Perhaps a GQ, but we’ll start off here.
Every so often, I’ll see an article about the “world’s oldest person”. Inevitably, it will be a 105-year old Russian who drinks vodka every day. (Not really, but you know what I mean.)
Red wine has phenolic constituents that might be good for you.
People have told me that beer has vitamins.
Is one form of alcohol ingestion “better for you” than another? Or is it better to abstain entirely?
Ethanol. 
Purely anecdotal, but I’ve heard more health benefits about wine than any other alcohol.
I’ve always heard but cannot confirm that the clear liquors (vodka, gin, white rum) are much easier on one’s body than the dark liquors (all whiskies, amber and dark rums). Something to do with the tannins that make liquor dark. No idea about beers and wines though.
Of course, the healthiest way to imbibe any alcoholic beverage is in moderation. I don’t know if one should abstain entirely; but certainly, moderation can’t be a bad thing. 
Moderation in everything, especially moderation!
I’m not sure about which alcohol is “healthiest”, but I know that the darker the drink the worse the hangover will be. From personal experience, I survive a night out drinking vodka much better than a night out drinking beer.
Right. I only have the occasional bout of moderation.
For a diabetic, the strong drinks of whiskey, vodka, scotch etc. can lower blood sugar levels while wines, beers, coolers, can raise the level. For me the risk of lowering the blood sugar level is better than the risk of raising it.
I know, I know, don’t drink at all. Pffft.
Here is a great article incl breakdown: Alcohol & Health
My SO’s mother has a prescription to drink wine for medicinal purposes.
My SO is a moderate drinker and is RARELY ill/under the weather. (just ask Projammer)
If I’m not mistaken, I believe some of the dark beers (such as Guinness) provided many nutrients to its drinkers. But i’m sure that was before all the preservatives and such were added.
If it’s covered by her insurance plan, you have the luckiest mom ever.
Daniel
As for the OP, I remember hearing, word-of-mouth, about a case in Washington State during the 90s. A brewery–I think it was Bert Grant, but I’m not sure (it may have been Thomas Kemper, back when they made beer)–decided to put nutrition information on their beer, since its levels of B12 were out the wazoo (B12 occurs naturally in brewer’s yeast, and they, unlike a lot of brewers, didn’t filter the dead yeast out). Supposedly the BATF retaliated by threatening to tax their hard cider as a wine instead of as a beer, a move that would have priced them out of the market; the BATF backed down when Bert Grant agreed to remove the nutrition label.
Daniel
I seem to recall the British doing studies on gin and finding that shaken martinis have a good amount of antioxidants. Only the British but of course I still use this in my argument that gin is medicinal.