Martyn, the wise Zythophile, made an observation yesterday that includes a per-supposition that I am not sure has been explored:
It’s not said often enough in this argument: we drink because we enjoy it, and the overall happiness that brings to society, I would suggest, vastly outweighs any disbenefits.
Because I do not know who “we” are in this sentence, I do not know if I agree wholeheartedly or disagree completely. If “we” are all drinkers, I cannot accept this at all. I have known people who died because of drunk driving and, way back in high school 30 years ago, escaped being smoked on the highway myself likely more than once when the driver in the car had had as much as the rest of us. The fact that society as a whole has a good time on Friday night does not comfort me when I think of the six kids, including a client of mine, who died back in the mid-90s when two cars hit each other on a rural Ontario road in the night. But if the word “we” means those who do not cause harm or commit crimes, who do not anesthetize ourselves to erase or excuse behavior – who do not misuse but rather use for the convivial pleasures the good beer brings – well, I can see that perhaps but only if that distinction and speaking about that distinction is part of the culture of good beer and a core principle of the passion for good beer.
I know many beer writers enjoy their connections with the great people who brew the beer beer and I am sure the experience is rich and rewarding. Due to my location it really isn’t possible except in a small way. We simply do not have a thriving local brewing scene within a few hours drive from here, though there are glowing lights in the darkness. But we do have people who sell the beer beer whether in the hospitality trade or in retail. And they are liable for over serving and have to decide whether to sell to the inebriated and the long term alcoholic. For the most part, they take the question seriously. They do so knowing the marketplace includes reputation in the community, the “we” of the community.
The risk-reward analogy to mountain climbing or sky diving or bungee jumping is not apt. While it is true – even without the steroid issue – that elite athletes burn the candle faster trading off bad joints for glory now, for the most part the bystanders in the lives of athletes are not affected by these sorts of risks. The participants consent. The risks inherent with alcohol are not all consensual. So, while it is true that we can describe moderate use of good beer a health food, its healthiness is defined by that moderation and the context of increased concern for safety necessitated by the increased risks associated with alcohol and the realization that it is not inherently or universally healthy.
We should take an interest in ourselves whatever we do – increasing the benefits and reducing the harm. If we are thinking about good beer we should also take an interesting in increasing and sharing the benefits while reducing easily identifiable harm – including those harms short of full bore alcoholism. When I think about this blog writing and the thousand of you who I am told read my posts every day I sometime wonder if I have encouraged anyone into a habit that is harmful rather than convivial. I am not satisfied to think of the statistics, that “on average” I may have helped in my small way to highlight the benefits of good beer, that more of you have taken pleasure from my explorations if some few have gone the other way. You are the “we” as well as those around you. And, like the good shopkeeper, “we” need to be aware of that context and advocate for healthy and safe enjoyment as much as we advocate for broader interest in great, tasty, healthy, local or exotic, exciting good beer.
[Original comments…]
Pat – January 23, 2010 8:20 PM
Interesting commentary Alan…
I have this completely unconfirmed feeling that the realm of long-term alcoholics probably doesn’t intersect the “good beer” world all that much, but I may be completely wrong.
On the other hand, I do have a large number of craft brewers nearby (I’m in San Diego), and I have attended events at places where there’s really no mass transit/taxi cabs available and realized that there was no way I could even get through the flight of tastings and drive myself home.
I’m intrigued by a new thing launched by some of the area’s “good beer” bars that make transit a bit easier. It’s heartening to see some efforts down these lines, as I think any of us who live in non-dense urban or suburban (or, of course) rural areas need to think through these things.
Either that or I’m just getting to be an old Gen-Xer đ
Alan – January 23, 2010 9:12 PM
Hah! We old gen-x-ers have to stick together.
I think that advocacy for public transit is a great addition to the good beer scene and I certainly know what you mean. Me and pals were stranded at a very good and very drunk beer fest. No public transit, no taxis and no walk back to the city centre as we were at a public facility that was not even connected with sidewalks. Whacks of car loads drove off but many were stranded and more than a few apparent participants were in the drivers seats as the cars took off.
Greg – January 24, 2010 10:33 AM
http://www.beerbeatsbites.com
Pat – your comments about the lack of convenient mass transit in San Diego is apt. When I was down there a few years ago, I was staying in a hotel downtown, and while I managed to make excursions to a few of the bars I wanted to visit using transit, it certainly wasn’t easy.
In one case, I was able to make it to a notable bar to meet some local beer geeks via two buses, but by the time I left, transit was no longer available and a taxi would’ve been a small fortune (assuming I could even get one), so I accepted a drive from one of the people I had met up with. He, like everyone else there, had had a LOT to drink – and he, like almost everyone else there, was driving home.
