Originally Posted by
Gottalife 
The first drink is not a rational choice, it is an insane decision. No logical sane thought could justify me picking up a drink.
These are precisely the kind of things that should be subjected to moral scrutiny. That is to say, those things which are dangerous, but to which logic and rational thinking are possibly ill suited.
Originally Posted by
Gottalife I detect a bit of a double standard here too. The medical profession, apparently, is quite likely to be wrong about its classification of alcoholism as a disease, supported by many years of research, yet it is almost a heresy to suggest the same folks might be wrong in their dispensing of medication to alcoholics.
I'm not sure what you were referring to here. I was speaking to the notion that there is something physiologically, medically different about alcoholics, irrespective of their drinking, which make the general population immune to addiction to alcohol, no matter how much they drink, or for how long.
I'm aware that a percentage of people are naturally immune to drinking too much, usually because even small amounts of alcohol cause them physiological discomfort, or because alcohol does not produce good feelings. These people are unlikely to become addicted, but the same phenomenon also exists for other drugs.
I don't believe there is a medical solution for alcohol addiction, although it's possible there may be some day. Hopefully, it won't be in form of alcohol replacement therapy, as has been the case with nicotine. That addiction-preserving "solution" doesn't exactly require a medical degree.