<p>points out that “47 percent of those who begin drinking alcohol before the age of 14 become alcohol dependent at some time in their lives, compared with 9 percent of those who wait at least until age 21. The correlation holds even when genetic risks for alcoholism are taken into account.” </p>
<p>The longer to put off the start, the better, it appears.</p>
<p>There’s a pretty big middle ground between kids who start drinking before they’re 14 and those who wait until the highly arbitrary “legal drinking age” or beyond. There’s also a big difference between a college kid who has a few drinks every once in a while and one who has alcoholic blackouts several times a week.</p>
<p>Nothing to yawn about on this one when viewed as part of the amazing advances taking place in neurobiology - “mounting research shows that alcohol causes more damage to the developing brains of teenagers than was previously thought.” According to a study of extreme drinking on college campuses cited in the article, this research signals the risks of teen alcohol consumption and impaired cognitive performance: “There is no doubt about it now: there are long terms cognitive consequences to excessive drinking of alcohol in adolescence.” Simply put, “alcohol affects the teen brain differently” and as such the “grim” news strikes a strong blow against the college drinking culture that pervades too many campuses these days.</p>
<p>Of course it’s bad for teenagers to drink excessively. Of course excessive alcohol consumption causes more damage to a developing brain than a fully developed one (though it’s important to remember the significant difference between a 14 year-old brain and a 19 year-old brain). Was this something that we didn’t know already? The particular study might be new, but does the overall article tell us much of anything new? Didn’t we already know that people cause themselves neurological and other damage if they drink heavily often? That’s why I yawned. The headline of this article is misleading - it implies that any drinking by any teenagers causes “grim neurology” when in fact it’s primarily talking about heavy drinking by younger teenagers.</p>
<p>Do people think that your brain is developing and developing up until your 21st birthday and then suddenly it stops, and that’s why underage drinking, even for legal adults, is not okay, but over-21 drinking is?</p>
<p>I am just concerned that this will fuel the “OMG all alcohol consumption before the age of 21 is a horrible social evil!” crowd. There’s a world of difference between an alcoholic 14 year-old and a 19 year-old who enjoys a drink or two with friends every so often.</p>
<p>One of the key sentences in the article is “But was once a moral and social debate may soon become a neurological one.” The moral of the story may not be new but the research on just how the teen brain’s neurons and synapses function and how this differs from an adult brain adds to our understanding of how alcohol consumption affects cognition for all ages - particularly the research on just how the chemical receptors in the brain are affected. So, while I don’t share your concern that it will fuel the fire of either moral apathy or outrage regarding teen alcohol consumption, obviously, the social implications of these scientific studies add weight to any argument in favor of a corelation between cognitive impairment and binge drinking.</p>
<p>The research isn’t exactly breaking news either (I’ve included links to relevant research below, with the dates that the studies were published). I thought that it being a neurological debate as well as a moral/social one was old news. Perhaps, as a neuroscience student, I am overestimating general awareness?</p>
<p>J, The NYT article specifically addresses the advances in this field since 1995 and more exactly since 2000, most likely related to the research articles you linked - and, yes, since this is a newspaper and not a medical journal, it is aimed for the general public’s edification. Whether you are overestimating general awareness is besides the point- the NYT’s readership is wide and highly literate. Even if this is old hat to you, as a student, who either is or might be involved in research in neuroscience I would think you would be more enthusiastic about the media attention given to the contributions made in the field on a subject that interests a great many people who are not specialists in the field. Even if, in your estimation, if the findings merely confirm conventional wisdom.</p>
<p>this news is so tired…all kids know drinking is risky. Telling them that there are consequences awaiting them “at some time in their lives” isn’t going to stop them. Since when did kids, especially teen drinkers, care about anything but the here and now?</p>
<p>But if the parents know, they can help educate their kids, as well as set limits. Too many parents think it’s fine if their kids drink at home, or wherever, as long as they don’t drive. While the medical community may know the long term effects of teen drinking, I don’t believe the avarage American knows.</p>
<p>Do you object to laws that teenagers must wait until age 21 to legally buy and drink alcohol?</p>
