Here's some solid research for those who think the Europeans have it right by introducing alcohol to children. Responsible drinking is created by modeling, not by introduction at an early age.
Early tipple 'breeds alcoholism'
Parents who introduce their children to alcohol in the hope of encouraging responsible drinking might be doing more harm than good, work suggests.
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found drinking before the age of 15 increased a child's risk of becoming a heavy drinker.
A teenager's fast-developing brain becomes programmed to link alcohol with pleasure, experts believe.
Research shows that by the age of seven most children will have tasted alcohol.
A poll of 11 to 15-year-olds in England in 2007 by the NHS Information Centre found around 640,000 were likely to have drunk alcohol in the past seven days.
Of hospital admissions in 2006/7 specifically due to an alcohol-related diagnosis, almost one in 10 were in under 18 year olds.
The NIAAA study matched information on the teenage drinking habits of more than 22,000 Americans with the development of alcohol-related problems.
Starting young
The men and women were divided into three groups - those who first drank under the age of 15, between 15 and 17, and 18 or older.
People who started drinking before the age 15, and to a lesser extent those who started drinking at ages 15 to 17, were more likely to become dependent on alcohol as adults than people who waited until 18 or older to start drinking.
This link remained even when they took into account factors like duration of alcohol exposure, family history and a wide range of other risk factors.
Research also shows the likelihood of developing alcohol-use disorders in adulthood is about 50% higher for people who start drinking before the age of 15 as for those who abstain until they are 18 or older.
Deborah Dawson, research scientist at the NIAAA, said: "We can see for the first time the association between an early 'age of first drink' and an increased risk of alcohol use disorders that persists into adulthood."
Howard Moss, the institute's director for clinical research, said: "Early alcohol consumption, as a misguided choice, is driving the relationship between early drinking and the risk for development of later alcohol problems.
"The data support the notion of delaying the onset of drinking behaviour as late as possible."
Don Shenker, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said: "Parents are certainly the best placed group to encourage responsible drinking attitudes among young people, but this study, like others should give them pause about precisely when it's right to start giving alcohol regularly to their children.
"Younger adolescents whose physical and mental development is ongoing ought not to be drinking regularly as successive pieces of work has shown a close connection between that and damage to key systems."
Sarah-Jayne Blakemore of University College London's Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience said young brains were very malleable and changed fast in response to new influences.
Early alcohol exposure could be acting as an environmental trigger for adolescents with an underlying disposition to alcohol problems, she said.
"Although a lot might depend on the amounts drunk as well as the exposure itself," she added.
A spokeswoman from the social care organisation Turning Point said: "At the moment there is simply not enough help for children and families affected by alcohol misuse.
"Without important interventions at vital stages of these young lives, they are much more likely to go on to have alcohol problems themselves."
The NIAAA study will be published in the December issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.
BBC News
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
What's Better? Treatment? Or Time?
In today's Houston Chronicle, there's an article about drunk driving being called a "pandemic" by some law enforcement officials. Harris County, TX leads the nation's most populous counties in DWIs, according to the information provided. The reason for so many DWIs? One of the main problems I've always pointed at: we live in America. I.E., a huge country, lots of people, lots of land, little public transportation. Plus, what little public transportation there is is concentrated in the major cities with more population per square mile. NYC? Chicago? Boston? San Fran? Public transportation there isn't nearly the problem as it is in places like Harris County, Texas. And anyone who DOES live where public transportation is readily available knows that, in order to save money, public transportation staggers the routes during non-peak hours...like at 2 a.m. when the bars close down. When someone has been drinking and their judgment is impaired (heck, even when judgment is NOT impaired), are people likely to wait 45 minutes at a bus stop, only to get on public transportation? Not so much-many people will take the risk of a crash or a DUI.
Harris County is trying a new approach for first time offenders: treatment instead of time. Rather than throwing the book at the impaired driver, Harris County is requiring convicted drunk drivers to attend classes on alcohol and the effects on the human body AND society. Will this lower DWIs? IIs it a better course of action than giving time to a DWI offender? Good question.
