MN Faces Idea Of Lower Drinking Age, Again

[del]

Okay ... you won that one ... phbtbthtbtpthtbt!

and 35 mm isn't small!

That one I don't get the reference ... blond moment again I guess.

Update: Oh wait, just got it. LOL

i had faith in you

 

[garyd]

We survived because parents were in charge and were smart enough to figure out that by and large treating kids like adults is an abject failure.

 

[Agnapostate]

We survived because parents were in charge and were smart enough to figure out that by and large treating kids like adults is an abject failure.

I'm afraid that claim isn't supported by historical evidence. Adolescence was essentially nonexistent prior to the Industrial Revolution.

 

[KittenKoder]

We survived because parents were in charge and were smart enough to figure out that by and large treating kids like adults is an abject failure.

So ... parents who were around for about ... 5 maybe ten years after birth managed to do all that, then explain why they can't when they are around for 18 years (often longer) in modern times? Of course back in the times I was talking about parents were between 13 and 16 years old, so then your point is still rather moot because it only supports giving children more rights instead of less. Giving people more personal responsibility at younger ages forces them to also face the consequences instead of relying on parents (who have a history of failing to do this) the chance to coddle them too much (which often it's one of two extremes, excessive coddling or abuse).

 

[Zoom-boing]

Just because a person reaches the age of 18 and is considered an adult does not mean that their brains are 'adult'. Much change and growth takes place between the ages of 18-25 or so. In light of this, lowering the drinking age to 18 from 21 would be a huge mistake, imo.

Catalyst: Teen Brain - ABC TV Science

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying the drinking age shouldn't be lowered because the brain underdevelopment would cause the alcohol to be physically harmful or are you saying the drinking age shouldn't be lowered because the brain underdevelopment would cause persons under 21 to be incapable of making rational and informed decisions about alcohol consumption? Because I've addressed both of those claims in this thread.

A brain that is still developing doesn't cause alcohol to be physically harmful; alcohol is physically harmful regardless - but a brain still under development can be more damaged because it's still developing. The drinking age should remain at 21 because the rational thinking, cognitive thinking, etc. skills are still developing and adding alcohol to the mix -- is simply not a good idea. Logic makes this obvious.

Also, the drinking age is 21 but we all know that much younger kids drink. If you lower the age to 18, even younger kids will drink. (much like if the speed limit is 55 many will exceed that by 'xx' amount; if it is raised to 65 that 'xx' amount will be even higher).

...Brain cells grow back. This "argument" really doesn't pack the force it once did in light of that.

Nothing can grow back from being dead. Replaced with other cells, yes, but to grow back once killed off? No.

 

[Agnapostate]

A brain that is still developing doesn't cause alcohol to be physically harmful; alcohol is physically harmful regardless - but a brain still under development can be more damaged because it's still developing. The drinking age should remain at 21 because the rational thinking, cognitive thinking, etc. skills are still developing and adding alcohol to the mix -- is simply not a good idea. Logic makes this obvious.

All right...you seem to be making both claims.

But I've already discussed both of them extensively.

I've already indicated that the conclusions about harm caused to the "adolescent brain" are essentially based on studies of adolescent rats and severe alcohol abusers: "Drinking Alcohol Damages Teenagers’ Brains"

What's more, the rats in the study were given about 5 grams of alcohol per aboud 1000 grams of body weight, which amounts to about 6 beers for a human. A case of beer is obviously not a valid example of moderate alcohol consumption. (Incidentally, the rats were also starved for about 12 hours prior to the administration of alcohol, which obviously increases their metabolism of the alcohol.) Nor are severe alcohol abusers reliable test subjects.

As I said previously, if you consider the rat studies valid, you should note that the adolescent rats were able to resist alcohol's sedating effects better than the adult rats were.

I've previously referenced the psychologist Robert Epstein ans his article published in Scientific American Mind, which indicated that though there is some semblance of a correlation between adolescence and brain development illustrated in these scans, there is no evidence of causation by a natural stage of adolescence. His chief counter-argument references the fact that adolescents have been severely infantilized in modern society, in contrast to the important adult role they played in past times, and it may be this factor that has led to the lack of brain development so commonly assumed to be a natural byproduct of adolescence. As such, it would not be intellectually honest to declare the infallibility of these scans just yet.

