[blululu]

Sort of. It's analogous to Beer vs Whiskey: Same psychoactive, but one substance has been chemically concentrated. Both are bad for you but one can be consumed in much lower quantities and concentrations so the health risks are a bit attenuated. Drinking a beer a lunch on a Friday is generally acceptable, but whisky at lunch any day would raise some eyebrows. That said if you start drinking 5 beers a night every night your friends and family might intervene.

[kortilla]

Not really analogous. A whiskey beverage is usually served at one alcohol unit of strength and has the same alcohol as a beer.

In fact, someone who has a whiskey neat for lunch is likely going to get less alcohol than someone who has a pint from a microbrew. 16 ounces at 10% abv vs 1.5 ounces at 40%.

[blululu]

In both cases the psychoactive is the same but the concentration is different. It is a fair nuance you bring up that an unregulated refining and cutting process has a lot of variability in its amount which can mean taking a rather large amount. While drinking a beer can have more total alcohol than a shot of whiskey, the social stigma is there for reasons. Concentrated consumption is on a different level in terms of behavior and results. I frequently see people have a single beer over a meal, but I don't usually see people have just one shot of whisky...

[kortilla]

I frequently see people have a whisky neat or something like a martini and that’s it. It’s a low carb substitution for drinking beer.

[User23]

> Not really analogous. A whiskey beverage is usually served at one alcohol unit of strength and has the same alcohol as a beer.

The only place I’ve ever gone to a bar where this is actually true is in Utah. Not to mention with the rise of craft beer even a beer isn’t a standard drink often as not.