Should You Drink with Your Kids?

[callpocket]

Quote from Mavtech : You're going to get some people to challenge that. So, let me help clarify. Tobacco is physically addictive. Alcohol is mentally addictive. You can drink alcohol quite often and not be addicted. If you smoke quite often, you most likely aren't going to have a choice but to become addicted.

I have to disagree with that analogy because, believe it or not, genes have something to play into it. Alcoholism can be traced within a family history. Is it a mental addiction? I don't think so -- if the gene is in your family. If you have the gene, it's not mental, it's in your physical makeup -- a predisposition to an addiction that only takes one or two episodes of exposure (no matter how small or innocent) to exploit itself -- depending on -- I suppose, the person't ability to overcome it.

Mr Great Grandfather was a drunk. No question and no embarassment on my part. My Grandfather, on that side, was also a drunk -- a town drunk for that matter. My Father rarely drank and only in moderation -- and only when my Mother was there to moderate. She told him when he had enough and he had sense enough, even when intoxicated, to adhere to her ruling.

There were 6 children in my family and we all got the alcohol lecture: you can either enjoy it moderately -- or let it rule your life. One of the 6 is a drunk -- but the other 5 all felt the temptation and the pull in letting it drag us down. We could ALL be like the one that let it rule his life. It definately WAS a choice for us -- but the gene was there and not in our favor.

[Mavtech]

Quote from callpocket : I have to disagree with that analogy because, believe it or not, genes have something to play into it. Alcoholism can be traced within a family history. Is it a mental addiction? I don't think so -- if the gene is in your family. If you have the gene, it's not mental, it's in your physical makeup -- a predisposition to an addiction that only takes one or two episodes of exposure (no matter how small or innocent) to exploit itself -- depending on -- I suppose, the person't ability to overcome it. Mr Great Grandfather was a drunk. No question and no embarassment on my part. My Grandfather, on that side, was also a drunk -- a town drunk for that matter. My Father rarely drank and only in moderation -- and only when my Mother was there to moderate. She told him when he had enough and he had sense enough, even when intoxicated, to adhere to her ruling. There were 6 children in my family and we all got the alcohol lecture: you can either enjoy it moderately -- or let it rule your life. One of the 6 is a drunk -- but the other 5 all felt the temptation and the pull in letting it drag us down. We could ALL be like the one that let it rule his life. It definately WAS a choice for us -- but the gene was there and not in our favor.

I have for years disagreed with anyone who would say alcoholism specifically is in the genes. This was one of my favorite subjects when I stupidly took sociology and psychology in the same semester. They contradict each other in many ways. Alcoholism is one where I agreed with the sociologist professor. Is there a more addictive character or personality trait that can be passed in genes? Possibly. But not alcohol itself. How would it have started? One day someone in a family tree gets addicted and then the drink ingrains itself in the DNA makeup of the person? No way. How would a behavior someone started get ingrained into the genes? Alcoholism is a learned behavior. Obviously, not everyone follows the behavior. But, it's definitely a learned one. I have had tons of alcoholics in my family. Both grandfathers, my aunt, uncle, 2 cousins. The alcoholic aunt came from a family of alcoholics. It went right on down the line. But, it somehow skipped my whole immediate family (Mom, Dad, 2 brothers). The behavior gets passed down. It did, however, carry over to my mom's brother's family. They are all messed up. I disagree that alcoholism itself is in the genes. The more addictive personality, possibly.

My point earlier was the difference between a physical and a mental addiction.

[darkfrog]

Quote from Mavtech : You're going to get some people to challenge that. So, let me help clarify. Tobacco is physically addictive. Alcohol is mentally addictive. You can drink alcohol quite often and not be addicted. If you smoke quite often, you most likely aren't going to have a choice but to become addicted.

Oh really? So someone can be given alcohol regularly and NOT build a tolerance and NOT go through withdrawals? You have to learn to use correct terminology to begin with. The term addiction is used to describe a mental disorder (obsession) that's linked with a physical need to continue to use (compulsion) whether they are drugs or behaviors so this distinction between 'mentally' vs. 'physical' addiction is bullshit from the start. Chemical dependency appears to be the term you were looking for and alcohol certainly fits the bill of a drug that induces chemical dependency in individuals. The withdrawal symptoms are not only severe are more dangerous than any other drug except for benzodiazapines, and that includes heroin. Alcohol withdrawal can kill you, heroin withdrawal will not (even though you may wish you were dying).

