Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Kids and Booze
Addiction expert and public health activist Stanton Peele argues against zero tolerance alcohol advocacy in the Wall Street Journal.
Several studies have shown that the younger kids are when they start to drink, the more likely they are to develop severe drinking problems. But the kind of drinking these studies mean--drinking in the woods to get bombed or at unattended homes--is particularly high risk.
Research published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2004 found that adolescents whose parents permitted them to attend unchaperoned parties where drinking occurred had twice the average binge-drinking rate. But the study also had another, more arresting conclusion: Children whose parents introduced drinking to the children at home were one-third as likely to binge.
And you could make a pretty good argument that drinking in the woods and getting bombed at unattended parties are the product of the minimum drinking age.
Of course, when the anti-alcohol activists cite the "earlier the age one starts drinking, the greater the chance of addiction" figure, they lump it all in together, which paints an incomplete picture, and makes for bad policy.
In fact, the American Medical Association has actually put out press releases lamenting the fact that most teens get their first sip of alcohol from their parents. I'd say that's exactly who ought to be giving it to them.
Travis|9.4.07 @ 8:54AM|#
In fact, the American Medical Association has actually put out
press releases lamenting the fact that most teens get their first
sip of alcohol from their parents. I'd say that's exactly who ought
to be giving it to them.
100% Agreed !
|9.4.07 @ 8:57AM|#
And you could make a pretty good argument that drinking in
the woods and getting bombed at unattended parties are the product
of the minimum drinking age.
I'm skeptical of this claim. Care to try making that "pretty good
argument"? I think adolescents might find some intrinsic pleasure
in getting bombed at unchaperoned--I think that's what we mean
here, rather than unattended--parties, even if there were no legal
barriers tor teenage drinking.
|9.4.07 @ 9:21AM|#
Children should not drink, period, until 21; in fact it should be illegal for adults to even drink in front of anyone under 21. Also, all alcohol ads in all forms of media should be banned, and liquer stores should have their windows covered at all times. The longer children are kept from alcohol, the more likely they are to drink responsibly as adults, after 21.
|9.4.07 @ 9:23AM|#
I am stunned at how many parents seem to actually believe their
little angels will never do drugs, never have sex, (until their
wedding night, in their mid twenties) and never touch a drop of
alcohol until their twenty-first birthday, when they will begin
drinking moderately and responsibly from then on. Haven't they
noticed that the moment little johnny leaves the house he rebuckles
his knickerbockers below the knee?!
I was taught to drink responsibly by my parents. I tasted my first
beer at 14. My parents led by example.
Collage seems to be the "get hammered" age. Some grow out of it
quicker than others. I doubt many high-school kids would be so
inclined if opportunities to drink moderately existed.
What is most disturbing is the trend to arrest parents that
chaperon parties where alcohol is served.
|9.4.07 @ 9:56AM|#
The reason that the Anglo American youth issue with Drugs, Alcohol and pregnancy is an issue is because of the tight restrictive attitudes. The Victorian notions regarding sex and the laws and More's restricting all of these activities don't exist elsewhere. Remove the ridiculous cultural transgressive, "decency", laws that are intrusive and violate peoples Rights.
|9.4.07 @ 10:00AM|#
And you could make a pretty good argument that drinking in
the woods and getting bombed at unattended parties are the product
of the minimum drinking age.
If the party is unattended, how is there anyone there to drink?
dhex|9.4.07 @ 10:00AM|#
10 bucks sez steven and kraut are the same poster.
(i will give five to him/her because it's a good routine and i like
it)
|9.4.07 @ 10:16AM|#
Given that the AMA's raison d'etre is to reduce the supply of quality medical care available to consumers, I wouldn't look to them for medical advice.
Fluffy|9.4.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I disregard any claim out of hand that falsely equates "binge
drinking" with "alcohol abuse".
Having several drinks at a sitting isn't alcohol abuse. It's the
whole point. Having a single white wine spritzer at home, now
THAT'S alcohol abuse.