There are several studies that have been conducted on the basis of measuring the actual competency of adolescents to make informed decisions, as opposed to highly speculative guesswork based on snapshots of the brain.

An important one is that of Lois A. Weithorn and Susan B. Campbell, which tested four groups of people, aged 9, 14, 18, and 21. The study, entitled The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, came to the conclusion that 14 year olds were capable of making medical decisions with a level of competence equivalent to that of legal adults. As partially summarized by Weithorn and Campbell:

"In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression and enuresis.)…The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the “cutoffs” below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents."

The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling, Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating that “existing evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.”

Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study intended to specifically focus on this topic, entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion. The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults.

In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents’ abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, researchers Kuther and Posada confirmed that, “the literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents,” thus confirming the legitimacy and validity of the previous studies to a great degree.

Also, the drinking age is 21 but we all know that much younger kids drink. If you lower the age to 18, even younger kids will drink. (much like if the speed limit is 55 many will exceed that by 'xx' amount; if it is raised to 65 that 'xx' amount will be even higher).

I don't object to that. I don't support simply lowering the drinking age to 18; I support the abolition of the drinking age. As I've said several times, I advocate a framework in which persons are taught the value of moderate alcohol consumption from early childhood, and gradually consume larger amounts of alcohol as they age until they consume moderate "adult" amounts.

Nothing can grow back from being dead. Replaced with other cells, yes, but to grow back once killed off? No.

I think you know what I meant. The claim about dead brain cells used to be a major argument against alcohol consumption back in the day, but we now know that new brain cells grow to take the place of the dead ones.

 

[manifold]

I dont care what age they put it to. Neither I nor my children are going to be drinking.

At least that's what you think.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A brain that is still developing doesn't cause alcohol to be physically harmful; alcohol is physically harmful regardless - but a brain still under development can be more damaged because it's still developing. The drinking age should remain at 21 because the rational thinking, cognitive thinking, etc. skills are still developing and adding alcohol to the mix -- is simply not a good idea. Logic makes this obvious.

All right...you seem to be making both claims.

But I've already discussed both of them extensively.

I've already indicated that the conclusions about harm caused to the "adolescent brain" are essentially based on studies of adolescent rats and severe alcohol abusers: "Drinking Alcohol Damages Teenagers’ Brains"

What's more, the rats in the study were given about 5 grams of alcohol per aboud 1000 grams of body weight, which amounts to about 6 beers for a human. A case of beer is obviously not a valid example of moderate alcohol consumption. (Incidentally, the rats were also starved for about 12 hours prior to the administration of alcohol, which obviously increases their metabolism of the alcohol.) Nor are severe alcohol abusers reliable test subjects.

As I said previously, if you consider the rat studies valid, you should note that the adolescent rats were able to resist alcohol's sedating effects better than the adult rats were.

I've previously referenced the psychologist Robert Epstein ans his article published in Scientific American Mind, which indicated that though there is some semblance of a correlation between adolescence and brain development illustrated in these scans, there is no evidence of causation by a natural stage of adolescence. His chief counter-argument references the fact that adolescents have been severely infantilized in modern society, in contrast to the important adult role they played in past times, and it may be this factor that has led to the lack of brain development so commonly assumed to be a natural byproduct of adolescence. As such, it would not be intellectually honest to declare the infallibility of these scans just yet.

There are several studies that have been conducted on the basis of measuring the actual competency of adolescents to make informed decisions, as opposed to highly speculative guesswork based on snapshots of the brain.

An important one is that of Lois A. Weithorn and Susan B. Campbell, which tested four groups of people, aged 9, 14, 18, and 21. The study, entitled The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, came to the conclusion that 14 year olds were capable of making medical decisions with a level of competence equivalent to that of legal adults. As partially summarized by Weithorn and Campbell:

"In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression and enuresis.)…The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the “cutoffs” below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents."

