Originally Posted by
sengsara 
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?
Someone who has never had a drink before would not be addicted. Their "Beast" (the realignment of survival drives towards a substance) would not exist. In effect, the Beast would never have been born. Furthermore, such a person would not have any reason to quit, no "Big Plan," and therefore, no Addictive Voice.
Originally Posted by
sengsara 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.
There are certain "beneficial side effects" to drugs such as alcohol, depending on how you look at it, yes. For example, alcohol does lower inhibitions, which may or may not be a benefit, depending on the situation. But, the prime reinforcement mechanism for all survival drives is pleasure - even drinking water or eating food causes a small release of dopamine to reinforce the behavior, though nowhere near the amount produced by synthetic drugs.
As for absolutist positions, it is true that they are not usually a good thing, but as pertains to an addiction, if you have finally reached the end of your rope, absolutist thinking has its place. Why play with fire?