The CDC currently recommends that, in the U.S., men limit themselves to two drinks per day and women to one. A statement from Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Dr. George Koob to Daily Mail publication Thursday indicated that "the U.S. could soon follow a Canadian guideline advising its citizens to limit themselves to two alcoholic beverages per week." *** There weren't enough characters available in the question area to make clear that the stricter Canadian guidelines are part of the question. *** Will resolve this question to no later than 12/31/25, unless the guidelines are changed sooner.
Related questions
@Radicalia “As strict as the Canadian guidelines.” There are not enough characters available in the question area to include “Canadian” or “guidelines like Canada”- as the NIAAA unabbreviated takes up most of the question, & most people would not have known what the NIAAA stood for. That is why I explain it below the question. I Have added an extra sentence to clarify in the description. Thanks for your feedback!
This question shouldn't refer to the Biden administration, a) because even if this does happen, it's wrong to refer to a change in CDC guidelines as stemming directly from the administration, b) because if it happens in 2025 there's a strong possibility it comes from a different administration. Would either change to the CDC or specify more clearly in the resolution criteria.
@JCE It is really the NIH that is responsible for choosing the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Director, who in turn makes the pronouncements for the NIAAA, and the guidelines get passed down to the CDC. My only point was that the consideration of stricter changes is being done during the current Biden Administration...but I will change the question to read "Will the NIAAA in cooperation with the CDC introduce stricter...."" Actually I can't phrase exactly that way, as I am limited in characters, but you will get the main gist.
Fortunately, if this goes into effect, it is just a guideline and not mandatory...at least for the near future.
@AliciaGrugett It being mandatory would be kind of nice. Ethanol is a pretty dangerous drug, with a large variety of negative effects. It’s addictive, it can cause chronic health effects, people can (and sometimes do) overdose on it, people high on it often endanger themselves and others, and the withdrawal is actually one of the nastiest. Ethanol and benzodiazepine withdrawals are sometimes cited as the most dangerous, although opioid withdrawal can also lead to death.
People say “drugs and alcohol”, but really they should say “drugs, including ethanol”.
@Trifalcon Enforcement would be a problem, though; such a restriction would be impractical, as it would lead to bootlegging. Increased alcohol taxes are the practical alternative, though the downside is that they’re most likely regressive.
@Quate The problem of bootlegging can avoided if alcohol taxes are not exorbitantly high, as methods of mass manufacturing would mean that legal alcohol is still cheaper than illegal. Notably, Prohibition did actually decrease alcohol use, and its effect on crime is not as clear as some would think. While it did increase the activity of organized crime it reduced domestic violence quite a bit.
I realize I’m looking for an argument and behaving aggressively. I know I probably shouldn’t engage random people being wrong on the internet. And I’m still right.