And sadly, in many of my beer travels, I’ve found this to be the rule rather than the exception. Another example similar to Alan’s above: The Michigan Summer Beer Festival is held each year in Ypsilanti, a town that it’s virtually impossible to get to from elsewhere without driving. When a bunch of us went down from Toronto a few years ago, we stayed in Ann Arbor, and one of our group stopped drinking partway through the festival so he could safely drive us back to the hotel. Most of the other people around us did not do this, and there were therefore hundreds of drunk drivers leaving Ypsilanti that evening.
So yes, better public transit is definitely the answer. But it’s not the only one. I’m just not sure what the other answer(s) might be.
Alan – January 24, 2010 11:09 AM
Neither am I sure about answers, Greg, but as I think you imply we need to be asking questions. I think it is the job of we bloggers to point this out even to the point of a bit of straining of relationships with the fests or brewers or whoever. Safety and health are still real issues when were are not discussing actual alcoholism.
Pat – January 25, 2010 3:27 AM
Thank goodness for growlers and “Good Beer” enjoying friends who live within walking distance… that’s the best solution I’ve come up with thus far.
And it helps that there are two breweries with a mile or so…
But having driven out of the (quite remote) Stone facility after an event or two, I’ve wondered the exact same thing about the state of the average driver heading home…
James W – January 25, 2010 2:39 PM
Great post. I see where you are coming from on this one. While know from my experience that enjoying a good craft beer is a more “slow” undertaking than drinking light lagers and macros. Hbeerepiphany.wordpress.comowever, craft beer in general has a higher average ABV and it seems most of the truly sought-after beers are rarely below 8%. I hope that the majority of people reading your blog understand craft beer enough to use discretion when drinking more than one or two pints of high ABV brews. Plus, what fun is it to get drunk and stop having the ability to taste the nuances in the flavor or smell the hidden aromas as the beer warms? This isn’t to say people still do not abuse craft beer, but I do not think your blog is encouraging it by any means. Cheers!
P.S. The comment box isn’t letting me input my website so here is the link: Beerepiphany.wordpress.com
Jeff Alworth – January 25, 2010 4:10 PM
http://beervana.blogspot.com/
“disbenefit”–is this really a word?
As to the hypothesis, I’d like to add a report from the Oregon frontier. In the years since craft brewing entered the scene, Oregon’s per-capita consumption of both alcohol and beer has declined. This seems counter-intuitive until you consider why we consume beer now and why we consumed beer then. The focus now is to taste the beer, to enjoy the company of friends in a pub. Rarely is the purpose to get smashed. In 1980, there was only one reason to grab a half-rack of beer.
I believe Martyn’s onto something.
Alan – January 25, 2010 4:20 PM
HI Jeff. But you are talking statistics and not specifics. I hear what you and Martyn are saying but does that excuse a beer fest without good safe traffic routes out?
Ed Carson – January 26, 2010 7:15 PM
I think Walt Kelly answered this question.
Alan – January 26, 2010 8:23 PM
“We have met the enemy and he is us”?
Jeff Alworth – January 26, 2010 8:33 PM
http://beervana.blogspot.com/
Safety routes is a little different issue. (Though in Portland, most of our fests are right on both bus and light-rail lines.)
I do hear you, though. It’s perhaps the difference between the more communitarian great white North and libertarian US. We tend to think of things in terms of individual responsibility rather than collective responsibility–not always appropriately. As beer bloggers, we do have to be careful about what it is we promote. And, since you don’t like stats, I’ll say that I’ve seen a definite decline in the interest of Portlanders in getting drunk and an increase in their interest in good beer. Beer, moderately consumed, is not dangerous. So…
Alan – January 26, 2010 9:57 PM
I don’t so much dislike stats but they only get you so far. But I hear you, Jeff, and I think it is true that in places like where you are there is likely enough public transport and the focus on moderation. Yet isn’t Portland Oregon still a relatively a rare place, a bit of a beacon for the rest of civilization?
That being said, I think our perception of moderation is like the embarrassed man buying clothes for his wife in a 1970s sit-com: “she’s… err… medium.” I am not sure that most beer fans drink moderately and I am not sure that all beer fan behaviours are harmless. I have just never seen any actual proof one way or another from either the prohibitionists and the anti-prohibitionists.
Ed Carson – January 27, 2010 9:23 AM
Correct! We have built communities that put everything on the outside. Employment, food, and the third place(church and/or pub: see “The Parish of Dunkeld”), all of these, you need a vehicle to get to. Of course, this is all thirty, forty, fifty years under the bridge. And all we are left with is the problem of Driving Under the Influence of alcohol and other substances.
Alan – January 27, 2010 11:06 AM
Exactly – there is no drunk driving where there is no driving. I thought I wrote a post on suburban planning being a factor some time ago but can’t find it.