Gary,
Unfortunately, the link to Google books' page no longer provides any information at all, other than partial views of the front pages. Apparently Dr. Chayfetz's heirs are more restrictive in their views concerning copyright than was the good doctor.
And thus there is little that can be drawn directly from that source. The subtitle, along with the other link, to Dr. Chayfetz's obituary in 2011, would indicate that the book discusses ACTUAL temperance, as opposed to the meaning that resulted when that word was hijacked by the Anti-Saloon League and its ilk and redefined as ABSTINENCE.
The obituary article described Dr. Chayfetz as
"a contrarian Harvard Medical School psychiatrist". One becomes known as "contrarian" when one's support (i.e., funding for his research and publications) comes from those who wish validation of ideas that fall outside the mainstream. I'm not talking about crackpots, here, although Lord knows there are enough of those roaming the halls of Academe! I just mean that if, for example, such a subgroup was willing to support research to disprove the idea that alcohol has true medical benefits, there will always be someone to publish a treatise or two supporting that idea.
So, DOES alcohol have any medical benefits, other than as a sedative?
From the standpoint of one who enjoys drinking alcohol beverages, I'd have to say, "Who Cares?"
If a completely non-alcohol beverage that claimed to taste exactly like fine aged bourbon were marketed, how many of us here would even be interested in trying it? Especially if it cost upwards of say, $75 a bottle? My guess is very few.
And of those few (which would probably include you and I, Gary
), how many would be likely to make such a beverage our daily pour? Since minus figures aren't allowed in scientific surveys, I'd have to say, d@mned few (and those would probably NOT include you or I). The fact is, taste aside (and of course such a beverage would not taste like "real" bourbon), it is the psychosomatic effect that we seek, in some cases as a necessary component of the experience, in other cases as the experience itself. Remember that
vodka's main selling point is that you can fool yourself (or perhaps an unsuspecting companion) into thinking that's just fruit juice your're drinking. Smirnoff Leaves You Breathless. So, while a three-manhattan lunch would likely have gotten you fired, the three-martini lunch became a distinct possibility. And of course there never was, nor ever will be, a three-Diet-Pepsi lunch. It's the buzz, man. Whether we want to admit it or not, we do not drink alcohol simply for the taste, as we might drink orange juice or Jack-less Coca-Cola. We demand (and rightfully so) the sedative effects that are, quite simply,
medicine.
Of course there is the potential for abuse, as there is for any medicine. Morphine is also a medicine, and when used correctly has definite medical benefits. So are amphetamines. So is Novocain. That doesn't excuse crack-heads, meth-monsters, or heroin junkies, nor does it imply that we all should have available an unrestricted supply of such powerful drugs, to self-dispense as we see fit (while progressively becoming less able to rationally do so).
I am a relatively opinionated person, although I'm nearly always open to reasonable argument and have no problem changing my position when a convincing one is made. However, there are a few concepts that I have difficulty with because I'm very ambiguous about them. I can see rational and convincing arguments on both (or more often, several) sides. Abortion/Birth Control is one of those. Political Conservatism/Liberalism is another. Control of alcohol beverages is another. More than one of my best friends have lost their lives to drunk drivers. My son in law is an alcoholic (sober for several years now), who twice almost lost his marriage and his career. Clearly, the drug C
2H
5OH can be dangerous in the hands of people who cannot responsibly determine and enforce a proper dosage.
What to do? Certainly prohibition is out of the question, both morally and from the standpoint of enforcement. Fourteen horrible years and an ongoing legacy of organized crime has made that point quite clear. Smaller bottles and limited access? Don't know how that could be done, do you? I, for one, would be an outlaw for sure if such limitations were enacted. Some way to restrict sales to known abusers? Sh!t, we nearly all of us learned how to get around that in high school. Perhaps a strongly-supported media anti-drunk propaganda program, such as has been quite successful against cigarettes. Although I personally abhor that approach, I can see that -- given time -- it works. I would be more in favor of such a thing if the emphasis would be on DRUNKENESS rather than on DRINKING. Show people enjoying liquor; then show them saying, "okay, that's enough for now", and then going on to kill the bad guy or save the lovely lady or whatever.
These are just ramblings brought about by Gary's post. They probably don't belong here -- Mike, feel free to make this a separate thread if you like. I don't want to start arguments, only discussion, and I promise not to respond to further posts until at least half a dozen different members have chimed in. Thanks for indulging me!