When I was under 30, if I was going to bother to drink at all, it
was going to be in the context of raising hell. If I wasn't going
to have several drinks, I was going to have ZERO drinks. But in the
modern parlance of the alcohol treatment industry, having 4 - 6
drinks at a sitting 5 times a year, and not drinking anything at
all 360 times a year, makes you an "alcohol abuser".
That sort of misuse of statistics leads people to decide to pretend
that it's newsworthy that kids who go to parties "binge drink" more
than kids who don't. Um, yeah.
|9.4.07 @ 11:01AM|#
All right, Homey, you're overstimulated. As soon as we get you home, we'll get some beer into you, and then it's straight to bed.
M|9.4.07 @ 11:12AM|#
he rebuckles his knickerbockers below the knee
What does this expression mean, please? I'm either to young or too
old to recognize it.
|9.4.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Fluffy,
You are absolutely right. If they applied they "official"
definition of alcohol abuse to me, I am a horrid drunk ten times
over. (Which I am not disputing!)
The AMA wants us all to sit around and play Parcheesi and sip wine
coolers.
Fuck that.
The way I see it is... If you can drink a keg each night and still
get to work on time, be responsible, etc., then there is no
problem.
OTOH, if you can only drink two beers and sleep in the next day
while hungover, then you have a drinking problem.
When will the government learn that you can't quantify
behavior?
|9.4.07 @ 11:18AM|#
David, I believe he means no one to "tend" or chapparone. The standard for what is considered a "child" as opposed to a Young adult or "youth" is vastly different in the Anglo-Victorian mindset than anywhere else in the world. This is why young people act so irresponsibly towards these activities. We treat them like children and they act like children.
|9.4.07 @ 11:32AM|#
I'll echo the "lead by example". I grew up in Ottawa, just
across the border from Hull - a place where kids regularly had wine
with dinner and the practical drinking age was being tall enough to
see over the bar. The notable thing was - it was mostly the Anglos
getting truly "hammered", while the Francophones tended to be
moderate drinkers.
Personally, get parents to drink with their kids at dinner, etc
(namely, in moderation) would do alot to eliminate any prestige
value in drinking. How cool can it be to drink when you have to do
it with your parents? Won't help everyone but would corrode the
binge college drinking phenom.
|9.4.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Spreche nur Hochdeutsch, Freunde von mir.Kein Plattdeutsch alles...Aber, Ich habe woll verstanden.
|9.4.07 @ 11:59AM|#
from the legal side, it's an issue of parental rights.
many states, as they should imo, make it legal for parents to
provide alcohol to their own children, in their own home. mine does
(WA state).
i had wine with dinner (on occasion, and usually diluted with
water) from the age of 14
Inspired by David at 10:00 am|9.4.07 @ 12:01PM|#
I tasted my first beer at 14. My parents led by example.
Then those weren't your parents, they were your
triplet-siblings.
|9.4.07 @ 12:36PM|#
many states, as they should imo, make it legal for parents
to provide alcohol to their own children, in their own home. mine
does (WA state).
So there are states where it's illegal for parents to provide
alcohol to their own children in their own home? WTF!? That is
unconscionable.
|9.4.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Fluffy: that was an insightful and novel way of looking at the
issue - thanks.
I once read that the reason alcoholism is rife in Ireland, while
rare in Italy, is that in Italy drinking occurs at home, with young
family members being introduced to drinking for pleasure (and no
hangover) as opposed to going out to get drunk. I don't know if
thats true, but I would imagine drinking at home with relatives
would instill some level of responsibility.
|9.4.07 @ 12:49PM|#
When will the government learn that you can't quantify
behavior?
Quantifying behavior is easy for most behaviors.
What is difficult is deciding where to dichotomize a
continuum.
