<p>But teriwtt, the amount of alchohol that drives potentially violent people to crime/violence is very different from the amount of alchohol drunk at, say, a cocktail party, or out at dinner, or even at a “night on the town.” And the earlier, I’d argue, that a person learns “how” to drink, the earlier he will know his limits and know how not to over-drink. Hangovers are not exactly pleasant, nor is throwing up - I’d argue that almost anyone thus has an incentive from day one NOT to drink beyond his limits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, you never cease to amaze me. If you feel the law is unjust, work to change it! Don’t just disobey it.</p>
<p>I feel citizens in good standing (no felonies, no domestic violence, no history or mental issues, etc) should be able to own automatic weapons. Especially law enforcement officers! But that’s against the law. I’m not going to just go get one because I feel like I should be able to. The law says I can’t. If I feel like I needed one, I’d work to get the law changed; not just disregard it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This thread has also gotten to “underage” kids drinking at parties, college, etc. Not just in the parents’ home. Yet, people still have no issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the normal teenager, the brain is not fully developed. I do not understand why people feel the desire to take an unnecessary risk by drinking alcohol at that age.</p>
<p>Driving increases the chance of car accident - should we ban kids from driving? Eating solid food increase the chance of choking - should we not give our kids solid food until much later? I think the answer is no.</p>
<p>I have posted before where I have said I believe young adults need to be taught how to be responsible drinkers (if they chose to drink, not everyone drinks), just like they need to be taught how to behave at a dinner table. To quote my daughter, “You just don’t get sloppy.”</p>
<p>ajadedidealist - again, I’m just trying to disprove the statement written by an earlier poster that, other than DUI, alcohol doesn’t harm anyone else other than the drinker, so they have the right to get as boozed up as they want as long as they don’t drive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both of these have known benefits. Alcohol being put into a young person’s body does not.</p>
<p>hops_scout - Since you quoted me I will respond directly to you. First, I have not posted previously on this thread so I am not sure how I “never cease to amaze” you, although I have been told by others that I do seem to have that effect.</p>
<p>Second, to have a “brightline” test of “law/no law” is facile and ignores a load of jurisprudence concerning the genesis and formation of laws and the circumstances under which laws appropriately lose their efficacy and imprimatur. Do you refrain from sexual practices in the privacy of your home that are felonies on the books of many states or are you a sexual deviate/criminal 
.</p>
<p>Third, laws concerning automatic weapons are not in any manner analogous to “status” based offenses in terms of basic jurisprudence and the relationship to the structure and integrity of society. Comparing the two is specious. (And I say this as a gun owner who has no problem with gun registration, limitations and the ban of automatic weapons from private ownership.)</p>
<p>Fourth, as the parent of an 18 year old and a 23 year old, as a parent who spent 13 years as an officer of my school district’s PTO’s and Parent Councils, I am very concerned about underage drinking parties and college drinking. This is a basic health and safety issue which has become even more difficult to address because our municipalities and the law have put such an emphasis on criminalizing kids who drink underage instead of addressing the problem as one to be solved collaboratively with parents. It’s also why starting at age 16, I permitted my kids to have a limited amount of wine or a taste of beer at family functions, to have a drink publicly when on vacation in countries with more relaxed drinking laws and that my wife and I always modeled responsible drinking behavior. As a result, there was no mystery about booze, it was not a focal point of “rebellion” or “experimentation” and neither of my kids drank at high school parties or drink to excess or drink and drive at college.</p>
<p>Fifth - As to brain development, are you talking about a 10 yr old, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20? Are you talking about a sip, a glass or a pint? Wine, beer or vodka. Generalities are silly and unfounded. Find me a single study that shows that a single bottle of beer or glass of wine consumed by a 16 year old at a meal at family functions and holidays results in developmental impairment. I’ll balance that risk any day against the very real dangers of a kid going off to college who has never been exposed to alcohol in a controlled and responsible setting.</p>
<p>hops_scout,</p>
<p>How about banning fast food? There are no benefits in a greasy burger. Putting junk food in young bodies does all sorts of harm IMO.</p>
<p>MichaelNKat, I’m sorry I was too general with the statement about “ceasing to amaze me.” It was not directed at you, but at everyone in this thread and many others who have no issue with underage drinking.</p>
<p>I do not know of any studies that would show that “a single” drink is going to lead to developmental impairment. I just know that the brain is still developing as late as the twenties and I see no need to take that risk however minute it may be.</p>
<p>“Responsible drinking” keeps being brought up and it cracks me up. Those for underage drinking and mine are definitely different when it comes to alcohol. I guess that’s just my upbringing. “Responible” to me means to obey the rules! Contrary to popular belief, rules and laws are not meant to be broken.</p>
