I've been registered to vote in blue and red states and the barriers to vote in red states are so much higher. Lines are longer, in less convenient locations, registration has to be done earlier, and sometime they might not count your vote or purge a voter directory and you have to check yourself to see if that the case so you can correct it. It's more than people can't be arsed to vote; it is intentionally made as inconvenient as possible.
I'm just a simple statistican, but I would be more worried about sun exposure, tap water quality, air quality, processed foods and occupational hazards (depending on job) over 3-4 drinks per year.
The better conclusion is "people who drink in moderation have a decreased risk of cancer", which is different. Causation is hard to prove, especially when we can only ethically do observational studies. It's likely that people who drink in moderation are more likely to make healthy choices in other areas of their life or have other factors that reduce risk.
I understand your conclusion, but in my experience not many people are advocating for reducing their 1st amendment rights. The majority of my experience with people claiming free speech is when it doesn't apply. Like it does not protect anyone from being laughed at, ostracized, does not force people to buy goods or services from someone who says wild shit, and no one is required to give them a platform.
People only invoke the feelings of the founders when they either don't have a stronger argument or are trying to appeal to conservatives. It's basically religious interpretation at this point - mostly used to manipulate people who don't know better.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Most people simply arent going to go vegan, and many need to take baby steps toward it. Cutting out beef is a great first step.
Maybe lemmygrad, but Beehaw is hardly radical because they did a temporary defederation because they didn't have the manpower to deal with users breaking their community rules.