It will be interesting to see how the neo-prohibitionists spin this one. An article in Time magazine, entitled Why Nondrinkers May Be More Depressed, by John Cloud, details the findings of a recent study that suggests “those who never drink are at significantly higher risk for not only depression but also anxiety disorders, compared with those who consume alcohol regularly.”

That study, Anxiety and Depression Among Abstainers and Low-Level Alcohol Consumers, was published in the journal Addiction. According to the press release from the journal:

Abstaining from alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of depression according to a new study published in Addiction journal.

It has long been recognised that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to poor physical and mental health. However, there has been mounting evidence that low levels of alcohol consumption may also be associated with poor mental health possibly due to abstainers having other health problems or being reformed heavy drinkers.

The study utilized data from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT Study) based in Norway. This provided information on the drinking habits and mental health of over 38,000 individuals. Using this data the authors were able to show that those individuals who reported drinking no alcohol over a two week period were more likely than moderate drinkers to report symptoms of depression. Those individuals who additionally labeled themselves as “abstainers” were at the highest risk of depression. Other factors, such as age, physical health problems and number of close friends could explain some, but not all of this increased risk. The authors also had access to reported levels of alcohol consumption 11 years prior to the main survey. This showed that fourteen percent of current abstainers had previously been heavy drinkers, but this did not explain all of the increased risk of depression amongst abstainers.

The authors conclude that in societies where some use of alcohol is the norm, abstinence may be associated with being socially marginalized or particular personality traits that may also be associated with mental illness.

Though the authors of the study stop short of encouraging abstainers to start drinking, the Time magazine concludes with what any rational person reading this might think, which is “just say yes.”

The most powerful explanation seems to be that abstainers have fewer close friends than drinkers, even though they tend to participate more often in organized social activities. Abstainers seem to have a harder time making strong friendship bonds, perhaps because they don’t have alcohol to lubricate their social interactions. After all, it’s easier to reveal your worst fears and greatest hopes to a potential friend after a Negroni or two.

So does this mean we should all have a cocktail? Maybe, but Skogen says he doesn’t believe his study should encourage abstainers to become drinkers. Rather, he says doctors might want to investigate why abstaining patients don’t drink and explain that in societies where alcohol use is common, not drinking may lead them to feel left out. Sometimes, you should just say yes.

In addition to this study concerning mental health, several studies over the past decade or more have also concluded that the moderate consumption of alcohol leads to better physical health than for people who abstain from it. Better physical health and now better mental health, all from simply having a drink or two regularly. To me, that’s the pink elephant in the room.

The anti-alcohol groups seem so hell bent on their all or nothing approach, seeing any alcohol as bad and no alcohol as all good, when the reality is hardly that simple. As these studies suggest, the common ground should be a more reasonable approach that leads to more drinking in moderation, removing the conditions that lead to over-consumption through education, strengthening infrastructure for public transportation so people can go out for a drink without fear, and recognizing that drinking alcohol does have many positive attributes when consumed responsibly. I realize that seems like a Herculean task at this moment in time, but that’s the only way I can see moving past the entrenched positions of both sides.

Obviously, I’m on one side of the aisle and I honestly believe that no one involved with the alcohol industry thinks that over-consumption or any extremes in drinking are a good thing. Both camps seem to agree on that. But the people against alcohol seem incapable of giving up any ground to concede that for most people moderate drinking may not be the evil they believe or that it doesn’t necessarily have to lead to greater problems. That very unwillingness, I believe, is actually exacerbating the problems that some people do experience with drinking too heavily because their focus is on the wrong problem and paints all drinkers will the same broad brush. As science continues to confirm that alcohol has been, and still is, a part of a healthy lifestyle, that position will become harder and harder to defend.

Remember the definition of an abstainer by Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil’s Dictionary:

Abstainer: n. a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.

Thanks to Anat Baron for tweeting this my way, but it seems that the storm clouds are once again gathering over ridiculous propaganda aimed at beer. Luckily, Reason Magazine — a periodical I’ve written for — is on the case in a piece entitled Beer Raped Your Daughter and Gave Her Gonorrhea. Again.

