posted
My experience with alcohol is somewhat different from what most people are relating here. My mother's father was an alcoholic, and it did an awful lot of damage to his family. He died young, when I was a toddler, so I barely remember him, but his legacy of pain lives on in my mom.
I dated seriously for a while, about 12 years ago, a guy whom I gradually realized was an alcoholic. I don't feel like telling about it here, but suffice it to say that he destroyed his life because of alcohol. This was the first time I had witnessed addiction in someone very close to me. It was bad. He would lie, trick the people he loved, use every good impulse that anyone had toward him, and burn all his bridges forever, anything at all, to get drunk. Drinking mattered to him more than love, family, honor, decency, and life itself. It was pathetic.
The way I feel about alcohol is that it is very unwise to drink it. I don't know anyone who drinks who hasn't had more to drink than they intended at least once. When they have more than they intend, they set themselves up for serious accidents (one friend fell off a balcony and nearly died). And what is the payoff? What is the good that we get from drinking? As far as I can see, it's simply this: "paaaaaaaarteeeee, wheee!" I don't see how that compensates us for the damage we risk, and for the wasted lives of those among us who are destined to become alcoholics if they are exposed to it.
Far better and wiser, in my opinion, to make the decision as a community to spend that money on something that builds instead. Something like education or healthy food, books, toys, or games. I'm a convert to Mormonism, and yet, one of the reasons I was attracted to the community of the LDS is that they were obviously wise and astute, since they had decided as a group to forego the use of alcohol. Though I was raised in a family who drank, I stopped drinking myself years before.
I don't think my position is at all unreasonable or extreme, of course. I think it's simple wisdom. How much wholer would my family be if there were no alcoholics among us, if that damage did not extend back through the generations? How much pain would we have avoided? How many more resources would we have had, if so much money had not been spent on alcohol through the years? How much more health and longer life would my grandfather, my great uncle, and others who died young of alcoholism have enjoyed? To me there is simply no question about it. Choosing not to drink is the wisest choice.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Choosing not to drink is the wisest choice.
Yeah, I belive that in your situation drinking would not bring pleasure, so what for, right? But I wouldnt say that not drinking at all is a wise choice. I understand Muslims and Mormons of course- religion has it's laws that must be obeyed or it would seize to be a religion. But if you do like alcohol and arent alergic to it or sth then why not? Really, alcohol is a part of human life since always. There's nothing wrong in drinking alcohol, is there? I do like alcohol for two reasons: first is it's taste of course (drining something you dont even like is a stupidity;). Second thing you might consider stupid, but there's something special in drinking alcohol together (drinking alcohol alone is also an alarming thing;). Firstly, we, the Polish, have a custom to drink so called "Brudenschaft". It is a shot of vodka or something, and then you begin to address youselves per "you" (in English there's no differenc). Then it's obvious that alcohol makes conversation more honest and open. Thats why I like it;)
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how that compensates us for the damage we risk, and for the wasted lives of those among us who are destined to become alcoholics if they are exposed to it.
I'm sorry that alcohol has caused so many problems for your family. But I think alcohol is not innately bad or good. Alcohol lowers inhibitions. When all you want to do is have fun with friends and act sillier than you usually let yourself, alcohol can be a great way to spend an evening. But when your inhibitions are protecting you from darker, uglier things, alcohol can make things worse.
I also have trouble accepting the idea that some people are doomed to become alcoholics if they are exposed to it. I think addiction and dependency emerge from other, deeper problems. I think that even if somebody with such issues never touches alcohol, their life will still be scarred with the pain that comes from the underlying problems. There's no doubt that alcohol can worsen these problems and their lives. But I think it's false to say that alcohol is the primary cause of that pain.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer, There are different types addiction (and indeed components to specific addicition). There are definitely addictions that spring largely from underlying personality traits, but many also have very strong physical components. Alchoholism seems to be of the latter type.