<p>parabella, you go right ahead. Believe it or not, there are still more benefits in that greasy burger than drinking alcohol. I will agree that junk food is bad for young persons. But it DOESN’T impair young persons like alcohol.</p>
<p>hops_scout,</p>
<p>there are more benefits in a glass of red wine than in a greasy burger( heart, cholesterol and so on) . And speaking about the rules, what about all of those “just turned 21” who drink themselves into alcohol poisonoing going from bar to bar? They are not breaking any law, right?. IMO it’s a parents’ job to make sure their kids don’t end up in this situation and that the still developing brains are not damaged. And in our case it involves education about “rules” of drinking responsibly , so that on the day of his 21st birthday, when he suddenly becomes “developed” enough in the eyes of the law to drink he knows better than go and drink 21 shots with no food. And even now, as a 20 yo he knows much better than that( more of an occasional lager kind of guy) .</p>
<p>“For the normal teenager, the brain is not fully developed. I do not understand why people feel the desire to take an unnecessary risk by drinking alcohol at that age.”</p>
<p>This and similar comments have come up often in this topic and it’s an almost textbook example of false logic based on a slippery slope. If a 16-18 year old walked around with an IV drip of Vodka, yeah they’ll probably have some problems… but if someone in that age group had a glass of wine with dinner a few times a week they’d be just fine. If one takes 15 Tylenols at once they’d probably destory their liver… Is it then OK to use this same logic and say that one shouldn’t use Tylenol at all? No of course not. </p>
<p>The legal age in the US is 21 not because of medical or scientific reasons, but because we’ve always considered alcohol a bit of a taboo topic (remember it wasn’t too long ago when we banned the stuff completely). In many parts of Europe, even someone as young as 13-14 would be given wine with their dinner. Do these people then suffer brain damage? No. Do these teenagers generally see going to a friends house and getting totally drunk as something they’d like to do? No… becuase alcohol isn’t a forbidden fruit. </p>
<p>It’s really a question of our society teaching our children about responsible social behavior and making good decisions (with alcohol and many other things).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was under the impression that the drinking age was raised from 18 (where it was when I was in college) because of the high number of traffic fatalities caused by young people drinking and driving. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) mobilized in the 1980s and got national legislation passed to raise the age to 21.</p>
<p>I was brought up in a southern baptist home, and was preached to about the evils of drinking at home, school, church etc. I drink a beer at a friend’s house every once in a blue moon or so. When I was a freshman in college, my roommate bought some cheap tasteless vodka. I wanted to experience being drunk, and was discouraged after 15 minutes or so that I didn’t receive the desired effect. So I kept on and on. Finally I stopped after i knew for sure I was drunk. I fell asleep while watching t.v., and I woke up with puke all over my clothes, all over the wall, and all over my bedsheets. My roommate told me the next morning that he heard me gagging. I didnt feel it; it must have been involuntary. I could have choked.</p>
<p>After that, I made sure to do my research about blood alcohol levels, the concentrations between different effects, amplifiers like cold medicines, and what NOT to mix with (for example, I honestly didnt even know sleeping pills and alcohol were a lethal mix until I read about it).</p>
<p>I could have REALLY used alcohol and drug education programs in high school, but my stubborn school and family decided to take the “He doesn’t need to know that, because he wont drink anyway” approach. Horrible idea. Believe it or not, I didnt drink to be rebellious or to get back at anyone. I drink for the reason most other people drink-to fit in. After I had my episode, some of my more casual acquaintances realized that I wasnt going to rat them out to the RAs for drinking alcohol, and that I had something in common with them. They started inviting me out places with them, and we became really good friends. All I know is that when I have kids, I’ll never let my personal values get in the way of my children at least being equipped with the knowledge of how to stay safe. They’ll know not to drink themselves sick, or have unprotected sex.</p>
<p>I’m amazed to find this post going on still…</p>
<p>It sort has become a “I’m better than you because I …” post. </p>
<p>The point of the post was lost a while ago…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was part of it, but if we really wanted to decrease driving accidents, why didnt we raise the driving age to 18 like it is in Europe? I thin k alcohol was just an easy target for grassroots organizations like MADD.</p>
<p>Because the vast majority of youth drunk driving deaths were between ages 18 and 21. And the move was spectacularly successful. Because not all of the states raised the drinking age in the same year, it was possible to compare “before and after” rates for neighboring states in the same year. Thousands of deaths, and tens of thousands of crippling injuries have prevented, not just among teens, but among others on the road.</p>
<p>More recently, studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Public Health have indicated a direct correlation between early drinking and later alcoholism and alcohol problems, not only among adults, but among youth ages 18-21. Meanwhile, in most of Europe, with the lower drinking ages, rates of alcoholism, liver cancer and cirrhosis, alcohol-related heart disease, and alcohol-induced deaths are substantially higher than they are in the U.S. This is despite the fact that, at least in some parts of Europe, binge drinking rates among youth are lower. </p>
