[mikeash]

I don't think this is a semantic argument. The comment I replied to was making the argument that alcohol use is widespread because it has no legal competition. This does not appear to be the case to me, thus undermining the argument.

[scotty79]

You are right about availability of nicotine and caffeine but I'm not sure if you can make an argument that they could compete with alcohol.

I know that caffeine was a bit of competition for alcohol in the period right after it was introduced (some think that enlightenment was caused by this), but I don't think it's like that anymore.

[anigbrowl]

Nicotine and caffeine are drugs but when did you last hear of people crashing cars or killing other people because they were high on nicotine or caffeine. I'm sure it's an ancillary factor and if you could investigate with strict accuracy you'd find they had a non-zero influence. But putting them on the same semantic plane as you are doing implies that people in the grip of a nicotine or caffeine buzz are little different from people who are drunk, and anyone with real-world experience knows that's nonsense. You're not helping your point by reflexively making nitpicking arguments.

I'm pro legalization for all drugs, but but I'm not going to dispute the fact that booze, cocaine, and heroin are just like cannabis, caffeine and nicotine because it just isn't true. If you don't acknowledge the reality of people's experience when making your semantic arguments then people are going to ignore you.

[mikeash]

I agree with what you say, but that means alcohol is more damaging because it's more dangerous, not because it has no competition.

[anigbrowl]

I agree 100% with you on the substantive issue.

[metaobject]

If someone gets off work and wants to get loaded to forget about their problems, are they more likely to get a 12-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes?

[eecc]

Both