I was wondering more on this thread and conceived of it as two broad but different camps; [a] alcohol as a drug and alcohol as a ritual.
I'm very much tend to the [a] perspective. I frame a lot of things like that as it keeps me safe. It doesn't matter to me whether it is alcohol, or things people stereotypically think of as drugs, or chocolate loaded with sugar, or fried food loaded with grease, whatever. There's an amount of all of them that I can safely enjoy without getting into difficulties. I don't ever intend to be fat, or alcoholic, or craving anything in an uncomfortable way so I seldom want to look outside this framework. And I think that may have blinded me to something here.
Generally speaking the above is cold and dispassionate. What are the returns of X versus the hassles. Beer, cider, wine and whatnot strike me as a dumb way to take alcohol even if for no other reason than they are not concentrated. I touched on that earlier in the thread with the whole milk thing. But now I'm wondering what if there was a group that was as dug into the camp just as strongly as I am the [a]. I'm pretty certain they exist. The amount of substance and what it does to them chemically is second fiddle to the ritual. The well rehearsed pattern of social consumption is more interesting than an evaluation of the effect of the ingredients. Mmmmm.
Now I'm wondering; what if I made a beverage, a beer, cider or wine, that from a chemical effect perspective was inefficient crap compared to spirits, but that I was really really proud of? Curious one, I haven't got a clue. I think I'm too inextricably wired to the [a] camp to get my head round that. I am now open to the notion that the pay-off for one following this route could actually be more beneficial to that person in terms of moral than by counting brutal physiological efficiency.
FIIK.