There is a world of difference between drunkeness (which the Bible condemns) and drinking (which the Bible does not condemn, and, in some passages, enjoins).
A distinction apparently lost on their powers that be.
One back story that is being neglected is that the Southern Baptist Convention recently added alcohol use to their list of things prohibited for clergy, teachers and employees. I suspect most of these people quitting the college like an occasional beer or glass of wine and it is not a mass exodus of people out of the closet. One of the problems with legalism is that it adds to God’s laws in an attempt to make one holy. So if God’s law prohibits drunkeness, then you can go one step further and prohibit all alcohol enjoyment and observing that might make you more “saved.” I have often wondered that if you are good at avoiding man-made “sins” then do people see it as a cover for when they commit actual sins? Such as, I might steal but at least I don’t dance or have long hair or whatever.
This sort of legalism creates unnecessary burdens while it actually makes sin less serious. If sin is just a checklist of things to avoid, rather than a part of our fallen nature, then maybe there is a lot we can do for ourselves without Christ. One could get a false sense of security, waving a very selective list of sins (like sinful sexual practices) plus social taboos about drinking, and thinking, like the rich young ruler, “I am doing pretty good according to my list, so what do I need this Jesus for.” I support the right of a religious institution to insist on its people following the doctrines of the organization and for the people to be good examples and not to engage in open, blatant sin. But mixing actual sins with social customs or taboos is one problem. Reducing the problem of sin to a checklist is an additional problem, as if the point of Christianity is to make one a better practitioner of the Law (with a little help from God, perhaps).