendance à en abuser. Ces derniers ne ralentiront pas leurs efforts pour abuser de l’alcool simplement à cause d’une étiquette, et les jeunes ne changeront pas leur consommation d’alcool simplement à cause d’une étiquette. Ce n’est rien d’autre qu’une politique de bien-être qui détruit la beauté au détriment du choix du consommateur.

La théorie déprimante que j’ai est que ce n’est que le début. Ceux qui défendent ce type de politique le font toujours par le biais d’arguments émotionnels qui jettent sous le tapis tous ceux qui défendent la liberté. Nous entendrons des choses telles que « s’il vous plaît, pensez aux enfants » ou « pourquoi êtes-vous redevable à l’industrie du vin » encore et encore, jusqu’à ce qu’ils fassent passer leurs règles dans les parlements.

Ce dont nous avons besoin, c’est qu’un plus grand nombre de consommateurs disent « trop, c’est trop », et arrêtent ces nounous dans leur élan.

Originally published here

Stigmatizing moderate, low-risk drinking isn’t a viable public health strategy

Since the Centre for Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) released its new alcohol guidelines in August, headline after headline has repeated its claim that anything more than two drinks per week is seriously bad for your health.

The shifting of the goalposts on alcohol consumption radically changes who is considered a problem drinker. Under the old guidelines of upwards of 15 drinks per week for men and 10 drinks per week for women approximately 85 per cent of Canadian drinkers qualified as responsible. Under the new guidelines the vast majority of Canadian drinkers are now considered to be drinking “beyond acceptable risk thresholds.”

Life is all about taking risks, of course, and some risks are more than worth taking. So what are the actual risks of consuming within the old guidelines? Kiffer George Card, an epidemiologist who teaches health sciences at Simon Fraser University, reports literature reviews that suggest consuming between seven and 14 drinks per week may lower your overall life expectancy by six months to a year on average compared with people who have zero to seven drinks a week.

Given the enjoyment that alcohol either provides or enables, many people will think that level of risk is more than worth it, especially considering the other risks we assume daily without batting an eye, whether it be eating the foods we do, driving the highways or for that matter simply crossing the street.

In setting its two-drink limit the CCSA did not take into account any of the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, primarily from the role it plays in releasing endorphins and enhancing social bonding. In fact, according to the American Journal of Public Health, limited social bonding is as, or even more, dangerous than most of the major public health issues Canadians face.

Poor social health, as Kiffer George Card points out, is just as, if not more, harmful than smoking, drinking, being obese, living sedentarily and breathing poor-quality air. You might think that after years of rolling lockdowns to curb the spread of COVID public health lobbyists would appreciate the risks associated with a more isolated lifestyle and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately, the neo-temperance approach ignores this very inconvenient truth.

What makes the renewed discussion about alcohol even more puzzling is that it runs directly counter to Canada’s other harm-reduction efforts, which focus on saving lives by removing the stigma of substance abuse. Whether it be safe injection sites, free drug-testing facilities or even the availability of safe supply, the federal government attempts to help those who suffer from addiction, not chastise and stigmatize them.

British Columbia has taken harm reduction one step further with its decriminalization of the possession and use of small amounts of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. But while some public health officials are trying to remove the stigma from heroin use, others are labelling almost all Canadian drinkers as high-risk and shaming them for what is in fact very low-risk behaviour. The cognitive dissonance is concussing.

For any number of reasons you might enjoy having a glass of wine or a beer or two, and you shouldn’t feel guilty about that, despite what the CCSA may say. Stigmatizing moderate, low-risk drinking isn’t a viable public health strategy. It’s time to put the CCSA’s report back on the shelf. Behind the whisky.

Originally published here