The statistics on this kind of death are profoundly scary.
Although I wonder if there isn't something more to the story, beyond suspected binge drinking.
-Trevor
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
On a somewhat related note, in the nearby town of (I believe) LaCrosse, Wisconsin, a young man died after overdosing on alcohol at one of the campus bars. His parents are now suing the University for offering a shuttle service for students who have been drinking (because they claim if he'd had to drive, he wouldn't have drank so much) and for running alcohol-related ads in the student paper (which seems to be a much more viable claim to me).
There is incredible interest in how to be effective in reducing the harms of alcohol at college campuses. It doesn't look like never allowing your teenagers to drink is particularly protective, as the predominance of fatalities are not in experienced drinkers.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I remember that story.
I hate to say it, but if I ever have kids, when they turn 18, I'm going to get them stinking drunk so the idea of alcohol isn't a strange and exotic mystery, nor is it some enigmatic ritual of adulthood.
-Trevor
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'm hoping to learn something from other countries where this isn't a primary problem for their young adults. Jimminy cricket, it is a shame.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote: His parents are now suing the University for offering a shuttle service for students who have been drinking (because they claim if he'd had to drive, he wouldn't have drank so much)
Argh. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah. I think it's probably on the advice of counsel.
My good friend (an MD/JD) argues pretty persuasively that more lawyers should be held accountable by the courts for bringing frivolous suits and/or using frivolous grounds. I can see her point. On the one hand, I want the best representation possible for all sides (and I am aware that often the facts of the story are misrepresented in the press, so this may be much different than it appears), but on the other hand, this does seem outrageous.
I'd be open to comment to change my mind, too, BTW.
[ September 08, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:because they claim if he'd had to drive, he wouldn't have drank so much
That's right, no one, especially college students ever drinks and drives.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It ticks me off anytime someone is sued for not stopping others from acting like the idiots they are.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Were I in their position, I expect I'd be grasping at anything which made me feel less responsible in any way for any of this. I blame the counsel more than I blame the parents. What a horrible time for that family.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's been an accepted thing for years in alcohol abuse prevention people on college campuses that the kids (excepting frat idiots) who get into major problems with drinking are ones that have had very limited exposure to alcohol prior to college. The theory is that they react to the unfettered environment by throwing them into situations that they are completely unprepared for.
To be honest, I think a sort of informal drinking orientation thing for kids like this might actually help avoid a lot of alcohol related problems by helping people understand their limits. I know that this is what we did for my friends in college who didn't know how to drink.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I think most freshman orientations at state Us address this. I know UIUC was piloting a study of an interactive CD to address problem drinking decisions, and it was being studied across the country. It seemed to help, and people actually used it. Sort of like a realistic video game.
Edit: they don't give alcohol, but they teach you how to use alcohol more safely (spacing out drinks, eating, etc.), even though the kids are still minors.
[ September 08, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
Eh, so kids like to drink poison for fun. This is an unalterable truth. It's stupid to worry about it.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I started drinking late in life, but I had a fairly well-versed friend who walked me through the basics until I figured out my limitations.
But too many kids who have no idea of the impact of a beer and the importance of food in absorbing the impact of alcohol, never mind the consequences of trying 24 drinks in a row.
And in some respects its like sex ed - if you don't deal in specifics, abstract generalizations aren't going to help much. And in the absence of fact, kids will fall back on things like, "oh, you can't get pregnant the first time."
-Trevor
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Trevor, instead of getting him or her stinking drunk one time, why not provide small to moderate amounts of alcohol on a more frequent basis, to teach how alcohol can be enjoyed without being abused? I'm not sure how much one learns from being stinking drunk anyway. Some people seem to learn that it's cool or enjoyable.
I do agree though (obviously) with the premise that those who are completely sheltered from alcohol are at increased risk.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Because until you've spent a night in happy-go-pukey land and the resulting hangover the next morning, you don't appreciate the full impact of what drinking can do.
And binge drinking is worse, never mind the possibility of alcohol poisoning.
Until I mis-calculated the strength of the mixed drinks I was pouring, I didn't realize just how drunk I was. Of course, I ended up on the floor and unable to crawl to the bathroom down the hall before my techni-color yawn.
-Trevor
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
TMedina-Crap.
The only time I've ever had alcohol is in church, and once when my parents gave me a bit of whiskey in my tea to make me stop coughing. I don't drink, and I never want to. Not because I think it's wrong or something, just because I DO understand its effects, and know I don't want them.
You can learn just as well through experiences other than getting drunk.
I, for instance learned from two things: Medicines (I don't like anything that changes anything in the way I act, even if it is just to make me sleepy) And from my best friend's family getting sued after some idiot boy drank himself to death. I understand how far reaching effects can be from alcohol. And I don't want it.
[ September 09, 2004, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Because until you've spent a night in happy-go-pukey land and the resulting hangover the next morning, you don't appreciate the full impact of what drinking can do.
I echo Toretha – Crap.
I had a lovely reminder this weekend of one reason I don’t drink – an encounter with a woman who’d had a bit too much and started an argument in public. She carried her liquor well and it wasn’t immediately evident that she was drunk, but it was immediately evident that her grasp of reality was severely different than that of most people in the room.
I find the idea of losing control of myself and behaving like a hostile illogical idiot much more terrifying than a day of headache and puking. And while I’ve never had a hangover, I’ve had a bad enough case of food poisoning to know just how much fun headaches and puking are not. But I’d still take that any day over making a drunken ass of myself in public. So for me, staying sober and observing is a much better deterrent than getting myself into a state where I wouldn’t recognize my own stupidity. (Although if I remembered it the next day, I suppose the resulting humiliation would be an effective deterrent. Assuming I ever crawled back out from under the bed.)
[ September 09, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Dana said "crap"!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And you two are welcome to your opinions.
My experience was definitely to the contrary.
For the longest time, I didn't drink - for various reasons. When I decided to start, I could have gotten myself into a lot of trouble until I learned the hard way. Fortunately, I had some guidance on the subject and he kept me from making stupid, reckless mistakes from inexperience.
-Trevor
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think you can learn from your mistakes, but that doesn't mean it's the only way or the best way to learn, or that leading your kids into mistakes is the best way to teach them. I'm all for exposure, demystifying, communication, etc.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Oh, "whiskey in your tea to stop your coughing?"
Gah - that's a new one.
-Trevor
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, I have encountered effective home remedies for fevers, etc. that involve alcohol.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Has anyone ever tried a hot toddy?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I so set myself up... Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I prefer to let the easy ones go by.
(How do you like THAT?)
