Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: 7Kira on 01/02/2009 07:40:45
-
What do you all think about the impact and effects of alcoholism on youths?
-
Really bad.
-
I forgot to say, this is probably a really bad place to start a thread, if I had the power I would move it, but hey, that's life... [;D][;D][;D][;D][;D][;D][;D][;D]
-
I'm afraid that this question isn't very well thought out.
As the result of alcoholism is to reduce ability in just about every area I think of, it is obviously bad, not just for youths but for everyone. However, as not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes an alcoholic, alcohol does not cause alcoholism; excessive and inappropriate consumption of alcohol is the result of alcoholism, so the original question is really asking if sickness is good for you? which by definition , is no.
-
LeeE makes a good point. It is a common error to equate heavy drinking with alcoholism. The 2 are very different.
As LeeE said, alcohol does not cause alcoholism. Sure, without alcohol there would be no alcoholics; but my research indicated that their addiction/dependence would be to something else. Alcohol acts as the key to unlock the door to alcoholism. The potential for addiction is already present.
-
It's just another example of exploitation of one group of people by modern commerce. It's wicked in just the same way that T~V and other advertising are changing society. Cynical and reprehensible.
-
... excessive and inappropriate consumption of alcohol is the result of alcoholism, ...
It also may lead to alcoholism. I believe it is the only way to get that disease.
And not every person suffering from alcoholism drinks alcohol. As far as I understand, you may still be an alcohol addict, but not using it right now.
-
... alcohol does not cause alcoholism. Sure, without alcohol there would be no alcoholics; but my research indicated that their addiction/dependence would be to something else. Alcohol acts as the key to unlock the door to alcoholism. The potential for addiction is already present.
While this is temporarily going somewhere completely different: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people". That is what I hear in my country. So is the easy availability of guns a problem? Is the easy availability of alcohol to young people a problem? Are the alcoholism rates in the UK or Germany higher or lower than in the US, where the legal drinking age is 21 in many states and those laws are attempted to be enforced well.
What else than alcohol causes alcoholism? What do you do with research that points out that certain people have "potential" to be addicted to something? I see a million ways to abuse such data and discriminate against people with such potential.
-
... excessive and inappropriate consumption of alcohol is the result of alcoholism, ...
It also may lead to alcoholism. I believe it is the only way to get that disease.
This is not so. Excessive and inappropriate consumption of alcohol is more likely to make you throw up and swear never to get drunk again. While many, if not most, people have drunk alcohol to excess at some time, only a small proportion of them will become alcoholics who then go on to drink excessively all the time.
And not every person suffering from alcoholism drinks alcohol. As far as I understand, you may still be an alcohol addict, but not using it right now.
This statement contradicts what you're trying to claim; if people addicted to alcohol are not currently using alcohol but are still considered to be addicted then it can't be the alcohol that makes them an addict.
-
What do you all think about the impact and effects of alcoholism on youths?
The effect of alcohol is that many teenagers think binge drinking is cool and that is the wrong attitude. "It's not the drinking, it's how we're drinking" says the ad on TV.
-
But parents should also cop some of the blame.
-
Alcohol is 'relief valve' just like all other mind changing drugs.
There is research in Sweden stating that most of the people susceptible to alcoholism died as the result of former generations abuse of that fluid.
I read somewhere that in the seventeen(?) hundreds, no matter how poor you were, there was always some sort of pail with a wooden or metallic spoon at the side of the door.
The first thing you did was to take a 'house coming/warming' swig from the alcohol residing in that bucket.
There are genetic reasons why some take so strongly to it.
When Captain James Cook sailed he pacific (Hawaiian Islands?) sometimes he invited the natives to drink.
It was said that the natives experienced it as a hallucinogenic, having visions colours etc.
So we westerners are 'predisposed' to be able to drink .
As other cultures may be 'predisposed' to other drugs.
And we do need to 'get away' at times:)
-
Karsten - I deliberately didn't go into too much detail and maybe, as a result, my post was somewhat misleading. For this I apologise. In response to the valid points you raised I shall explain further.