That's not to say that there can't be important psychological contributors to a dependency on alcohol or destructive behavior because of it, but, if you are born with the biological makeup to make you an alcoholic, then you're basically destined to have that sort of reaction to alcohol.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer, I believe the studies on the subject would disagree with you. There is a large genetic component to alcoholism. People with certain genes are simply at very high risk. If they decide never to drink, of course, they will never find that out. In a way, whatever pleasure those of us who aren't alcoholics give up by deciding as a community not to drink, is a gift from us to those of us among us who would otherwise have become alcoholics. Even if you aren't at risk for alcoholism, some young person who sees you drinking and decides it's a good idea because you seem to enjoy it, might someday become an alcoholic. Even if you aren't at risk yourself, others in your community are.
On top of that, everyone I know who drinks, even a little, has, at least once, had more to drink than they intended. This means they were at risk of making poor decisions that could destroy their lives or the lives of others. The tragedies are more likely the more often you get drunk, but getting drunk only once puts you at some risk. When it's all said and done, your choice is clear.
In Europe in the middle ages, the water was unfit to drink, and alcohol helped to disinfect it. There was a good reason to drink, in those days. In the far east, people drank tea instead, which is disinfected by boiling. In arabia, I believe coffee was more common. In all cases, there had to be some substitute for water, because the water was unsafe. I prefer to boil tap water today before I drink it, myself. I started this when I travelled a lot, because the local tapwater in various places made me rather ill, and then because I was gone so much, my home tap water eventually did as well.
There were very good health reasons for drinking alcoholic drinks (though theirs were generally lower alcohol content than ours) in Europe in days of yore. That was a matter of accepting a lower risk to avoid a higher one. Today, we are able, most of us, to forego both risks, and that is the wisest thing to do.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Does everyone agree that Alcohol's (as a beverage) potential for ill outweighs its potential for good?"
But isn't the same also true of fattening foods or candy or tobacco?
I mean, I think you could say that for people to have private cars has more potential for ill than potential for good because of the pollution and the traffic accidents. The benefits of private cars could (at least potentially) be also achieved with better public transport systems.
I think in issues like this it's the personal responsibility that matters the most.
quote: On top of that, everyone I know who drinks, even a little, has, at least once, had more to drink than they intended. This means they were at risk of making poor decisions that could destroy their lives or the lives of others.
There have been moments in my life where I have felt I've drunk too much, but never moments where I've drunk so much I'd have been out of control.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a very interesting article in Scientific American about what alcohol and other dopamine-active addictive substances do in the brain. It explained a whole lot. Basically, what happens each time you take a drink (or a hit, or whatever) is that pleasure centers in your brain are stimulated. Over time, this has a twofold effect. First of all, they are dampened, so that it takes more and more stimulus to elicit the same response. Secondly, they are tuned toward the substance, and away from everyday pleasures such as love, honor, family, peacefulness, the beauty of nature, etc. These things gradually lose the power to move us, as our substance of abuse gains more power. This explains why good people turn into total creeps over time when they become addicts. They lie, cheat, steal, etc. to get their fix, because ordinary life has lost all savor to them, and their own honor and self-respect mean very little anymore.
When the substance is given up cold turkey, the first thing that happens is the addict is thrown into a deep deep depression, because their brain chemistry is so altered that they can get no pleasure at all from anything else. Then over a long time, the brain slowly heals, and life gains a bit more power to move them, but now the receptors are extremely sensitive to even the tiniest amount of their substance, to any smells or sights that remind them of their substance, etc. If an ex-alcoholic passes a bar, for instance, the sight of the signs outside, and the sounds and smells of the interior, will set off tremendous cravings. They've demonstrated the brain chemistry of why this happens.
So when you drink just one drink, this whole process is set in motion just a little bit. The more you drink, the stronger the effect becomes. Why step onto that road to begin with? Why risk it? People who have drunk responsibly for years can become alcoholics too, as my ex-boyfriend had done. He never drank too much when I knew him years before. It was something that happened in his 30s, his becoming an alcoholic. Sure, some people can manage to go their whole lives without too many problems from alcohol (an occasional bout of drinking more than intended, with its hopefully not too severe consequences), but why run that risk? Why tempt fate to destroy your whole life? I just don't see it, myself.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But isn't the same also true of fattening foods or candy or tobacco?
