That’s not a new paradigm though, it’s a staple in the issue that is talked about frequently. Saying that the consumer is the issue doesn’t make them bad people worthy of judgment. There’s a whole slew of variables as to why some people are more prone to addiction or what circumstances lead to behavioral addiction.

To that end, it’s not true that “virtually all” paradigms start at the substance. There’s been a huge shift towards mental health and community involvement as treatment for addiction.

This paradigm you’re putting out, however, is derailment from the original point. You believe that this individual who says he was drugged, having memory loss after drinking a routine amount of alcohol, was actually showing his true colors with the alcohol. The drugs didn’t seem to factor in your initial statement. My disagreement is that being drugged is a real problem, secondarily that alcohol abuse isn’t as simple as showing one’s true nature. Watching drunk friends or putting out different paradigms or talking about addiction, while interesting conversations, keeps shifting the fact that you ignored the crux of the incident to tie it into anecdotal experiences you have while others drink, and your philosophy behind this activity.

Getting drugged or getting drunk are two different things, and if you think OP is lying to hide his own mistakes of showing his true self (mostly due to your observations of drunk people, something you enjoy doing) then this argument becomes a matter of opinion and we can leave it at that.

It is widely misunderstood, but that doesn’t give you license to use it to justify your own superiority. You call my response a non-thinking reaction, even though what I said was coherent. However, you then use many paragraphs to say that, incorrectly, I implied all addictive things are addictive due to the substance. You reached as far as you could and, surprise, you interpreted it in such a way that makes everyone who did get addicted sound much worse than those who did not. Your responses take some facts and filter them down until they lack any nuance of what the behaviors address in the addict, and finally, argue once again that a drunk person is just the “real” person. I’ll refer to your prior argument then, no doubt something you pulled out of your ass haphazardly; if we haven’t seen alcohol around for a good chunk of human history, then there never would have been any true human behavior before then.

You pretend as if removing inhibition is all alcohol does, you then use that to diagnose why alcoholics are addicted, and are pulling dramatic examples that don’t fit the discussion to bash your way to a perceived win instead of learning anything about yourself. Which… again, if you put yourself around drunk people because it’s fun to see who they truly are, then none of this is surprising so much as it’s just sad.

Millions of people don’t have depression so by your subpar logic, depression isn’t a real problem and suicide is just something selfish people do. Which honestly isn’t really a “gotcha” response because your posts read the way one of those people would speak.

And the length of ethyl’s existence is a weird tangential response to the discussion of how addiction works. Substance abuse doesn’t rely on evolutionary response to each individual substance, but I think you know that. It’s just weird false philosophical points that “hint” at an incorrect answer, one that makes you feel very smart over your peers that drink.

Not sure why anyone would want to drink you, hopefully you’ve kept these shitty thoughts in your head while you’re out judging people who drink.

That’s not how alcohol addiction works; none of the science on it agrees with your take. Assigning your weird ideologies to addicts might make you feel very smart but don’t use them to try and shame people, let alone someone who says they were drugged.