I’d wonder about somebody who needed to keep cases of Dr Pepper scattered about for emergencies as well.
I once briefly dated a woman (a psychologist!) who would get anxious if she didn’t have access to chapstick. She had emergency stashes hidden in strange places.
As I implied in my earlier post - everyone gets themselves twisted in knots trying to avoid using the word “alcoholic”…because, why? Hellfire and damnation will rain down? What I hear everyone saying is “sure, he’s in some spectrum of alcoholic, but we’re not going to use THAT WORD because it’s too heavy and stigmatizing!”
Geez - spade = spade.
Yep. And there’s a vulgar synonym for “spade” that would likely get you banned.
“Alcoholic” carries a freight train of baggage, and it’s baggage that is not shared among at least four or five different groups of observers. A more neutral term would promote more sensible discussion.
So don’t be a[del]n[/del] [del]asshole[/del] [del]jerk[/del] [del]fool[/del] [del]schmuck[/del] distractor. 
Oh, and I want a cite from AA (specifically) that says anyone who has ever had a taste of alcoholic is considered an alcoholic.
This is more or less what I’ve been led to believe too. It’s like most mental illnesses in general - having symptoms of a condition doesn’t mean a diagnosis unless the person is seriously impacted by the situation. Note that the impact does not need to be of any specific nature - it doesn’t matter if the person has trouble keeping a job due to drinking, ends up in serious financial straits due to spending too much on alcohol, or ends up with serious bodily damage (e.g. cirrhosis of the liver) due to the drinking, etc., they all count.
If the person is able to live a successful, happy, and fulfilling life despite drinking more than an average person considers healthy or typical, that doesn’t count as alcoholism, that counts as drinking a lot. If he can’t keep a job because he keeps getting fired for showing up drunk, keeps getting evicted because he spends his rent money on alcohol, or ends up with cirrhosis that keeps getting worse because he won’t quit, that’s alcoholism.
Actually, NOT everyone is saying that. We’re simply saying he is not an alcoholic.
There is not avoiding a term. We’re explicitly saying that term is not applicable.
Then we have to deal with some people that want to shove the word “alcoholic” back in where it doesn’t belong, which is quite frustrating, because they’re using the word where it doesn’t belong.
None of the Signs and Symptoms seem to apply to this dude.
Four or five drinks per day is on the low side for the UK anyway, right? 
I was mostly addressing Amateur Barbarian’s comments. As for the dude in the first post, while he could probably stand to drink more water so he doesn’t get dehydrated, he doesn’t sound like an alkie.
It’s a definition. I don’t much need a definition (or disagree, in general, with this one); it’s more the way the term is applied as part of the spectrum of opinion shaded “all alky is bad.”
He’s drinking around 11.5 ounces of water per can/bottle, probably a little more. How much more hydration does he need?
Or are you in the camp that still believes soda is dehydrating?
Oh for fuck’s sake. Stop putting words in my mouth. Soda may not be good for you, but dehydrating? Who the hell thinks that?
As for the beer, yeah there’s water in it, but probably more actual water wouldn’t hurt. At most, since beer tends to have a lot of calories. But unless he’s part slug, he’s not going to shrivel up and die.
If anyone’s making a big fuss about this, it’s you. He’ll manage. MY point was to simply to give you a definition of a functioning alcoholic. This guy obviously isn’t one. It’s more a nutritional thing, in my opinion.
Now just cool your jets.
I don’t understand why people make this so complicated. The simple question is, “Is he addicted to alcohol?” Could he live comfortably without it? If you cut him off from all alcohol consumption, would he spiral out of control, become depressed, fly into a rage, go into physical withdrawals? If any of that applies to him, then yes, he’s an alcoholic.
I don’t understand why so many people are under the impression that as long as someone doesn’t get regularly drunk, doesn’t “ruin their life” with alcohol, etc, it doesn’t mean they aren’t addicted.
Probably because the OP hasn’t given us any other information, so this is all we have to go on.
This is really what it comes down to. If he goes more than 24 hours without a beer, does he start to shake and vomit? Alcoholic. Does he bitch about wanting his beer back, and act generally unpleasant, but is physically fine? he might have some kind of problem, as someone suggested upthread, like an anxiety disorder, and is using alcohol instead of a prescription medication, which is really his business, albeit, 99 out of 100 doctors would probably say he should give medication a try, and see if he doesn’t feel even better. If he just drinks more water than usual, and maybe has a little trouble sleeping, and says he misses the taste of beer with his lunch, but not in a hostile way, then he’s probably just a guy who really, really likes beer.
It also doesn’t mean they are addicted. Being addicted to alcohol pretty much by definition means one is an alcoholic. Being labeled an alcoholic is something that comes with a lot of baggage, and most people don’t want that.
It was a common and widespread belief until it authoritatively debunked just a couple of years ago - and I ASKED if you were in that camp, I didn’t say you were.
I asked BECAUSE…
Beer is 95% or more water; the Stella Artois the OP mentions is 5.5%, on the higher side (and 135 calories). Unless you are (and this is a question) in the “eight liters of water a day” camp, he’s getting about as much water as most adults, and probably more from sources the OP is omitting or discounting. So wondering about your notions of normal hydration was a fairly sensible inquiry, IMVHO.
Are you attempting to put words in my mouth? This may be your vernacular but it is not the universal understanding of the phrase “calling a spade a spade”.
Go ahead, suggest another term that is widely understood.
Waiting…
Are you insulting me? Are your Amateur modding me? Do we allow that now in this forum?
This is a false equivalency. Alcohol addiction is categorically more harmful than the other addictions you referenced. While there aren’t clearly-defined lines between light/moderate/heavy alcohol consumption, very few people will agree that a 5+ beer/day habit constitutes “light” drinking.
There’s a reason we don’t equate alcohol with sugar or caffeine, and it’s not just because people really like to demonize alcoholics. Whether it’s caffeine, chocolate, sugar, or whatever else you want to throw out there, alcohol is less harmless than any of those substances. Alcohol, unlike sugar or caffeine, is significantly mind-altering in a relatively small number of servings. Alcohol is a controlled substance and cannot be sold to minors. Alcohol consumption is responsible for a shitload of accidental/premature deaths… overdose, DUI, cirrhosis, domestic violence.
So of course we treat alcohol consumption differently than consumption of sugar or caffeine. While alcohol and caffeine both have mind-altering effects, they aren’t equally benign. Caffeine can legally and morally be consumed while you work. You can admit your caffeine addiction with impunity in the presence of your boss and coworkers. You’ll never have to take a blood caffeine test, or worry about the results of one determining the future of your job or criminal record. Caffeine withdrawal causes crankiness and headaches. Alcohol withdrawal causes delirium tremens and can kill you.
I think AA is full of shit, largely because of its religious connotations. But equating alcohol with caffeine or sugar is pretty full of shit, too.
Okay. Alkyhol iz bad. Moving on now.