So far I really like his paradigm. It is refreshing, it does not equivocate, it assigns moral consequences to bad choices. It places cause and effect and agency squarely where they belong. To the extent I've read it, I've started to actively take control of my thought processes, have not had a drink, and it feels like I'm touching solid truth.
I have one question that's been bugging me. I understand the neuropathology of the Beast, as he puts it. I understand our brains realigning our award pathways to pursue substances -- and even associated environments and symbols -- once the brain recognizes their ability to trigger its innate reward mechanism. I understand that one's ego has complete control over our choices, despite the ability of unconscious processes to commandeer parts of the ego and masquerade as "us". (The sex drive is one good example of his.)
My question is this: For someone who's never had a drink, or someone who gets drunk maybe three times a month, would "any thinking, feeling, or imagery that supports, or even suggests, [her] future use of alcohol or drugs, ever" be considered AV? Are there, in fact, rational reasons for people to want to drink?
To what extent can we talk about this as unequivocally true without resorting to the consequences it entails to the addicted? I recognize the first reaction to my question will be to identify the logic as the Beast talking. I am addicted, and I drink about 6-8 drinks every 3 or 4 days.
But, I do actually see a small set of benefits in certain social settings outside of a need to feel good all over, and I am also uncomfortable with absolutist positions for reasons beyond my own addiction. Apologies to anyone who is bothered by my line of reasoning.