It concerns a Washington Post editorial where two doctors argue out of — one hopes — a sense of fealty to their Hippocratic oath that more expensive beer means lower consumption, less problems, less issues, less greenhouse gas emissions, less poverty, less .. well, you get the idea — the world will be a magically better place if only there were more taxes on beer. Of course, we’ve been down this argumentative road before and their statistics, like others before them, don’t add up. They never do, but that doesn’t stop them for spouting off and making this shit up, because they seem to be taking the approach of a lie repeated often enough becomes a fact over time. As a member of The Angry Arm of the Alcohol Lobby, I say bullshit.

Here’s their nut job argument in a nutshell:

One way to reduce the harmful effects of heavy drinking is to make drinking more expensive: the more a drink costs, the less people drink. This is true of young people, pregnant women and even heavy drinkers. Research indicates that a 10 percent increase in current alcohol excise taxes — that is a penny for a beer — would result in less drinking, especially among underage drinkers, reducing rape, robbery, domestic violence and liver disease. A tax increase of 3 cents per beer would cut youth gonorrhea by 9 percent.

So more expensive beer means less rape, less STDs, less domestic violence and all manner of other horrors. Because that’s the way it’s worked as cigarette prices have kept going up, right? Here’s how Reason looked at this argument:

I’m going to pull out that last line one more time in case you, like me, sometime skim over blockquotes too quickly:

A tax increase of 3 cents per beer would cut youth gonorrhea by 9 percent.

Look at the lovely young lady at right [an old Budweiser print ad of a couple fishing]. If only a three cent tax on that Budweiser could have saved her from the heartbreak of VD.

Messrs. (Drs.?) Sederer and Goplerud have taken the fine art of vaguely claiming that “studies show…” to a new level. Obviously, the argument here is that lots of beer makes people more likely to rape, pillage, etc. and that pricier beer means less consumption. A quick Google reveals that they’re pulling from 2000 study that looked at beer taxes and gonorrhea rates in various states. Reason, of course, tore this study a new one back when first made the rounds. Key passage:

[David Murray of the Statistical Assessment Service, a non-profit think tank in D.C.] does yeoman’s work pointing out the junk reasoning at the root of so much junk science. This one was a high, hanging curve for Murray, who said the CDC’s thinking was on the level of “the sun goes down because we turn on the street lights.”

The really interesting thing is that the CDC, in effect, agrees with that criticism. It buries its assent, however, in an editorial note that says the findings “do not prove a causal relation between higher taxes and declining STD [sexually transmitted disease] rates.”

To get a sense of how bad their math is, just look at their assertion that a 10% increase means only one penny more in excise taxes. That would mean that the taxes now would be 10 cents for that to be true. Are they? Not even close. There’s a federal excise tax on beer, and then a state one, too, and the amount varies widely from state to state, making that line ridiculous on its face.

And they trot out this old saw:

It has been 18 years since federal taxes on alcohol have changed. If all spirit taxes had increased at the consumer price index and been taxed like liquor, federal taxes on a shot of spirits would have increased by 10 cents, a beer by 21 cents, and a glass of wine by 24 cents. Making that adjustment now would raise $101 billion over 10 years, without state tax increases. Equalizing the tax among beer, wine and spirits, without inflation, would raise $60 billion over 10 years.

Don’t you believe it. I’ve examined this argument thoroughly before in Here We Go Again: Beer & Taxes and Why Alcohol Doesn’t Get A Pass, among others, and it’s nothing but vicious propaganda. And propaganda made even worse by virtue of it coming from medical doctors, who people tend to believe have their best interests at heart. They don’t, of course, doctors have their own interests at heart, like everyone else. Just look at how they attacked the idea of health care reform, beginning all the way back in 1948 when a P.R. firm hired by the AMA actually coined the term “socialized medicine” to scare people into making sure we wouldn’t have universal health care in this country. That’s how much they care about you and me.

If you track these things, like I tend to, you’ll notice that the attacks on alcohol have been getting more frequent, more virulent and more mainstream. You don’t think that could have anything to do with pharmaceutical ads proliferating while alcohol ads are highly regulated and restricted? Nah, must be a coincidence. Now where does your daughter hang out? I want to buy her a beer.