It has nothing to do with addiction, or civil rights. Alcohol is bad for your body. Nobody questions that, except maybe you!
Your's is a dogmatic view of it.
It may be bad for the body, I make no argument there one way or other. Anotger replier did note, however, that in certain instances moderate consumption of certain alc bevs is NOT entirely negative. So, again, maybe leave the dogma outside (?)
But substances also change the way the mind interacts and processes.
In creative arts...that may NOT be a BAD thing.
Which is my point which seems to repeatedly escape you...
I tried to give a personal example above....half a cocktail actually makes my playing better, more fluid, less pre-thinking each note or hand position or fingering or where I wanna throw in this or that lick.
This is such a COMMON dynamic among musicians, so many report this...., to deny it or condemn it is just silly.
Had a drummer friend back in HS/College who followed a 'half bottle modus' as he called it. Half bottle beer before a show, not enough to get you buzzed or lose focus, but enough to loosen you up and calm inhibitions or nerves....
So again, health wise...perhaps 'bad'...but we are in no position to say that it negatively effected an artist's performance, oeuvre, production, etc... and that that artist would have been 'even greater' had they never imbibed or gotten hooked.
Unless we start looking at a sad but vast minority of performances where they may have been so messed up they could not perform.
This is aside from whether it ultimately led to their demise, mind you. I am addressing an intimation that association with the substance automatically resulted in an artistic 'negative'. And that the 'greatest' players were and are completely 'clean'. Neither of those suggestions are remotely accurate.