Quote : I have for years disagreed with anyone who would say alcoholism specifically is in the genes. This was one of my favorite subjects when I stupidly took sociology and psychology in the same semester. They contradict each other in many ways. Alcoholism is one where I agreed with the sociologist professor. Is there a more addictive character or personality trait that can be passed in genes? Possibly. But not alcohol itself. How would it have started? One day someone in a family tree gets addicted and then the drink ingrains itself in the DNA makeup of the person? No way.

So you dismiss years of research by real scientists just because it doesn't feel right to you and you can't come up with what you believe is a reasonable inheritance model? Since you can't imagine the mechanism on your own, you will just disagree with the findings.That's great, how long did you study this, a whole semester? Maybe you should leave it up to the folks that have been spending their lives working on it for decades. Maybe you didn't realize that the brain of an alcoholic reacts to alcohol differently than normal people. It has more euphoric, narcotic like effects as opposed to the depressant effects that occur in most people. Are you going to dispute our ability to combat alcoholism using pharmacokinetics? Using drugs that block the endorphin mu-receptor traditionally used to block opioids appear to be beneficial in treating alcoholism. The effectiveness of drugs like acamprosate, and topiramate also appear to counter you're intuition about alcoholism too. Sorry, but your arguments sound more like an IDer/creationist attacking evolution because it just seems to go against your personal common sense and feels too complex to be the way it happened.

[Candide]

I've never seen a study on the matter so I'll base my opinion on personal experience. Whether parents share alcohol with their children as teenagers has very, very little to do with whether those children will be responsible drinkers.

It's the entirety of the parenting skills which decides whether the children are responsible. Given that, I'd prefer to wait until they can drink legally rather than condoning behavior which is very much out of control among our young.

I never encourage my children to drink at all because of the alcoholism in their mother's family. I quit drinking myself just to reinforce the idea.

[Mavtech]

Quote from darkfrog : So you dismiss years of research by real scientists just because it doesn't feel right to you and you can't come up with what you believe is a reasonable inheritance model? Since you can't imagine the mechanism on your own, you will just disagree with the findings.That's great, how long did you study this, a whole semester? Maybe you should leave it up to the folks that have been spending their lives working on it for decades. Maybe you didn't realize that the brain of an alcoholic reacts to alcohol differently than normal people. It has more euphoric, narcotic like effects as opposed to the depressant effects that occur in most people. Are you going to dispute our ability to combat alcoholism using pharmacokinetics? Using drugs that block the endorphin mu-receptor traditionally used to block opioids appear to be beneficial in treating alcoholism. The effectiveness of drugs like acamprosate, and topiramate also appear to counter you're intuition about alcoholism too. Sorry, but your arguments sound more like an IDer/creationist attacking evolution because it just seems to go against your personal common sense and feels too complex to be the way it happened.

Man, I love how clam and collected people are in Podium. People discuss things here so civil it makes me want to stay in here all day.

First, as far as I know, alcoholism being in the genes is nothing more than a theory. Plenty of scientists disagree with it. Talk to a Sociologist. They have their theories too. I just believe that it can be passed down to be more addicted to things in general and not alcohol specifically.

I never said a single thing about drugs not working on alcoholism. But, thanks for doing the typical asshole thing that Podiumites do....putting words in someone else's mouth.

As for me being an "IDer/creationist attacking evolution", Umm, I would be one of the least likely people on this site do that.

[callpocket]

Quote from Mavtech : Man, I love how clam and collected people are in Podium. People discuss things here so civil it makes me want to stay in here all day. First, as far as I know, alcoholism being in the genes is nothing more than a theory. Plenty of scientists disagree with it. Talk to a Sociologist. They have their theories too. I just believe that it can be passed down to be more addicted to things in general and not alcohol specifically. I never said a single thing about drugs not working on alcoholism. But, thanks for doing the typical asshole thing that Podiumites do....putting words in someone else's mouth. As for me being an "IDer/creationist attacking evolution", Umm, I would be one of the least likely people on this site do that.

I haven't personally studied the gene theory, but I was brought up with the story and theory of the alcoholic gene. It seems to follow and make sense to me -- although I can't tell you where it would have begun to embed itself into DNA. I never thought of it that way -- I've always thought of it more along the lines of some groups having a predisposition to medical problems such as Native American Indians to high blood pressure or Negros to sickle cell anemia. I'm not sure there is a gene involved in those examples, either, but there is "something" that makes those groups more likely to be stricken with those ailments.

Going through my 20's and during the early college days, I did find that members of my family were much more affected by alcohol than most other people we socialized with. We tended to drink more, drink more often, and make up reasons to drink -- when others treated drinking more like a "once in a while" thing that they could take or leave. We found ourselves in a state of "wanting" or "needing" a drink, and it was not pleasant. Most of our friends didn't have the same want or need that we experienced.