The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling, Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating that “existing evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.”

Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study intended to specifically focus on this topic, entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion. The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults.

In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents’ abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, researchers Kuther and Posada confirmed that, “the literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents,” thus confirming the legitimacy and validity of the previous studies to a great degree.

Also, the drinking age is 21 but we all know that much younger kids drink. If you lower the age to 18, even younger kids will drink. (much like if the speed limit is 55 many will exceed that by 'xx' amount; if it is raised to 65 that 'xx' amount will be even higher).

I don't object to that. I don't support simply lowering the drinking age to 18; I support the abolition of the drinking age. As I've said several times, I advocate a framework in which persons are taught the value of moderate alcohol consumption from early childhood, and gradually consume larger amounts of alcohol as they age until they consume moderate "adult" amounts.

Nothing can grow back from being dead. Replaced with other cells, yes, but to grow back once killed off? No.

I think you know what I meant. The claim about dead brain cells used to be a major argument against alcohol consumption back in the day, but we now know that new brain cells grow to take the place of the dead ones.

As a parent of three kids ages 18, 15 and 12 what I'm saying is . . . just because someone reaches the age of 18 and the world says 'hey you're an adult' doesn't mean their brains are 'adult' because their brains are not done fully developing. As such, introducing something like alcohol into an 18 year old's brain may cause more damage than if it were introduced into a more developed brain (21 year old).

The still developing brain of an 18 year old is primary cause for reckless type behavior. For example, there is very much an 'I'm immortal' attitude/thought/action involved (because their different brain skills are not fully developed yet). Adding alcohol to this mix is a bad idea.

I don't care about some study of rats; logic tells me that introducing alcohol into a still developing brain will cause damage. Abusing alcohol will cause more damage. Keeping the drinking age at 21 is a good idea; lowering it 18 is not.

I don't support abolishing the drinking age; don't know how you got that from my post.

 

[Agnapostate]

As a parent of three kids ages 18, 15 and 12 what I'm saying is . . . just because someone reaches the age of 18 and the world says 'hey you're an adult' doesn't mean their brains are 'adult' because their brains are not done fully developing. As such, introducing something like alcohol into an 18 year old's brain may cause more damage than if it were introduced into a more developed brain (21 year old).

The brain continues to "develop" and undergo alterations throughout the entirety of human life, and that pattern is not restricted to any specific phase of life. I've already discussed the dubious legitimacy of the rat studies, inasmuch as they gave them extremely high amounts of alcohol after not feeding them. Furthermore, even if alcohol was specifically harmful to the brains of youth, that would be no more a rationale for having a minimum drinking age than for having a maximum drinking age to protect the brains of the elderly. Or for that matter, restrictions on women or lighter people drinking, since they're harmed to a greater extent by imbibing large amounts of alcohol than men or heavier people.

The still developing brain of an 18 year old is primary cause for reckless type behavior. For example, there is very much an 'I'm immortal' attitude/thought/action involved (because their different brain skills are not fully developed yet). Adding alcohol to this mix is a bad idea.

I've already rebutted this with empirical evidence. You have no evidence to bring up yourself; you have your own biased beliefs, but you don't offer any rational basis for them. I'm afraid that's not sufficient in this discussion if you want to support your claims that alcohol will damage the brains of youth.

I don't care about some study of rats; logic tells me that introducing alcohol into a still developing brain will cause damage. Abusing alcohol will cause more damage. Keeping the drinking age at 21 is a good idea; lowering it 18 is not.

I'm quite aware that abuse of alcohol causes damage, which is why I have referred to the model of countries that introduce moderate alcohol consumption at lower ages and have lower binge drinking rates than the U.S.

I don't support abolishing the drinking age; don't know how you got that from my post.

I didn't get that from your post; I don't know where you got that idea. I support the abolition of the drinking age.

 

[KittenKoder]

I dont care what age they put it to. Neither I nor my children are going to be drinking.

At least that's what you think.