<p>I would agree, however, that the issue of drinking age is actually quite separate from whether a parent provides a drink to a youth. In at least 12% of the population (higher among whites), parents shouldn’t provide alcohol to their 40-year-old offspring, no less the 16 or 20 year olds.</p>
<p>I believe Booklady and mini are correct - I remember MADD’s campaign to raise the drinking age very well, as I was in the age group affected. People my age were grandfathered in my state, and we were still able to drink, but some slightly younger friends were not. </p>
<p>I have been giving this whole thread a lot of thought, and what I have gotten out of it is that parents have to know their own kids, and act accordingly. Maturity and experience seem to be key points in whether kids decide to over-drink. Providing alcohol to one’s own children at dinner or a party is ok, providing alcohol to the friends of one’s children is not. In most states, apparently, it is legal to serve alcohol to one’s own children, so this is not breaking the law.</p>
<p>We all know that alcohol has health benefits as well as the opposite - so moderation is important. This is true, not just for personal health, but for public safety as well. None of this is new to me, but at least it’s let me put things into perspective as I have had concerns about my D being around kids who are drinking. I know her and trust her to behave appropriately - and I’ll have to hope that if she does decide to try a drink, she won’t overdo it, and that she will call me if she needs me. I will also have to pray that she doesn’t get into a car with anyone who has been drinking (my biggest fear). She has promised she won’t, and I believe she wouldn’t knowingly get into a car with someone she knew had been drinking - but I suppose it could happen if she forgot to ask. </p>
<p>Parents have to do what they feel is best for their children/family - and what may work for one family may not be the best choice for another.</p>
<p>Sorry if this went on too long, I just thought I would share these thoughts.</p>
<p>“We all know that alcohol has health benefits as well as the opposite - so moderation is important.”</p>
<p>The only proven health benefit is for a quantity of wine not more than 1 1/2 ounces per day, less than half of a smallish glass. (I know, because it is a specific part of my cardiac maintenance regimen.)</p>
<p>Moderate drinking of any good liquor is healthy.</p>
<p>[UMIM:</a> Healing Food Pyramid: Alcohol](<a href=“http://med.umich.edu/umim/clinical/pyramid/alcohol.htm]UMIM:”>http://med.umich.edu/umim/clinical/pyramid/alcohol.htm)</p>
<p>LIMOMOF2: “parents have to know their own kids, and act accordingly”</p>
<p>I think it is possible to a very limited extent. From what I have seen in my 17 years of parenting, this belief is often the refuge of people whose children have not gotten into trouble (and who believe the reason is because of their good parenting skills, as if they have had a big hand in it). I am not saying that you, LIMOMOF2, think you are a superior parent, but that in general parents who have been fortunate can be lulled into a false sense of security.</p>
<p>Much of who we are is genetic, and a great deal of the story when kids stay out of trouble is luck. I have heard parents criticize the families of kids who get into drugs because of addiction, despite the fact that it is an inherited disease. When you look at the facts about how many kids drink or do drugs underage (what is it, like 80 or 90 percent by the senior year of high school?), and the small number who actually get caught, we are all on thin ice if we think we can “know” our kids and everything they do. Why would this generation be any different than ours? For most of us, did our parents know everything we did? </p>
<p>Some kids are angels, but they are in a tiny minority. Most will experiament, and most parents will not find out about it. The brains of all young adults are weaker in the ability to delay gratification, in decision-making, and in controlling impulsivity, then they will be when they reach their mid-twenties. Adding alcohol to that just isn’t a great idea. Most young people do some stupid things before reaching adulthood, and parents who think they “know” them usually have less information than they realize.</p>
<p>I have nothing against MADD (overall they do great work) but as someone else pointed out their singling out the drinking age as the cause of drunk driving was essentially picking a political fight based on a red herring. The change in drinking age has had little impact on whether or not 18-21 year olds drink (anyone whos been to any college campus will confirm that). The public discussion should be more about the resonsible consumption of alcohol and about making good decisions (like not drinking and driving). Instead, we’ve made the unfortunate mistake of focusing most of our public education and enforcement on age of consumption and not promoting responsible consumption. If anything, this has likely made the whole problem worse since it hasn’t stopped most 18-21 year olds from drinking… just ensuring that they do it in secret and with little education or mentoring about how to make good decisions about drinking.</p>
<p>It’s the difference between an ‘idealistic’ argument and a ‘pratical’ argument. The same thing happens in Africa where some religious groups spend millions promoting abstinence and refuse to educate people on or distribute condoms. In an ideal world, abstinence would be an effective method of preventing the spead of AIDS, but practially that’s just not going to happen. As a result, such misguided efforts likely make the problem worse. </p>
<p>Until we take a realistic approach to the problem, the situation won’t get any better. Unfortunetly, I don’t think there’s an easy way to go back to 18 (so that everyone arrives at college in the same boat) with more focus on responsible education.</p>