At Missouri State, my criminal justice classes required us to tour the medium security prison in Fordland, MO. This prison has a 40% "rate of return" when the other prisons in the state average 80% (I'm fudging the numbers a bit, but it's close) Why is Fordland so much more successful? Simple: every prisoner there is incarcerated due to his addiction. Yes, maybe the prisoner is in for armed robbery, but he knocked off the liquor store to get money for his crack addiction. So, Fordland makes 12 step programs mandatory with the idea that if the addiction is treated, the prisoner will be less likely to re-commit a crime. Is it working? The stats speak for themselves.
Will Harris County be successful in offering treatment instead of time? This is the $100 million question. I'd love to see those with serious alcohol issues get treatment. Compassion for addicts just seems sensible. Yet, when the addict kills someone due to driving drunk, do we take co passion? Or do we throw the book at him?
Philosophically, is there a difference between the drunk driver who lucks out and gets home safe, or the drunk who gets a DWI, or the drunk that rams his car into an innocent and kills the other person? The same crime has such a wide possibility of different outcomes.
Where does the opinion of your humble blogger fall? Treatment and compassion for first time, non-violent offenders, including ignition locks for a designated number of years. However, if the offender kills or injures someone else, we have to treat that crime like it's (gasp!) a crime-something that seems unpopular amongst many in the public. The usual argument being that DWI is not a malicious crime...but try telling that to anyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver.
These topics can be debated until the cows come home. Yet, you know what was really a pleasant surprise? The comments in the Chronicle from readers. Every comment I read was supportive of being tough on DWI. It seems the tide is starting to change and the public is becoming more and more aware of just how dangerous DWI is. Will we ever totally accomplish this goal of having every driver on the road be sober and alert? Dunno-technology holds the key, but for now, just seeing a proactive approach on the part of government and attitudes of the public is a step in the right direction.
Harris County is trying a new approach for first time offenders: treatment instead of time. Rather than throwing the book at the impaired driver, Harris County is requiring convicted drunk drivers to attend classes on alcohol and the effects on the human body AND society. Will this lower DWIs? IIs it a better course of action than giving time to a DWI offender? Good question.
At Missouri State, my criminal justice classes required us to tour the medium security prison in Fordland, MO. This prison has a 40% "rate of return" when the other prisons in the state average 80% (I'm fudging the numbers a bit, but it's close) Why is Fordland so much more successful? Simple: every prisoner there is incarcerated due to his addiction. Yes, maybe the prisoner is in for armed robbery, but he knocked off the liquor store to get money for his crack addiction. So, Fordland makes 12 step programs mandatory with the idea that if the addiction is treated, the prisoner will be less likely to re-commit a crime. Is it working? The stats speak for themselves.
Will Harris County be successful in offering treatment instead of time? This is the $100 million question. I'd love to see those with serious alcohol issues get treatment. Compassion for addicts just seems sensible. Yet, when the addict kills someone due to driving drunk, do we take co passion? Or do we throw the book at him?
Philosophically, is there a difference between the drunk driver who lucks out and gets home safe, or the drunk who gets a DWI, or the drunk that rams his car into an innocent and kills the other person? The same crime has such a wide possibility of different outcomes.
Where does the opinion of your humble blogger fall? Treatment and compassion for first time, non-violent offenders, including ignition locks for a designated number of years. However, if the offender kills or injures someone else, we have to treat that crime like it's (gasp!) a crime-something that seems unpopular amongst many in the public. The usual argument being that DWI is not a malicious crime...but try telling that to anyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver.
These topics can be debated until the cows come home. Yet, you know what was really a pleasant surprise? The comments in the Chronicle from readers. Every comment I read was supportive of being tough on DWI. It seems the tide is starting to change and the public is becoming more and more aware of just how dangerous DWI is. Will we ever totally accomplish this goal of having every driver on the road be sober and alert? Dunno-technology holds the key, but for now, just seeing a proactive approach on the part of government and attitudes of the public is a step in the right direction.
"The Hangover"
Okay, "The Hangover" is being touted as the funniest movie of the summer. I haven't yet seen it, but as much as I usually dislike going to the movies, I'm kinda excited about this one.
