Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Although drinking by U.S. adolescents has decreased during the last decade, more than 20 percent of U.S. high-school students continue to drink alcohol before the age of 14 years. This can have adverse effects on their neurodevelopment. For example, youth who initiate drinking before 14 years of age are four times more likely to develop psychosocial, psychiatric, and substance-use difficulties than those who begin drinking after turning 20 years of age. Little is known about how the age of alcohol-use onset influences brain development. This is the first study to assess the association between age of adolescent drinking onset and neurocognitive performance, taking into account pre-existing cognitive function.
AND see also: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acer.13503
Exhibit One: Ethanol_fueled, fueled from a very early age, and since has adopted his German grandfather's anti-semitism. And has not managed to marry. For more information, please Consult aristarchus's rejected submission, The Alt-Right's Female Problem [soylentnews.org]. Nice to know that all this will correct itself. Red Pillars, after all, have to bleed out sooner or later.
Actually, I drank ridiculously sparingly until my 24th or so birthday. And Gramps was not an anti-Semite, or Racist, but he sure hated unions.
Which supports my theory: people are more likely to abuse alcohol as adults if they were not introduced to it in a controlled social setting by their parents when young.
Did those youth who drink develop psyche problems because they drink, or did they start drinking because of the onset of psyche problems?
Also - what about responsible drinking? In generations past, as well as in today's Europe, children are commonly given a glass of wine or beer at dinner. That is, children are included in social drinking. No, that doesn't mean pumped full of booze, and drunked up. "Responsible" and "social" are the key words in family dining.
In today's America, kids aren't even allowed to taste alcohol until they are 21 years old. That is well and truly screwed up. We allow kids to DRIVE as young as age 14, under parental supervision. Why is that? Well, Mom, Dad, or legal guardian are supposed to TEACH the kid how to drive safely. The kid is expected to practice his skills while an adult is in the car with him. It's part of growing up. Alcohol? NO, NO, NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!! YOU CAN'T TOUCH ALCOHOL UNTIL YOU ARE 21 YEARS OLD!!
Huh. Kid turns 21 years old, and he doesn't know shit about alcohol. Just that he can now legally drink. So, first night out, he wants to try everything. Drunk fuck screws up somehow, maybe even killed - and the Powers That Be use the poor fool to bolster their statistics that alcohol is evil. Alcohol kills. Bring prohibition back, alcohol is killing our children!
This is one more way to demonstrate that our society is broken.
Teach the kids responsible drinking at home, and they probably won't go out and kill themselves with alcohol when they escape your supervision.
Runaway! You are past sixty now! Danger past! Calm down, and put down that fifth of Jack Daniels! It will be alright. What you didn't learn from being prohibited until 21, is no excuse to not know it now! Or are you drunk-posting, again? Did we not have a little talk about this just a couple of weeks ago? Look, Runaway, if you are seeing two lines of text, that are identical except for being in different places, that is a sign that it is time to put down the moonshine and hit the hay. You will do no further good on SoylentNews when you are "in you cups", and possibly you may do some harm by saying something stupid, again. More stupid than when you are sober. If you are ever sober. So my advice, Runaway, do not post drunk. And since neither you, nor us, can distinguish between you drunk and you sober, perhaps just do not post, at all?
Trump loves you, Runaway, just as you are!
I realize that you are obsessed with me, but this post isn't about me. There are millions of young Americans who are being screwed over by fascist anti-alcohol and anti-youth laws right now, today.
How many American servicemen are deemed old enough, and responsible enough, to be responsible for an entire squad's (platoon? company?) lives, but are not deemed old enough or responsible enough to drink a god damned beer? So, the fascists aren't targeting me, personally, today? I should give them a pass? Remember when they came for the Jews, and you said nothing, because you aren't a Jew?
Please, try to keep your obssessions under control.
dude, defend your vices much?want to make them seem like virtues much?paranoid much?
i think you had too much of the cool-aid back in the day. are you going to argue that american kids should have hunting knives and live ammo now? because what, jews?
