<p>It should be noted that the rise in college drinking deaths from 1999 to 2005 had NOTHING to do with drinking age. Zero. Nada. There was no change in the drinking age. What happened was a change in corporate behavior, and the marketing of new alcoholic beverages to underage drinkers (with a target market being 14 year olds). While the reported bingeing rate of college drinkers has not increased, experimental evidence (that I’ve posted before) seems to indicate that the reported rate is around 20% too low. </p>
<p>But it is not the increase in bingeing that is causing the deaths, but the intensity of binge drinking (with the average 4-drink NON-binger actually having 9 drinks, with half having more - and still reporting as a non-binger.) Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the drinking age, and if the Amethyst people actually looked at the science, they’d be quite embarrassed. It is purely an artifact of change in corporate behavior and corporate marketing.</p>
<h1>39–you are wrong. Lower drinking age meant more drunk driving.</h1>
<p>There is a lot more to keeping the higher drinking age than MADD. The idea of “training” teens to use alcohol is a mistake. Teen brains are subject to more damage because they are still developing. And those who start drinking younger are at greater risk of becoming problem drinkers, binge drinkers, alcoholics, etc.</p>
<p>I think the regional differences have a lot to do with ethnic/religious/cultural groups making up the populations.<br>
Many Baptists and fundamentalists (in the South) disapprove of alcohol. Mormons and Muslims forbid it.<br>
No secret that those from Irish, Italian, German, Polish/Russian (and other Eastern European) Catholic, etc. backgrounds tend to use alcohol.</p>
<p><#39–you are wrong. Lower drinking age meant more drunk driving.
There is a lot more to keeping the higher drinking age than MADD. The idea of “training” teens to use alcohol is a mistake. Teen brains are subject to more damage because they are still developing. And those who start drinking younger are at greater risk of becoming problem drinkers, binge drinkers, alcoholics, etc></p>
<p>Generalizing that certain races use alcohol more is ridiculous and ignorant. Its a socio-economic thing. More successful people have meetings, dinners and therefore drink more. One of my dad’s partners goes to China frequently where he literally goes out to dinner and ends up drinking like a frat member because his Chinese associates conduct business that way. That is how alcohol ends up in other households. Rich people drink more often because their work involves more social occasions. Where I live 80% of the people are protestant, white and rich, but 100% drink. Luxembourg is at the heart of the financial world is notorious for its high average income and alcohol consumption rate. Money is the problem not race.</p>
<p>We now know there are genetic propensities toward alcoholism. Those propensities seem to be triggered most readily at the ages of 13 and 14 (which alcohol companies well know, which is why they are aiming their marketing efforts at 14 year olds.) Those propensities are highest among northern Europeans and Native Americans, and are much lower among Asians and African-Americans. Hispanics (which is a catch-all term as the group is made up of people with very different genetic makeups) have a lower propensity than northern Europeans.</p>
<p>By the way, this also plays out in Europe as well.</p>
<p>@#45 I assure you rich black kids drink just as much as rich white kids. That research does not contradict my previous statements. I was simply saying that her/his notion that Catholic or German/Irish/Eastern Europeans drink more is ridiculous. WASPs do it just as much.</p>
<p>“Why has the behavior changed from drinking beer (arguably harder to kill yourself from drinking beer) to the current craze of “pre-gaming” and drinking shots of vodka before you go out?”</p>
<p>I think the answer to this question is that a lot of the college kids have more spending money now than they did 20 years ago. A pitcher of beer (or a keg) was cheap, so most young adults (mainly men) developed a taste for it and drank it except for special occasions (weddings with open bars etc. where they then did shots etc.) Young women did get drunk on the fancier drinks but not often as they were too expensive (and most of the girls I knew who did get drunk on a regular basis did not have the best reputations.) College kids did drink to get drunk back then, but it took a lot of beer to get in that condition. Now, with flavored alcohol and more money, college students seem to prefer to get drunk on harder liquor. Plus from what I hear, it sounds like it is “expected” to be drunk at parties, otherwise you aren’t having a good time. Coming from an alcoholic family, I do worry that for some of these kids, getting drunk will not be just a college thing but an everyday thing in their future.</p>
<p>This is the first time I’ve ever heard that current college students have more money than those of a generation ago. Ever heard of the student loan crisis? That even in state publics can cost >$13,000 a year for tuition alone? I assure you, the vast majority of my peers are not richer than college students in the mid 90s when hard liquor was relatively uncommon at parties (if the anecdotes and Mini’s data are correct).</p>
<h1>44–I stand by my post. Neither ridiculous nor ignorant. (Name calling is not conducive to civil discussion, btw.) Certain religious/ethnic/cultural groups tend to use alcohol, while others disapprove of/tend not to use alcohol. Rich and poor use alcohol.</h1>
<p>(In case you think I’m “picking on others,” I am a member of ethnic/religious groups I listed that tend to use alcohol. I’ve also lived in dry Baptist counties in the South where most disapprove of alcohol use. Heck, I’ve even lived in Luxembourg, which you mentioned, but that is beside the point.)</p>
<p>Please read my post carefully. I didn’t say that ONLY the groups I listed use alcohol. Or that ALL members of those groups use alcohol. Or that groups I didn’t list do not use alcohol. My post doesn’t use the word “more”–you added that. I didn’t mention “race” either, though others have shown how race figures into it. Ethnic/cultural/religious differences do account for a lot of the regional differences in alcohol use. I stand by that.</p>
<p>Also, for those who can’t figure it out, atomom is a “she.” ;)</p>
<p>Honestly I’m more worried about the pills that young people seem to be aware of. My D is in NYC and was invited to the Electric Zoo concert. The concerts last day was canceled over this week end due to 2 deaths of drug ODs. I asked my D what was the drug and she knew it was molly, a drug I never heard of. BTW I was pleased that D turned down the invitation since it was during her first week of school.