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
that wasn't a new one at all, my grandmother had been doing that for her kids, it used to be a relatively common home-thing. And it worked, I was able to stop coughing and sleep.
And alcohol is not an uncommon ingredient in over the counter cough medicines
[ September 09, 2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Trevor - that is illogical.
That is like saying "you must try a cigarette in order to understand how addictive they are". You can understand addictions (and alcohol effects) without having to try it first hand.
Some people have a pre-disposition to alcoholism (if alcoholism runs in their family). For them to "try" alcohol just to prove a point, or to "learn" about alcohol, could be extremely disasterous...
Farmgirl
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You know, a lot of kids get fat for the first time attending college and having total control over what food to eat for the first time. I think it would make a lot of sense to just get them fat before they leave home. [/sarcastic analogy]
What makes the difference is not what they actually are allowed to do before hitting college, it is what degree of responsibilty they exercise before that.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Toretha - sorry, I meant "a new one to me."
Pook - ah yes, the infamous freshman fifteen.
And why do the kids pack on fifteen pounds or so during their first year?
The reasons vary, but the new freedom and responsibility of setting their schedules, selecting their own meals and so on is new and unfamiliar.
As for the cigarette analogy, I'm not proposing turning them into drunks and alcoholics. What I am going to do is help guide them into a world they will enter, with or without my help.
I will grant you, some things you can't try first and then make a decision to never touch again - most of the hard illegal drugs fall quite easily into that category. And I sincerely hope my kids will have enough common sense to avoid things like crack, acid, speed and so on. I certainly intend to give them as much reality as I can before I turn them loose into a very unforgiving world.
But how many parents automatically assumed their kids were bright enough not to indulge in binge drinking? The same parents who assumed their kids, when much younger, knew enough not to play with handguns? Or parents who figured their kids knew that you most certainly could get pregnant the first time?
Farmgirl - and depending on my hypothetical wife's family history, the introduction to alcohol may or may not happen.
If her father and all her aunts and uncles are infamous alcoholics, then no - I think my hypothetical kids will have had plenty of opportunity to witness first-hand the consequences of drinking to excess and hopefully will understand the genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism.
But the social pressure to drink can be very strong and depending on my kids, I'd rather know they have some appreciation for what they're doing instead of learning the hard way and possibly dying in the back room of a frat house.
Of course, I'm the same guy who has every intention of teaching my kids hand-to-hand combat. Go figure.
-Trevor
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This is an interesting thread to me. I never understood the "freshman 15" and none of my roommates ever seemed to have issues either. I actually weighed less at the end of my freshman year, than I did before, even though our cafeteria was one of the best in the country.
On the drinking, yes I do drink. However I've never actually had a major hangover no matter how sloshed I get. Some people just don't get them. How do you deal with that Trevor, if your kid is one of those? And the effect alcohol has on what I say especially, is nowhere near as embarrassing for me as the effect sleep deprivation has on what I say. (As some of you at Kama Con are vividly aware <grin>)
AJ
(grumble, sleep deprivatoin also makes my spelling as bad as when I'm drunk...)
[ September 09, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm thinking some kids learn by personal experience, and some learn by trying to avoid the personal experiences of others, and some learn in other ways. Everyone is different.
Teach your kids what is right. Beyond that, it's up to them to DO what's right. You can't anticipate how your child is going to react to a certain object lesson with 100% accuracy.
If my dad had encouraged me to have a drink to learn how it affects me, I would have laughed in his face.
edit: I mean, what can you do beyond talking with them about the effects of alcohol, showing them statistics of deaths by drunk driving, explain to them about jail time and suspended licenses from DUI's, and stuff like that? If they don't learn from THAT, then what's going to teach them? Maybe getting stone drunk once will, but I don't think doing it in your house is somehow a better object lesson than doing it a frat party. All it does is make them aware that their dad's okay with it, instead of opposed. [Not to mention the fact that a ton of college students get wasted every weekend and I don't see them clamoring for prohibition in their schools.]
"Drinking's bad and can kill you and other people! So how about a little experience with it?"
[ September 09, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I tend not to get hangovers either, except with one notable experience with a "Mongolian Mother-fragger".
And I would like to believe I have a fundamental understanding of my children, what makes them tick and how they think and that I won't delude myself into believing what I want to be true and not what's actually present or not, as the case may be.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Trevor: I think we'd all like to believe that, but people are an enigma. My kids are young, it's true, but I'm constantly amazed at how they do the opposite of what I expect them to do.
It's always a sad story when someone is a model person through high school, hits college, and goes wild. You never know what people are going to do with that new sense of freedom and quasi-grown-up-ness.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: And I would like to believe I have a fundamental understanding of my children, what makes them tick . . .
I wish I had such an understanding!
quote: [Not to mention the fact that a ton of college students get wasted every weekend and I don't see them clamoring for prohibition in their schools.]
I think this is a very telling point.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And if my kids decided to get wasted to excess on campus with their buddies, at least they'll know enough to understand the consequences of their actions.
PSI - I don't expect to turn them off to alcohol. What I do expect is to let them discover what alcohol is in a controlled setting where they can figure out first hand what's going to happen. I'd rather this scenario play out under my watchful eye and not in a bar and have things go horribly wrong.
"Drinking to excess is bad and potentially dangerous, here's why. A moderate amount of drinking can indeed be fun and relaxing, but it's a temporary feeling. The dangers of alcohol include liver damage, brain damage and the social consequences of being out of control are as follows."
Yes, Dad is ok with them drinking. Dad thinks trying to down 24 shots in the course of an hour is a stupid thing to do and I love you too much to have you die from a lack of knowledge.
-Trevor
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Trevor, I actually agree with PSI partially on this one, though I'm not a parent. How well do your parents actually know what makes you tick?
Mine sure had no clue.
AJ
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
PSI, Icarus - that's kinda my point. Better people than I have failed to realize they may not have an understanding of their children.
But I don't want them falling prey to the idea that alcohol is harmless and drinking 20+ shots in an hour is even remotely a good thing. It's one thing to intellectually understand you will have impaired reflexes and coordination, it's quite another to realize you can't stand up without help, never mind trying to walk.
A relative aside: I cringed when my cousin was telling a story about how she expects one of her nephews to be holding a funnel and a beer keg over her daughter's mouth in a frat party. And she didn't seem to mind.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I have to admit that I have, like, zero personal experience with alcohol, aside from hot toddies and one glass of Cella Lambrusco that I liked so much that I vowed to never drink it again.