I mean, I think you could say that for people to have private cars has more potential for ill than potential for good because of the pollution and the traffic accidents. The benefits of private cars could (at least potentially) be also achieved with better public transport systems.
I think in issues like this it's the personal responsibility that matters the most.
And I am in the camp that is in opposition to tobacco/candy/etc. And I am all fore abolishing private transportation in favor of effective public transportation. But I see your point.
I was not trying to draw conclusions, merely noting that Alcohol causes far evil then any good that comes of it. Do with the question what you will, I already have my own conclusion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcohol abuse always causes more ill than good. Alcoholic drinks in moderation (3-4 a week) have shown in some studies more good than ill. Most people could follow the latter moderation, but not all, and those that can't actually have a disease that is the root of the problem, not the alcohol. Or you might as well say we should blot out the sun because lots of people get skin cancer from over-exposure, and some people have diseases that make them unable to be exposed to it for more than a minute or two... Never mind the fact that sunlight also facilitates the production of certain vitamin in our bodies.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: On top of that, everyone I know who drinks, even a little, has, at least once, had more to drink than they intended. This means they were at risk of making poor decisions that could destroy their lives or the lives of others. The tragedies are more likely the more often you get drunk, but getting drunk only once puts you at some risk. When it's all said and done, your choice is clear.
This does not have to be the case. As some one who drinks responsibly, I can honestly say that in the handful of times I have been drunk enough to impair my judgement, it has been deliberate and in situations arranged beforehand.
I know this isn't the usual case, and I don't want to diminish the pain that can be caused by drinking irresponsibly, but I do want to go on record as saying that drinking does not always have to be irresponsible or risky.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Alcohol abuse always causes more ill than good. Alcoholic drinks in moderation (3-4 a week) have shown in some studies more good than ill. Most people could follow the latter moderation, but not all, and those that can't actually have a disease that is the root of the problem, not the alcohol. Or you might as well say we should blot out the sun because lots of people get skin cancer from over-exposure, and some people have diseases that make them unable to be exposed to it for more than a minute or two... Never mind the fact that sunlight also facilitates the production of certain vitamin in our bodies.
-Bok
No but see the sun still CAUSES more good then ill as all life as we know it would cease to exist without it.
If you maximized the good alcohol could accomplish and held it up to the ills it causes, the gap is very disparaging IMO.
If we have to argue extremes, if everyone could be an alcoholic or everyone could be stone sober I'd go with sober. I don't know why anybody would argue otherwise, (though I am happy to hear an explanation.)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well of course, deciding to not drink it at all is a perfectly mature, sensible position to take. But it isn't the only mature, sensible take, for all people.
Your assertion of the ill > good is baseless when applied to the world at large. I understand it is informed by your religion and I respect that. As I note above, it is a mature, sensible approach to alcohol.
Ultimately the contention is more based on assumptions of human tendencies and behaviors that we likely don't agree on.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Well of course, deciding to not drink it at all is a perfectly mature, sensible position to take. But it isn't the only mature, sensible take, for all people.
Your assertion of the ill > good is baseless when applied to the world at large. I understand it is informed by your religion and I respect that. As I note above, it is a mature, sensible approach to alcohol.
Ultimately the contention is more based on assumptions of human tendencies and behaviors that we likely don't agree on.
-Bok
Gah! I have not even brought religion into the arguement!
I am not arguing against moderation. IMO alcoholic consumption in moderation is fine.
But I am arguing that if we could document the evil that has taken place because of alcohol and compare it to the good that has been accomplished we would have a VERY impressive case against its consumption.
For you fellow Mormons, is it a mite ironic that were it not for Alcohol, Nephi could not have made off with the Brass Plates?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I am arguing that if we could document the evil that has taken place because of alcohol and compare it to the good that has been accomplished we would have a VERY impressive case against its consumption.
I think ultimately the good would win out, not because of some grand gesture, but because of many millions of small joys, and untold benefits to the health of those that drank moderately (or even seldomly).
