quote:That's why some populations, for instance southern Europeans who have been exposed to alcohol for thousands of years, have a lot lower alcoholism rates than other populations like Native Americans.
I think this conclusion has been jumped to. Is the quoted factoid still true when controlling for socioeconomic factors? Put European-descended people of the working class in a reservation with unemployment rates in the double digits, and you might see quite a rise in alcoholism.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Heck, the reasoning against recreational drug use can be easily extended to recreational sugar use.
Not easily.
What's a stretch? That caffeine is a recreational drug? I don't think it's bad for you like smoking, but the vast majority of caffeine use is not medicinal (I don't count the withdrawal headache prevention usage as medicinal, unless we count nicotine withdrawal prevention as medicinal too).
Remember, you were pointing out that LDS might not be hypocrites like some other segments of the population when it comes to recreational drug use, but then you pointed out that most LDS don't abstain from coca-cola, as far as you know. I'm just pointing out that the latter kind of invalidates the former point.
And yes, you can so easily extend the argument to sugar. At least I can: sugar is more prevalent, but no less prone to be used in concentrated form in order to achieve a temporary alteration of mood/feeling. People get addicted to it. It can ruin your health and make you die.
This applies to sugar more than other nutrients because of the nature of the way people sometimes use it, which is very similar to the way some people use drugs like alcohol and caffeine. (And, at least in my experience, sugar fills a behavioral niche in groups where other drugs are not tolerated.)
Note I am not for making sugar illegal or even adding a sin tax. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, the factoid is supposed to be true for southern Europeans only. And it explains why Italians, for instance, have a very low alcoholism rate compared to the Irish, or to Native Americans, or to various other people. I don't know what hard science backs it up, if any. It seems like it would be incredibly hard to control for other social factors. I think it is generally accepted that populations new to alcohol, particularly Native Americans and to a lesser extent the Celtic people of Ireland and surrounds, have far greater genetic susceptibility to alcoholism than peoples who have longer (measured in number of generations) exposure.
There are obviously a whole lot of factors that go into alcoholism, but simple genetics seems to be quite a large one. It certainly runs in families, and it runs in the same families that diabetes runs in.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, you can so easily extend the argument to sugar. At least I can: sugar is more prevalent, but no less prone to be used in concentrated form in order to achieve a temporary alteration of mood/feeling.
In this case, though, the sugar is not causing the mood or feeling.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Juxtapose, you are completely missing the point. People use sugar to achieve an altered state. Honest. If you don't believe me, go read Overeaters Anonymous literature.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not getting the connection between sugar and ecstasy here.
Sugar should definitely be used in moderation. LDS families as well as all other families should be careful how they use it.
Sugar's not on par with ecstasy, however. Ecstasy is a door into much worse stuff--meth, for example. We shouldn't isolate the effects just to the use itself. People using ecstasy are crossing a psycological line in a sense, getting that much closer to experimenting with heavier stuff.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually qualified to post on this subject. I took Ex back in the early 80s when it was legal in a therapeutic setting and I can honestly say that I owe my life to that experience. I was and extremely high suicide risk and it completely turned my life around. Then it was made illegal, and became a street drug and the abuse started throughout society. But even so, probably more people die from Tylenol overdoses than ecstasy overdoses.
And I have ridden horses all my life. Is it an addiction? Sometimes when I see how much I pay for it I think it is! And I've been hurt way more by my horses than by any kind of drug.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sugar's not on par with ecstasy, however. Ecstasy is a door into much worse stuff--meth, for example. We shouldn't isolate the effects just to the use itself. People using ecstasy are crossing a psycological line in a sense, getting that much closer to experimenting with heavier stuff.
But like marijuana, it's only a gateway drug because it's illegal. I firmly believe that the primary reason that marijuana is a gateway drug is because the same guy who can get you pot can usually get you something harder. If he can't, chances are he knows someone who can.
If you could buy Marijuana or MDMA at Walmart, you probably wouldn't be able to find a meth dealer if you tried. It'd be no more a gateway drug than alcohol is.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the gateway drug phenomenon stems not only from illegality but also from heightened and subjectively discredited anti-drug rhetoric. If you tell kids that marijuana will ruin their lives, and they know dozens of smokers with lives that are fine, they will learn to be skeptical of your ideas, and will cancel their subscriptions to your newsletter.
