The physician, as things are, can do little with the sufferer from any ailment if his system at the time is impregnated with alcohol, for the alcohol may very likely prove an antidote to the medicines, or, if it does not, may prevent the patient from taking them. An alcoholic does not keep engagements; he cannot be expected to take doses as prescribed by his physician. An alcoholic who is also ill of something else is doubly ill, but he usually gets treatment only for his secondary illness. No man who has lost control through stimulants is well, and until he has been definitely treated, he cannot be expected to act normally. The world does not yet know how to deal with him. Sequestration as it is usually practised--trips round Cape Horn, weeks spent in the woods where liquor cannot be obtained--will never do it. Not only must the physical yearning be eliminated, but the mental willingness to drink must be destroyed before reform can be accomplished. It is at this point that the sentimentalists are wont to fail. A promise made by one in whom the craving for the stimulant exists cannot properly be considered binding, for such a one is not responsible for what he promises. If body proves stronger than the mind in such a battle, he is merely an unfortunate, not really a liar or a weakling. The world's loss through alcohol has been incalculable. No community ever existed which could afford to relinquish the services of all its citizens who drink to excess or even of those who frequently get drunk. Yet society has continually maintained that when encountering the alcoholic it has crime, not disease, to deal with. Hence the crudely ineffective idea of penalization as a preventive.