What I meant by "alcohol does not cause alcoholism" is that I perceive alcoholism as a manifestation of a deeper condition. Alcohol can trigger presentation of this deeper condition in the same way that it can be triggered by drugs (I also think that gambling addiction and some forms of OCD could be related although I did not research that). It is the same underlying condition. Maybe what I should have said is that alcohol does not cause addiction. (Blame my medication! [;D] )
What do you do with research that points out that certain people have "potential" to be addicted to something? I see a million ways to abuse such data and discriminate against people with such potential.
For my research I took over 300 existing profiles of alcoholics & drug addicts. In addition I interviewed 250 myself. For the interviews I conducted I used a modified version of an existing profiling method. As the existing profiles had been compiled using a variety of methods I developed a technique of mapping those and mine to a common profile format so that they could be compared. I discussed this process at length with my PhD leader to ensure I wasn't weighting the results or including questions that would lead the participants into giving answers that would slew the results in a biased way.
I then interviewed 200 non-addicts to use as a control group.
The results were then subjected to statistical analysis (thanks to a brainy bugger from the maths faculty because I'm thick when it comes to that sort of thing).
What I found was a strong correlation in the profiles of alcoholics and drug addicts that was not present in most of the non-addicts' profiles. It was this correlation that led me to the conclusion that there is a predeliction, or potential, to addiction. Those non-addicts where I found correlation with the addicts I deduced was indicative of a latent potential that had not presented.
As anyone who has done a PhD will appreciate, my research was subjected to very rigorous examination by some of the most critical and unforgiving minds in the field. Their job was to try to find holes in the research in order to invalidate it. It is different from ordinary research in that respect where papers can be published without so much of a critical peer review. The panel was satisfied that my research was sound; the results & conclusions valid.
Subsequent research at Oxford university found indications of a genetic factor to addiction which would seem to support my own conclusions.
Your question about what can be done with such research can be applied to many subjects. I have no control over how it is used in the same way that those who developed a method of testing for HIV hold no sway over the life assurance business.
-
And not every person suffering from alcoholism drinks alcohol. As far as I understand, you may still be an alcohol addict, but not using it right now.
This statement contradicts what you're trying to claim; if people addicted to alcohol are not currently using alcohol but are still considered to be addicted then it can't be the alcohol that makes them an addict.
Alcoholism cannot be cured. All that can be done is that the condition be controlled. I personally know alcoholics who can drink quite normally most of the time, but every once in a while it gets hold of them again. I also know those who have not had a drink for years only to relapse.
-
Yes DB, you are definitely on the spot there.
Those genetic predispositions still exist.
Perhaps they are one, or more, combination of genes?
Just as there are some people that do other drugs without loosing their 'identity'.
Rolling Stones, don't remember the guys name, may be an example of that (heroin)?
But for anyone of those you will find hundreds that loose everything to drugs.
With the exception of those drugs, like for westerners alcohol, that we sort of are 'hardwired' through long use and abuse to manage.
In that case we still will see 'alcoholics' but not as many as if it was some other drug used.
At least that's my belief:)
-
Reading your latest reply DB I get an impression that you might draw a different conclusion from your research?
You see it as a generalized predisposition for drugs in general?
It is old knowledge that those who do amphetamine, and those who do heroin have preferences for their own drugs.
Why would it be so if all drugs where as 'interesting' for those people?
I agree to that there will be an 'overlapping' of drugs, also that social circumstances will play a big part in who will do what, but I still think that genes have a large part of the 'blame' to take.
-
Reading your latest reply DB I get an impression that you might draw a different conclusion from your research?
You see it as a generalized predisposition for drugs in general?
It is old knowledge that those who do amphetamine, and those who do heroin have preferences for their own drugs.
Why would it be so if all drugs where as 'interesting' for those people?
I think that may be due to other psychological factors.
-
I think my research may also indicate why some people are able to use drugs or alcohol to the same extent as addicts yet not become addicted.
-
That one will be interesting to read DB
And? I guess you don't want to present it just yet:)
But be sure to drop us the link when you're ready.
-
I meant the research I have already done; that which I referred to above.
-
I thought you might have embarked on an larger scale.
So what do you see as the correlations DB?
-
It was a correlation of various nodes on the profiles
-
Ahem, I see?
Pointy things, were they?
-
... excessive and inappropriate consumption of alcohol is the result of alcoholism, ...
It also may lead to alcoholism. I believe it is the only way to get that disease.
