No these aren’t the same risk calculations and in fact use different measurement language - this is important because it’s an actual argument that is fallacious and regularly used.

This is the same poorly argued version of: “Milk is a gateway drug” when we’re evaluating a claim like “x% of y users used z drug before starting y, therefore z induces y” but actually irrelevant when asking for causal precursors.

That is a completely separate type of claim and argument.

“Risk to health” increases with abstention of water, the direct opposite of the mechanism for alcohol.

Your own argument is exactly the same though, just for alcohol.

In fact it’s not. I don’t think you fully understand the arguments unfortunately