Can they?
Can they?
If you examine the diets of healthy people, you'll see that some of them eat donuts occasionally. That would seem to indicate yes.
The OP seems to make a really big point out of justifying sugar as 'not a toxin' just because you can consume sugar without killing yourself or instantly getting fat. There's probably some denial and 'I like eating sugar' sentiment going on there or something.
I didn't find any convincing arguments as to why adding sugar to processed food, or consciously consuming suger because you think you need it is warranted. Alcohol can be part of healthy diet as well, or motor oil, for that matter. That doesn't mean these things are healthy, or that there aren't any health benefits not consuming those.
Alcohol is not a nutrient.
Also, how is alcohol less of a nutrient than sugar? It gets metabolised to carbohydrates your body can use as energy, store as fat, etc. Apart from the fact there's an extra metabolic step required to convert them to carbohydrates your body can burn as fuel, there isn't much difference compared to sugar, at least not from a nutritional point of view (obviously this says nothing about other health effects alcohol has).
You're totally right about sugar being a problematic source of energy. A thin spread of honey on toast? Tasty and not so bad. A fistful of sugar in a drink twice a day every day? Obviously really bad.
One of the problems with the "sugar is toxic" mantra is that we risk making the same mistake as that "fat is evil" crowd. Selling a sack of sugar (sweets / candy) as "FAT FREE!" Is obviously really bad.
Alcohol isn't a nutrient, but the carbohydrates it provides are. But alcohol is actually toxic.