This is not so. Excessive and inappropriate consumption of alcohol is more likely to make you throw up and swear never to get drunk again. While many, if not most, people have drunk alcohol to excess at some time, only a small proportion of them will become alcoholics who then go on to drink excessively all the time.
But you do have to drink alcohol to become an alcoholic, right? Maybe not excessively (whatever that is) and inappropriately (whatever that is), but you will have to drink it. it seems, "ideally" for a long time and just a bit at a time.
-
I am still wondering about alcoholism rates in the USA, Germany , UK, other European country. I would like to compare. Anyone got some numbers?
-
There's one on Sweden, Czech Repubulic and France (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4459974.stm)
-
I am still wondering about alcoholism rates in the USA, Germany , UK, other European country. I would like to compare. Anyone got some numbers?
I don't have figures for that
-
Thank you Dr.Beaver for your informative and long comment. I had heard about your research (or like this) when I worked with people suffering from substance abuse.
Yes, it is a problem that often research is abused or used in ways that were never intended or imagined. I am torn about this. Should a scientist be thinking about and feel responsible for what can be done with what they find out? Or should they put their great talent to work without being held back by such ethical concerns? Should the discovery and publishing of knowledge be limited if it is clear that it will be abused? Do scientists have no responsibility? It is obvious that humans have great talent to discover knowledge and create incredible technology. We seem to have little talent though to use it wisely. It is a dilemma.
-
There's one on Sweden, Czech Repubulic and France (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4459974.stm)
Seems like cheaper booze results in higher consumption and higher incidence of chronic liver disease/cirrhosis. Not a surprise, really.
Now, data for the USA please. I need to compare with where I live.
-
What kind of data do you want? Consumption? Production? Availability?
-
Here (http://www.who.int/globalatlas/dataQuery/reportData.asp?rptType=1)
-
Yes, it is a problem that often research is abused or used in ways that were never intended or imagined. I am torn about this. Should a scientist be thinking about and feel responsible for what can be done with what they find out? Or should they put their great talent to work without being held back by such ethical concerns? Should the discovery and publishing of knowledge be limited if it is clear that it will be abused? Do scientists have no responsibility? It is obvious that humans have great talent to discover knowledge and create incredible technology. We seem to have little talent though to use it wisely. It is a dilemma.
That is a whole new subject that would be a gross digression were we to discuss it in this thread.
-
Road traffic accidents involving alcohol, rate per 100,000 (http://www.who.int/globalatlas/dataQuery/reportData.asp?rptType=1)
-
Be very wary of statistics regarding "Road traffic accidents involving alcohol". In the UK, if a pedestrian who has had even just 1 drink causes an RTA it is classed as a drink-related accident. Because of the way the figures are presented, most people reading them assume it was the driver who had been drinking. A few years ago when I tried to get the figures for accidents caused by drivers who have been drinking I was told that they are not kept.
-
I believe that RTAs where a driver who has not consumed alcohol causes an accident that involves e.g. hits another car, which is being driven by someone who has consumed alcohol, are also treated as involving alcohol.
While it is clear that alcohol impedes ability generally, and in the context of motoring is positively dangerous, obscuring and/or misrepresenting the underlying data doesn't help give an accurate picture of what's really going on. But then that's agendas for you, when some people want to prove a point or "send a message" regardless of whether it's actually true or not.
-
Maybe Gapminder can give you an idea of the relative 'health' of different nations?
http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/
It's worth a try, and if they don't have alcohol/drugs as a parameter it's long overdue:)
-
LeeE - that is true. If any one of those involved in the accident had had a drink, whether that person caused the accident or not it would be classed as drink-related.
-
What do you all think about the impact and effects of alcoholism on youths?
go out at night and get stabbed or killed by these low lifes.
western civilization is collapsing thru lack of any morals/values and thru drink and drugs.
barbarians with technology.
-
Yeah, very true indeed.
-
Hi I am student from Singapore, doing a research on alcoholism on youths.
Do you think that the advertising of alcohols through media have impact and affect youths about the concept of alcoholism?
-
Of course it does (well, I think so anyway), the media makes alcohol seem like a must need, like an i-pod or something.
-
western civilization is collapsing thru lack of any morals/values and thru drink and drugs.