<p>Sorry, I am not Jessie, but I oject to these laws. I find it a little bit strage when people can die for their country before being legally able to have a glass of beer. I am all for education and moderation though.</p>
<p>My oldest and I were discussing the legal age for alcohol today. In some ways I think it was better the way it was done (in my state at least) in the old days. Beer and wine were 18 and “hard” liquor was 21. Maybe I don’t remember correctly, but it doesn’t seem like drinking was the all consuming activity it seems to have become now. Maybe because it wasn’t forbidden? Maybe because one could go to a bar or pub, hang out for the evening and have one or two drinks (who could afford more?)? I just don’t remember drinking being such an issue in high school and college–some people drank some, some alot, and some did other things, and some did none of the above.</p>
<p>People – kids, teens, middle-agers, and frail elderly – do things that aren’t good for them: e.g, smoke, drink to excess, have unprotected sex, overeat, overmedicate, drive carelesslessly, etc., etc., etc. Alcohol is a poison and we all know it, but I’d argue that much college-age drinking is done BECAUSE there are laws against it. Did prohibition curb drinking, or just criminalize it? It’s great that neuroscientists are quantifying just how alcohol damages our brains – great, education is swell. So is the next step going to be even more government regulation? Or is it possible that we’d all take better care of ourselves and act more responsibly if we were trusted to make our own decisions?</p>
<p>Or is it possible that we’d all take better care of ourselves and act more responsibly if we were trusted to make our own decisions?</p>
<p>Is that like expecting big business to police itself?
Look at the epidemic of obesity in this country
So far there are’t too many restrictions on what people are allowed to eat and when
But I don’t see a lot of people doing a very good job maintaining their nutritional health and whats more important the health of their children</p>
<p>DRJ4: Yes. I believe that the legal drinking age should be 18, the same age at which you’re considered responsible enough to vote, live on your own, enter into contracts, consent to sexual activity (though I know that in some states that age is younger), choose to buy cigarettes, die for your country as parabella said, etc. I find the double standard for alcohol bizarre.</p>
<p>asteriskea: I suppose that I’m pleased that neuroscience research is getting attention in the media. My pleasure is unfortunately offset by what I perceive as the spin of the article - as I said, even its title is misleading.</p>
<p>For anyone who’s wondering, as some no doubt are - I was not a particularly early drinker, nor am I a heavy drinker. I’ve been of legal drinking age for a little over a month. I was a teetotaler until I was 19, drink very, very little in general (even at social functions where alcohol is readily available), and the first and only time I’ve ever been drunk was toward the end of my 21st birthday bar crawl. Which gets back to my point - I would hardly put my so-called “underage drinking”, or for that matter the drinking of a college guy who has a beer or two a few times a week, in the same category as that of a 14 year-old alcoholic.</p>
<p>EK: Are you implying that you’d favor government restrictions on what people are allowed to eat and when?</p>
<p>EK: Are you implying that you’d favor government restrictions on what people are allowed to eat and when?</p>
<p>I didn’t say that- what I was trying to make my point was I don’t think we can trust “people” as a whole to do a the “right thing”, in regard to policing their own drinking habits, because they have other motivations than health.</p>
<p>EK, my point was that “we” (read government regulators and government enforcement ranging from small-town cops to Homeland Security) could probably butt out of people’s personal lives without these problems getting any worse, and maybe, just maybe, we’d all feel more empowered to take charge of ourselves. For example, is binge drinking and alcoholism any worse in countries without minimum-drinking-age laws?</p>
<p>Alcoholism is a big problem in Britain and in France. There has also been reports of greater alcohol related problems since pub hours restrictions were lifted. </p>
<p>One issue that is perhaps less serious in Europe is drunk driving by teens since fewer people drive in Europe, especially teens.
When I was living in London, I had friends who took a delight in telling stories of puking in the subway. These were people in their 20s and 30s, well past college age.</p>
<p>"I don’t think we can trust “people” as a whole to do a the “right thing”, in regard to policing their own drinking habits, because they have other motivations than health. " </p>
<p>But we DO trust “people” with having and raising their children, smoking and owning a gun . I just can’t understand the big difference here. For me the only deal-breaking will be “drinking and driving” , but I am pretty sure the accomodations can be made to make sure teens have BIG consequences to face if they DUI.
Also, if memory serves, “we” the government already tried to police “people’s” drinking once, not very soccessfully.</p>