One can have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of alcohol independent of its grouping with other drugs.
Alcohol doesn't get a pass because is it separated. Seems like you are placing excessive meaning on the distinction.
Alcohol doesn't get a pass because is it separated. Seems like you are placing excessive meaning on the distinction.
This "distinction" is like saying "meat and beef", i.e. no distinction at all. I'm mostly preaching to the formal system choir on HN, I just don't think I'm being out there saying the phrase "drugs and alcohol" is no accident in trying to distance alcohol from general drug use. The name Marijuana itself was deliberately made up to have negative connotations [0]:
> The use of "marihuana" in American English increased dramatically in the 1930s, when it was preferred as a "foreign-sounding name" to stigmatize it during debates on the drug's use.[12] [13] The word was codified into law and became part of common American English with the passing of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
I appreciate you posting this (even if it is terminology nitpick). The social connotations associated w/ verbally separating alcohol from other drugs hadn't occurred to me. I'm going to try to use this phrasing in the future.
Meanwhile drugs were always understood as something produced for the specific purpose of getting high.
There's a distinction because these are in fact different things.
Which one ? The most common food I found are just soy sauce / vinegar and I hope people are not drinking a bottle of it per meal.
Alcohol isnt viewed more favorable because it is held apart. It is held apart because it is viewed more favorably.
It is a distinction stemming from real world practice. You wont fail a drug test at work and be fired due to alcohol. You wont get shunned and kicked out thanksgiving for having a glass of wine.
One can argue that people should take alcohol more seriously, but coming at it from a semantic rationale seems silly.
it doesn't really work like that in practice though - there are plenty of 'drugs' that won't ruin your life or social-status, and they're not all listed separately like alcohol.
I'm a firm believer that the reason the linguistics that we now use came about was due to the legalities of the substances involved and the market action. Alcohol is big business, and legal -- so it deserves a distinction. That's about the singular distinction. The market was allowed to push phrases into the public purview, and luckily for them the phrases stuck.
During western prohibition it (alcohol) was called 'poison' or 'narcotic', or 'intoxicant' in the propaganda.
The google ngrams viewer verifies this suspicion; the phrase ' drugs and alcohol ' wasn't in (real) use until much later in American history.[0]
[0]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=drugs+and+alco...
You talk about legalities and that returns to the same point. legalities are different because it is more socially accepted.
People do say that they don't eat meat but they do eat fish.