Ah - I knew that someone would link morals with alcohol, which is a drug, so actually they're all just drugs.
Is it the anti-social behaviour, which can sometime occur as a result of alcohol use, that is immoral, or it is the act of consuming drugs for recreation that is immoral?
If western civilisation is shedding it's morals and values, why do you think it is happening? Is it because of the drugs, or are the drugs because of the lack of morals? Could societies be shedding certain moral values because they've found that that's what the people at the top have been doing for a very long time and the only thing that many of these morals and values have done for people lower down the hierarchy is to keep them at the bottom?
-
I am a "youth", but I dont drink- just because I dont like the taste. This means I have two groups of friends- ones i have made through social similarities who don't drink much or at all, and friends through my course subject who love to drink. generally i think alcohol is fine if you only have one or two. i have only been on a night out twice with my drinking friends and found it horrific to watch them all get smashed off their faces and make fools of themselves leaving me to be responsible for all of them. it makes me embarrassed that i get associated with the same kind of people because i am at university, and hate the stereotype of students being lazy. anyone that has done a science or law degree will know you work 20 hours a day just to keep up!
I believe harsher rules on alcohol should be enforced...maybe the age limit should be risen to somewhere in the 20's?
but then again, why should the rest of the people i know who like to have the occasional drink, or just the one on a night out, be punished?
i saw a program about a girl who had drank so much during her university years that she was going to die within 5 years (and she was only 25!)... so maybe if we leave it long enough survival of the fittest will work its magic lol!
-
Raise the age limit sure, but should it be the leagal age for purchasing alcohol or for drinking alcohol?
-
Somehow i believe that even if you implement such laws or rules it doesn't directly solve the problem
because some way or another 'youths' will still drink. In fact, it may be even more enticing, because these kids may think "i started drinking before the age limit, i'm cool. it gets me accepted amongst friends."
do u think more awareness may help? like knowing how drinking too much can shorten your life like that university girl?
-
Of course it will, but who pays attention these days?
-
I believe harsher rules on alcohol should be enforced...
So you think you should be allowed to impose your will upon anyone with whom you disagree with or don't understand? If you can't see why some people choose to get intoxicated it is therefore wrong and should be repressed? People who choose to get intoxicated are only doing something to themselves and no one else, whereas what you advocate is exactly the opposite; because you have already admitted that you don't get intoxicated, the rules you wish to enforce upon other people just won't apply to you.
It is largely because of people who think like you, and wish to impose their will upon others, that so many people want to get intoxicated in the first place; if society was such a good place people wouldn't want to escape from it, but as it is, there are just too many people who think they have a right to dictate to others how they should live their lives.
-
I believe harsher rules on alcohol should be enforced...
People who choose to get intoxicated are only doing something to themselves and no one else, whereas what you advocate is exactly the opposite; because you have already admitted that you don't get intoxicated, the rules you wish to enforce upon other people just won't apply to you.
It is largely because of people who think like you, and wish to impose their will upon others, that so many people want to get intoxicated in the first place; if society was such a good place people wouldn't want to escape from it, but as it is, there are just too many people who think they have a right to dictate to others how they should live their lives.
Nobody cares if you get drunk by yourself and only hurt yourself!
If it just were true that those who get drunk only hurt themselves!
All too often they hurt or even kill others. Ore just break somebody else's stuff. And while you could say that this is not necessarily the case for each person, those who are drunk when they break the law, commit crimes, or hurt/kill others get away with less penalties because they were drunk and their brain did not function as it would normally (which is true).
It is about the protection of those who cannot protect themselves. Pedestrians walking at the side of the street at night. Women exposed to their violent and drunk husbands. Homeless people becoming the "joke" for a rowdy and drunk group of people and being put on fire.
Maybe you would change your mind about harsher rules when your child gets killed by a drunk driver who has operated a vehicle drunk before and received a slap on the wrist for doing it. Intoxicated people continue to influence other people's lives in a very severe way and they are not held responsible due to the alcohol they consumed.
Unfortunately this stuff is legal and making it illegal does not work. As it is, while you may mess up more often and severely when you are drunk, you better be drunk when you mess up.
-
Nobody cares if you get drunk by yourself and only hurt yourself!
If it just were true that those who get drunk only hurt themselves!