Two reasons why: 1. I love comedy-especially off-color comedy! And secondly, I think there'll be some good blog food/discussions that come out of this film.
I know virtually nothing of the premise of the movie, but I did catch one of those trashy tabloid shows a few nights ago. In it, the interviewer asked stars of the film about their worst hangovers.
One guy said he had a rough time with Jaegermeister when he was a kid. The next talked about how he vomited so much that blood vessels broke all over his face.
Both the interviewees talked about their experiences with a Cheshire Cat grin. I suppose most of us with a history of alcohol use/abuse can think back on some of the stupid stuff we did while drinking. I know when I get together with some of my old fraternity brothers from college, we spend a decent amount of time reminiscing about the things we did that were horribly dangerous...and thanking the almighty we're alive to tell the stories.
Yet, I still question what the effect of "The Hangover" will be on young people. Will it glorify alcohol use and abuse? Are the scenarios disgusting, yet in a funny sort of way? Will any teens see this as a lifestyle to live up to?
I'll report back after I get a chance to watch the movie. As always, I encourage you to watch everything the media puts out with an open mind and the ability to discern what positive AND negative aspects can be pulled from your experience.
Two reasons why: 1. I love comedy-especially off-color comedy! And secondly, I think there'll be some good blog food/discussions that come out of this film.
I know virtually nothing of the premise of the movie, but I did catch one of those trashy tabloid shows a few nights ago. In it, the interviewer asked stars of the film about their worst hangovers.
One guy said he had a rough time with Jaegermeister when he was a kid. The next talked about how he vomited so much that blood vessels broke all over his face.
Both the interviewees talked about their experiences with a Cheshire Cat grin. I suppose most of us with a history of alcohol use/abuse can think back on some of the stupid stuff we did while drinking. I know when I get together with some of my old fraternity brothers from college, we spend a decent amount of time reminiscing about the things we did that were horribly dangerous...and thanking the almighty we're alive to tell the stories.
Yet, I still question what the effect of "The Hangover" will be on young people. Will it glorify alcohol use and abuse? Are the scenarios disgusting, yet in a funny sort of way? Will any teens see this as a lifestyle to live up to?
I'll report back after I get a chance to watch the movie. As always, I encourage you to watch everything the media puts out with an open mind and the ability to discern what positive AND negative aspects can be pulled from your experience.
Would You Like Fries with that DUI?
Tucson, Arizona has a new (and innovative) way of helping warn drunk drivers from getting on the streets: Operation Would You Like Fries?
A Pima County deputy is stationed inside local drive through fast food restaurants. When a patron pulls into the drive through who has slurred speech, alcohol on the breath or distributes any other signs of intoxication, the deputy radios to another deputy in the parking lot to pull over the suspected drunk.
Funding for the operation comes from the governor's office of highway safety and is paid for with overtime grants to put the officers in place.
Any drawbacks to this? Certainly...drunks may just decide not to drive through fast food restaurants. Drunks may get word there is a sting at a certain burger joint. There may be a traffic lawyer who argues probable cause for such action.
So, here's a reminder: DWI checkpoints are NOT intended to catch drunk drivers. True story: checkpoints raise awareness, not actually intended to catch impaired drivers.
And this Operation WULF? Again, raises awareness with the public. Does it do so? Well, I'm sitting in my living room in Florida and I know about what Pima County, AZ is doing...gotta think Pima County residents also know!
At the very least, Operation WULF is helping to show area residents that DWI isn't accepted in Pima County.
A Pima County deputy is stationed inside local drive through fast food restaurants. When a patron pulls into the drive through who has slurred speech, alcohol on the breath or distributes any other signs of intoxication, the deputy radios to another deputy in the parking lot to pull over the suspected drunk.
Funding for the operation comes from the governor's office of highway safety and is paid for with overtime grants to put the officers in place.
Any drawbacks to this? Certainly...drunks may just decide not to drive through fast food restaurants. Drunks may get word there is a sting at a certain burger joint. There may be a traffic lawyer who argues probable cause for such action.
So, here's a reminder: DWI checkpoints are NOT intended to catch drunk drivers. True story: checkpoints raise awareness, not actually intended to catch impaired drivers.
