<p>Does that mean that this comment
is just an opinion? It is presented as if it was factual and could be supported by data.</p>
<p>Your post 80 has me puzzled. I explained in post 79, when I read your post 69, that it explained comments you made were intended to be general. I thanked you for the clarification. Now in 80, you repeat to me that they were general and I can take it any way I want. “I can take it any way I want” ? What the heck does that mean? That makes no sense, after I have now explained I see they were to be general. Was my post 79 so unclear that you didn’t know what I meant?</p>
<p>It’s easy for me to say what I believe, or for you to say what you believe. That can make for a good discussion. But if I say something has been proven, as a way of convincing others my opinion is right, then I better be able to back it up. Similarly, if I quoted a source but have intentionally added or deleted info to bolster my opinion. If I cannot show the source to prove my statement of fact, then 2 things happen. 1) That particular opinion goes out the window based on a false factual claim, and 2) Others will be skeptical of all my other perspectives, knowing I got caught at falsifying info to support my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, you have nothing to show that your opinion (stated in your number 6) has been validated (or, as you say, proven) by any research. Perhaps you can offer some support to the concept that “health providers” would classify drinking in front of children as “extreme behavior”?</p>
<p>As I stated earlier, ASK YOUR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL.</p>
<p>The information I posted is to provide a different point of view. You can like it or not.</p>
<p>Thanks for reading.</p>
<p>You sound a little tense. Maybe a nice glass of wine would help take the edge off.</p>
<p>I don’t drink, but you go ahead.</p>
<p>
Why does that not surprise me. Such strong feelings about random urine screens…</p>
<p>I have asked; and I have also observed the behavior of numerous health care professionals, including many with practices which focus on the care and treatment of children and teens, in their own homes, with their own families. I think I’ll stick with their advice and their examples, as opposed to an evidently unfounded point of view. But thanks ever so much for writing and letting others learn a little more about your style of opinion.</p>
<p>Are we not clear, 1986, or are you avoiding the spotlight?
Right now, it isn’t whether we agree with you or not. People can have differing opinions.
We are discussing that you used the wording that something was “proven” that some here disagree with. We are asking you to show us the proof.
You can make us believe. You can prove us wrong. You can be shown to be 100% right. If you show us the proof you referred to.
Without that, and coupled with the previous serious omissions from a source you quoted in a previous post, your arguments go out the window. And worse than that, it makes it appear you are willing to deceive people in an effort to persuade them into thinking your way. </p>
<p>While I’m no health professional, if you are over 21, I’d suggest you consider drinking alcohol. Many studies show moderate adult alcohol consumption is good for most adults’ health. Further, I can’t speak for all versions, but the Protestant version of the Bible recommends moderate drinking. Of course, excessive drinking is a whole different issue, as is drinking and driving, and drinking for those already known to have alcoholism in the family.</p>
<p>So I guess by point #6 you believe that the gestapo needs to be breaking down the church doors to prevent the administration of sacraments? Good Je$us!!</p>
<p>[Influence</a> of Family Factors and Supervised Alcohol Use on Adolescent Alcohol Use and Harms: Similarities Between Youth in Different Alcohol Policy Contexts - Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs](<a href=“http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/Influence_of_Family_Factors_and_Supervised_Alcohol_Use_on_Adolescent_Alcoho/4573.html]Influence”>http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/Influence_of_Family_Factors_and_Supervised_Alcohol_Use_on_Adolescent_Alcoho/4573.html)</p>
<p>Objective: Harm-minimization policies suggest that alcohol use is a part of normal adolescent development and that parents should supervise their children’s use to encourage responsible drinking. Zero-tolerance policies suggest that all underage alcohol use should be discouraged. This article compared hypotheses derived from harm-minimization and zero-tolerance policies regarding the influence of family context and supervised drinking on adolescent alcohol use and related harms among adolescents in Washington State, USA, and Victoria, Australia, two states that have respectively adopted zero-tolerance and harm-minimization policies.</p>
<p>My guess is that mini would have more studies since he works for public health in Washington State and has cited his alcohol studies before on CC. The previous posted article references studies done in Washington State.</p>
<p>If I understand that article’s abstract correctly (and some of their grade references seem mixed up, and some of their terminology is unclear) but that said, what it seems to say is that parents who let their underage kids drink under their supervision in the hope of teaching responsible drinking do not do so, as these kids had higher levels of harmful alcohol use. It says nothing about hiding adult alcohol consumption from kids nor its impact. It also doesn’t clarify the effect of “zero tolerance” as best I can tell from that abstract.</p>
<p>Well, the link you provided us, I found their conclusions: “Findings challenge the harm-minimization position that supervised alcohol use or early-age alcohol use will reduce the development of adolescent alcohol problems. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 72, 418–428, 2011)” Do you put in a link to something to prove your point, hoping that no one will really go there to read your “proof”? This link doesn’t prove what you said.</p>
<p>Like JYM, I don’t see that this addresses parents’ drinking in front of a kid. It only refers to kid drinking. This study does not address what you said had been proven.
Nevertheles, I can agree this study might dispute the results of some other studies. Or, as the study itself worded it, “challenges” other ideas. It doesn’t say disproves, or makes obsolete, or any other definite wording. Clearly, this study had findings to the contrary of what they might have expected. But if you draw the conclusion, 1986, that this study has proved anything about parents’ drinking in front of their kid, then the conclusion you drew is different than the conclusion of those that did the study.</p>
<p>I can agree that study would help support an opinion, but I am still waiting on your proof, 1986. Is that the best you’ve got?</p>
<p>Here is an explanation of the study findings by the research group which may help clarify the abstract linked by parent1986:</p>
<p>Adult-Supervised Drinking with Young Teens May Lead to More Unsupervised Alcohol Use and Harmful Consequences
<a href=“http://www.sdrg.org/ResearchBrief_Jun2011.pdf[/url]”>Social Development Research Group;
<p>“Allowing adolescents to drink alcohol under adult supervision does not appear to teach responsible drinking as teens get older…”
(Students were surveyed from seventh to ninth grade. Adult consumption of alcohol in the presence of children was not a subject of the survey.)</p>
<p>As an aside, another interesting research brief from the same group:</p>
<p>Family Management Matters: Adolescent Risk Taking and the Development of Adult Alcohol Use Disorders
<a href=“Social Development Research Group”>Social Development Research Group;
From the brief:
</p>
<p>
This post just caught my eye. How can a person be so “sure” that an MD told someone it was impossible to beat the test. Why would you even say such a thing except to be inflammatory.</p>
<p>“a physician told someone it’s impossible to beat the test” made me burst out laughing. I work in Healthcare and with physicians. We were doing pre planned drug screens for fitness-for-duty reasons. Physician comes hat in hand pre screen to confess he smoked dope. </p>
<p>His test came back negative. It had cleared his system since he last inhaled. </p>
<p>But we put him on rehab agreement anyway. Too bad you can’t rehab stupid.</p>
<p>Thank you for the post, Illyria.
Your post demonstrates perfectly that it hasn’t been proven parents drinking in front of kids /not being a good role model. Although the survey you posted does indicate some high-risk kids care at a greater risk of having problem problems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False positives have worse implications. Stay away from that secondhand smoke and that poppyseed bagel.</p>
<p>@ucba. That’s true. And it’s astounding how many physicians eat poppyseed bagels every day for breakfast (2 even!) and pay house calls to cancer patients who smoke marijuana to control their nausea from chemo.</p>