All too often they hurt or even kill others. Ore just break somebody else's stuff
So it's only people who are intoxicated who hurt others, or break their stuff? No, of course not. If someone hurts someone else or damages someone else's property then someone has been hurt or property damaged regardless of whether they were intoxicated or not. And where have you got the idea that the law prosecutes those who have committed crimes whilst intoxicated less severely than those who were not? Exactly how do you think that the law is supposed to work anyway? It's not there primarily to punish people i.e. hurt them because they have hurt someone else, which achieves nothing, but to deter further intentional crime and ensure that society is protected from intentional crime. However, I'll not deny that increasingly these days, people are punished out of spite for being careless or in some cases, just for having an accident, which seems not only pointless but medieval.
Whatever this issue is about, it's certainly not about the protection of people who can't protect themselves. I'm not sure what you mean about pedestrians walking at the side of the street at night but alcohol doesn't result in women being 'exposed' to their violent and drunk husbands. First of all, people do not need to be drunk to be violent, and secondly, unless they're physically locked up, they can remove themselves from the threat of danger or report it to the police as the violent crime that it is. This is not to say that acting to protect yourself is necessarily easy, but then neither is life in general. One thing for sure though, focusing on alcohol, or even other recreational drugs, as the reason that these types of incident occur is missing the real causes and will do nothing to stop them.
The rest of the examples you gave are so distorted that I'm not prepared to be drawn in to arguing against them. If you really do believe that society works that way then simply talking sense and truth to you will be a waste of my time. You have an agenda and are distorting and exaggerating the facts to support that agenda.
-
Nobody cares if you get drunk by yourself and only hurt yourself!
If it just were true that those who get drunk only hurt themselves!
All too often they hurt or even kill others. Ore just break somebody else's stuff
So it's only people who are intoxicated who hurt others, or break their stuff? No, of course not. If someone hurts someone else or damages someone else's property then someone has been hurt or property damaged regardless of whether they were intoxicated or not. And where have you got the idea that the law prosecutes those who have committed crimes whilst intoxicated less severely than those who were not? Exactly how do you think that the law is supposed to work anyway? It's not there primarily to punish people i.e. hurt them because they have hurt someone else, which achieves nothing, but to deter further intentional crime and ensure that society is protected from intentional crime. However, I'll not deny that increasingly these days, people are punished out of spite for being careless or in some cases, just for having an accident, which seems not only pointless but medieval.
Whatever this issue is about, it's certainly not about the protection of people who can't protect themselves. I'm not sure what you mean about pedestrians walking at the side of the street at night but alcohol doesn't result in women being 'exposed' to their violent and drunk husbands. First of all, people do not need to be drunk to be violent, and secondly, unless they're physically locked up, they can remove themselves from the threat of danger or report it to the police as the violent crime that it is. This is not to say that acting to protect yourself is necessarily easy, but then neither is life in general. One thing for sure though, focusing on alcohol, or even other recreational drugs, as the reason that these types of incident occur is missing the real causes and will do nothing to stop them.
The rest of the examples you gave are so distorted that I'm not prepared to be drawn in to arguing against them. If you really do believe that society works that way then simply talking sense and truth to you will be a waste of my time. You have an agenda and are distorting and exaggerating the facts to support that agenda.
I have an agenda? Distorted and exaggerated examples? I don't respond to truth and sense? Try me! You would be the first one to not get a reasonable conversation with me if you bring forward sound reason yourself.
I will take back what I wrote about domestic violence and alcohol consumption. There seems to be correlation but not more. However, I don't think you have to look very far to find cases as described by me above. Every single year we have pedestrians here who get hit at night by drunken drivers. One of my former students is paralyzed neck-down because another former student decided to try to drive. Both were drunk. Last year a 4 year old girl was killed in her own yard by a drunk young man who decided that racing his car down the town road was a good idea and he lost control and skidded into the girl's yard where she was playing. It won't be difficult to find more reports that include alcohol and others getting hurt. You cannot deny a correlation. While cause and effect are in question, I believe there is little doubt that alcohol does impair judgment. This result of alcohol consumption cannot be a good thing.
