I wish the popular and completely absurd phrase "drugs and alcohol" would become outdated.
Somehow alcohol always gets separate consideration and categorisation, while most people would laugh if asked "is moderate tobacco/meth/ecstasy/whatever use healthy?"
>Somehow alcohol always gets separate consideration and categorisation, while most people would laugh if asked "is moderate tobacco/meth/ecstasy/
The "drugs" of alcohol and caffeine are more deeply integrated into public social life. Wine is mentioned in the Bible. Beer is sold at family outings like baseball games. The White House serves alcohol at official state dinners. President Obama had the famous "beer summit" https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+beer+summit&tbm=isch
Also, the existence of alcohol is caused by common natural processes. E.g. leaving apples or pears out on the kitchen counter too long and it naturally ferments which creates alcohol. I remember leaving some old pears in the kitchen and they eventually smelled like alcohol. I ate the pears and they definitely tasted like alcohol. The point is, alcohol can come into existence without even doing anything.
In contrast, the White House isn't handing out crystal meth or heroin at state dinners and there aren't any natural decaying processes that turns random food into ecstasy. Marijuana is natural but it isn't culturally accepted by the public. (President Clinton's "Yes, but I didn't inhale.")
Alcohol/caffeine have a lot of acceptable functional uses that the other drug categories don't have which is why society continues to talk about them as a separate class.
This is just the explanation of why it's "drugs and alcohol", and OP probably is well aware of that. The point is there's an argument to be made that even though history shaped this distinction it's harmful in some ways and progress should be made towards removing this partcular distinction and make it one based on science, e.g. a more fair classification based on toxicity/negative effects.
>and proghress should be made towards removing the distinction. [...] history shaped this distinction
The point I'm trying to make is that society can't make progress towards unifying alcohol into a category with fetanyl -- because society will continue to use alcohol in socially acceptable functions.
It's not just about the past. It's this ongoing use of alcohol that's very different from fetanyl that will continue to keep alcohol as a separate category in the public's mind. Our future behaviors will keep reinforcing the separate categories in future discussions. Yes, you can scientifically unify "alcohol is a drug" together with "fetanyl is a drug" ... but our deep cultural integration with alcohol prevents society from doing that. E.g. Do we expect the bride of a future wedding in 2026 to choose which wine to serve at the reception? Yes and behaviors like that means we'll continue to categorize alcohol as a separate thing from fetanyl in 2026. If the hired wedding planner tells the bride, "how can you order wine when it's in the same scientific category of toxic danger like fetanyl?!?", that planner will get fired.
> The point I'm trying to make is that society can't make progress towards unifying alcohol into a category with fetanyl -- because society will continue to use alcohol in socially acceptable functions.
Yes I get that point. But that doesn't mean rather simple 'semantic' measures could be taken to make it more obvious alcohol is not exactly healthy. Instead of 'person was under influence of alcohol and cocaine' or 'drugs including alohol', instead of just 'drugs and alcohol'.
That science should take into account it positive effects on society at large. it’s possible society wouldn’t exist without alcohol. There are customs about drinking with new partners (tribe leaders, business leaders) because until you see them with their shields down you can’t trust them.
There’s also a lot of joy people get. Removing that joy might be a net negative over all. It’s like another said, cupcakes, ice cream, candy, donuts are bad for you but people get joy from them so we just encourage moderation
while the special treatment of alcohol is due to cultural,historical and commercial reasons, from a toxicology point of view it makes sense to treat them all separately. But I agree with your sentiment.
As far as I understand, the aftereffects of alcohol are due to its poisonous effects on organs, receptors and neurons. Drugs act on receptors directly by binding to them or restricting binding.
I don't understand your distinction. Alcohol affects receptor binding. Drugs' aftereffects are due to their poisonous effects on organs, receptors and neurons.
Somehow alcohol always gets separate consideration and categorisation, while most people would laugh if asked "is moderate tobacco/meth/ecstasy/whatever use healthy?"