DSM IV on the definition of abuse
The American Psychiatric Association has developed strict
criteria for the clinical diagnosis of abuse and dependence. The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV (DSM-IV) defines abuse
as:
* A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically
significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more)
of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
1. recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to
fulfill major role obligations at work, school, home
(e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to
substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or
expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)
2. recurrent substance use in situations in which it is
physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or
operating a machine when impaired by substance use)
3. recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for
substance-related disorderly conduct)
4. continued substance use despite having persistent or
recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or
exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with
spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)
* The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence
for this class of substances.
[DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed.
4. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association (AMA).
1994.]
Please note that the line is not drawn by the number of
drinks.
The AMA does use a number of drinks criteria, sort of.
Here is their guide for doctors.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/CliniciansGuide2005/guide.pdf
Steven|9.4.07 @ 12:57PM|#
So there are states where it's illegal for parents to
provide alcohol to their own children in their own home? WTF!? That
is unconscionable.
Children under 21 are not supposed to be drinking, period. It is
not likely that children under 21 would have the maturity to drink
responsibly.
|9.4.07 @ 1:16PM|#
I read a while back that the two worst nations for alcohol abuse were the US and Ireland. Ireland's problem seemed to be the culture of leaving the house to go to a pub to drink. The two least problem nations were Germany and Israel, where alcohol was routinely served to children at meals.
|9.4.07 @ 1:16PM|#
"children under 21"
The concept of "teenager" is a false concept. When you treat
children like babies, and adults like children, you encourage
precisely that -- lack of responsibility, lack of maturity, lack of
any sense of rights and consequences.
Then those weren't your parents, they were your
triplet-siblings.
Fucking retarded of you, to conflate responsible treatment of
alcohol and related issues with irresponsible, inappropriate
parent-child relationships. Parents who booze it up and "party"
with their kids, treating them like partymates instead of their
offspring, are the ones who get all the headlines -- and retards
like you, who see them as the be-all and end-all of the situation,
help perpetuate the problems.
stuartl|9.4.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Children under 21 are not supposed to be drinking, period.
It is not likely that children under 21 would have the maturity to
drink responsibly.
I'm sure children sipping wine at the Passover Seder is why so many
Jews are alcoholics.
Steven, what planet are you from?
|9.4.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Children should not drink, period, until 21; in fact it
should be illegal for adults to even drink in front of anyone under
21.
Why limit it to drinking in the physical presence of minors? The
only way to be *sure* the children are protected is to make it
illegal for adults to consume, possess or buy alcohol at any
time.
|9.4.07 @ 1:26PM|#
"Children under 21 are not supposed to be drinking
period."
I agree with Steven. Nobody is supposed to be drinking period.
That's disgusting.
|9.4.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Steven reflects the Anglo mindset that supports that "Intrusive Government is the supreme authority and we lend all of our faith and worship and authority to it". He probably does not or will not recognise the "Somatic Sovereignty" of Young Adults and thinks that they have no Right to make decisions regarding their own bodily functions either.
|9.4.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Problems with the age limit
1) difficulty acquiring alcohol leads to a feast or famine
situation. You get too much booze when you manage to find someone
who is 21 to buy for you.
2) ignorance. I nearly killed myself the first time I had access to
hard alcohol because I had no idea of my own tolerance, the
strength of what I was drinking, etc. Kids go from no booze to
access to the hardest stuff available when they go to college. This
is like giving a 16 year old a Corvette the day he gets his drivers
license. Not a good idea.
Basically I'm pretty confident that kids who had a parentally
supervised introduction to booze would have a much better grip on
how to handle it, and since it isn't a new and exciting way to
rebel, probably not guzzle tequila straight from the bottle so
much.
Just an idea.
|9.4.07 @ 3:33PM|#
The AMA does use a number of drinks criteria, sort of.
Here is their guide for doctors.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/CliniciansGuide2005/guide.pdf
Here's what that guide says:
"men who drink more than 4 standard drinks in a day (or more than
14 per week) and women who drink more than 3 in a day (or more than
7 per week) are at increased risk for alcohol-related
problems."
