Did you just compare LSD intoxication with "public drunkenness"?

Not so much "chalk and cheese" but "feather and revolver"

My state has no law against public drunkenness and there is no discernible difference here between other states I have lived in which had such a law. Honestly I think that was written as a religious feelzy.

I bet your state has a disorderly conduct or similar. The laws between states aren't vastly different on this sort of thing in most cases.

And that same law would apply to tripping people as it does to drunk people, so I don't understand what this is getting at.

"so I don't understand what this is getting at."

It's merely an illustration that the absolute language used to proclaim that there are no social issues related to them is not correct.

A drunk (or high) person is significantly more likely to engage in disorderly behavior like tripping people than a sober person.

In my state disorderly conduct requires mens rea of disturbing the peace. It's not something you can do accidentally. Compare that to public drunkenness in someplace like California, it's strict liability -- doesn't matter whether you meant to act drunk or not (in fact you can be held accountable for being "unable" to exercise care). They're extremely different laws.

What state is that? It's likely they have something similar. Almost all do. Many also consider that willful intoxication will satisfy mens rea.

Arizona. It's against the law here to pass a law against public intoxication:

>"No county, municipality or other political subdivision may adopt or enforce any local law, ordinance, resolution or rule having the force of law that includes being a common drunkard or being found in an intoxicated condition as one of the elements of the offense giving rise to criminal or civil penalty or sanctions..."

And in fact they specifically make it illegal to do the thing you suggest, and use other laws as a backdoor against public intox:

>"No county, municipality or other political subdivision may interpret or apply any law of general application to circumvent the provision of subsection A."

(This leaves ability to pass a law at state level, but state has no public drunk law)

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02031.htm

They commonly use disorderly conduct against drunk people if they're making a disturbance. You also don't need to do it with the intent to disturb, but just with the knowledge that you are, which is easier to prove.

But my point still stands - there are social negatives that we pass laws around consumption of various drugs (including alcohol), and that they are very similar in most states (AZ might not have a public drunkeness law, but still has plenty about other stuff like DUI, public consumption, age limits, licensing, open container law, etc).

You're oversimplifying. "The law" is not the only thing that dictates peoples' behaviors. There are lots of other reasons why drinking may be more or less bothersome in some states versus others. Different places have different customs, particularly around drinking. Those customs combined with alcohol may create more or less of a public nuisance.