Re: POLITICS drinking age (was My experience with caffeine)

[Guest guest]

On 6/27/05, alangaud <alangaud@...> wrote:

> > I disagree on several points. First, the drinking age does little

> > if anything to prevent underage drinking;

> I disagree. That's like saying legalizing raw milk sales

> will not increase the volume of sales. Some people will buy

> alcohol/raw milk no matter the legal status, but many more will do

> what is easy, socially acceptable (in their circle of friends), and

> legal. The number of imbibers will go up if it is legal and available,

> even if it's not zero when it's illegal.

I think there are a lot of factors that would require a more in-depth

consideration, and in particular we're not taking into account that

there are quite a few different types of partial legalities and

illegalities that don't fit on a linear spectrum between " legal " and

" illegal. "

One thing for certain is that there is by no means a perfect

correlation between legality and availability, and that there is by no

means a perfect correlation between availability and consumption, or

between legality and social acceptance, etc.

The legal restrictions on alcohol and the legal restrictions on raw

milk are totally different and don't really warrant a comparison. Raw

milk is illegal in some states, totally legal in a few, and legal

under certain circumstances that are not age-related in about half.

I'm not sure how the conusumption rate differs among those certain

circumstances. It seems to me that in a state like mine, where you

can legally buy raw milk from the farm but not in a store, the primary

factor hindering raw milk consumption is lack of knowledge of the

product; the second, the hassle of acquiring it. I think fear of

punishment or social concerns (which are probably the primary factors

that would prevent someone of legal age from buying alcohol for

someone underage) are negligible with respect to raw milk.

When I was a teenager, it wasn't very difficult to acquire alcohol,

although it was usually easier to acquire something that was flat-out

illegal like marijuana, I think largely because marijuana's completely

on the black-market so there's no interaction with legal entities. A

liquor store is more in the open and subject to much more scruity, has

a license to maintain, etc. Nevertheless, I never got the impression

that anyone's access to alcohol as a teenager was restricted to the

point where lack of access itself would prevent someone from engaging

in underage drinking.

When alcohol was prohibited for all citizens, the consumption rate did

not decline. I'm not sure what the rate of teenage alcohol use/abuse

is in France and some of the European countries that have low or

non-existant alcohol ages, but I don't think they have higher rates of

teen alcoholism, do they?

> > second, unlike caffeine and

> > nicotine, alcohol has no potential to create dependence (except in a

> > small portion of the population,

> I need a good reference for that. I've always read that

> ANYONE can become physically addicted to alcohol. How quickly and

> 'easily' that'll happen can vary tremendously from person to person.

I did a little searching and couldn't find a quick answer. In any

case, the potential for physical dependence is clearly much lower for

alcohol than coffee. On the other hand, the harm of alcohol addiction

is probably much worse.

> I also don't think that those genetically suseptible to alcoholism

> will be less impacted by drinking age laws. They don't crave alcohol

> before they are exposed to it. They won't ignore drinking age laws any

> more than average, unless they are in a social atmosphere (ie actively

> alcoholic family members) that encourages it, which is likely.

Exactly, so you support my point then?

> > third,

> > teenagers (or adults) do not use alcohol to increase performance of

> > day-to-day tasks and therefore are unlikely to use it with the

> > frequency with which they'd use caffeine.

> Alcohol and recreational drugs are used differently from caffeine or

> nicotine, but that doesn't mean they can't be abused or addictive.

Agreed. But abuse of caffeine is much more likely to be common for

many reasons beyond legal status. Among them, caffeine's effect is

more subtle and apparently benign, caffeine does not interfere with

one's ability to engage in day-to-day tasks like many recreational

drugs including alcohol, caffeine dependence often takes place in

otherwise " normal " individuals, whereas social/psychological issues

are generally precursors for drug abuse, etc.

Do you support a caffeine age of 21?

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:22:33 -0400

Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> One thing for certain is that there is by no means a perfect

> correlation between legality and availability, and that there is by no

> means a perfect correlation between availability and consumption, or

> between legality and social acceptance, etc.

We already know what total access to drugs of any sort will produce. The

historical numbers are there for all to see, it is just that it rarely

mentioned in today's dialogue about drugs.

Hint: the hard numbers of abusers doesn't change whether or not there is

legal access.

There is a great website on this which I can't locate at the moment

(which means its imbedded in one of my bookmarks) but a good book on the

subject which seeks to change the context of the dialogue is:

Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use by Sullum

http://www.reason.com/sayingyes/media.shtml

============================================================

" So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. "

(Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith " )

============================================================

[Guest guest]

> On the other hand, the harm of alcohol addiction

> is probably much worse.

I don't think 'probably much worse' is quite strong enough. I would

say alcohol addiction is close to 'infinitely worse' than caffeine

addiction. How many people literally die from caffeine

withdrawal? (Headaches that make you want to die don't count!)

> Do you support a caffeine age of 21?

No, not by a long shot. I don't whole heartedly support an alcohol

drinking age of 21. My original point was that growing children and

young adults who ingest addictive substances FREQUENTLY, are priming

their bodies to become dependent on those substances more easily than

their genetics alone would dictate. Maybe this is part of the reason

you are hooked on caffeine, maybe not. You're the best judge of your

own body.

Jan

[Guest guest]

On 6/27/05, alangaud <alangaud@...> wrote:

>

>

> > On the other hand, the harm of alcohol addiction

> > is probably much worse.

> I don't think 'probably much worse' is quite strong enough. I would

> say alcohol addiction is close to 'infinitely worse' than caffeine

> addiction. How many people literally die from caffeine

> withdrawal? (Headaches that make you want to die don't count!)

Yes, " infinitely worse " is a better fit.

> > Do you support a caffeine age of 21?

> No, not by a long shot. I don't whole heartedly support an alcohol

> drinking age of 21. My original point was that growing children and

> young adults who ingest addictive substances FREQUENTLY, are priming

> their bodies to become dependent on those substances more easily than

> their genetics alone would dictate.

Yes, I agree with this point and thought it was an interesting insight

on your part that I hadn't considered. It was the other point that I

take issue with-- I don't think the drinking age does a whole lot to

prevent teenagers from using alcohol in the way that the average

coffee-drinker uses coffee. (which is the type of use that would lead

to a metabolic adaptation.)

Chris