It's both isn't it. It has to be. Have you ever been to a wedding or convention that is serving? Alcohol absolutely is a social lubricant

That does not make it social.

By your definition ecstasy is a social drug or any drug at a rave is social (Note I have never seen MDMA turn anti-social).

In my experience most drugs are “social” - the heroin users I knew were a tight crowd! Weed is definitely social for those that partake.

Serve cocaine, MDMA and meth at a wedding and everybody will have a social blast too.

I don’t see an argument against the social merit of alcohol here. I dated an enabler who knew that alcohol helped ease my social anxiety around strangers. She told me we’d get a couple of drinks into me at the bar when going to office parties. It worked. Made me very sociable.

I’m genuinely curious how you define sociability of a drug or substance. I know alcohol is detrimental to society at large. On an individual basis, I find it quite attractive for social gatherings.

Calling alcohol social feels like an evil marketing gimmick - certainly our advertising pretends it is social.

Alcohol is deeply socially destructive - we know the stereotypical examples of damage in the the poor and the indigenous communities. The examples of damage in middle-class homes of the wealthy (e.g. doctors) and the average working class (tradies and nurses) is much less visible.

The words “social” and “alcohol” are immiscible.

We're very far apart on this issue. I feel like you must not drink socially, so you're not exposed to the milder effects of alcohol. Alcohol enables both social and anti-social behavior. It doesn't have to be black and white.

I drink at pubs and with friends.

I have an alcohol free home (I have seen too many friends slowly change from one small drink a night to a problem within a few years.

I have seen too many devastating consequences of “social” drinking to think it is safe.

Alcohol is the drug with the highest correlation with violence etc as well as producing the highest number of deaths and long term health problems...

It’s also the most readily available. The health problems don’t happen in a bubble. I’d bet heroin is far more destructive per user, but I’m just guessing at that.

Theres no need to guess, we can just look to before it was prohibited.

And it was alcohol that was worse.

Most people don't care to use it (heroin) at all let alone regularly. Opiates cause nausea and retching in most areas drug abuse levels....

Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful...

Just ask the wives of the time what they'd rather thier husbands use....

Alcohol is a potential catalyst and not a cause in these situations. There are underlying problems with people's psyche that lead to abusive outcomes. Add in centuries of religion supporting and encouraging the beating of wives and children who don't submit it's no wonder we as a species ended up where we are. Even Ghandi who was teetotaler hit his wife.

Point being, like anything, it's complex. Yes, alcohol is a factor in abuse. But it's not the cause.

No sh-t

The context was the impacts of X substance vs Y substance, right?

In all cases the actual cause is the underlying problems but it's the substance that (is perceived as) causes the manifestation that otherwise wouldn't occur, right?

So what purpose did your comment actually serve into he thread other than to derail an extant line of discourse?

I suspect this is a case of under communication on both are parts.

What I saw, you ended on a very vague set of statements that I assume were supposed to support that you were saying.

"Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful..."

Implication of alcohol being more harmful without evidence to support the claim.

History tells us lots of stories. For example, just because the temperance movement existed doesn't mean anything other than a bunch of people got it in their head that alcohol was the devil's drink and caused all of society's ills.

You also ended with an appeal to emotion, "Just ask the wives..." Instead of again supporting your claim that alcohol is more damaging with evidence.

To be clear, I'm not saying alcohol is or isn't more damaging. I'm saying that there isn't any evidence in these comments (yours and others) to support a claim of "X being worse than Y".

Opium addicts pass out, alcoholics beat and rape thier wives.

That's a line straight out of the temperance era.

I don't know why I needed to be more explicit....

If you think harmful things it doesn't count. it's only when thoughts are verbalized or become actions that there's a problem. Where a person, when sober, isn't abusive and doesn't hit people, but does when drunk, is say alcohol is the cause. if they're mean abusive drunks who can lay off the sauce, then they're actually okay people and it doesn't matter that they're mean and abusive when drunk.

I say this as the grandchild of an alcoholic. Alcohol is the problem. You're right that there're underlying things, but they lie there, just beneath the surface, mostly untouched and undisturbing without alcohol.

For some people alcohol and even THC can be very negative. That is true.

But we have learned that the social costs of prohibition of those drugs is higher than the benefit to society.

The same may be true of certain classes of hallucinogenic substances, especially since people tragically turn to solvents and extremely toxic substances as substitutes.