Do they have some ulterior motive for publishing this? Are they
angling to get prohibition reestablished? Perhaps they think they
can do it right this time.
Steven|9.4.07 @ 3:35PM|#
1) difficulty acquiring alcohol leads to a feast or famine
situation. You get too much booze when you manage to find someone
who is 21 to buy for you.
Better law enforcement could solve that issue, children should NOT
EVER be given any alcohol.
|9.4.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Warren,
From the Choose
Responsibility website:
"30 states currently allow for parents to provide their children
with alcohol in the privacy of their own homes. But in the
remaining 20, parents are barred from providing their children with
alcohol until the child's 21st birthday."
Bummer.
CrackerBarrel
|9.4.07 @ 6:37PM|#
CSI,
"men who drink more than 4 standard drinks in a day (or more
than 14 per week) and women who drink more than 3 in a day (or more
than 7 per week) are at increased risk for alcohol-related
problems."
Do they have some ulterior motive for publishing this? Are they
angling to get prohibition reestablished? Perhaps they think they
can do it right this time.
Or maybe they based this on the science that shows men who drink
more than 4 standard drinks in a day (or more than 14 per week) and
women who drink more than 3 in a day (or more than 7 per week) are
at increased risk for alcohol-related problems.
Notice that all this claims is an increased risk of alcohol-related
problems. There is not a claim that this number of drinks is a
problem in and of itself. I don't have a reference here, but the
AMA is probably using a relative risk of at least 2 (double the
risk) if they are making this claim.
|9.4.07 @ 6:56PM|#
The way I see it is... If you can drink a keg each night and
still get to work on time, be responsible, etc., then there is no
problem.
If you really drink that much, and weren't just making a rhetorical
point, you're a functioning alcoholic who would almost certainly be
better off getting help. But, I support your right to choose not to
get help, the same way I support the right of junkies to legally
buy heroin, despite disapproving of such self-destructive
behavior.
Robert|9.5.07 @ 12:25AM|#
"30 states currently allow for parents to provide their children
with alcohol in the privacy of their own homes. But in the
remaining 20, parents are barred from providing their children with
alcohol until the child's 21st birthday."
Yes, but I strongly doubt those laws would ever stand up in court
if they were pressed. It is practically impossible to prove that
the child was given the drink by the parents, rather than the child
simply having picked up what was lying around, which is always
presumed to be in the possession of a non-minor. Children can't be
made to testify against their parents about it.
On top of that, even those 20 states have religious exemptions, and
you're allowed to have a home church.
Inspired by David at 10:00 am|9.5.07 @ 12:43AM|#
I tasted my first beer at 14. My parents led by example.
Then those weren't your parents, they were your triplet-siblings.
damaged justice, I can't tell your point or your tone or whom
you're addressing, but in case you missed the ha-ha at 12:01 pm,
"leading by example" was taken to include the example of being 14.
Tee-hee is all.
|9.5.07 @ 1:57AM|#
Steven, you are a knob. In Oz the legal age for drinking is 18, for sex it is 16 (Up 'ere for drinking, down there for dancing:-) When I visited L.A. at age 18 a cupla decades ago I went to a rock concert. We stood outside to offload a spare ticket and were approached THREE TIMES by young blokes who tried to sell us, respectively, crack, coke and pot. All I wanted was a fukn beer, man. But I couldn't buy a (pissweak) American beer, I was 18. We bought the pot instead... Also, find it mind-numbingly fucked up that you send your kids off to murder furriners at age 17-18 and they can't even buy a freakin' beer!
|9.11.07 @ 12:46PM|#
I think there are some reasonable observations of coincidence of
alcoholism with ethnicity. It is lowest in Mediterranean tribes
with long exposure to wine. And highest in races like
Amerinds.
So, given that, should be cautious about assuming nurture versus
nature. It might be that ethnicities (Mediterranean) have cultural
practices (for instance communion wine) at the same time that they
have genetic resistance.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245