And this Operation WULF? Again, raises awareness with the public. Does it do so? Well, I'm sitting in my living room in Florida and I know about what Pima County, AZ is doing...gotta think Pima County residents also know!
At the very least, Operation WULF is helping to show area residents that DWI isn't accepted in Pima County.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Does Glassware Promote Drinking?
A high school in Pennsylvania has made the news for the prom favors chosen by the students. Seems the students all received a shot glass as a take-home souvenir from prom. Parents were upset that the glasses promoted alcohol consumption and were being distributed to minors. The principal (who signed the invoice for the favors) didn't realize what he was signing (or so he said), thinking it was just party favors.
First off, this is nothing new, even if it was on the national news. For the last 17 years, I've had a beer mug sitting in my cabinet that advertises one of my proms. But, did that glass promote alcohol consumption by my underaged classmates and I?
Frankly, we didn't need much promotion. The glass was much more a sign of the times rather than a prom favor. But did it send the wrong message? That's a tough question to answer.
Will we ever be able to eliminate underage drinking? Very doubtful. After all, where there's a will, there's a way. It's doubtful we'll ever be able to squelch the teenage desire to drink alcohol. It is, after all, something adults do and kids aren't allowed. (ADD story: I have a theory we should ban all books. Why? Because it'll make kids want to read! I volunteer MY book to be the first on the list to be banned! Simply put, it's human nature to want what we are not allowed.)
So, will we be able to stop the desire? No, but we can stop some of the culture around drinking. Flip through any catalog of prom favors and you'll quickly see it's not just beer mugs and shot glasses. Hurricane glasses, wine goblets, champagne flutes, scotch glasses, pilsners – if you can serve alcohol in it, you can get it emblazoned with your school's prom theme.
Simply put, I think it's shameful that companies sell this stuff. Will it directly cause minors to drink? Probably not. Does it help create the unnecessary link between celebration and alcohol consumption? Certainly. And does it give students paraphernalia they'll then display on their keepsake shelf at home, immediately recognizable as a device used to consume alcohol? Definitely.
And let's cut the crap...sure, you can drink water out of a wine glass, but no one does. And people don't get served Mountain Dew in beer mugs. And a shot glass is good for absolutely nothing except liquor.
Principal's part in this? Yeah, he/she holds some blame. As tight as school budgets are, as famous as teens are for trying to get away with pranks and jokes and all around mayhem, don't you think it'd be smart to take a little looky see before you sign your name on the dotted line?
Who wins in this situation? The parents. They've made their wishes known – they want their children to be sober and alcohol free. With all the bad rap parents get for throwing keggers and overnights for drunken minors, I was really glad to hear parents standing up for some safe actions of their kids.
First off, this is nothing new, even if it was on the national news. For the last 17 years, I've had a beer mug sitting in my cabinet that advertises one of my proms. But, did that glass promote alcohol consumption by my underaged classmates and I?
Frankly, we didn't need much promotion. The glass was much more a sign of the times rather than a prom favor. But did it send the wrong message? That's a tough question to answer.
Will we ever be able to eliminate underage drinking? Very doubtful. After all, where there's a will, there's a way. It's doubtful we'll ever be able to squelch the teenage desire to drink alcohol. It is, after all, something adults do and kids aren't allowed. (ADD story: I have a theory we should ban all books. Why? Because it'll make kids want to read! I volunteer MY book to be the first on the list to be banned! Simply put, it's human nature to want what we are not allowed.)
So, will we be able to stop the desire? No, but we can stop some of the culture around drinking. Flip through any catalog of prom favors and you'll quickly see it's not just beer mugs and shot glasses. Hurricane glasses, wine goblets, champagne flutes, scotch glasses, pilsners – if you can serve alcohol in it, you can get it emblazoned with your school's prom theme.
Simply put, I think it's shameful that companies sell this stuff. Will it directly cause minors to drink? Probably not. Does it help create the unnecessary link between celebration and alcohol consumption? Certainly. And does it give students paraphernalia they'll then display on their keepsake shelf at home, immediately recognizable as a device used to consume alcohol? Definitely.