At some point in each of our lives, we did have to make a choice -- so your idea of it being a mental additiction could be partially true, although I think that decision has to be made no matter what addiction or medical problem a person experiences, regardless of a gene being present or absent.

Parents drinking with their children as an exercise in educating them about the effects of alcohol is kind of a double edged blade, IMHO. The idea of giving the kids a safe environment to test the waters is really kind of crazy. Yes, it lets them see how they react to alcohol, but why would they not expect their parents to allow them to try other things as well? It sends the message that it's okay to try illegal things. The fact is, underage drinking is against the law -- just as much so as smoking pot or sniffing glue or using any other illegal drug. Opening the door with alcohol before legal drinking age is attained also opens the door to other illegal activity. Youngsters don't have the same sense of responsibility as adults and drinking, IMHO, is something that should wait until that sense of responsibilty has had a chance to take root.

[darkfrog]

Quote from Mavtech : Man, I love how clam and collected people are in Podium. People discuss things here so civil it makes me want to stay in here all day. First, as far as I know, alcoholism being in the genes is nothing more than a theory. Plenty of scientists disagree with it. Talk to a Sociologist. They have their theories too. I just believe that it can be passed down to be more addicted to things in general and not alcohol specifically. I never said a single thing about drugs not working on alcoholism. But, thanks for doing the typical asshole thing that Podiumites do....putting words in someone else's mouth. As for me being an "IDer/creationist attacking evolution", Umm, I would be one of the least likely people on this site do that.

I never claimed you said that drugs wouldn't work for alcoholism but if your reading comprehension was better, you would see that I used that as an example of why it is unlikely just a mental process as you claim.
As to sociologists believing it isn't in the genes, so what? Do they have the background to study and understand neurobiology? There are plenty of scientists that believe in creationism too but very few (if any) are biologists whose field of study is evolution. There is pretty much scientific consensus on this topic. If you want to side with Stanton Peele and the other nutters, go right ahead.
BTW, you didn't even respond to the most important point about alcohol, tolerance and withdrawal and your comment about alcohol not 'physically' addictive.

[Mavtech]

Quote from callpocket : I haven't personally studied the gene theory, but I was brought up with the story and theory of the alcoholic gene. It seems to follow and make sense to me -- although I can't tell you where it would have begun to embed itself into DNA. I never thought of it that way -- I've always thought of it more along the lines of some groups having a predisposition to medical problems such as Native American Indians to high blood pressure or Negros to sickle cell anemia. I'm not sure there is a gene involved in those examples, either, but there is "something" that makes those groups more likely to be stricken with those ailments. Going through my 20's and during the early college days, I did find that members of my family were much more affected by alcohol than most other people we socialized with. We tended to drink more, drink more often, and make up reasons to drink -- when others treated drinking more like a "once in a while" thing that they could take or leave. We found ourselves in a state of "wanting" or "needing" a drink, and it was not pleasant. Most of our friends didn't have the same want or need that we experienced. At some point in each of our lives, we did have to make a choice -- so your idea of it being a mental additiction could be partially true, although I think that decision has to be made no matter what addiction or medical problem a person experiences, regardless of a gene being present or absent.

I just have always believed it to be a predisposition to be addicted to anything and not alcohol specifically. That was my point. If members of a family have a genetic predisposition to be addicted to something, it may start somewhere in the family tree that alcohol happened to be the drug of choice. The alcohol part of it is a behavioral response because children see their parents drinking it. This very much seems to be the way it was in my family. My aunt and uncle drank all the time in front of their kids. My parents did not. My cousins are now the new alcoholics while my brothers and I are not. We all drink only occasionally. But, we all came from alcoholic grandfathers. This was just the icing on the cake for me to believe that it's a learned behavior.

[Mavtech]

Quote from darkfrog : I never claimed you said that drugs wouldn't work for alcoholism but if your reading comprehension was better, you would see that I used that as an example of why it is unlikely just a mental process as you claim. As to sociologists believing it isn't in the genes, so what? Do they have the background to study and understand neurobiology? There are plenty of scientists that believe in creationism too but very few (if any) are biologists whose field of study is evolution. There is pretty much scientific consensus on this topic. If you want to side with Stanton Peele and the other nutters, go right ahead. BTW, you didn't even respond to the most important point about alcohol, tolerance and withdrawal and your comment about alcohol not 'physically' addictive.

*Response withdrawn*

[kwilcox]

That Is An Awesome Story.

Teaching older teenagers (16,1,7,18) about moderate drinking is important. I know too many kids to failed out of college due to drinking. They were thrown into a situation they had never experienced.