Maybe it'd be statistically a dead heat, but I don't think that it is worse just because you say so; my anecdotal evidence is to the contrary.
[As an aside, the sun is possibly a net negative, because in 5 billion years or so, assuming nothing has beaten it to the punch, it will obliterate all the life on this planet that it sustains... Though maybe that just zeroes out the ledger ]
posted
Mmm... I've never drank more than I intended. So now, Tat, you know one person.
I've been slightly tipsy twice but I have never been drunk.
I was scared I would have a genetic pre-disposition toward alcoholism because of my father, but I don't.
If you choose not to drink, more power to you. But understand that a great number of people get pleasure out of it with no ill effects.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I am arguing that if we could document the evil that has taken place because of alcohol and compare it to the good that has been accomplished we would have a VERY impressive case against its consumption.
I think ultimately the good would win out, not because of some grand gesture, but because of many millions of small joys, and untold benefits to the health of those that drank moderately (or even seldomly).
Maybe it'd be statistically a dead heat, but I don't think that it is worse just because you say so; my anecdotal evidence is to the contrary.
[As an aside, the sun is possibly a net negative, because in 5 billion years or so, assuming nothing has beaten it to the punch, it will obliterate all the life on this planet that it sustains... Though maybe that just zeroes out the ledger ]
-Bok
fair enough. You win this round Bok!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I read a very interesting article in Scientific American about what alcohol and other dopamine-active addictive substances do in the brain.
Anne Kate, Do you by any chance have the reference for that article? If not the exact reference, do you know approximately when it was published?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some time in the last ten years, maybe? I wish I could narrow it down further. I should have kept a copy of it forever, because it was really enlightening to me. It sort of explained to me how someone who was once so honorable and good could have ended up willing to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate others, etc. It explained a lot about why the cravings to fall off the wagon are so powerful, even long after someone has quit. It greatly increased my understanding of the enemy (alcohol and its effects on the brain).
Perhaps a search on "addiction" would turn it up. Do you have access to the electronic files of all the SciAm issues for the last 10 years or so?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People can end up addicted to anything, though. Chocolate, alcohol, the Internet, video games. I don't think the potential for addiction alone is enough to say that alcohol is bad for all people. And I'll say, I HAVE had more to drink than I intended on occasion, and I still don't think that the alcohol is to blame or that it makes alcohol inherently bad. It means I did something stupid. And I've done a lot of stupid things involving plenty of stuff that isn't a substance. People do stupid things sometimes.
I mean, if anyone wants to choose not to drink, that's fine. I don't try to get people to drink who've decided it's not for them. But on the same note, I don't think that people who've decided not to drink should try to get me to change my decision, either. It goes both ways.
posted
Rabbit, that's not the article. My article was in the regular SciAm, not SciAm Mind, which I don't take. The article I read, I think was more detailed and technical than this about dopamine and the condition of the receptor system. It didn't focus so much exclusively on alcohol, either, but was more general for alcohol, cocaine, herion, etc. Good article, though!
"No particular personality type is prone to becoming dependent. The culprit is excessive alcohol consumption itself, which changes the brain so that victims can no longer free themselves from the bottle. It is time to destigmatize alcoholism and to develop better methods of breaking dependency and preventing relapse."
The culprit is excessive alcohol consumption, and even a little bit of alcohol begins the process of short-circuiting the brain's reward system that is described in the article. That's why I think it's much smarter never to drink at all.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pearce, I don't think alcohol should be illegal, I just think it's wiser not to drink. I am not trying to tell anyone what they should do. I'm only saying what I think is the wise choice. Of course it's up to each person to make their own choices.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: All Ill ask is,
"Does everyone agree that Alcohol's (as a beverage) potential for ill outweighs its potential for good?"
I won't argue how much, but I think that is true any way you slice it.
Potential for ill is in everything and the other way around of course. It is in us, humans, what we do with it. Life is about living, not weighing everything and choosing. There are things worth dying for, or at least there should be. I do not say that alcohol is worth dying for, but that it doesn't matter if it's potential for ill is larger than for good.