Stop copying me! *pouts*

I heard one mother say that once ... a week later she had to bail her teenager from jail for drunk driving. A strict christian, to add insult to injury. Still, to this day, she denies it.

 

[Gunny]

MN Faces Idea Of Lower Drinking Age, Again | KSFY.com - Your Source for News, Sports, Weather, and Community Events Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104 | Local News

State lawmakers in Minnesota are bringing forward a plan to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18, and even allowing those sixteen and seventeen to drink in bars in accompanied by their parents.

There are at least four state representatives who are backing the plan.

Tom Hackbarth, a Republican from District 48A said, "I think that bars and restaurants are having a difficult time right now with the smoking ban that went into place. I think with economic times the way they are, I've never opposed the drinking age being 18."

He says the proposal could help the tavern industry. However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposes this idea.

Julie Zamora, a representative of MADD, said, "People who start drinking at younger ages are more likely to have problems with alcohol later in life."

This is not the first time that Minnesota has faced this issue. Last year a similar proposal was brought to the legislature, but never got a full hearing.

A commendable plan.

It's a stupid plan. Replace the alcoholics who smoked with alcoholics that can't shave. Brilliant.

 

[Agnapostate]

 

[KittenKoder]

MADD members are the same type of people as the environuts ... just a different sky.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The brain continues to "develop" and undergo alterations throughout the entirety of human life, and that pattern is not restricted to any specific phase of life. I've already discussed the dubious legitimacy of the rat studies, inasmuch as they gave them extremely high amounts of alcohol after not feeding them.

lol, they gave the rats booze on an empty stomach -- not that people would ever do that to get more of a buzz.

Furthermore, even if alcohol was specifically harmful to the brains of youth, that would be no more a rationale for having a minimum drinking age than for having a maximum drinking age to protect the brains of the elderly. Or for that matter, restrictions on women or lighter people drinking, since they're harmed to a greater extent by imbibing large amounts of alcohol than men or heavier people.

Alcohol is specifically harmful to the brains of youth, which is exactly the reason for having a minimum drinking age. The younger the kid, the greater the possibility of damage.

I've already rebutted this with empirical evidence. You have no evidence to bring up yourself; you have your own biased beliefs, but you don't offer any rational basis for them. I'm afraid that's not sufficient in this discussion if you want to support your claims that alcohol will damage the brains of youth.

'That's not sufficient in this discussion'? LOL what, are you the discussion police or something? If we don't play by your rules we can't play? No evidence but my own biased beliefs? What, my biased beliefs are that I have three kids? lol you are too much. I don't need some 'empirical evidence' as you like to throw out, I have empirical experience. I've been there, done that. Stupidity and irrational and risk taking behavior go hand in hand with youth, because of their not fully developed brain. Alcohol exacerbates this behavior. I've lived it and I've witnessed it. You can have your lab rats; I'll take people and experience. But ok, I'll play.

Evidence is accruing that alcohol, and perhaps other drugs, impact brain function and behavior differently during adolescence than during adulthood. Further, preliminary data suggest that adolescents might be more vulnerable than adults to impairments following repeated alcohol exposure.

Alcohol and adolescent brain development

The adolescent brain
The brain goes through dynamic change during adolescence, and alcohol can seriously damage long- and short-term growth processes. Frontal lobe development and the refinement of pathways and connections continue until age 16, and a high rate of energy is used as the brain matures until age 20. Damage from alcohol at this time can be long-term and irreversible. In addition, short-term or moderate drinking impairs learning and memory far more in youth than adults. Adolescents need only drink half as much to suffer the same negative effects.

