“There Is Alcohol in Your Nyquil so Don’t Tell Me I Can’t Drink Beer”
Allen Webster
With a straight face, some conclude that social drinking cannot be condemned because “there is alcohol in Nyquil and vanilla.” At first hearing, that may sound reasonable. It is not. It does not clarify the issue—it confuses it, and “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33).
This is a straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy is misrepresenting someone’s actual argument—usually by oversimplifying, exaggerating, or distorting it—so that it becomes easier to attack. Here is the classic structure:
- Person A makes a claim.
- Person B distorts that claim.
- Person B attacks the distorted version.
- Person B acts as if he has refuted the original claim.
“You think all alcohol is wrong” is a misrepresentation. This is answering a matter before it is heard (Prov. 18:13). The discussion is not about Nyquil. It is not about vanilla in cooking. It is not about sourdough bread or overripe bananas. It is not about medicinal exceptions. These are not comparable to beverage alcohol, which is consumed specifically for its mental and physical effects:
- pleasure
- relaxation
- social effect
No one is arguing that all uses of alcohol in every form are sinful. The Bible allows medicinal use: “Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake” (1 Tim. 5:23), where the purpose is healing (stomach’s sake), the amount is restrained (little), and the situation is not recreational (use). Likewise, incidental or trace amounts of alcohol present in food products are neither consumed for their intoxicating effects nor capable of producing such effects in ordinary use. No one is condemning cough medicine or dessert, and we must not neglect weightier matters (righteousness) while focusing on the insignificant (cooking ingredients) (Mt. 23:23). To bring up Nyquil is to change the subject, and to strive about words “to no profit” (2 Tim. 2:14). To treat them as the same is to blur a line God does not blur, calling things what they are not (Isa. 5:20).
This comparison commits the fallacy of false analogy. Comparing different categories (medicine vs. recreation) is not sound reasoning. We are to “approve things that are excellent” (Phil. 1:10). Excellent (diapherō) refers to things of superior moral quality or greater importance. A false analogy is an argument that proceeds on the basis of similarities that are not pertinent to the conclusion being drawn. Aristotle warned that arguments fail when they rely on irrelevant or accidental similarities rather than essential likenesses (Aristotle). In this case, the presence of alcohol as a chemical component is treated as the decisive similarity, while the morally and practically significant distinctions—purpose, dosage, and effect—are ignored.
Modern logic texts identify this more specifically as a failure of relevance—drawing a conclusion from comparisons that do not share the qualities necessary to support it (Copi and Cohen). The analogy between medicinal/incidental alcohol and beverage alcohol fails because the former is not used for intoxication, while the latter is ordinarily consumed for its psychoactive effects.
This comparison confuses fundamentally different kinds of activity—incidental exposure versus intentional consumption (Ryle). Incidental ingestion and intentional consumption are not merely variations of the same activity; they belong to distinct categories. Nyquil is taken to heal; alcohol is taken to feel. Scripture warns: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1), for “at the last it biteth like a serpent” (Prov. 23:32).
The argument is a red herring. A red herring diverts attention from the central issue—whether recreational alcohol consumption is justified—by introducing cases that are not in dispute. Douglas Walton notes that such arguments shift the discussion away from the issue under consideration to something superficially similar but logically irrelevant (Walton). Asking “What about Nyquil?” is not relevant to a discussion about whether Christians should drink alcohol. They are discussing something else entirely. That is a distraction, introducing “foolish questions” that do not edify (Tit. 3:9).
These fallacies frequently work together:
- Straw man → implies opponent condemns all alcohol
- False analogy → compares medicine to recreation
- Red herring → shifts attention away from beverage alcohol
When combined, they produce confusion rather than clarity, but God commands us to do things “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). Such comparisons obscure rather than advance the discussion, like a smokescreen or muddied water. The argument fails to meet basic standards of sound reasoning. If one must redefine categories, blur distinctions, or rely on irrelevant comparisons to defend a practice, it raises a serious question: Is this grounded in truth—or just looking to justify an action? This approach should be abandoned so one can be “transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rm. 12:2).
Strip away the distractions and the question becomes simple: Is it right for a Christian to use a substance for the purpose of altering the mind and lowering inhibition, when we are commanded to be sober and vigilant? (1 Pet. 5:8; cf. 1 Pet. 1:13). That is the issue. And the answer is no.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Sophistical Refutations. Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Internet Classics Archive,
MIT.
Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic. 14th ed., Routledge, 2014.
Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. University of Chicago Press, 1949.
Walton, Douglas. Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticism. John Benjamins
Publishing, 1987.
The Holy Bible. King James Version.