So I may not know what I'm talking about in this next sentence:
But isn't it an oxymoron, or at least way wrong, to use the word "control" when talking about drinking? I mean, my mom always said she'd never drink and drive, but try telling that to a drunk person who's decided they want more beer. The effects of alcohol are such that you lose your inhibitions, and I'd hate to think I have ANY control over what I do when I'm drunk. That could be a fatal mistake.
That's why I don't get drunk in the first place.
edit: To change a dependent clause into an independent one
[ September 09, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker.
Actually, I'm estranged from both of my parents.
So in answer to your question, not a freaking clue. Which is why I said, "I'd like to think I know, but at the same time not be deluding myself into believing something that isn't true."
In some respects, it's like not telling my kids about condoms because I expect them to wait until marriage. I am perfectly content with connecting the dots, giving them information and hoping they make the decision I'd prefer they made.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, I plan on teaching my kids about condoms as part of their sexual education. I'm just going to suggest that they save condom use until after they are married, if they really want to use them. : )
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yes and no - it depends on the person.
I have had inhibitions lowered, but not so much so I would have thought some things a good idea. But I can also say with only one or two exceptions, I haven't done anything particularly reckless, wild or uncontrolled.
But control can most often mean, "I've only had two beers, but I haven't eaten anything today which means it'll be hitting me hard in another ten minutes or so. Which means I'd better forgo another beer and have something to eat."
Or "no thanks, I'd rather not try to down 20+ shots, sorry."
In this case, it's about knowing your limits and respecting the situation.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh, I decided to rephase my initial reaction to your post.
But you're doing the same thing I'm suggesting (more or less - "hey kids, here are the facts. Now, I hope you decide to wait until marriage before having sex, but these things are important because..."
-Trevor
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI, I don't understand this could you clarify?
quote:, and I'd hate to think I have ANY control over what I do when I'm drunk.
I may be the exception and not the rule, and I admit I've never gotten so drunk I passed out, though I have vomited a couple of times. The fact is I've never actually been able to stop thinking during any point at the drunkeness process. In fact my friends who were with me the first time I actually did a lot of drinking, were laughing, because I was still so completely myself it was rediculous. I was sitting there analyzing the effects on my coordination (which is already bad to begin with) and going, "Oh so that's what they meant."
Now maybe I'm the exception not the rule. Obviously the people who have problems do often seem to change personalities while drunk. But it doesn't happen to everyone either.
To put it another way, to this day I can't remember a single thing I've said or done while drunk (and I don't forget anything more while drunk than I do sober either) that I really regret. I can think of lots of stuff I've said without a drop of alcohol in my veins that I do.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Trevor- Well, on my end it's different, because I believe that drinking is a really bad idea, regardless of how it's used. I don't believe that condoms are bad, nor do I believe that using condoms is bad.
AJ- To answer that requires a whole explanation of my entire history. Long story short, it depends on the person, and I can't know how *I* react while drunk without getting drunk at least once, and it's not a risk I'm willing to take, because I already know I'm an alcoholic, based on genetics, family history, and my thoughts and feelings about alcohol that I have to do my darndest to repress.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, When you get drunk you don't lose all form of self-regulation. Millions of people get drunk each day without drinking themselves to death.
As I said, it's pretty much accepted knowledge that the majority of alcohol related problems from college occur with people who haven't had much or any experience with drinking. The people who generally have problems regulating their drinking are those who are metaphorically thrown into deep end of a pool filled with vodka. And one thing I wanted to stress is that it's not just illegal drinking, there's a smaller spike when people turn 21 and tart drinking legally for the first time too.
The thing is, when you're working at a college at you're concerned about kids and alcohol, you don't have the option of choosing the kids you get. They're going to drink, generally to excess. If this occurs in the current situation, someone of them are going to die and others are going to severely screw up. You don't have the luxury of looking down on them with moral disapproval, you're job is to try to prevent as many of them from having problems.
We're talking about one way to do that, which, from my anecdotal experience, worked in the cases I used it on (I was the drinking instructor for many of my friends). I'm suggesting that if colleges atarted a sort of informal program where those who wanted could get instruction in the use of alcohol, they would likely cut down on the number of alcohol related problems they have.
Drinking is a recreational activity that carries with it many risks, but then so do many other recreational activities. One of the problems we have with alcohol as a culture is that, in many circles, it's hyped as a great recreational activity, but the dominant culture cuts down on opportunities for people to attenuate the risks.
If we lived in a world where college kids weren't going to drink themselves to death, then yes, teaching them how to drink responsibly would be unnecessary and might facilitate more people starting to drink, but we don't live in that world. The question is, is people's moral indignation of people drinking sufficient so that they can justify not supporting steps that will significantly cut down on the number of kids dying from alcohol related issues?
Well, to be fair, it could also be that they don't think that taking steps like I mentioned would reduce these deaths and problems, but if this is your contention, I hope that they have more to back it up than an attitude that drinking is wrong.
edit: Because I think it might have come across as more accusatory than I wanted it to.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’d like to make a distinction. I have no problem with teaching people to drink responsibly. I just don’t think that Trevor’s suggestion of getting his kids puking-drunk when they turn 18 qualifies.
I don’t drink at all. Bob does. I don’t think less of him for it, and if our kids choose to drink I won’t think less of them for it. But I don’t think getting drunk is an experience they should have to have before they make that choice. And, in general, I think negative object lessons are ineffective and often rebound.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, I didn't say that it's wrong to give kids some instruction on how to drink responsibly. I said that every kid is different, so to approach it from the position that "that's the best way for them to learn" isn't very valid. I said that explaining to them, in graphic detail, the consequences of drinking is a better starting point. I was kinda squicked out by the idea that Trevor would let his kids drink around him, especially at 18, when it is illegal. I think that there are more things wrong with that than just drinking.
I do plan on teaching my kids that alcohol is a dangerous thing, but I do not plan on teaching them that it is wrong, sinful, or evil to drink. I didn't even say that in any of my posts. I only said that it's a bad idea. Voluntarily consuming something for the sole purpose of altering your reality? That sounds like a bad idea to me.
I will probably tell my kids that drinking isn't a sin, but that's it's not a very smart thing to get started with. That is true. Considering the high rate of alcoholism in my family, I would explain to my children that, while everyone is different and people react differently to alcohol, our kids are more likely to develop dangerous life-habits if they start. If they want to know more about drinking, I'm not going to beat them over the head. I will answer as honestly as I can.
As far as education in schools, which no one had even mentioned until now, let alone me, I don't see anything wrong with that, if you are dealing with kids that are of, or nearing, legal drinking age.