If you tell them that doing meth for a long time will ruin lives, they will be harder pressed to find counter examples. Credibility & circulation figures preserved. *ding*
This is the same reason LDS should not teach their children that tea is unhealthful.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually don't teach my children that it's unhealthful. I teach them that we're not supposed to drink it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: KoM, the factoid is supposed to be true for southern Europeans only. And it explains why Italians, for instance, have a very low alcoholism rate compared to the Irish, or to Native Americans, or to various other people. I don't know what hard science backs it up, if any. It seems like it would be incredibly hard to control for other social factors. I think it is generally accepted that populations new to alcohol, particularly Native Americans and to a lesser extent the Celtic people of Ireland and surrounds, have far greater genetic susceptibility to alcoholism than peoples who have longer (measured in number of generations) exposure.
There are obviously a whole lot of factors that go into alcoholism, but simple genetics seems to be quite a large one. It certainly runs in families, and it runs in the same families that diabetes runs in.
It sounds like an urban legend to me. You can't be telling me that alcohol has been a large selection pressure on Europeans over the past two millennia.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I actually don't teach my children that it's unhealthful. I teach them that we're not supposed to drink it.
I laud your accurate teaching method.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And besides, everything I've read about alcoholism from the actual study of addiction suggests that these data are more reflective of societal attitudes towards alcoholism in western, central and southern Europe. There isn't less of it per se, and in fact the societal toll may be higher than in the United States. A greater amount of alcoholism simply goes unremarked here. You call your problems something else- unemployment (which owes partly to alcoholism), high rate of divorce (which owes partly to alcoholism), high rate of truancy (which owes partly to alcohol abuse at a young age), and so on.
The frank acceptance of alcohol abuse among adolescents in the Czech Republic STAGGERS me. I started drinking at around 18, which is still illegal in the states. The typical age here is 13 or 14, and that owes ENTIRELY to a system that ignores underage alcohol sales. 15 year olds can enter clubs and bars with impunity, and kids can drink in public, on the street, without reproach. There's something very wrong with that, I think.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I actually don't teach my children that it's unhealthful. I teach them that we're not supposed to drink it.
The LDS pretty much teaches that they are to be avoided because they are unhealthful.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sugar's not on par with ecstasy, however. Ecstasy is a door into much worse stuff--meth, for example. We shouldn't isolate the effects just to the use itself. People using ecstasy are crossing a psycological line in a sense, getting that much closer to experimenting with heavier stuff.
But like marijuana, it's only a gateway drug because it's illegal. I firmly believe that the primary reason that marijuana is a gateway drug is because the same guy who can get you pot can usually get you something harder. If he can't, chances are he knows someone who can.
If you could buy Marijuana or MDMA at Walmart, you probably wouldn't be able to find a meth dealer if you tried. It'd be no more a gateway drug than alcohol is.
I agree and disagree. Having ecstasy be legal would definitely make it less of a psychological barrier to use it, and perhaps the distributors wouldn't be the same ones who got you harder drugs anymore.
However, why would you use ecstasy in the first place? Being willing to put anything in your body that will alter your mood in a noticeable way (besides prescribed medications for a medical need) is a psychological line you have to cross. Once you've crossed it, I think it would be a little easier to justify trying--experiencing--other things, some of them far more addictive and harmful. The rationalization itself is harmful to your self image. And any substance that significantly alters your mood robs you of your control over yourself and to a greater or lesser extent your ability to choose your actions freely. That is, I believe, the most harmful effect, regardless of what it's doing to your body.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I actually don't teach my children that it's unhealthful. I teach them that we're not supposed to drink it.
The LDS pretty much teaches that they are to be avoided because they are unhealthful.
No, more because they are addictive.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, why would you use ecstasy in the first place? Being willing to put anything in your body that will alter your mood in a noticeable way (besides prescribed medications for a medical need) is a psychological line you have to cross.
Like alcohol, for example?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, why would you use ecstasy in the first place? Being willing to put anything in your body that will alter your mood in a noticeable way (besides prescribed medications for a medical need) is a psychological line you have to cross.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: No, more because they are addictive.