Drinkers vs. non-drinkers: research findings

* Adolescent drinkers scored worse than non-users on vocabulary, general information, memory, memory retrieval and at least three other tests
* Verbal and nonverbal information recall was most heavily affected, with a 10 percent performance decrease in alcohol users
* Significant neuropsychological deficits exist in early to middle adolescents (ages 15 and 16) with histories of extensive alcohol use
* Adolescent drinkers perform worse in school, are more likely to fall behind and have an increased risk of social problems, depression, suicidal thoughts and violence
* Alcohol affects the sleep cycle, resulting in impaired learning and memory as well as disrupted release of hormones necessary for growth and maturation
* Alcohol use increases risk of stroke among young drinkers

Adverse effects of alcohol on the brain: research findings
Youth who drink can have a significant reduction in learning and memory, and teen alcohol users are most susceptible to damaging two key brain areas that are undergoing dramatic changes in adolescence:

* The hippocampus handles many types of memory and learning and suffers from the worst alcohol-related brain damage in teens. Those who had been drinking more and for longer had significantly smaller hippocampi (10 percent).
* The prefrontal area (behind the forehead) undergoes the most change during adolescence. Researchers found that adolescent drinking could cause severe changes in this area and others, which play an important role in forming adult personality and behavior and is often called the CEO of the brain.

Lasting implications
Compared to students who drink moderately or not at all, frequent drinkers may never be able to catch up in adulthood, since alcohol inhibits systems crucial for storing new information as long-term memories and makes it difficult to immediately remember what was just learned.

Additionally, those who binge once a week or increase their drinking from age 18 to 24 may have problems attaining the goals of young adulthood—marriage, educational attainment, employment, and financial independence. And rather than "outgrowing" alcohol use, young abusers are significantly more likely to have drinking problems as adults.

What can be done to stop this epidemic?
The AMA advocates numerous ways to combat this growing epidemic, including:

* Reducing access to alcohol for children and youth
* Reducing sales and provision of alcohol to children and youth
* Increasing enforcement of underage drinking laws
* Providing more education about the harmful effects of alcohol abuse
* Reducing the demand for alcohol and the normalization of alcohol use by children and youth

AMA - Brain Damage Risks

A Baylor University study has found that exposure during adolescence to moderate doses of alcohol in a binge-like fashion does in fact produce tolerance to high doses of alcohol later in life.

Baylor researchers found that the alcohol a person might ingest when they are between 12 and 20, even at moderate doses, can alter brain and liver function, and produce alcohol tolerance when the person is older.

The results were published on-line in the journal Alcohol. It is among the first studies that link long-term tolerance consequences when adolescents are exposed to alcohol.

"Many people balance their alcohol consumption based on perceived changes in their behavior and what we show is that you can have no changes in your behavior in terms of tolerance, but still be changing liver and brain function that will produce tolerance later in life," said Dr. Doug Matthews, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor who led the study. "The body and brain are still developing during adolescence and this shows even a small amount of alcohol can have harmful effects."

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=43580


Lowering the drinking age to 18 is a piss poor idea.

 

[alan1]

Lowering the drinking age to 18 is a piss poor idea.

I heard that drinking lots of alcohol makes you piss a lot to.

 

[random3434]

Lowering the drinking age to 18 is a piss poor idea.

I heard that drinking lots of alcohol makes you piss a lot to.

And it makes you poor!

 

[alan1]

Lowering the drinking age to 18 is a piss poor idea.

I heard that drinking lots of alcohol makes you piss a lot to.

And it makes you poor!

So, that means Zoom is right.

 

[Agnapostate]

No, he's just pissing too much.

 

[Gunny]

Oh, I'm sorry. Was I supposed to read all your convoluted reasoning? You know, all of those bullshit arguments you make that try to claim children are the equal of adults?

You aren't. YOUR emotional immaturity, lack of wisdom and experience, and an ability to be honest when it comes to your arguments easily offsets any data you may have to offer. As I have told you in the past, intellect is but ONE ingredient to being a person.

I don't agree with the 21 years old age limit, but not because I support any of YOUR nonsense. I simply know from experience and observation that there are 18 years olds who are responsible drinkers just as there are 55 years olds who are irresponsible drinkers.

If you're old enough to kill and die for your country at 18, and vote for whatever moron you prefer as President, you should certainly be considered an adult in all aspects. Or none.

I think the double-standard is bullshit, and I'm glad the drinking age WAS 18 when I was 18.

 

[Agnapostate]

Then your nonsense up there was absolutely pointless.