If I say that I think drinking is a bad idea, and that I think it's a bad idea to let your underaged kids get drunk at home for the sole purpose of teaching them to drink "responsibly", that does not equate to "Shelter your kids from alcohol! Tell them it's evil! Refuse to talk about it! Fight the people that want to talk about it in college!" You jumped to about fifty conclusions.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: I was kinda squicked out by the idea that Trevor would let his kids drink around him, especially at 18, when it is illegal. I think that there are more things wrong with that than just drinking.
Well, see, I plan to do this. Wine was available to me at the dinner table from childhood on, and I think it lead me to have a mature view of alcohol. You seem to equate drinking at all with drinking enough to get drunk, and I don't agree with you on that. I certainly do want my children to have exposure to alcohol while I am around, as opposed to when I am not. And I could not care less what the law thinks about it; the law against a parent giving his or her child any alcohol at all strikes me as a thoroughly inappropriate invasion of the law into my family's private life.
I also do not agree, by the way, that the sole purpose of drinking is to alter your reality.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, I have this thing I do where I respond directly to something people said and then expand on the things I touched on in that reponse. Maybe I'm not doing a good job of showing this, but when I respond directly to a point and then move on from there, I'm not necessarily attributing the wider stuff to the person I initially responded to. That's why I edited out the places where I said you (I meant the general you) and replaced it with people.
I try to talk about general things that I see without trying to tie them to any specific person. If what I said in the expanded section applies to you, then it applies to you. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. I wasn't saying one way or the other. My concern was talking about the general case (although in some cases I'm trying to reflect back what I interpreted that person to be saying). To me, it's up to the individual person to decide whether or not what I'm saying really applies to them, as I'm usually neither sure nor all that concerned about whether or not it does.
I think I'm going to need to come up with a better way of differentiating between replies to a point made to a specific person and the more general expansion I move on from there.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My problem isn't with the law and the parent's rights, my problem was with teaching your children to value the law. Yes, I believe that if a law is blatantly wrong, I will not teach my child to follow it simply because it is a law. But, when I see a law as something that benefits most people, and is a pretty good idea in general, I will teach my kids to honor that.
Of course, I'm the person that won't change lanes near an intersection, even if no one else is on the road.
---
MrS: I didn't read your post after the edit, I had already moved on. Perhaps a second reading on my part would give me a better idea about what you meant.
[ September 09, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
See, I think this law is harmful. I think it discriminates against my culture, and it interferes with my ability to coach my children to a responsible practice of drinking. It forces upon me a puritanical approach to drinking that has clearly failed to work for Americans.
[ September 09, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok I'm unclear as to actually what "the law" says on this point. I realize the legal age to *purchase* alcohol is 21. And while there are laws against adults providing alcohol to minors, or those under 21, I *thought* there were parental exemptions on those cases, where a parent can actually allow a kid to sip from his beer or what have you without actual legal repercussions.
Dagonee?
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay - I wasn't going to get into this thread, but I already did, so I should further explain myself.
Of course I talk to my kids about alcohol. Many times. I don't prohibit them from ever trying alcohol. However, I have emphatically pointed out to them a severe history of alcholism on both sides of their family (mother's and father's) which makes the possible affects of their actions of drinking different than what it might be for their "friends" around them. They have also seen how stupid people act when drunk.
I was a very cheap drunk -- by that I mean it took very little liquor to make me in a full black-out drunk. I do know the dangers of black out drunks. I have shared those stories with my kids. They know how I feel about it in general. My oldest son knows that he was conceived during my drinking days and that is why he does not know his biological father, and they also know that was the catalyst to me finally successfully quitting drinking. (after several tries).
My kids might try alcohol (they are 18, 17, and 15 at this time, and have not yet). But they might not. We have thoroughly discussed it and they know the possible consequences.
More than that, they have learned the drinking alcohol is not "necessary". It is something you can live without all your life and function just fine. It is not a "need" in our society to be able to drink. Lots of people don't drink at all. So they can choose to take that route and be proud of it.
Farmgirl
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
On the side of, like, everything:
If you live in a family where drinking is something people do all the time, with meals and what-not, and you want to serve some to your kids, that's none of my business. My mom did the same with me. She offered me Blue Nun every New Year, if I remember correctly, and dad always let me have some of his beer. (I stopped accepting it by the time I was, like, seven, and realised there was no reason to drink it, so I don't call it drinking experience, because I wasn't old enough to really know if it affected me.)
But, my opinion is that drinking is kinda gross. Even when you aren't falling down drunk, it still strikes me as odd to encourage your kids to ingest a poison. Yes, one glass of red wine or whatever is supposed to be good for you, but I put that right up there with medicinal marijuana. If something works better, why use the marijuana? In the same way, do the "benefits" of drinking red wine outweigh the risks? The risks being a lifetime habit of ingesting alcohol daily? Even recreationally? Even without getting drunk? My opinion is that to even allow myself a CHANCE of doing something I regret (remember, not drinking to get drunk here) isn't worth it. I will tell my kids how I feel about drinking, but I will also teach them that drinking is not a sin, and that I'm not going to chastise them if they want to do it occasionally.
My father-in-law is from France. His family drinks wine with every meal, and they have this "snacktime" thing (not sure what it's called) where they drink between meals. No one is embarrassing themselves, but all are in a state of altered reality most of the time. A little off. A little unsure of how to answer. I little bit creepy. They aren't drinking to get drunk, but they are ingesting a poison on a regular basis. It creeps me out.
I will freely admit that my opinions on drinking are based on the fact that my parents were drunks and mistreated me. But I can't even let myself get anywhere near doing something like that to my kids. I won't even start. How many alcoholics started by getting completely wasted every weekend, and how many started with a drink every now and again? I don't know if there are statistics, but it isn't something I'm willing to chance. I plan on being completely honest with my kids about this, and tell them the truth about my bias and my reasons.
I'm not going to condemn them if they drink. I know people who drink at every get-together and I've never seen them drunk, or even off. Good for them, and all that. But it would seem to me that if you have alcoholic predilections, getting started at a young age would just make it that much harder to break the habit when you're older. I don't know how it can benefit a person to drink when they are children, but I CAN see potential harm, and I won't allow it in my house.
That's all. Do what you want with your kids, I'm not your police. : )
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To add my own perspective, I had my first alcoholic drink at a party when I was 14. At my high school, we had a tradition of keggers in the park. I didn't go to all that many because I was always in athletic training, but I went to my share and I went to my share of wrap parties that I drank at. I drank a lot in freshman year of college and gradually taperred off as the years went on. I'm at the point now where I really don't drink, except for special occasions. I just don't choose too.