And let's cut the crap...sure, you can drink water out of a wine glass, but no one does. And people don't get served Mountain Dew in beer mugs. And a shot glass is good for absolutely nothing except liquor.
Principal's part in this? Yeah, he/she holds some blame. As tight as school budgets are, as famous as teens are for trying to get away with pranks and jokes and all around mayhem, don't you think it'd be smart to take a little looky see before you sign your name on the dotted line?
Who wins in this situation? The parents. They've made their wishes known – they want their children to be sober and alcohol free. With all the bad rap parents get for throwing keggers and overnights for drunken minors, I was really glad to hear parents standing up for some safe actions of their kids.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Will Lowering The Drinking Age Make Us As Moderate As Europeans?
Before I got married two years ago, I read everything I could get my hands on that dealt with parenting-specifically, parenting teenagers. And even more particularly, teenage stepchildren. So, bopping along through my list of potential reads, I came across a title that made me smile, “Yes, Your Teen Is Crazy” by Dr. Michael Bradley.
Ordered it, read it, LOVED IT! Gave me so much insight into the mindset of my new teenage stepkids…and I was really ashamed to admit I’d forgotten what it was like to be a teen. But his book put me right back into the mindset, the insecurities and the oddities of teenage life. I’ve since recommended this book to dozens, maybe hundreds, of parents with teenagers (hey, it’s the least I can do, right?)
Tonight, Dr. Mike Bradley’s E newsletter popped up in my in box. Felt this is good blog food for Drunk Driving Speaker since, well, it’s all about teens and drinking.
Let it never again be said that Europeans know moderation and Americans do not. Here’s Dr. Bradley’s article:
Dr. Mike Bradley's e-Newsletter
"Lowering the Drinking Age Will Save Teen Lives"
The dad who said this was a member of my audience in a talk about the alcohol abuse tsunami that has swept over America’s teenagers. Like the hundreds of other parents (along with many college presidents) who have said the same thing to me over the years, he was thoroughly convinced that allowing teens to drink alcohol at younger ages would reduce this problem: “We should let American kids drink like they do in Europe---you know, where kids grow up using alcohol from a young age so that they learn how to drink responsibly. European kids don’t see booze as a ‘forbidden fruit’ so they aren’t as attracted to it as teens are here. I know because I grew up in Spain and saw kids drinking wine at age four. They would just sip it. Everyone knows that kids in Europe don’t abuse alcohol like American teens.”
First, a disclaimer: I’m a myth junkie. I fervently hope that “Nessie” (the Loch Ness Monster) truly exists. And no one would love it more than I if one day it is proven that space aliens have been visiting our planet. I love those myths. They give me a welcome relief from the tedium of the day, an exciting respite where I can believe that magic is possible, that there are simple answers to complex issues, and that the experts don’t know what they’re talking about. I hate it when scientists rain on my fantasy parades by telling me that the odds of anyone having ever been abducted by space aliens are about the same as the odds of being abducted by space---well, you know what I mean. So I very much sympathize with folks who believe that handing Coors to kids will cure this epidemic of dangerous teen drinking. If that worked, I’d be the first to buy my son a keg and share a few with him. But science tells me that that “life-saving” act could well kill him.
According to those party-pooper researchers at the National Institutes of Health teenagers who start drinking at age 14 have a five-hundred-percent increase in the odds of becoming an addict than kids who wait until age 21 to imbibe. Teen brains are apparently “soft,” much more prone to the addictive effects of substances such as alcohol. Adolescent gray matter seems to get whacked much more powerfully by booze than does adult brain tissue. And alcohol is associated with everything bad that happens to teens to include car crashes, school failures, arrests, sexual assaults, unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and that worst of all parental nightmares, suicide.