But my answer to your question is yes. Potential for ill is larger. But it settles nothing.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: ..."Reasonable people know..." there's no point in continuing the discussion. You've already labelled everyone who disagrees with you as unreasonable. You've already discounted all opinions and beliefs that fall outside your chosen criteria. [/QB]
What's wrong with that? If I say that reasonable people know that one shouldn't kill without a very good reason, would you still object and insist that there may be other views on the subject?
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You missed the point, Crocobar. I've said that, by stating "reasonable people know..." that the person stating that has automatically invalidated all opposing opinions, regardless of what those opinions are. There is no opportunity for discussion at that point.
It doesn't matter what the subject at hand is.
You've summarily dismissed as unreasonable anyone who may have a differing opinion.
ETA: As well, it's not an argument, really, as it contains no logic and no thought. Just a "you're an idiot if you think otherwise" kind of statement. It isolates and offends anyone who may think otherwise.
If you believe, for example, that there's no good reason that you can think of to kill someone other than defending yourself, why? What's the logic behind it? Because you say so?
posted
In my life, the benefits of alcohol have outweighed the negatives, I'm not addicted, and can still appreciate the beauty of nature.
Of course, I have the opposite of an addictive personality. I'd get bored long before I became an alcoholic.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reasonable people know that alcohol is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Especially cosmopolitans, long island iced teas, midori sours, vodka martinis, silver-dollar margaritas, mai tais, kashenkas, smith & berrys, white russians, mojitos, amaretto sours, and '57 chevies. They are, in conjunction with perennial favorites like woodchuck cider and red stripe, irrefutable evidence of the kind and benevolent God who lurks outside of view, wishing the best on His creation, saying "Have one on Me."
Imbibo hilaris ut DeusPosts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I visited Italy with my family this summer and developed a taste for wine that I hadn't had previously. On one occasion I even saw a kid who looked to be about twelve or thirteen buying a bottle of wine. My sister, who was studying abroad there, caught a bit of the conversation between him and the shopkeeper, and said he was buying it for his parents.
Well, I'm off on a tangental rant now, so bear with me.
I'm not sure how large the community was where this event occurred, but I suspect it really was a true sense of community that allowed this. A 12 year old could by wine for his parents because, the shopkeeper was very likely to see the kids parents at some point in the near future and could easily verify that the purchase was justified.
That can only happen if and when there is a true community. The Malling and Suburbaning of America has destroyed our sense of community. You hear the expression in the USA of 'suburban wasteland', and to some extent it is true. Suburbs are miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles; usually miles and miles of houses and strip malls. But there is no walkable downtown, no local neighborhood grocer who knows your name. It is an impersonal wasteland where everything is distant and cold.
I remember when I was a kid, we had the free run of the small town I lived in. We could go anywhere and do anything, completely unsupervised. Why? Because every person in town knew who we were and every person in town new who our parents were. Rather than being 'unsupervised', we were really supervised by hundreds of pseudo-parents. One step out of line, and we would hear about it when we got home.
I think this is part of the 'getting close to death' drinking mentality in the USA. The suburbs have isolated us from community, and the many eyes that go with it. Without those many eyes, there is nothing to establish perspective and set boundaries.
Consequently kids are off on their own in a world of strangers, making up their own rules as the go alone without any reasonable framework for those rules. It is this isolation, and living in a impersonal world of strangers that causes many of our problems today; school shootings, sex too young, violence in general, drug culture, etc....
Now the Internet steps into that 'world of strangers'. One of my subscriptions on YouTube is to a kid in Norway. How else could I ever have contact with anyone from my ancestral home country without the Internet. Still, though I have seen his face, we are interacting annoymously though a vast chasm of electrons.
I think to some extent the Internet is good, it makes our kids see the world instead of just their neighborhood. But in another sense, it isolates them because it encourages them to ignore their neighborhood in favor of a much large but much much more impersonal and potentially dangerous world.
posted
"The high drinking age just makes alcohol more appealing to kids because it makes it dangerous and interesting"
I'll start by saying that I have not tried alcohol. I don't know if I will. But from what other people my age (high schoolers)say, I think that the fact that drinking is forbidden does make it more appealing.