When I was drinking heavily, like in freshman year of college, I was doing stupid things, no doubt. If I was the person then that I am now, I wouldn't have drank anywhere near as much. However, here's the thing, I was never in any real danger and it's through the experiences I had then, both good and bad, that I've become who I am today. This path, to me was a valid path, just as other paths were valid paths, and I don't regret it.
The question I think we're considering though, isn't so much personal choices but rather what are we going to do about these kids drinking themselves to death? Like I said, when you're in the trenches trying to allieviate this problem, you don't have the luxury of moralistic thinking or of ideological purity. You need to be focused on what works and what doesn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Ok I'm unclear as to actually what "the law" says on this point. I realize the legal age to *purchase* alcohol is 21. And while there are laws against adults providing alcohol to minors, or those under 21, I *thought* there were parental exemptions on those cases, where a parent can actually allow a kid to sip from his beer or what have you without actual legal repercussions.
Alaska: No one under the age of 21 is allowed to consume, possess, or control alcoholic beverages except; if a parent gives it to his/her child, or if a guardian gives it to his/her ward, or a legal spouse (wife or husband over 21) gives it to his/her spouse. This may only happen off licensed premises (i.e. not in bars, liquor stores, etc.).
Colorado: No one under the age of 21 is allowed to consume or possess alcohol unless a parent or guardian gives permission for their child or ward to drink, but only on private property and under the supervision of the parent or guardian.
Georgia: No one under 21 year of age is allowed to possess alcohol (therefore you can't drink it either) unless at home when the parent or guardian gives it to his/her child or ward and the parent or guardian is present (supervising).
Indiana: But he/she is allowed to consume, transport, or posses alcohol when supervised by the parent or guardian.
Iowa: “beer given or dispensed to a person under legal age within a private home and with the knowledge, presence, and consent of the parent or guardian” is allowed.
Maryland: No one under the age of 21 is allowed to buy, consume, posses, or transport alcohol. But to transport alcohol for any lawful purpose (like giving it to someone 21 or older to use) with the consent of the parent or guardian is allowed.
Minnesota: (from another site) Persons under 21 may legally drink alcohol only when in their parent's or guardian's home and then only with the permission of the parent or guardian.
New York: But you can drink alcohol if you are a student in a curriculum licensed or registered by the state education department and is required to taste or imbibe alcoholic beverages in courses which are part of the required curriculum. Also you can consume alcohol if it is give to you by your guardian or parent.
South Dakota: But an 18 year old or older can drink alcohol if done in the immediate presence of a parent or guardian or spouse over twenty-one years of age. Also if under18 years old you can still drink alcohol as long it's in the immediate presence of a parent or guardian or spouse, who is at least twenty-one years of age, while not on the premises of an establishment licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages.
Texas: Possession and consumption of alcohol is legal for minors if under the supervision of a parent, guardian or spouse.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
AJ,
Nope. I have read signs that specifically say it is even illegal for parents to provide alcohol to their children. (This may be something that varies from state to state.)
It is rarely enforced, though, at least where I have lived. Most people realize that arresting parents for giving their kids a sip of beer is excessive--and counterproductive. Is arresting parents and putting kids in foster care really the best thing to do for kids who have loving parents who diverged from the law in this regard?
There was one pretty high profile case in Florida a couple of years ago, though. As I recall, I started a thread on it, but I don't know if it is still around. At an Orlando Predators game (which Bob, Rak, Zan, and I attended, coincidentally) a father was allegedly observed giving his young child a taste of beer and reported to police, who arrested him and took the kid into foster care for the night. There is a bit more to the story than that, but those are the basic facts.
(BTW, I had to stop typing and attend to work :)while writing this, so the thread may have passed me by. My apologies if so . . . I am responding to BannaOj.)
[ September 09, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, certainly, some education about responsible drinking should be available for college students. (Easy for me to say, but I'm sure there are Mormons who would disagree with me. : ) ) And maybe, I'm not sure how this works, but is there a way to better police what students have in the dorms? Or are we only talking about off-camous drinking?
I think what surprises me is the amount of things that occur in college that the adults somehoe know nothing about. Do the adults not know when the frat parties are? I'm not sure what I'd expect them to do about it, but you'd think there'd be something?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'm uncomfortable with alcohol being referenced as a poison in the medical sense. It isn't in any special way, any more than baking powder, beeswax, or castor oil is.
Anything in large amounts, even water, can be seriously detrimental to the body.
There is no generally medically accepted definition of addiction, not one that has been validated well in the literature. It is a term that is bandied about without much rigor. On the other hand, there are accepted definitions of alcohol abuse and dependence. You will not, however, find any mention of "addiction" per se in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is not there. There is no generally agreed-on meaning. (There is an agreed-on medical meaning to the word "tolerance," but that is different. It is a medical concept that does have an agreed-on definition.)
In developed countries at least (I do not know about research elsewhere) most people can drink alcohol without experiencing significant harms, even over the course of a life. Some can't. It is not entirely clear how broad a range of reasons there may be for this, but in develped countries other than the US, a harms-reduction approach instead of the AA-style abstinance-based approach (see bottom of the article) is being used. This is being validated in the literature, unlike the AA approach, which been scantily studied from a scientific perspective, if at all.
That doesn't mean that AA doesn't work for some people.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't teach your children not to consume alcohol.
That doesn't mean that you may not have a prediliction in your family (for whatever reason) that would make it a good idea for your children to abstain from ingesting ethanol.
It just means that it is unlikely for one solution to work for everyone, that the literature does not support that people (in general, over a population) cannot drink responsibly, or that there is some essence to ethanol that puts it into a special "poison" category from a medical perspective.
Personally, I think learning to deal with a socially pervasive substance like alcohol (or nicotine) is useful in growing up. I don't think most young people have to get trashed to do it. I also don't think inaccurate information of any kind is helpful in the long run. Strong values are stronger than that, kids are smarter than that, and once someone who counts on you finds you've lied or misrepresented something deliberately to them, you will be a much less effective teacher.
[ September 09, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Sara, how much of those things do you have to ingest to OD?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Depends. You have to ingest very little of things like digitalis to OD, or (relatively) very little tylenol, but a lot of water.
I'm not sure if that is a helpful distinction. It certainly doesn't establish a magical tainted essence, regardless.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
On the legality, we got into this a while back where one of our teen hatrackers was talking about some wine she liked, and I forgot that wine is often part of religious stuff. Especially for Jews, I think. So of course parents can authorize their underage children to partake of alcohol. Along those lines, I don't think there is any consideration on quantity.