[CheapASCII]

From what I understand, Wisconsin is the only state where it is legal to actually buy your own child a brew at a bar or at home and allow them to drink along with you. I'm not sure of bars reserve the right to not serve a minor... but legally, if you gave your kid half your beer at the local bar & grill.... you can't be punished for it via courts. I'm sure that if you have custody issues in a divorce case... that won't help you win a "good parenting" award, however.

It is of my personal belief anyone carrying a military ID should be allowed to drink 18-21 and a parent fully should be allowed to let their 18-21 adult child drink alcohol. Maybe 16-18 wine is fine as well.

I also agree with the above comments about other children drinking at your home is not good at all. Of course, if their folks are there in your home... it is their choice to let them do it as well if you approve.

Drinking is certainly a problem in the USA and it isn't viewed as too much of a big deal in other countries that have different laws regarding drinking.

DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE!!!!!

[Hurricane]

Quote from CheapASCII : From what I understand, Wisconsin is the only state where it is legal to actually buy your own child a brew at a bar or at home and allow them to drink along with you. I'm not sure of bars reserve the right to not serve a minor... but legally, if you gave your kid half your beer at the local bar & grill.... you can't be punished for it via courts. I'm sure that if you have custody issues in a divorce case... that won't help you win a "good parenting" award, however. It is of my personal belief anyone carrying a military ID should be allowed to drink 18-21 and a parent fully should be allowed to let their 18-21 adult child drink alcohol. Maybe 16-18 wine is fine as well. I also agree with the above comments about other children drinking at your home is not good at all. Of course, if their folks are there in your home... it is their choice to let them do it as well if you approve. Drinking is certainly a problem in the USA and it isn't viewed as too much of a big deal in other countries that have different laws regarding drinking. DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE!!!!!

Drinking [yahoo.com]related deaths in teens dropped 11% after the minimum age was raised from 18 to 21 in 1984. In states with harsher punishments (automatically lose your liscence as a MIP), states have a 14% fewer deaths compared to states with slap on the wrist laws. Sorry but 21 is just fine unless you actually institute mandatory minimums for DUI's and alcohol related crimes.

Also, please tell me how the brain of an 18 year old recruit is of greater clarity and judgement than the 18 year old on a free academic ride at MIT? Sorry but I would trust the MIT student to understand the boundaries of their limits than a new recruit. To give a pass to one group based on their profession is hardly a scientific or rational criteria for drinking laws.

[rrc06]

For all those people who think 21 is the right age....

College presidents seek drinking age debate [msn.com]

They are calling on lawmakers to consider moving age back to 18

RALEIGH, North Carolina - College presidents from about 100 of the best-known U.S. universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the U.S. drinking age, which is among the highest in the world.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

Other prominent schools in the group include Syracuse, Tufts, Colgate, Kenyon and Morehouse.

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

"It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.

Injuries, deaths from alcohol abuse

Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.

Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependence. One study has estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking, and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower, said reducing the age in the U.S. could be helpful.

"There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18," she said. "If the age is younger, you're getting exposed to it at a younger age, and you don't freak out when you get to campus."

McCardell's group takes its name from ancient Greece, where the purple gemstone amethyst was widely believed to ward off drunkenness if used in drinking vessels and jewelry. He said college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal.

The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

Shifting burden to high schools

But some college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help. University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Bill Clinton, declined to sign.

"I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress," Shalala said in a telephone interview. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."

Another scholar who has extensively researched college binge-drinking also criticized the presidents' initiative.

"I understand why colleges are doing it, because it splits their students, and they like to treat them all alike rather than having to card some of them. It's a nuisance to them," said Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health.

But, he added, "I wish these college presidents sat around and tried to work out ways to deal with the problem on their campus rather than try to eliminate the problem by defining it out of existence."

[xillix]

Quote from CheapASCII : From what I understand, Wisconsin is the only state where it is legal to actually buy your own child a brew at a bar or at home and allow them to drink along with you. I'm not sure of bars reserve the right to not serve a minor... but legally, if you gave your kid half your beer at the local bar & grill.... you can't be punished for it via courts. I'm sure that if you have custody issues in a divorce case... that won't help you win a "good parenting" award, however.

Yeah most states have made it illegal for an invididual to serve his or her child alcohol in an establishment. The allowance for the parent/guardian is not extended to a licensed liquor sellery.

In New York (the place where all the cool kids hang out) a parent can be charged if their child is in control of the parents alcohol with an intent to consume. So like if you off to take piss and your is kid is left holding the beer they can give you one of those court summonsy things. It is also illegal to serve the minor child of another even if the parents of the minor are present and provide their consent.

[Bound4Glory]

Big Old "NO" from me on this one!