A causal relationship?

I have recently become very interested in this subject and I have read arguments on both sides of issue. I am curious as to how you would respond to the following argument.

Many proponents of alcohol restrictions would claim that, in fact, alcohol consumption is not a positive predictor of life expectancy. They would argue that a hidden variable, namely income, predicts both alcohol consumption and life expectancy. People of greater means can better afford a healthy lifestyle, nutritious food, and healthcare. Furthermore, it could be asserted that alcohol actually has a negative effect on life expectancy, but that this relationship is overpowered by the benefits to health that come with a higher income.

You nearly stumbled upon the above contention when you mentioned that a "handful of contrarians argue that it is not alcohol per se that makes people live longer". However, you construed that notion as being in line with your view and quickly dismissed it without recognizing the true essence of what these "contrarians" are saying about the relationship between income, drinking, and health.

In fact, the New York Times article that you referenced is about disparities in life expectancy due to income inequality, not alcohol consumption. There is only one mention of alcohol in the entire article, and the author does not take a side on that issue or offer any evidence for or against alcohol consumption. It took me a while to find the article so I'll post the link here for those who would like to read it:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00EFDD143CF934A15757C0A...

Dr. Peele, I am not insinuating that your view is wrong. In fact, I am more on your side than you might think, but I have yet to make up my mind. I am only following your own advice that "you can't always swallow what you are told." Any good researcher should question what they read. Moreover, any good writer should anticipate and/or respond to any possible arguments against their view.