Sure, incidents like this occur when people are sober as well. I wrote this in my last post already. The problem though is that once you are under the influence, your brain is not as functional and you cannot be treated as if you were sober. Please understand, I would not want someone who is drunk and commits a crime to be treated as if they had their full decision making skills in place. As far as I understand they do not. Not while under the influence. That, in my opinion, makes alcohol so dangerous. Drinking it in any quantities is legal for most adults, it messes up your judgment, and when you hurt someone else you have to be treated differently since your judgment was impaired. I HOPE they get treated differently.
No, I am not in favor of punishment alone. However I am in favor for taking privileges away from people who abuse them and act carelessly and dangerously. In my opinion, people who act less responsibly should have fewer responsibilities and not be allowed to be in positions that require personal responsibility to not hurt others. And while alcohol is here to stay (and the causes for the trouble may lie deeper than merely be a result of consumption) it seems appropriate to discuss what to do with people who hurt others while drunk. Unless you are about 2 years old, there is something very big between "intentional" and "unintentional". It is called "negligence" and it seems to me that drinking alcohol and doing anything that involves reasonable decision making and/or fast reactions in order to prevent injury (or worse) is negligent.
The big question is: Does alcohol consumption result in more injuries, property damage, and death? If yes, it seems worth pointing out and worrying about the abuse of this liquid, and considering consequences. If drinking alcohol reduces a person's abilities and drinking it is legal - this makes me think there is a problem. If not, I would like to know, but I will be slow in changing my mind since I tend to err on the side of caution. Does alcohol reduce your ability to be as responsible as without?
-
Sigh...
Yes, you are distorting the evidence you're presenting, and do it again a little further down the page when you refer to a four year old child. What difference does it make how old the person was? The only reason to make that fact clear is if you're trying to make the issue emotive instead of rational.
Someone getting run over by a drunken driver doesn't mean that people only get run over by drunken drivers, so using that, and the similar examples you cite, as arguments to support your case doesn't really work. The same thing happens with or without alcohol or other intoxicants and the absence of one does not result in absence of the other. Similarly, the presence of one does not guarantee presence of the other.
However I am in favor for taking privileges away from people who abuse them
Ah, I think that says it all really; to you, life comes down to being a privilege, not a fundamental right. I guess if you don't regard yourself as free it must seem quite reasonable to dictate how other people should live their life.
-
Wait a second here!
However I am in favor for taking privileges away from people who abuse them
Ah, I think that says it all really; to you, life comes down to being a privilege, not a fundamental right. I guess if you don't regard yourself as free it must seem quite reasonable to dictate how other people should live their life.
I DO NOT CONSIDER LIFE A PRIVILEGE NOR FAVOR TAKING LIFE AWAY! What in the world makes you think that? Could you read what I write please? You keep taking my comments out of context and turning what I write upside down. I am beginning to wonder who has an agenda here?
The only reason to make that fact clear is if you're trying to make the issue emotive instead of rational.
Agreed, it does not matter how old the child was. I presented several examples. You choose to ignore all but the emotional one. What matters was that the driver was drunk and made a bad decision. Like other people hundreds of times. Drunk or sober. BUT alcohol is a drug that influences the brain in ways that inhibits rational decision making. Or is that not true? Let's talk rational here. Does alcohol inhibit rational decision making?
Someone getting run over by a drunken driver doesn't mean that people only get run over by drunken drivers, so using that, and the similar examples you cite, as arguments to support your case doesn't really work. The same thing happens with or without alcohol or other intoxicants and the absence of one does not result in absence of the other. Similarly, the presence of one does not guarantee presence of the other.
Of course it works! Just because something does not ALWAYS result in a certain result does not mean it is irrelevant. Medicine does not ALWAYS give you the same results. We sure use it though because it has proven to increase PROBABILITY for a certain result. Do you honestly trust an intoxicated bus driver (that is just an example!) as much as a sober one? You would not feel (maybe even supported by statistics) that there is a higher chance that this person is going to injure you while you are on this bus? You would have no problem if this person does not experience a job-related consequence for behaving this way? You would not worry about this symptom and inhibition (be it a result of feeling miserable, a broken society, or something else) since it is an expression of personal freedom?
