People observing “Dry January” voluntarily abstain from alcohol during the first month of the year. The practice has grown in popularity, and we suspect more than a few participants are counting down the days until February begins and the calendar becomes clear for resumed tippling.
Alas, the latest reports from the Party-Pooper File suggest that Americans would be better off if Dry January gave way to a “FebFast,” and so on throughout the year.
The damaging effects of alcohol abuse are well established, from drunken driving and other reckless behavior to a frightening list of health problems. Some new research suggests, however, that even moderate social drinking can increase the risk of cancer and other serious diseases. A regular glass of red wine with dinner, long considered a toast to health and happiness, might do more harm than good. So much for the most enjoyable aspect of the Mediterranean diet.
Bureaucrats around the world are responding accordingly. In Canada, health officials this month decreed that no safe level of alcohol consumption exists. Bowing to reality in a country known for its whisky, wine and beer industries, the government stopped short of directing its citizens to go cold turkey. Those of legal drinking age with no special health risks can consume a maximum of two alcoholic drinks per week, Canada’s new guidelines say, down from previous limits of 15 drinks a week for men and 10 for women.
Similar guidelines vary drastically from country to country. In many Muslim-majority countries, zero drinking is allowed, on pain of arrest, while boozy, beer-loving Belgium defines “hazardous drinking” as more than 21 drinks a week for men and 14 for women. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults choose not to drink or limit their intake to two drinks per day for men and one for women on days when alcohol is consumed.
This page regularly objects when an overprotective government interferes with personal freedoms. People need to make their own choices, and not be guilt-tripped by a Nanny State for, say, eating a doughnut while idly watching TV. In the case of alcohol, mobbed-up bootleggers during Prohibition gave Chicago a reputation for lawlessness and public corruption that endures today.
This newspaper published 1,100 editorials against Prohibition, denouncing it as an unwarranted intrusion into peoples’ lives.
When alcohol became legal again after Prohibition, federal, state and local governments strictly regulated its manufacture, distribution, marketing and retail sales. The rules developed over time into a protectionist thicket that raises costs and stifles competition. The pandemic gave the government another excuse to pile on, as when Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot pushed for a permanent curfew on alcohol sales after 10 p.m.
The antiquated regulations hinder entrepreneurship. Microbreweries and micro-distilleries that want to distribute and sell products that consumers eagerly want to buy, for instance, have faced confusing, outdated and counterproductive laws. A new generation of beer, wine and spirits containing little or no alcohol, while exempt from some of the measures covering alcoholic products, are still subject to a rule book seemingly designed to thwart free enterprise.
No-alcohol beer can’t be called no-alcohol (as it contains traces) or beer (it’s legally a malt beverage, or some other variation on that name). In Illinois, it’s subject to the Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act that protects exclusive distribution territories and other anti-competitive advantages for incumbent businesses. Meanwhile, in countries like the United Kingdom, drinks like Shandy with up to 0.5% alcoholic content have long been sold like soda.
Give us a break. Having declared even moderate consumption of alcohol a hazard, the government should be making it simple to market alcohol-free alternatives. At a minimum, nonalcoholic drinks should be freed from the Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act; there is no logical reason for that regulation, except for lining the pockets of current players.
Encouraging low and zero-alcohol beverages is especially important given the official embrace of cannabis in Illinois and other states. It is truly bizarre for Illinois to send the message that the less you drink the better, but when it comes to weed, party on as much as you like, bud.
Fortunately, the marketplace is beginning to overcome the red tape, protectionism and confused messaging. Younger generations, especially, are embracing alcohol-free adult beverages, as well as “dry” bars and similar social scenes where there’s no pressure to drink. And those beverages, we have found, are starting to taste better.
At the Winter Fancy Food Show this month, exhibitor Ranwei Chiang was showing off her “Abstinence” line of no-alcohol spirits and aperitifs. These are sophisticated distilled beverages with bitter and herbal notes for adult palates and, Chiang said, the market for them is booming along with social acceptance of abstaining. Her products “create the space for people who don’t want to drink,” she said. “Even if you do drink, you can opt out for a round, stop early or start late.”
Making the rest of the year dry, or at least not as damp, has never been easier. Now we need the government to get out of the way and let the Ranwei Chiangs of the world do their healthy thing.