So what about those European adolescents who can legally drink anywhere from birth to age 16, who are given alcohol at early ages, and who “everyone knows” are drinking responsibly? Well, I’m afraid that they must be off swimming with Nessie or teleporting to Mars since we can’t seem to locate them on Earth. In comparing adolescent drinking patterns (via the 21 nation European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs and the United States Monitoring the Future Survey), it becomes clear that American kids (ages 15-16) are pikers when it comes to the “boozing Olympics.” For example, while 39% of US teens admit to drinking in the past 30 days, they only tie for last place with Croatia. The adolescents in each of the other 20 European nations easily beat out the US with some nations doubling our “scores” of active teen drinkers (Greece and the UK tied at 74% with Denmark being the runaway “winner” at 81%). Well, you could argue, maybe those EU kids ar e drinking, but surely they’re drinking more responsibly, right? Wrong! US teens “lose” the party-‘til-you-puke event as well. While 24% of America’s kids binge drink, every other EU nation (except Portugal) handily beats us. Interestingly, Denmark again “wins” that binge drinking event with 61% of its teens regularly drinking themselves into oblivion. Clearly, providing kids with access to alcohol does not teach responsible drinking. It does teach life-threatening risk taking.
I love myths as much as you might but if you ever had to bet the ranch on Nessie surfacing or ET phoning home, would you bet for or against those events? Well, that same cold calculus must also hold true for the deadly myths about teen drinking. The brutal fact is that an astounding number of us parents promote adolescent alcohol madness by voluntarily providing this deadly substance to our kids based upon an insane belief in those killer myths. A third of drinking teens say that their parents hand them the booze. A fourth of our kids say that parents drink with them.
If we grownups all stop pushing this drug, will our teens stop drinking? No, but science also shows that our calm but firm opposition can limit the frequency and intensity of adolescent use. Few folks obey speed limits, but everyone knows that those silly signs and annoying tickets do limit our dangerous excesses. So when it comes time to bet the life of your child, avoid the loud “everyone knows” myths and instead trust the quiet science which yells, “Teenagers can’t drink.”
Dr. Mike Bradley
Dr. Bradley is available for speaking events on a variety of topics. Check out docmikebradley.com for more information and for excerpts from all of his books, including his latest release When Things Get Crazy with Your Teen: The Why, the How and What to Do NOW! (McGraw Hill, 2009).
Marcus Engel inspires audiences to achieve success - No Excuses!
www.MarcusEngel.com
Marcus@MarcusEngel.com
314-852-4494
Ordered it, read it, LOVED IT! Gave me so much insight into the mindset of my new teenage stepkids…and I was really ashamed to admit I’d forgotten what it was like to be a teen. But his book put me right back into the mindset, the insecurities and the oddities of teenage life. I’ve since recommended this book to dozens, maybe hundreds, of parents with teenagers (hey, it’s the least I can do, right?)
Tonight, Dr. Mike Bradley’s E newsletter popped up in my in box. Felt this is good blog food for Drunk Driving Speaker since, well, it’s all about teens and drinking.
Let it never again be said that Europeans know moderation and Americans do not. Here’s Dr. Bradley’s article:
Dr. Mike Bradley's e-Newsletter
"Lowering the Drinking Age Will Save Teen Lives"
The dad who said this was a member of my audience in a talk about the alcohol abuse tsunami that has swept over America’s teenagers. Like the hundreds of other parents (along with many college presidents) who have said the same thing to me over the years, he was thoroughly convinced that allowing teens to drink alcohol at younger ages would reduce this problem: “We should let American kids drink like they do in Europe---you know, where kids grow up using alcohol from a young age so that they learn how to drink responsibly. European kids don’t see booze as a ‘forbidden fruit’ so they aren’t as attracted to it as teens are here. I know because I grew up in Spain and saw kids drinking wine at age four. They would just sip it. Everyone knows that kids in Europe don’t abuse alcohol like American teens.”
First, a disclaimer: I’m a myth junkie. I fervently hope that “Nessie” (the Loch Ness Monster) truly exists. And no one would love it more than I if one day it is proven that space aliens have been visiting our planet. I love those myths. They give me a welcome relief from the tedium of the day, an exciting respite where I can believe that magic is possible, that there are simple answers to complex issues, and that the experts don’t know what they’re talking about. I hate it when scientists rain on my fantasy parades by telling me that the odds of anyone having ever been abducted by space aliens are about the same as the odds of being abducted by space---well, you know what I mean. So I very much sympathize with folks who believe that handing Coors to kids will cure this epidemic of dangerous teen drinking. If that worked, I’d be the first to buy my son a keg and share a few with him. But science tells me that that “life-saving” act could well kill him.