I think drinking alcohol is OK in moderation, but by the time you're 21 you don't have parents or more experienced people to tell you when to stop drinking or teach you anything about it.
The drinking age laws are enforced, but people get aroun them very easily. Kids talk in the halls about how many shots they can drink, but they don't let their parents know that they are drinking. If parents taught their kids about alcohol while they were still at home, I expect that there would be less dangerous experimentation with drinking alcohol.
But then, I haven't ever drunk alcohol so I don't know what all the fuss is about anyway.
Posts: 130 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The high drinking age just makes alcohol more appealing to kids because it makes it dangerous and interesting"
I'll start by saying that I have not tried alcohol. I don't know if I will. But from what other people my age (high schoolers)say, I think that the fact that drinking is forbidden does make it more appealing.
I think drinking alcohol is OK in moderation, but by the time you're 21 you don't have parents or more experienced people to tell you when to stop drinking or teach you anything about it.
The drinking age laws are enforced, but people get aroun them very easily. Kids talk in the halls about how many shots they can drink, but they don't let their parents know that they are drinking. If parents taught their kids about alcohol while they were still at home, I expect that there would be less dangerous experimentation with drinking alcohol.
But then, I haven't ever drunk alcohol so I don't know what all the fuss is about anyway.
Posts: 130 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not claim to be a reasonable person. Just throwing that out there.
While I don't often do the mixed drink thing, a simple gin & tonic is nice (I'll admit, though, that my original attraction to the drink stemmed from Hofstadter's "Djinn and Tonic" story in GEB). I'm also quite partial to a good nica libre. And sometimes, despite the strange looks, I'll get my sister's drink: tonic & soda.
I am a beer snob. Strong Belgian (or Belgian-style) ales are the way to go. Favorites: Ommegang Three Philosophers, Unibroue Trois Pistoles, Chimay Grand Reserve, and the impossibly malty, creamy, complex melange that is Rochefort 10. One day I will go to Belgium, eat too much moules frites, and visit every monastery with a brewery I can find.
Like Alcon, I have a shut-off valve beyond which further drinking is simply extremely unpleasant. It seems to be around 3 or 4 drinks, which suits me just fine. (Yes, I am a lightweight.) Much better to enjoy watching others overindulge than to do it myself.
[edit: to -> too. I guess there's a first time for everything.]
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are alcoholics at my high school, and the reason they have not gained the control over it that those in many other societies have is that there is no one to moderate what they do. If they ask for a moderator, all that happens is their alcohol is taken away, so they have no reason to ask adults for supervision.
posted
The measurable harms (injury, violence, risk-taking behavior, overdose, etc) of drinking alcohol are pretty clearly much more highly tied to binge drinking than dependence. And when people use the word "addiction," (including in scientific articles), they generally mean "dependence." Binge drinking would be "abuse," which is different from "dependence."
Mixing the terms makes for shaky analysis.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be very interested in seeing the stats on alcoholism and accidents/injuries/etc. caused by alcohol in various European countries verses Canada and the States.
As for myself, I've grown up enjoying a sip or two of my parents' drinks since I was 12 at the oldest. Along with that, though, I was taught very firmly to never, ever abuse alcohol or to get drunk. I was warned that when I do not have control of my mind, I am allowing Satan to open doors in my mind where he can build a stronghold in my life. The same thing applies to addictions to alcohol (and other things, of course). So I learned that way not to get drunk and to make sure that I could always refuse a drink, even if I wanted one. (For that reason, I make a point of not drinking anything with alcohol when I am angry or feeling depressed or the like.)
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eeeeeew. Glue gives you a headache while you're using it, why would you purposefully expose yourself to that?