The lds's big line in relation to the Words of Wisdom is that abstaining from these things keeps you healthier. I checked several apologist sites and mormon fact-check sites and it was consistent across the board. It is even frequently called a 'health code' or 'principles of healthy living.'
They even go out of their way to link to articles suggesting health risks for coffee and tea. It is essentially the given justification to say 'this is why the words of wisdom are good' — because it's healthy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. And a lot of the health issues with these things are experienced over the long term. It is a code of healthy living, that is true. It sets down an overall picture of a healthy lifestyle. One mug of coffee, one glass of wine isn't going to kill you. They aren't necessarily going to ruin your life. As a regular part of your lifestyle, however, they are deemed unhealthy. The practice of the church is to avoid them altogether, and focus on the healthier stuff also set forth in the Word of Wisdom.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: No, he's saying Mountain Dew had an extensive ad campaign showing extreme sports as cool -- which is an example of society encouraging them.
How did you parse that post that made your conclusion the obvious one to jump to?
Because that was what my argument was about. I assumed a post quoting it and replying to it would have some relation to the subject. That's why I asked.
A commercial is not proof society encourages anything anyway. Unless you believe society encourages horses to play football games. It seems a little out there to believe thrill seekers are fueled by their enslavement to mountain dew ads. I certainly don't get the urge to be extreme when I see a mountain dew ad.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
But this place is just contrary enough to start arguing that one glass of wine, for example, has been shown to have health benefits, which would seem to contradict the LDS injunction against alcohol, set forth in the Word of Wisdom. That's why I made the distinction above.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But this place is just contrary enough to start arguing that one glass of wine, for example, has been shown to have health benefits
heh, it's actually contrary enough to start arguing that the regular consumption of things like wine and caffeinated tea have been shown to have health benefits.
I mean, for that definition of 'contrary.' For all intents and purposes, those statements would be true and those health benefits have been shown, after all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you seriously comparing drug addiction to advertisement?
Nope -- I'm saying, like JT said, that those commercials are signs of society encouraging extreme sports. Signs which you said you don't see.
quote:It seems a little out there to believe thrill seekers are fueled by their enslavement to mountain dew ads.
Agreed. In fact, it's so out there, nobody said it except you.
quote:I certainly don't get the urge to be extreme when I see a mountain dew ad.
So it doesn't work for you. But it can for others. Not that I do anything about it, but many times I've seen such things and thought "That looks awesome."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I actually don't teach my children that it's unhealthful. I teach them that we're not supposed to drink it.
The LDS pretty much teaches that they are to be avoided because they are unhealthful.
No, more because they are addictive.
No, more because God said not to. Oh, and by the way, some of those things are addictive and/or unhealthful.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, why would you use ecstasy in the first place? Being willing to put anything in your body that will alter your mood in a noticeable way (besides prescribed medications for a medical need) is a psychological line you have to cross.
Like alcohol, for example?
Yes.
So are you seriously claiming that alcohol is a gateway drug?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I actually don't teach my children that it's unhealthful. I teach them that we're not supposed to drink it.
The LDS pretty much teaches that they are to be avoided because they are unhealthful.
No, more because they are addictive.
No, more because God said not to. Oh, and by the way, some of those things are addictive and/or unhealthful.
OK, but we're just climbing the ladder here. I'll do you one better: obeying it will bring wisdom.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, why would you use ecstasy in the first place? Being willing to put anything in your body that will alter your mood in a noticeable way (besides prescribed medications for a medical need) is a psychological line you have to cross.
Like alcohol, for example?
Yes.
So are you seriously claiming that alcohol is a gateway drug?
According to a casual Google search, alcohol is certainly a gateway drug, especially for teenagers. A big study was referenced to this effect.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As in causation rather than just correlation? *interested
That was always the most pointed criticism of such studies -- when you took into account the other risk factors (poor impulse control, etc.), the bottom of the causation explanation fell out. That is to say, it didn't seem that alcohol exposure was what made them more likely to pursue other drugs, more that it was all the factors which make illegal alcohol use more likely also made the use of other illicit substances more likely.
In other words, it wasn't the alcohol that lead them to abuse other substances, but that what was typically behind their alcohol use*** was also what was driving their use of other substances. Alcohol didn't make that more likely; it's just that if one was likely, so was the other.