I also had that talk with DC about never letting her drink, club soda I hope, out of her sight. It’s too easy for something to be slipped into a drink.</p>
<p>@#46- I am almost 50 and have spent a lot of time socializing in different groups of people: low to middle class blacks, low to middle class whites, upper class blacks and upper class whites. I grew up poor, went to two predominantly white colleges and am now solidly middle class living within a very racially diverse middle class neighborhood. </p>
<p>All of my years of experience have led me to observe this:</p>
<p>In college, none of the predominantly black parties that I attended included kids who drank to excess. Yes, there was alcohol at a lot of them (I was a little sister to a fraternity so these were black frat parties), but there was more eating and dancing, with a little alcohol flavored punch thrown in. </p>
<p>The white frat parties that I observed included a lot of drinking and less eating, with many kids drinking to excess (as in sloppy, falling down drunk).</p>
<p>As an adult, the black gatherings have lots of food and some have lots of beer, while others have a little beer and a little hard liquor. Very few people drink in excess and I have never seen anyone falling down drunk. </p>
<p>At the predominantly white gatherings, the central focus has ALMOST ALWAYS been alcohol, with a small amount of snacks put out. </p>
<p>Statistics and studies aside folks,as tragic as this phenomenon may be as animals we are subject to natural selection. If a young adult chooses to participate in a behavior that is known to include significant risks the herd is occasionally thinned.</p>
<p>I was bored so I figured I’d compare what I typically drink (94 proof - bought in handles for $26 with tax) to Coors (estimated $18 with tax and deposit for 24-pack). Determined that I can get drunk off of about $3.25 of what I usually drink, while it would cost about $4.50 to get drunk off of Coors (after tax and deposit). About 5 shots vs. 6 beers. I sometimes buy beer, but I usually pay $16 for a 4-pack (with tax and deposit) of what I like (although at 10% abv - so only about 3 to get drunk) and it is far more expensive than liquor at about $12. </p>
<p>My grandmom said they used to drive around and drink in the car and everybody did it and it wasn’t a huge problem. But this isn’t like the 1960s when all you had was beer and smokables. Now there is all kinds of stuff and its really sad but if you get into a lot of trouble if you get caught cause you smell like stuff then its easier to do other stuff to get away with it. But alcohol and drugs ruins people and families and they should get rid of all of it. But sorry to bother you and I wont post stuff here but I saw the thing about the Nova chick so I wanted to see if theres any info on that. But yeah. Theres just so much going on and its just crazy and I think most of the problems are pills and stuff from down south and I wont say anything to get anyone offended so that’s it.</p>
<p>Its interesting as a society how attitudes have changed over vices in the last 50 years. Watch any TV show from the 50s and 60s and you will find people smoking. Today that would cause an uproar. Gambling was confined to Las Vegas and dark secret clubs where you had to know someone to get in. Now slot machines, Keno and gaming tables everywhere where racetracks to your favorite American Indian reservation. </p>
<p>Alcohol on the other hand is still thought of as an acceptable and legal vice. When it results in heartache or death it is always blamed on driving or underage participants as the culprits.</p>
<p>The reality is (no matter what some French researcher says about the health benefits of a glass of red wine a day) is that alcohol is harmful. It ruins peoples lives every day and no one wants to admit it. The large number of Americans are dependent on it but don’t want to admit to it.</p>
<p>People scoff at the Prohibition Era as one of the low points in American history. Is anyone crying for the return of smoking in mainsteam America?</p>
<p>straightshooter – How right you are. We know that tobacco use takes a huge toll on society, but has anyone computed the economic and social costs of alcohol use? Dead and maimed victims of drunk driving, alcohol-caused illnesses and deaths, alcohol-induced violence, divorce, child neglect and abuse, family relationships destroyed, missed work – the list goes on and on.</p>
<p>As much as I abhor smoking, I don’t have to be concerned that a driver under the influence of nicotine is going to kill or maim me or one of my loved ones. Moreover, the people I’ve known who were nicotine addicts, including the ones who died of cancer, were gracious, dear, mentally alert people who maintained good personal relationships with their family and friends. Alcoholics are frequently just the opposite of gracious, dear, and mentally alert.</p>
<p>So, why does smoking (rightfully) get demonized, but drinking alcohol does not?</p>