I'd say about 1/4 to 1/3 of the kids in my high school drank. Most of us probably tasted a drink at some point, out of curiosity or peer pressure or other reasons, and didn't do it again, or at least didn't do it until we were older. The common opinion at my HS was that the kids who drank were the "party" kids and most of them wouldn't amount to much, not in HS anyway, and probably not in college, either. Drinking was kind of "low class", as it were. That said, I'm sure many of those who didn't have religious objections took it up later in life, but probably most of them are like my parents-- they don't drink every day, they enjoy good wine and beer occasionally and don't really drink much else except sometimes margaritas or similar drinks at parties or restaurants. (I'm in CA, margaritas are the common and popular mixed drink in my area, mainly because of the preponderance of Mexican restaurants.) Alcoholism runs in my family, strongly, on both sides. I recognized at an early age that I have an addictive personality and resolved never to drink or smoke. I did try a drink once and found it disgusting. Never did it again. Smoking and drugs, never done it. My husband never tried alcohol for religious reasons, and we had to have a discussion when I cooked with wine one day because he even avoided alcohol in things. Eventually we decided that we are okay with the occasional wine sauce on our meat at a restaurant or a friend's house, providing it's cooked, and I can keep a bottle of sherry for cooking as long as it's locked up and used sparingly (sherry being the one alcoholic thing I like to cook with), but other than that we will not have it in the house.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh man was my high school different from yours, KQ. Mine looked like a slightly tamer version of the one in Varsity Blues.
The jocks got away with anything they wanted. The cool kids partied at someone's house or out in the woods and consumed irresponsible amounts of alcohol. I can't remember how many folks we lost to DUIs; it wasn't like the person who moved to Louisiana, but it was a lot. And while none of our teachers were strippers, many of the girls were after graduation.
Personally, I drink for one of two reasons. It's either part of a dessert drink and super tasty, or I'm deliberately getting drunk. Preferably before having sex. There's just something about gettin drunk that makes me want to take my clothes off and have some fun.
I know a lot of folks are probably giving me some funny looks right now, but I stay uptight enough that it makes for a nice little vacation for me. Say what you want about moderation. I would argue that my getting happy drunk one or twice a year is a kind of moderation.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Survivor: How do you all feel about sniffing glue?
Pretty clearly shown to be associated with long-term brain damage (memory loss, concentration loss, even IQ loss) and put you at risk for stroke and epilepsy short-term.
I also feel that the dozens of good studies published in peer-reviewed journals support these conclusions.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmm, im starting to wonder if AvidReader and i went to the same high school. im sure that pretty much sums up a lot of ppl's high schools tho. at first i would say the major difference for most of us might be either public or private school, but i was one of few in my area who went to public school, and we all partied together. my brother and sister both went to catholic school.
of all the partying i did during highscool and things i tried, alcohol was my favorite. i still think getting drunk or tipsy is a lot of fun. i cant drink nearly as much as i used to because i have slowed down a lot, and am usually that guy who drinks water or Diet Coke when going out. yet on few occasions, drinking can be lots of fun when im with the right people. it has a lot to do with who im with, if i even decide to have a drink.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, krynn. 363 days a year, I'm drinking water or the occasional Dr. Pepper. The other two, I like to have a little fun.
Mine was Crystal River High in semi-rural central Florida. It seemed like a pretty typical southern high school to me.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was in public school. Truth be told, many of the Catholic high schools in my area were known to be worse party schools than the local high school (mainly because you had to be pretty rich to afford it AND afford rent/mortgage in our area.) (Not that I'm implying that rich kids are worse partiers, there was just an impression that they could get away with more.)
We do have DUIs every year from my old HS, often tragic deaths up in the Angeles Crest where it's windy roads on steep mountains with poor visibility and large chunks of it with no guard rails. (Of course, we get our share of NON DUI-related deaths up there every year, too.) Most of the DUIs in the area, though, are adults. Sadly.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not that I'm implying that rich kids are worse partiers
I think in some ways, rich kids are the worse partiers. They have the disposable income to buy liquor and drugs. Then again, I think they also tend to be more educated on how to use those items with limmited danger. So it depends on how you define "worse".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Cool]](cool.gif)
fair enough. You win this round Bok!
