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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
What does this expression mean, please? I'm either to young or too old to recognize it.
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?
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.
buT iSH fro hte Shildern% (hIc)
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.
Spreche nur Hochdeutsch, Freunde von mir.Kein Plattdeutsch alles...Aber, Ich habe woll verstanden.
Never party with rookies, despite what the AMA says.
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
Then those weren't your parents, they were your triplet-siblings.
M,
See here:
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/themusicman/yagottrouble.htm
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.
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.
almost forgot - a toast to Fluffy! (four heffeweizens later - burp)
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
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
"Children under 21 are not supposed to be drinking period."
I agree with Steven. Nobody is supposed to be drinking period. That's disgusting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Steven, not even rubbing alcohol for health or sanitation purposes?
What about piercing ears? They use alcohol for that!
Good read
Age and drinking...
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
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.
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.
"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.
Thanks, Warren (12 hours ago). I remember Sen-Sen.
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.
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!
Dude? Learn to read quotes.
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.