According to those party-pooper researchers at the National Institutes of Health teenagers who start drinking at age 14 have a five-hundred-percent increase in the odds of becoming an addict than kids who wait until age 21 to imbibe. Teen brains are apparently “soft,” much more prone to the addictive effects of substances such as alcohol. Adolescent gray matter seems to get whacked much more powerfully by booze than does adult brain tissue. And alcohol is associated with everything bad that happens to teens to include car crashes, school failures, arrests, sexual assaults, unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and that worst of all parental nightmares, suicide.
So what about those European adolescents who can legally drink anywhere from birth to age 16, who are given alcohol at early ages, and who “everyone knows” are drinking responsibly? Well, I’m afraid that they must be off swimming with Nessie or teleporting to Mars since we can’t seem to locate them on Earth. In comparing adolescent drinking patterns (via the 21 nation European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs and the United States Monitoring the Future Survey), it becomes clear that American kids (ages 15-16) are pikers when it comes to the “boozing Olympics.” For example, while 39% of US teens admit to drinking in the past 30 days, they only tie for last place with Croatia. The adolescents in each of the other 20 European nations easily beat out the US with some nations doubling our “scores” of active teen drinkers (Greece and the UK tied at 74% with Denmark being the runaway “winner” at 81%). Well, you could argue, maybe those EU kids ar e drinking, but surely they’re drinking more responsibly, right? Wrong! US teens “lose” the party-‘til-you-puke event as well. While 24% of America’s kids binge drink, every other EU nation (except Portugal) handily beats us. Interestingly, Denmark again “wins” that binge drinking event with 61% of its teens regularly drinking themselves into oblivion. Clearly, providing kids with access to alcohol does not teach responsible drinking. It does teach life-threatening risk taking.
I love myths as much as you might but if you ever had to bet the ranch on Nessie surfacing or ET phoning home, would you bet for or against those events? Well, that same cold calculus must also hold true for the deadly myths about teen drinking. The brutal fact is that an astounding number of us parents promote adolescent alcohol madness by voluntarily providing this deadly substance to our kids based upon an insane belief in those killer myths. A third of drinking teens say that their parents hand them the booze. A fourth of our kids say that parents drink with them.
If we grownups all stop pushing this drug, will our teens stop drinking? No, but science also shows that our calm but firm opposition can limit the frequency and intensity of adolescent use. Few folks obey speed limits, but everyone knows that those silly signs and annoying tickets do limit our dangerous excesses. So when it comes time to bet the life of your child, avoid the loud “everyone knows” myths and instead trust the quiet science which yells, “Teenagers can’t drink.”
Dr. Mike Bradley
Dr. Bradley is available for speaking events on a variety of topics. Check out docmikebradley.com for more information and for excerpts from all of his books, including his latest release When Things Get Crazy with Your Teen: The Why, the How and What to Do NOW! (McGraw Hill, 2009).
Marcus Engel inspires audiences to achieve success - No Excuses!
www.MarcusEngel.com
Marcus@MarcusEngel.com
314-852-4494
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Disability and Drunk Driving: A New Concept for Community Service?
One of the coolest orgs I get to work with is the Association for Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), and one of the coolest people at AHEAD is Kim Probin. Often times, I’ll go to campuses for Disability Awareness Week or other disability programs, inspiring students with disabilities (and those without) to overcome their adversity, whatever their obstacles may be. This is usually separate from the alcohol awareness and DUI prevention programs I provide for college students.
But, thanks to Kim being such an innovative thinker, she recently managed to marry the two concepts together. I LOVE this idea and if there’s anyone who works in a non-for-profit who also has DUI offenders serving community service in their offices, please let me know and I’ll be happy to pass some books along to you. Who knows?! Kim may just be onto a new notion of impaired driving prevention! Here’s her note:
Hi Marcus!
The reason for this note is not about conference, exhibiting or anything like that. The purpose of this note is a couple of other things...
