I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming that the author must be an alcoholic in denial just because what he has to say might rub us the wrong way. I also think its problematic to discount the evidence presented by assuming that anything can be "proven" by manipulation of facts and figures.
If I had to guess, I would say that the author's motivation was the truth. I'd say that given the significantly low percentage of people that actually recover from addiction, we still have a lot to learn about its nature. We'll never gain an adequate level of insight if we cling to false pretenses even if they bolster our cause.
Personally, I found nothing in that report that made me want to pick up. I don't even think that it would have provided me any good reason to avoid recovery when I was actively using. The thing about alcohol always being present in my body, I find that fascinating. It makes me wonder if the physiology of an alcoholic is somehow defective in his/her production the normally-occurring/natural alcohol found in the body. Perhaps this provides one more piece of the puzzle as to why I'm seemingly hardwired to crave it.
Another thing of note in the study was the argument that alcohol advertising does not correlate to higher levels of alcohol consumption. I actually wrote a paper for a graduate level bioethics class on the regulation of vice. In my research I actually came across some evidence to the contrary. That part of the paper was actually focused on the advertising of unhealthy food to children but the authors evidence on the SUNY site challenges my assumption. Long story short, if the author's evidence is valid and if those of us who are concerned with combating alcoholism at a societal level are devoting our efforts to regulating alcohol advertising, then we would be diverting valuable resources away from real problems.
I don't discount the notion that we all need to find what is true for us. I KNOW that I simply cannot use drugs or alcohol. Too much trial and error has proven that too me. However, there's some difficult questions about the nature of addiction that still eat at me. For example, why can I be an avid cigarette smoker and not relapse on other substances? As I've been told, the common assumption is that "a drug is a drug is a drug." Why then would marijuana use be anymore likely to lead me back to alcohol (my DOC) anymore than tobacco or coffee? Another example would be food addiction. If a food addict can learn to regulate their eating habbits why can an alcoholic not do the same?
Frankly questions like these used to REALLY bother me. When I was in rehab, I was told that such questions were my "disease talking" and was never given anything close to an honest answer. IMO, its not the questions that lead to temptation its the lack of answers or even the willingness to confront the issues. Perhaps the answers would be unsettling or even dangerous to hear but the truth is often that way. However, if you told me that there was no essential difference between food addiction and substance abuse, I'm still not going back out. I enjoy my sober life far more than even the days when I might have been considered a recreational or sober drinker. Food consumption is a necessity. Alcohol consumption is a want. So even if someone could prove that a return to moderate drinking was within my ability, alcohol has done too much damage to me to make me want it again. If there is an essential difference, understanding it would remove a huge stumbling block.
The more I understand the nature of this beast, the more I understand myself. Self-knowledge is not always the most pleasant business but I would rather know myself. If I achieve sobriety through dillusion, then I'm building my recovery on unstable ground.