posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
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. : )
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.)
posted
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?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
posted
I understand that anything can be harmful if you consume enough. But most of them don't encourage themselves through addiction.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
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.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. )
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
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?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
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.
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
at PSI
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
