I think where Henning is going, and where a lot of others leave the bandwagon is the infliction vs defect issue. For the example given of schizophrenia, this is so similar in that neither have an organic litmus test. While there has been a lot of focus on finding a genetic link for both, so far nothing has been established that meets the clinical definition of a causative marker.
On the other hand we have mental defects like the Sclerosis family of neurology, or the clear defect of Cerebral Palsy. These are not inflicted, as is the case with the addictive behaviors. If there isn't a difference in the clinical diagnosis(I think there is) then we should treat them the same as the defect group. However, if there is a difference in the clinical diagnosis, then we are really doing a disservice to those who truly suffer from a mental disease by lumping the addicts in with them.
It would also be a disservice to the addictive person to define them as mentally defective, and turn into 'enablers' of the behaviors that must be stopped to control the problem. Certainly a weakness of mine, is that I can't work up the same sympathy for a self-inflicted mental illness as I can for someone born with or developed MS, CP, or ALS. While both the alcoholics and the mentally defective suffer, the cure in one case is really quite as simple as Dr Bruce has defined.
"Stop drinking". And before anyone chimes in with 'they can't', I say, if we put them in prison, they would effectively be 'cured'. However, I don't see any value in that, with the clear exception that alcoholics often damage many people around them, and are often the cause of drunk driving deaths.
<edit: philosopher here, not a physician(obviously)>