The answer is not clear-cut, but in all societies which have sought to control alcohol consumption, they have done so by limiting the strength of the drinks sold. For many years beer at 5% was not available in parts of Scandinavia, for example, and hard liquor was banned for many years in Belgium even though beer and wine continued to be sold. A drop of 3% abv. may not seem like much but if people, especially younger people, gauge their consumption by the number of units, they will drink less, all things being equal (i.e. even accounting for the different sizes of pours in different bars, etc.). Someone may say, I won't have more than 3 drinks tonight: he or she will drink less alcohol on that basis with a weaker liquor than a stronger. True, some people may have an additional drink to get the feeling they want, but I don't think most will. I guess I don't know for sure, but from a social responsibility point of view, I can't see any harm flowing from reducing the proof of a national liquor brand to 80. I don't know if Brown-Forman intended a beneficial social result, but sometimes private and public interest coincide. I had no problem with the move because I don't think the palate was significantly affected, and a higher proof Jack is available (Single Barrel) for the specialty side of their business. Just my opinion.