Just In Case You Thought The Nanny Statists Weren’t Prohibitionists


Fat is the new smoking, and guess what makes you fat?

Booze. So clearly we need to regulate booze just like the vending machines and the large-size sodas, right?

Because it worked out so well the last time the government tried to control the drinking habits of Americans.

NEW YORK (AP) — Americans get too many calories from soda. But what about alcohol? It turns out adults get almost as many empty calories from booze as from soft drinks, a government study found.

Soda and other sweetened drinks — the focus of obesity-fighting public health campaigns — are the source of about 6 percent of the calories adults consume, on average. Alcoholic beverages account for about 5 percent, the new study found.

“We’ve been focusing on sugar-sweetened beverages. This is something new,” said Cynthia Ogden, one of the study’s authors. She’s an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which released its findings Thursday.

The government researchers say the findings deserve attention because, like soda, alcohol contains few nutrients but plenty of calories.

And by “deserve attention” they of course mean “needs to be addressed by restrictive taxes/regulations aimed at manipulating how much people drink.”

Because it’s not like this is a free country or anything.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Mike Quinn

    We have never regulated how much people drink? What party is against people smoking marijuana for recreation? What party is against women taking birth control pills for recreation? What party wants to regulate women’s reproductive rights?

    • HG

      That would be the republican party that doesn’t want to legalize controlled substances and make law abiding citizens out of dealers and growers who have spent their life violating the laws. That is the republican party that doesn’t want recreational use of birth control pills or women to hack up their unborn child and discard of it like road kill.
      And proud of it.

    • Thresherman

      Taking birth control pills for recreation? I can’t recall anyone ever saying
      ” Hey. lets get together and get wasted on birth control pills.”
      As for the regulation of women’s reproductive rights, I can think of no major candidate that stated that we need to regulate womens access to birth control or medical care. This is myth prepetrated by lying liberals to cloud the issue that GOP objected to religious institutions being forced by the government to engage in behavior that is against their faith. Anyone with a whiff of honesty would readily agree that there is a a world of difference between the two, but that I guess excludes the left.
      Recall that the whole Sandra Fluke/slut bouhaha was not about a young coed being denied access to birth control but rather a thirtysomething political activist who wanted it provided to her for free. It is the same old story with Democrats, never debate on the merits when you can lie abort and distort the issue.

  • HG

    I don’t know that the CDC pushes legislation, but no doubt the dems will use it as an excuse to regulate. Maybe not though since dems love their alcohol. Oh, politicians will probably exempt themselves from any regulations.

  • Flyby_Knight

    Did anybody still believe they weren’t?

  • JustRuss

    First they came for Tobacco, but I didn’t speak up because I didn’t smoke it; Then they came for sugary drinks like soda, but I didn’t speak up because I drink Diet anyway; Then they came for my booze.

    Should have come for my guns first.

  • kevindf

    How does legalizing marijuana jibe with Obamacare?

  • Waski_the_Squirrel

    There is nothing wrong with the science here. I take advantage of the number of calories in alcohol every year in Biology when I demonstrate the energy left in the waste products of alcoholic fermentation (I light a puddle of alcohol on fire: fun way to get kids’ attention).

    What I do question is why a new study was needed for this. This has been well known for decades. I also question why a government body was needed to research this.

    As for the rest: these scientists need to justify their work through legislation or some other kind of attention or regulation. Thus, the knowledge that there are a lot of calories in alcohol becomes a crisis. More regulation may result, but let’s call it what it is: attention-seeking. Since the conclusion is not new information, scientists have to turn it into a crisis to get attention. Then the public squawks to its politicians, “What are you doing about it?” and the politicians rush to appear to do something.

    All in all, a distraction from anything that matters.