What's wrong with hunting knives and ammo? If you take your kids hunting, they probably would have some. Learning how to kill and process your own meat is an experience more people should have.
who are being screwed over by fascist anti-alcohol... laws
There's nothing in fascism against alcohol consumption.By contrast, there's a lot of history of killjoy-ing** [historylearningsite.co.uk] in puritanism. Given the ... ummm... basket of deplorables++ [newengland.com] that founded USofA, no wonder you are where you are.
Boys caught playing football on a Sunday could be whipped as a punishment. Swearing was punished by a fine, though those who kept swearing could be sent to prison....Simply going for a Sunday walk (unless it was to church) could lead to a hefty fine....Cromwell believed that women and girls should dress in a proper manner. Make-up was banned. Puritan leaders and soldiers would roam the streets of towns and scrub off any make-up found on unsuspecting women....Cromwell banned Christmas as people would have known it then. By the C17th, Christmas had become a holiday of celebration and enjoyment – especially after the problems caused by the civil war. Cromwell wanted it returned to a religious celebration where people thought about the birth of Jesus rather than ate and drank too much. In London, soldiers were ordered to go round the streets and take, by force if necessary, food being cooked for a Christmas celebration. The smell of a goose being cooked could bring trouble. Traditional Christmas decorations like holly were banned.
In 1659 the Puritans banned Christmas in Massachusetts. But why?“For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offence of others, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon such accountants as aforesaid, every person so offending shall pay of every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the county.”...... the Puritans, a pious religious minority (who, after all, fled the persecution of the Anglican majority), felt that such celebrations were unnecessary and, more importantly, distracted from religious discipline. They also felt that due to the holiday’s loose pagan origins, celebrating it would constitute idolatry. A common sentiment among the leaders of the time was that such feast days detracted from their core beliefs: “They for whom all days are holy can have no holiday.”
In 1659 the Puritans banned Christmas in Massachusetts. But why?
“For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offence of others, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon such accountants as aforesaid, every person so offending shall pay of every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the county.”
...... the Puritans, a pious religious minority (who, after all, fled the persecution of the Anglican majority), felt that such celebrations were unnecessary and, more importantly, distracted from religious discipline. They also felt that due to the holiday’s loose pagan origins, celebrating it would constitute idolatry. A common sentiment among the leaders of the time was that such feast days detracted from their core beliefs: “They for whom all days are holy can have no holiday.”
He is using the term "fascist" in the loose meaning.
2 :a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality —J. W. Aldridge
2 :a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality —J. W. Aldridge
But, yeah, the USA's Puritan history has much to do with some of its more restrictive tendencies.
You are correct in this conclusion, but wrong in the details.
In generations past, as well as in today's Europe, children are commonly given a glass of wine or beer at dinner. That is, children are included in social drinking.
No, in today's Europe, they are not. At rare occasions, they may be given a minimal amount of wine, just to satisfy their curiosity for the taste and to mark that as a very special occasion. When I received a bit of beer, I couldn't for the life of me understand how the adults can drink it.
Yes, you are right, at approx 15-16 years (which is deep into teenage), the alcohol consumption is relaxed... better said, it is put into their responsibility.Which usually results into a heavy drinking session (eg at a party), most of the time with all the embarrassing moments (including the "kissing the toilet" or "shouting at the toilet" - various styles of vomiting get labelled, much like the noise behaviour during an orgasm).It serves as a reminder of how much a fool one can make of oneself when s/he loses control. There may be one or two exploratory sessions later until the youngster learns to explore and recognize her/his specific limits.
It is not the alcohol consumption that is shamed/shunned by the society, it is the behaviour that result from it.And this is normal: I don't care how much you drink if you still can have a civil behaviour.
My parents let me try a sip of beer when I was 5 or 6. It was so disgusting I didn't drink again until I was 20. Of course, I then had a hand-me-down lookalike ID and a corinthian leather jacket + full beard and got wasted every other night at every bar around.