P.S. It is true AA only works for some people, thought the studies that say in only works for a tiny fraction wouldn't account for many longer term successes
[ September 09, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I understand that anything can be harmful if you consume enough. But most of them don't encourage themselves through addiction.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I asked a while back if alcohol kills brain cells or if that was a metaphor, and I think Bokonon affirmed that it does. So I would side with the "poison" interpretation for that reason.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Castor oil (which is being phased out of use): usual dose is 15-60ml, and you can easily run into problems at the upper end of that range. 60ml =2 oz
Baking soda (active ingredient, sodium bicarbonate): usual does is 1 - 2 tsp, and you are likely to run into problems with >5 tsp/day
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sara, I know this is a minor point, but what do they mean when they categorize AA as "zero-tolerance"?
I'm interpreting it to mean that any consumption of alcohol is considered bad, which is an accurate description given that total abstinence is the goal.
I'd hate to see people interpret it to mean, "One drink and you're out."
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Thank goodness...I'm so glad I missed the "spoonful of castor oil a day" generation.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: But most of them don't encourage themselves through addiction.
I have no idea what you yourself mean by "addiction" -- it is not an agreed-upon medical term.
I do, however, support you in your decision not to use alcohol and in encouraging your children not to do so, either.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, I guess I don't put alcohol addiction up there with nicotine addiction, but I have never seen people attempt to live off of baking soda before. : D
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:P.S. It is true AA only works for some people, thought the studies that say in only works for a tiny fraction wouldn't account for many longer term successes.
It is unclear whether to attribute this to the AA, to natural resolution (see the "Solo in an Upward Spiral" section), or some other cause. That is why scientific studies would help determine its effectiveness. Unfortunately, they aren't there, and the AA community has been somewhat resistant as a whole to outcomes measures research.
[ September 09, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Well, I guess I don't put alcohol addiction up there with nicotine addiction, but I have never seen people attempt to live off of baking soda before. : D
PSI, I still don't know what you mean when you use the word "addiction." (If I did, I could tell you whether or not I agreed with you or whether what you said made sense to me.)
But you don't have to explain or justify yourself to me (goodness knows!) -- I just wanted a clear account of what is accurate in the technical sense to be here.
(And I continue to support you in refraining from ethanol use, and encouraging your children to do so as well. )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's largely a philosophical objection (edit: objection's too strong - indifference is probably better) to scientific studies - they don't consider it medical or even scientific. It's a spirituality-based approach. It's also one of the most impressive dedications to service I've ever seen in my life.
That's not to say I'm opposed to studies. It's just that people in AA don't even advertise or try to get new members, and the members for whom it's working have no need to be told it works.
Not scientific, but defintely life-changing.
Dagonee
[ September 09, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Dag, I don't know what is meant by "zero tolerance." It is not a term that I use in this context.
I do draw a distinction between abstinance-based programs (founded on the claim that abstinance is the goal) versus harms-reduction-based programs (founded on the claim that reducing harms is the goal).
pooka, you'd consider anything that "killed off brain cells" to be a poison in the technical sense?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
C'mon, Sara, there is a definition of addiction in the DSM-IV. I don't have it memorized, but I know tolerance is at least one aspect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I don't know what is meant by "zero tolerance." It is not a term that I use in this context.
I do draw a distinction between abstinance-based programs (founded on the claim that abstinance is the goal) versus harms-reduction-based programs (founded on the claim that reducing harms is the goal).
The article used zero-tolerance, not you. Sorry I wasn't more clear:
quote:“Abstinence remains the ultimate goal,” explains Tucker, “but zero-tolerance programs intimidate many people who need help but are afraid to ask for it, especially when illicit drug use is involved.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think you saying that alcohol is not a poison requires you to define what poison then is, not me. Alcohol fatally disrupts the fuction of cells that we need to live. Not only if out of balance (as with water) but due to it's actual biochemical structure. Have I got that part right?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Dagonee, I don't really have problems with a private program choosing to refrain from evidence-based research on its outcomes, not on its own.
On the other hand, I have a very big problem when local, state, and federal oversight committees (and the medical community, too) view an area as having "sufficient coverage" regarding a problem (read: enough AA programs) when those aren't programs which assess their outcomes. I also have a problem when physicians consider a referral to AA as having "treated" or "addressed" a problem, for the same reasons.
These aren't problems with AA, by the way. These are problems with how others view AA and how it becomes situated in the system of abuse assistance.
For some it works, for some it doesn't. We don't have much of a clue whether there are approaches which would have worked better or faster or whatever in regards to those for whom AA is successful (maybe joining a church would have, or taking methadone, or cognitive behavioral therapy -- I'm serious, we really don't know).
But if someone is happy with it and it works for them, sure, it's great. And of course I'm happy for them.
[ September 09, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:C'mon, Sara, there is a definition of addiction in the DSM-IV. I don't have it memorized, but I know tolerance is at least one aspect.
I can't find it, and I've looked. Extensively. (I once made a bet with my husband, who does substance abuse research, and I had to concede to him. )
Tell you what -- if anyone can find a definition of "addiction" in the current DSM (that is, #IV), I'll Paypal you $50 the day you find it for me.
It just isn't a well-defined, agreed-upon medical term. Odd, huh? It gets bandied about a lot, even in the medical literature.
[ September 09, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Sara:
Okay. : ) From what I know about addictions, I place them into two categories. One would be the group of things that cause addictions themselves, medically, by causing (by themselves) withdrawal when you stop using them. I place nicotine in this category.
The other addiction is the one I would call phychological, in that the person has an addictive trait, for whatever reason, and they find a vice to get addicted to. I realize that none of this is technical, I'm just trying to explain the way I see it in my mind.
Now, while the second is a quality of the person, I don't think it can be denied that certain things lend themselves more readily to being used in this capacity, for whatever reason. I put alcohol here, for my purposes, because I don't know for sure if it's addictive in and of itself. The only thing I've ever seen it used for is as a depressant, by a person that wanted to be depressed. Any usually, when I see an alcoholic, they generally share some interesting personality traits, even when they are dry, and have been so for many years. What I mean is, alcohol doesn't appear to have made them the way the way they are, entirely. Alcoholism seems to be something that affects the way the person views the world, even when not drunk.
At any rate, when people use alcohol to "medicate" themselves, (ie, "get away from it all") it generally causes more problems than it solves, because alcoholism is so destructive to families and relationships. Therefore, unless they are really trying not to drink, they are going to keep feeling worse, continue to use the alcohol to forget about it, and so on and so forth. Meaning alcohol doesn't encourage someone to stop using it, but rather can encourage someone to continue to use it.
