Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Sunday November 05 2017, @08:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-more-beer-in-the-baby's-bottle dept.

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

Source: http://www.newswise.com/articles/early-age-of-drinking-leads-to-neurocognitive-and-neuropsychological-damage


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:46AM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:46AM (#592459) Journal

    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.

    --
    ‘Never trust a man whose uncle was eaten by cannibals’
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @12:04PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @12:04PM (#592479)

    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?

    • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday November 06 2017, @02:03AM

      by t-3 (4907) on Monday November 06 2017, @02:03AM (#592764)

      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.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday November 05 2017, @01:40PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 05 2017, @01:40PM (#592504) Journal

    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.”

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:00PM

      by Whoever (4524) on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:00PM (#592560) Journal

      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

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism [merriam-webster.com]

      But, yeah, the USA's Puritan history has much to do with some of its more restrictive tendencies.