Let's say I drank alcoholically (i.e. excessively) because of a disrupted childhood, peer pressure, or immaturity, and that, now those are resolved, I would drink moderately. Let's say, as an alternative, unrelated medication were removing the physical craving, so I could drink moderately.
Would I?
I wouldn't.
There are several reasons.
Firstly, I like being sober. I don't like my brain function to be impaired; I don't like my senses to be dulled. I like my thought life just fine. I like my feelings just fine.
Secondly, I don't need a drink, for any reason. If I did, the reason for the drink would not be eliminated by a drink: it would be masked. The more I use a chemical to solve a living problem, the less able I am to solve the living problem without the chemical.
Thirdly, I have a history of alcoholism. One characteristic is that a resumption of drinking will tend to lead to an alcoholic blowout and a resumption of the full-blown alcoholic lifestyle. Just because the physical craving isn't triggered straight away does not mean it will not kick in later. I've had slow starts to resumptions of drinking in the past.
'We have tried every imaginable remedy. In some instances there has been brief recovery, followed always by a still worse relapse.' (Big Book)
Fourthly, although I have stopped before, if I start, and the physical craving kicks in, there is no guarantee I would stop this time. Even if the risk were small, the consequences are both grave and potentially irreversible. The juice ain't worth the squeeze.
'Out came his carpet slippers and a bottle. In two months he was in a hospital, puzzled and humiliated. He tried to regulate his drinking for a while, making several trips to the hospital meantime. Then, gathering all his forces, he attempted to stop altogether and found he could not. Every means of solving his problem which money could buy was at his disposal. Every attempt failed. Though a robust man at retirement, he went to pieces quickly and was dead within four years.' (Big Book)
Fifthly, even if I can drink moderately, that couldn't be known until I have taken the risk of triggering a process that cannot be stopped. That would be an insane risk to take at the point of the decision. It is not made less insane because the risk did not materialise ... immediately. The elephant in the room is the insane decision at the point it is made.
Sixthly, this is the definition of moderate drinkers:
'Moderate drinkers have little trouble in giving up liquor entirely if they have good reason for it. They can take it or leave it alone.' (Big Book)
Having had an alcoholic past is good reason enough for giving it up entirely. If the question of whether or not to drink is important to me, I am definitionally not a moderate drinker, because I cannot take it or leave it alone. If the question preoccupies me, I am definitionally an alcoholic:
'The idea that somehow, someday he will control and enjoy his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker.' (Big Book)