Once again, I am in no way asserting that this is how addictions really are, I'm just saying that's how I see it. I'm perfectly willing to be educated on this.
Wow, it took me forever to write that. It's probably way late.
[ September 09, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The big problem that has happened with 12 step programs is that they have been incorporated into the legal system as an alternative to jail. So there are a lot of people in the programs who are unlikely to have a true motivation to be there. And such programs are the ones most likely to be held up to research. Also, whenever a celebrity does it other people try it. That's why they try to maintain the "Anonymous" aspect.
George W. Bush apparently got sober just through a singular spiritual event. I had never heard someone try to put terminology on that before.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Edit: When I was in school, addiction was classified into two different categories:
Mental addiction Physical addiction
Mental - you think you need the subtance. Hypothetically, you could become addicted to almost anything - The internet, porn, shopping, etc.
Physical - the body has become so accustomed to the substance, the person experiences pain as the body goes through withdrawl.
However, this is an interesting read on the nature of addiction.
-Trevor
[ September 09, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, I misspoke about the DSM-IV.
The American Psyciatric Association uses these criteria:
The substance is taken in greater amounts for a longer time than intended.
There is a persistent desire or one or more unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control use.
Major time is spent in seeking, using, or recovering from the effects of use.
Frequent intoxication or withdrawal interferes with responsibilities.
There is a decreased level of social, recreational activities due to us.
There is continued use despite adverse consequences.
P.S. And no, I don't consider this the fulfillment of your wager, it just was the official sounding source that I was basing my statement on.
[ September 09, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Mental - you think you need the subtance. Hypothetically, you could become addicted to almost anything - The internet, porn, shopping, etc.
Hypothetically, yes. But many of these things offer a drug-like benefit, such as endorphins or whatever. Does that make sense? I'm trying to say that some things are easier to get addicted to.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
PSI, I promise to read it and respond. It deserves full attention, and I thank you for the time to write it.
pooka, I would claim that many substances can "act as a poison" (especially at higher doses) in the colloquial sense, but I would not agree that alcohol or caffeine is "essentially" a poison.
As far as I know, the idea that alcohol "kills cells (of any type)" automatically even at low doses is a myth. I can putz around on pharmacology sites to try to find documentation of this for you, if you like. Of course, at higher concetrations, it would disturb the cell molecular balance (as would most anything), but I don't think this happens at all exposures for this substance (or actually for any other).
I do know that Buzz: The Science and Lore of Alcohol and Caffeine was recommended to me by a pharmacology professor as a detailed, accurate, thoroughly researched, and interesting read. (an excerpt from a review is below)
However, I'm happy to be educated to the contrary. I'd want to know. And, again, just because it bears repeating in italics, I support those who wish to refrain from ingesting ethanol, nicotine, caffeine, or other drugs of abuse, and I support them encouraging their children to do so, as well. There are many good reasons for doing so.
quote:Much of what Braun reveals directly contradicts conventional wisdom about alcohol and caffeine. Braun shows, for instance, that alcohol is not simply a depressant as popularly believed, but is instead "a pharmacy in a bottle"--mimicking the action of drugs such as cocaine, amphetamine, valium, and opium. At low doses, it increases electrical activity in the same brain systems affected by stimulants, influences the same circuits targeted by valium, and causes the release of morphine-like compounds known as endorphins--all at the same time. This explains why alcohol can produce a range of reactions, from boisterous euphoria to dark, brooding hopelessness. Braun also shatters the myth that alcohol kills brain cells, reveals why wood alcohol or methanol causes blindness, and explains the biological reason behind the one-drink-per-hour sobriety rule (that's how long it takes the liver, working full tilt, to disable the 200 quintillion ethanol molecules found in a typical drink). The author then turns to caffeine and shows it to be no less remarkable. We discover that more than 100 plant species produce caffeine molecules in their seeds, leaves, or bark, a truly amazing distribution throughout nature (nicotine, in comparison, is found only in tobacco; opium only in the poppy). It's not surprising then that caffeine is far and away the most widely used mind altering substance on the planet, found in tea, coffee, cocoa, chocolate, soft drinks, and more than 2,000 non-prescription drugs.
[italics added]
[ September 09, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI, I promise to read it and respond. [Smile] It deserves full attention, and I thank you for the time to write it.
Naw, don't worry about it. I may have taken the time to write it, but I apparently didn't take the time to proofread it.
at PSI
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
PSI, you will have a hard time finding some action that doesn't provoke a physical reaction at some level.
Although you could argue the proposed mental category is simply a physical addiction of endorphins and chemicals prompted by a stimulus which will vary from addict to addict.
The more cynical among us view love as nothing more than an imbalance of chemicals in the brain and blood elsewhere.
-Trevor
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, you know there is no such thing as a medical fact. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Okay, I misspoke about the DSM-IV.
Hey, me too. Although I didn't mind losing that wager. *grin
I also argued that the CAGE questionnaire had been validated in the literature, but I haven't found evidence of that. It has to have been, though, you know? But he might be correct about that, too. Rats.
quote:The American Psyciatric Association uses these criteria:
I'm glad you listed them, and knowing that source is helpful. I don't think these criteria have been assessed for validity and reliability, though (i.e., they have not been formally tested to see if they measure what they purport to measure and whether they do so in a reliable way), and that is why they aren't in the DSM. All such measures of a diagnosis (be it the Beck Depression Inventory or what have you) need to be tested and retested scientifically, or we can't tell if they measure what they purport to measure. Maybe they just sound good.
[ September 09, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Despite appearances to the contrary, I think tending toward abstinence is a good thing in general. And when someone does most anything, I think it's good to do it in a mindful way and with an understanding of one's purpose.
I respect both the LDS and the Jewish culture for this, as in general they are quite mindful.
I'm just anal about matters of fact in medicine. (I do think there are medical facts, I just don't think they speak for themselves. They must be interpreted, just like any fact, and therein lies much bias in all of us. Certainly me included.)
quote:Naw, don't worry about it.
No way! Not a worry but a pleasure. You write well, and I look forward to understanding better something which is important to a friend.
[ September 09, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, one of my most annoying saws is that the death rate of tobacco really isn't any greater than the placebo effect. If one believes the commercials that one in three users die from it. This is not to say I'm pro-Tobacco, merely to mock the value of rigorous statistical analysis especially as it relates to medical issues.
