In defense of the drink

I attended high school in Europe, so serious drinking is nothing new to me. In this way, Winston Churchill was much like me: Upon being told by Ibn Saud that the king's religious beliefs forbade the use of tobacco and liquor, the great man didn't hesitate to point out "that my rule of life prescribes as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and, if need be, during all meals and in the intervals between them." \nI thought of this anecdote as I sat watching "Thank You for Smoking." For those of you who don't know the plot, its central character is a lobbyist for Big Tobacco named Nick Naylor, who insists that there has been "no conclusive proof" that tobacco is harmful to your health. If you think that is an easy argument to stub out, try defending his antagonist, the legislator who believes that putting a warning label on cigarettes will make someone pick up a cigarette package, read the label and decide not to smoke. \nThroughout this dark comedy, I couldn't help but think that the same kind of defense should be mustered for the other much-slandered luxury. I have always abjured tobacco and illegal narcotics, but have never seen the merits of doing the same vis-à-vis alcohol. The case in favor of this "vice" is easier to make. \nFirst, there is no questioning that a moderate consumption of alcohol has a benign impact on heart health -- something that can't be said for cigarettes. Second, although I used to say frivolously that people who smoke are performing an admirable social service insofar as they alleviate the pension crisis by dying before reaching retirement, the truth is that they die rather expensively. Third, and significant compared to the other reasons, it better justifies my own lifestyle. \nLike Frank, mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all. (Though Samuel Adams, especially the October Fest brew, comes close.) But it can and should be an ally, and I can recall making a toast or two to the year 1933, when the amendment to end Prohibition was passed (but also to 1945, lest I be mistaken for celebrating Hitler's rise to power).\nYes, alcohol dulls the senses. That is the point, isn't it? This is not an advantage when driving fast cars, but it is for late-night (or for that matter, daytime) conversation. Is there no fiery flag-waver to stand up against the notion that the Samuel Adams, brewer and patriot, was somehow un-American? \nSome will invariably ask, "Fair enough, but all things in moderation, no?" But of course. Having too much blood in the alcohol stream, as a friend of mine likes to say, is a bad thing. And those who become obnoxious and downright dangerous (to themselves as well as others) are a discredit to the good drinkers -- of whom this author counts himself one.\nBut remember Churchill. He always got more out of his bottle of brandy than it got out of him. Let's hope that kind of victory is something everyone can drink to.