Lee, I think you are evading the real issue by attempting to push me in the corner or "emotional thinkers" and belittling my arguments this way. My unanswered question remains: Does alcohol make you less able to make rational decisions? And, if yes, what do we do when people put their feelings of unlimited personal freedom above the health and well-being of other people and/or their property and consume alcohol when they should not? The first is a science question but I cannot get a straight answer. The second is not and we may not be able to answer it to our satisfaction here.
-
The issue/question was never "Does alcohol make you less able to make rational decisions?"
What I took exception to was a comment where someone linked morals with alcohol use. Someone else then chipped in by saying that they believed that imposing harsher rules on alcohol should be enforced. Both of these people seemed to believe that the cause of the problems they were alluding to were the direct consequence of alcohol and without alcohol those problems would not exist, or would be cured. You then joined in, with your emotive comments about women being exposed to violence because of alcohol, and asking how I would feel if my child was run over by a drunken driver, implying that I would feel different depending on how my child was killed. Ah yes - looking back I notice that you also added that the drunk driver who had killed my child "has operated a vehicle drunk before and received a slap on the wrist for doing it."
You may be able to get away with emotive but irrational arguments and changing the topic to win an argument with some people, but not with me.
-
The issue/question was never "Does alcohol make you less able to make rational decisions?"
Agreed, that was not the topic to begin with. I was trying to get an answer for this though for quite a while now while you are going back to my examples. I will have to begin a new thread with that topic since I cannot get an answer to this interesting question.
You then joined in, with your emotive comments about women being exposed to violence because of alcohol, and asking how I would feel if my child was run over by a drunken driver, implying that I would feel different depending on how my child was killed. Ah yes - looking back I notice that you also added that the drunk driver who had killed my child "has operated a vehicle drunk before and received a slap on the wrist for doing it."
I joined in because with some examples because you claimed that "..people who choose to get intoxicated are only doing something to themselves and no one else.." which is just not true and should not stand there like this. My comments did not relate to the original topic and had little to do with young people but it seemed your comments white-washed an issue beyond tolerable. Sure I picked some examples to illustrate a point. The opposite point and often terrible reality. This is not an issue that involves merely mild property damage. My examples were intended to create an emotional response to counter-weight what you had written so rationally, but at least they were not wrong.
I did not intend to imply that you would feel differently depending on how your child was killed. I hope it never happens to anyone. As a matter of fact (and I have to quote myself her since you still cannot get it straight) what I wrote was that "maybe you would change your mind about harsher rules when your child gets killed by a drunk driver who has operated a vehicle drunk before and received a slap on the wrist for doing it". I did not write anywhere that you would feel in any particular way concerning your child but about lenient drunk driving laws and repeat offenders. The second part of my quote is rather important and misunderstandings arise if you read (and quote) only parts of what people say. This was not "added" as you say.
You may be able to get away with emotive but irrational arguments and changing the topic to win an argument with some people, but not with me.
How come you see my comments as emotive but irrational and your own comments about "anti-social behavior", "escaping from society", "the right to dictate to others", etc. are supposedly rational and free of emotions?
It is neither mine nor your place to decide who wins our argument.
-
Personally I'm a youth, aged 19, and i love to drink. However i know my limits of drinking and will not lead to alcohol addictions. I think that youths should not be addicted to drink because alot of bad consequences will they faced. But well, i don't know why youths like to drink till drunk dead when they knew that the feeling of hangover is not good.
-
I bet every alcoholic started off saying "i know my limits of drinking and will not lead to alcohol addiction"
-
It's not unlike this forum, in fact.
-
Is that a compliment or an insult? [:-X]
-
i heard that learning and memory will be affected to those youths who drink. actually its not really on youths but everyone i guess?oh and an interesting fact which i have learnt: teen alcohol users are most vulnerable to damaging two key areas of the brain that are undergoing dramatic changes: the hippocampus and prefrontal area of the brain.A source mentioned that the hippocampus controls the memory and learning and suffers from the worst alcohol-related damage in teens!
-
hello ccqh, i agree that learning and memory will affect all who drink not only the youths. Alcohol does not have its sense of bias and only affect those that it wants to. The only way to prevent alcohol addiction is to drink moderately and for safety measure, don t drive! [O8)]
-
i don't know why youths like to drink till drunk dead when they knew that the feeling of hangover is not good.
It's because the hangover comes later, and being drunk feels good now.