In my experience those who started drinking and smoking young came from broken homes. I was in school with two guys who started smoking (and to a lesser degree drinking) at the age of 9-10. Both were influenced by older friends, who thought it was funny to get young kids to smoke. I have no idea where they got the money for cigarettes from, maybe they stole it from their parents, who smoked as well. Both of them never really grew big.
Cause and effect?......Both of them never really grew big.
"Start to smoke early in life will keep you safe from obesity, a study of two patients suggests".
I was young when no age restriction to alcohol applied. Being in a fine wine producers zone, I had a little wine every new year's eve and distilled stuff together with the traditional sweets too.Result, alcohol was a normal thing, bullies and alternative kids smoked cigarettes.Other euro guys living under the ban who took cans of beer to drink were regarded with pity.Unfortunately the ban came here too, and 14 years girls talk about parties where you can have alcohol.
I advocate no whatsoever altered states when you are driving or working in sensitive situations. All the rest should be permitted, nasty stuff under medical oversight. The alternative is money to the mob and glorified vices.
good for you man. but lets not take this data-point as a personal affront, its a study and we all know that no one is average.
drinking and drugging and incompetent parenting and drifting toward peers that have equal bottle-procuring, bottle-opening and joint-rolling skills is certainly a thing, and its a thing that will truly fuck you up for good unless somehow you get pulled out of and away from these influences. i don't think that's debatable at all.
so, yeah, bingers are the worst off for sure. but that's true for gamers just the same. even 'controlled' use is a cover-up of underlying defects and of those, the ones gotten at an early age are truly the most devastating of the lot since they confine the lost souls to rationalizing their use and even push them into seeing the abuse as a kind of virtue/refuge.
same with gamers and sugar-fiends in general though. none of them seem to know that the best white powder is mineral-rich salt, and that the best drink is plain old water.
You miss the point that it's common for the average young drinker (or drinker) in the USA to be binge drinking.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/11/25/the-state-of-binge-drinking-in-the-united-states-in-seven-simple-charts/ [washingtonpost.com]https://pathwaytohope.net/drinking-culture-killing-america/ [pathwaytohope.net]
So the damage observed in the study might actually be due to "early age of binge drinking" (or just binge drinking in general) and not actually due to "early age of drinking" as per the title.
Maybe the researchers are hoping for more $$$$$ for a follow up study to "discover" that. That's how modern science works...
Young people drink to get drunk. They're not the type of people who have only a beer or glass of wine with dinner. Booze can be difficult to get at that age, so when you do get it, you're gonna want as much of that effect as possible -- even if you end up waking up in your own puke and the roof of your mouth feeling like sandpaper.
That reminds me of the liquor store that didn't card, I used to buy Boone's Farm Pickle Tink by the case for Fiesta Island.
+1I had every kind of drinks, I can withstand a couple. One time I almost got drunk. That is, no puking and no headache the day after. But my mood the day after was so awful. Alcohol is depression in a can. Honestly I think that getting drunk the second and nth time is an act of self hate, because sure as fuck I am not gonna repeat the experience.
Hangovers aren't bad if you're in a good environment. There is always the physical discomfort but also some mania and horniness from the GABA rebound. Hangovers can make people more sociable at work on Mondays, or otherwise feel in a good mood (though not physically).
There are situations when hangovers do suck, and that is when the rest of your life sucks so badly that being hungover is like waking up from a really good dream only to find yourself disappointed by reality. Or when you wake up in the pokey after being arrested for pissing on that busy street corner.
It is fun watching my fellow drunks get stupid. Fighting, peeing on street corners, lawyers dropping their pants in the stadium parking lot after the ball game, I've seen it all. One time I tried to break up a fight between two drunk women and all I had to show for it was getting both their drinks splashed all over me.
What's the point of drinking just one? I don't even feel anything from just one shot/beer/glass of wine. It's not like alcoholic drinks taste great, if I just want to drink something yummy I'll have fruit juice. If I want to get high, I'll drink alcohol. I don't get hangovers though - probably because I don't mix alcohols or drink dark liquor.
Tell the results of this study to the French...