I wouldn't really class caffeine as a poison along with alcohol, though. Bokonon said (and he's my guru) that it literally asphyxiates brain cells. Probably because it is preferentially carried by blood cells over something more nutritious. I would class CO2 in sodas the same way.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Caffeine and nicotine both constrict blood vessels, thus diminishing blood flow (and thereby oxygen) to some areas. Whether it is enough to "kill cells" is another question, as the effect is dose-dependent.
I believe alcohol is essentially similar -- not in the mechanism, but in the sense that it has some effects which become problematic for individual cells at certain doses.
quote:Well, one of my most annoying saws is that the death rate of tobacco really isn't any greater than the placebo effect. If one believes the commercials that one in three users die from it. This is not to say I'm pro-Tobacco, merely to mock the value of rigorous statistical analysis especially as it relates to medical issues.
I'd say that the argument best supported by this is that commercials and other forms of mass media are unreliable sources of medical information, and that they aren't good interpreters of stats in general.
Most of what gets filtered out to the public is misrepresented if not erroneous, that's for sure.
[ September 09, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
back from lunch....
quote:Sara, I know this is a minor point, but what do they mean when they categorize AA as "zero-tolerance"?
Since I am in AA myself, perhaps you would like to ask me instead?
FG
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(has learned a lot)
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
You guys all know now, don't you, that you ruined my future landmark? I haven't written one yet, but thought for my 4000th I might chronicle my journey out of alcoholism nearly 20 years ago this year.... but now I've gone and already spilled the beans....
FG
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
FG, I'm pretty familiar with AA, although I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
I was worried about a specific usage in a specific article ("they" refers to the authors).
But like I said, I'm interested in a more specific definition of zero-tolerance as it applies to AA.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't think we've ruined it - but I do think we would learn as much if not more from the journey as much as the destination.
By all means, post as much as you feel comfortable with.
-Trevor
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Dag,
I didn't read the entire article she linked to, but did notice the last paragraph, which has the quote you refer to.
It is true, on one hand, that AA is a zero-tolerance program (meaning they teach to not drink AT ALL if you have a problem with alcohol), but on the other hand, it would be ridiculous to say that this statement meant "one strike and you're out" -- I mean out of what? You can't get "thrown out" of AA for drinking. That is simply ludicrous. Shoot, I've seen drunks come to AA meetings drunk. We just figure that means they are back to Step 1, and they need more of our help, and usually someone will take them aside and talk with them one on one.
Zero tolerance for drunks is to prevent them from continuing to be active alcoholics. As an example, let's say someone that was addicted to cigarettes gave it up and quit smoking. Then a year or so later they think, "Well, I'll just have one cigarette, just for old times sake -- one cigarette won't hurt me" -- Then, of course, having one cigarette makes it that much easier to justify another, and another, and another. That is kind of the way we view it for those of us who have alcohol problems. Just don't take the first drink -- because when you do, there is just too high of a risk that you will take the second, then the third, etc. And it isn't worth the risk to find out if you can have one drink for old times sake.
To those who have mentioned AA and the government integration of it into the judicial system -- believe me, this was NOT something that was sought after by AA!! In fact, the AA organization wasn't given much choice in it. The courts just started "assigning" DUI offenders and others to the AA treatment program, (because they knew it worked for some) and they began showing up. Because the AA program is built on privacy and anonymity, it is very loosely organized. No one is turned away from AA if they need help. Unfortunately, as someone said above, many who come to AA meetings "court ordered" have neither the attitude or desire to quit their lifestyle, and basically we can't help them. Because they have no desire to be helped.
AA makes no profit. There is nothing for AA to gain by having court-ordered offenders come to their meetings. Often they have a hard enough time getting local groups to pass around the hat enough to pay for the meeting place and the coffee supply money.
I have a lot more to say on this, but I think this is enough for now.
Farmgirl
[ September 09, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
FG, that's exactly what I thought. My fear was that someone reading the article might not know all that, and would interpret "zero-tolerance" the way it's used in schools.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Edit: Clearly "alcohol" means "ethyl alcohol" in this case. Toss in any of the other bajillion alcohols and the rules change.
Alcohol kills bacteria by disrupting the cell membrane and denaturing key proteins. This would happen long before the concentration got high enough to kill through osmotic pressure gradients. As membrane disrupters and denaturing agents go in humans, alcohol isn't a particularly potent one. But it is abundant and cheap.
As for whether or not it's a poison, it quite clearly is not. The term poison is very well defined and alcohol doesn't come close to the necessary toxicity to be classified as such. On your local neighborhood MSDS you'll find alcohol classified as a health hazard of zero. This is the lowest possible score.
In terms of the biochemistry, ethanol isn't bad for you at all. Many biochemical reactions end in the production of ethanol and it can be pushed through the Krebb's cycle and made into any number of helpful things.
Problems occur when you drink so much it isn't all eliminated in the first pass through the liver. Ethanol can inhibit the action of GABA and NMDA receptors in the brain which stops messages from getting through. It also blocks the reuptake of dopamine and serotonin which makes you feel happy.
In the liver it's not ethanol that causes problems but free radicals from its metabolites. And, of course, the kidney sees problems from shifts in the electrolyte balance, altering the structure of the glomerulus (where the filtration of the blood actually occurs) which in turn changes the rate of blood flow through the kidney.
Anyway. High concentrations = bad. Which is why it's not a poison. A poison is where even low concentration = bad.
Not that this is particularly relevant to the conversation, but it’s all I can contribute
[ September 09, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
So, why do we care at all? I mean, kids drown just as much as they die from alcohol, right?
Okay, someone might deny that, but you can deny anything you want. Facts don't have to be undeniable, after all.
Kids do this kind of thing. A certain number die. There is no point in getting hyper about any one potential means of them killing themselves.
Okay, maybe there is a point, just one too abstruse for me to understand.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
BtL do they require ethyl alcohol to be 'denatured' in Canada?
AJ
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You seem to be in a mood Wraith.
Yes, kids drown. If they're going to be living on an island or near the ocean, I have every intention of teaching them how to swim.
If they grow up in the middle of the Sahara, it won't be terribly high on my list of priorities.
-Trevor
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Yes. You can, of course, get ethanol that hasn't been denatured but it can be a pain. Pretty much the same as the States I think.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks BtL, always nice to have a biochemist about.
I'd never seen "abstinence" used for alcohol the way it is in Overeater's Anonymousm, which is my 12 step experience. It took me a long time to wrap my head around the use of "abstinence" for not overeating. But it's not "dieting". It's just eating as an act of progression rather than an act of self-indulgence. OA doesn't prescribe one method of eating. So it was hard to get used to.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
at PSI
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)