--- *** General risk factors for substance abuse in teenagers include low parental supervision, a history of risk-taking or thrill-seeking in general, family history of substance abuse, inconsistent and/or severe forms of parental discipline, problems with impulse control (including unmanaged ADD/ADHD -- being on Ritalin seems to be protective, by the way, not make these kids more likely to do other drugs, although other ways of managing ADD/ADHD also seem to be protective if effective), and ongoing family conflicts, among others. Perceiving a substance to be of less risk is also a risk factor, but I don't recall that a history of alcohol use made seeing other substances seem less risky. Again, though, you would have to control for confounding factors.
---
Edited to add: not so much a "gateway" into the city of sin as just another building among many in it. What put you on the path to get to the city was a map made of many other synergistic factors.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fine with that explanation. Like I said, that was just a casual Google search to answer KOM's question. I think your willingness to get drunk for the first time might flip that switch in your mind that makes it easier to make such decisions again. Or there might be very little inhibition to such action based on the causes CT is talking about, in which case alcohol might just be the first stop on the road.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's likely pretty hard to disentangle alcohol use from those other risk factors, when judging its effects - in part because alcohol use can influence those other risk factors in sometimes subtle ways. For instance, alcohol use among teenagers often implies hanging out with other teenagers using alcohol, which tends to mean hanging around with other teenagers that have a history of risk-taking, which I'd think in turn increases the chance that a given teenager would start thinking of themselves as a risk-taker too. My guess is that using alcohol itself is actually less dangerous than what can often come along with it - which is why an unsupervised teenage party is significantly more problematic than a teenager having a glass of wine with their parents.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LDS church does say that tea and coffee are harmful and that the Word of Wisdom is a law of health.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm fine with that explanation. Like I said, that was just a casual Google search to answer KOM's question. I think your willingness to get drunk for the first time might flip that switch in your mind that makes it easier to make such decisions again. Or there might be very little inhibition to such action based on the causes CT is talking about, in which case alcohol might just be the first stop on the road.
The fact that it deals with teenagers also makes it fairly useless at supporting your point. Because alcohol is illegal, as are cigarettes and drugs. So there's no easy way for them to get to them. It's been pretty well demonstrated that middle schoolers and high schoolers have easier access to weed than to cigarettes.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That because alcohol is illegal for teenagers (in addition to the other problems CT mentioned), that study does precious little to support your point.
You may still be able to prove it (I doubt it, but I'm still willing to consider some new evidence), but it reads like wishful thinking at this point.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My sense is that the notion of 'gateway drug' is a rationalization for why, say, marijuana should be illegal while comparably unhealthy substances/activities are not.
Anyway, can anyone provide a definition for what it actually means to be a gateway drug?
[EDIT] i.e. there is clearly no necessary connection between using pot and then using a more serious drug. So what sort of correlation should be required before something can be regarded as a gateway drug? As has been mentioned earlier, there is also the issue of decoupling from other factors.
posted
Whoa. I'm not married to that study by any means. I'm not hanging my hat on it. I'm not going to defend it. It was referenced several times in the first 20 results of my Google search. Mentioning it in my response to KOM is my only connection to it. If there are new studies disproving its conclusions, I'd be interested in hearing about them. If not...well, heck, they did study 30,000 households and gather a buttload of data on which to base their conclusions.
*shrug*
Enough teenagers apparently do get ahold of alcohol to make me think it's not all that hard to get ahold of, despite being illegal at that age. It's bound to have some influence in future decisions on what to take into the body, at least for some people. It's bound to be a factor or at least present when at least some decisions are made to try other drugs.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case it was unclear, advice for robots -- no, no didin't mean to put you on the spot! I was honestly interested, as studying effective screening tools for adolescent substance abuse was my bread-n-butter for two years. What's happened in the few years since then hasn't been on my radar, but the mention of it perks up my ears with interest.
I think it's a study worth knowing about, regardless of the conclusions, and I'll go dig around for it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Ah, yeah, I think I do know this one. It may be readily bandied about on the 'net, but there was a line of discussion in the literature questioning the method and confounders. It looks like the Columbia link is to their archived report back from when the study was first published, so it doesn't take into account the discussions since.
Thanks! I'm delighted for the chance to pour back over things and get some rusty gears working. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what's the current consensus then...that there is in fact no such thing as a gateway drug? That alcohol is not one of them?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