Last week, I received a phone call from a very nice girl named Annie. She is from Florida but now lives local here to the Charlotte, NC area. She was calling "non-profits" to see if she could find one willing to let her fulfill her obligation to do community service hours for the Department of Corrections. I was a little hesitant at first, but then found myself asking her some questions about her charges, how many hours she had to complete, etc. Annie went on to tell me that she was charged with a DUI last year when she was just 27 years old.
Maybe at one time, I wouldn’t have really thought about it too much. But, not this time... after all, I read YOUR story... now, there was a personal connection to this kind of thing for me. As we spoke on the phone about her charges, I found myself asking her if she had been in an accident, how they caught her, etc. Thankfully, she was not in an accident but she was caught speeding while intoxicated. She seemed to really focus on how much money this has cost her in fees, classes, fines, etc. I wanted to know though, did she REALLY learn the lesson in the "bigger picture?" During our entire conversation, my mind kept flashing back to your story. I kept thinking about how your life had changed and how I could make a difference so that this wouldn't happen to someone else.
Finally, I spoke with Stephan and we agreed... we would allow Annie to fulfill her community service hours with us. She said she would clean the office, file, run errands, and that sort of thing. But, I thought there was a better use of her time. My goal was to have her leave AHEAD with more than cleaning experience. I wanted her to learn something... REALLY learn something from what she had done.
Marcus, as I write this, Annie is sitting in another office with nothing to do but read your story. I want her to feel the impact of what could happen to someone's life because of a lack of judgment. I want her to realize that one moment is all it takes to change the entire course of someone's, as well as her own life forever.
I hope that you are okay with this and that you agree with the way I have decided to handle things with Annie. I know that you go and speak to large groups at schools and to special interest groups all over the country. But, I also want you to know that your story will be passed on even if it's one person at a time.
Thank you for being you!
Kim P.
But, thanks to Kim being such an innovative thinker, she recently managed to marry the two concepts together. I LOVE this idea and if there’s anyone who works in a non-for-profit who also has DUI offenders serving community service in their offices, please let me know and I’ll be happy to pass some books along to you. Who knows?! Kim may just be onto a new notion of impaired driving prevention! Here’s her note:
Hi Marcus!
The reason for this note is not about conference, exhibiting or anything like that. The purpose of this note is a couple of other things...
Last week, I received a phone call from a very nice girl named Annie. She is from Florida but now lives local here to the Charlotte, NC area. She was calling "non-profits" to see if she could find one willing to let her fulfill her obligation to do community service hours for the Department of Corrections. I was a little hesitant at first, but then found myself asking her some questions about her charges, how many hours she had to complete, etc. Annie went on to tell me that she was charged with a DUI last year when she was just 27 years old.
Maybe at one time, I wouldn’t have really thought about it too much. But, not this time... after all, I read YOUR story... now, there was a personal connection to this kind of thing for me. As we spoke on the phone about her charges, I found myself asking her if she had been in an accident, how they caught her, etc. Thankfully, she was not in an accident but she was caught speeding while intoxicated. She seemed to really focus on how much money this has cost her in fees, classes, fines, etc. I wanted to know though, did she REALLY learn the lesson in the "bigger picture?" During our entire conversation, my mind kept flashing back to your story. I kept thinking about how your life had changed and how I could make a difference so that this wouldn't happen to someone else.
Finally, I spoke with Stephan and we agreed... we would allow Annie to fulfill her community service hours with us. She said she would clean the office, file, run errands, and that sort of thing. But, I thought there was a better use of her time. My goal was to have her leave AHEAD with more than cleaning experience. I wanted her to learn something... REALLY learn something from what she had done.
Marcus, as I write this, Annie is sitting in another office with nothing to do but read your story. I want her to feel the impact of what could happen to someone's life because of a lack of judgment. I want her to realize that one moment is all it takes to change the entire course of someone's, as well as her own life forever.
I hope that you are okay with this and that you agree with the way I have decided to handle things with Annie. I know that you go and speak to large groups at schools and to special interest groups all over the country. But, I also want you to know that your story will be passed on even if it's one person at a time.
Thank you for being you!
Kim P.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
