Someone once said that raising the drinking age to 21 didn’t stop 18 year olds from getting booze, but it did stop a lot of 14 year olds from getting booze.
Which is an awful idea, gladly I never had any trouble getting alcohol at 12-14, and yeah, by 22 I had fucked around so much and partied so hard that was already retiring from getting drunk… isn’t it better to be irresponsible idiots when you indeed have no responsibilities, and give a good use to all those puberty hormones?
Alcohol can have an impact on the brain’s development, which stops at around 32 years old anyway. So it is less harmful (edit : for the brain development) the older you get. Also, the earlier someone starts drinking, the higher their chances are of developing an addiction.
Yep, the real point where the development stops is not widely known yet. There are even articles which say 37 might be the point, but its definite that its past 32.
I’ve always heard mid to late 20s as the point where most of the growth stops. Your brain changes to some extent throughout your entire life, but most performance metrics peak around then and decline after.
Alcohol being harmful no matter the age (and most importantly in this study, no matter the quantity) does not mean that it is equally harmful at every age and every quantity.
The study your link is referring to talks about alcohol being a vector for cancer and other health problem at an older age, and disproving the myth along which low alcohol consumption would be good for the heart. It did not take into consideration the age where people started drinking.
I would like to believe all the lessons I learned doing wreckless could have been learned elsehow, but also it tamed me out by the time I was 14. I could tell a lot of the kids around me at that age were acting out as a result of their newfound freedom, the kinda freedom and lack of supervision I had had for ten years at that point. I had my fill already and became a relatively calm and subdued teen. But only because I had learned my lessons through pain.
More of a danger to themselves. Most people, even drunks, put on their seatbelts. That means if there’s an accident, even at high speed, the driver is protected by restraints and airbags.
A kid on a bike doesn’t have that.
If there’s a collision between a bike and a car, which vehicle do you want to be in?
I read what you wrote but was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just to be clear, you’re saying that you’d prefer drunk drivers in cars versus bikes because you’re more concerned about the drunk driver’s safety than people they might run into/over?
My speculation is that lowering the drinking age should result in fewer deaths overall for this very reason. I don’t want drunk drivers to die either but if I had to choose I’d prefer the drunk drivers to die over the person that they hit. I also reject your premise that crashing into something with your bike is more dangerous than crashing into something with a car, seatbelt or not. Speed is a pretty big factor and while drunk biking is surely dangerous it’s a lot less likely to crash at higher speeds.
I specifically said that a drunken 14 year old is more at risk of hurting themselves than a drunk adult wearing a safety belt. I never said that drunk driving was ‘safe’
Are you me? Same trajectory, really.
I did pick up hard drinking again after a several-year-hiatus, though. Then several years of that made me never touch hard liquor again.
I really don’t know anybody from America who didn’t drink before 21. I’m still not a fan of alcohol outside of social events, didn’t go to parties often in the first place, and was generally a good little honors student who followed the rules. However, even I drank several times before it was legal.
I got 61 upvotes, which means that plenty of people understood what I was saying.
So either you were making a joke, and now you’re all salty that I joked back, or you actually had no idea, which means you really do need to get out more.
But don’t act like I made some kind of cryptic pronouncement only the illuminati can decipher.
I for one have an enormous amount of respect for people who ask questions when they don’t know something, and if you always try to find stuff out when you don’t know it, you end up learning a lot. Saying “I don’t understand - please explain” is the sign of an inquisitive and self-aware mind on the route to a better understanding of the world.
Just because something is easy and obvious for you to understand, doesn’t make it easy and obvious for someone else. We all think differently. Someone on programming.dev might find it obvious that compiled rust would process large xml data much faster than javascript running in node, but sometime on blahaj.zone might find it obvious that disagreeing with someone’s feelings about their gender is deeply harmful, but someone from outside those communities might need to have it explained to them and might need to ask how or why. Asking honest questions and answering them is a good thing in the world and we all get better if we learn from and teach each other.
Humiliating someone for not knowing something is sometimes the sign of someone insecure enough of their own understanding that they feel the need to gatekeep it. If your excellence is only because you keep other people down, your excellence is vacuous.
Someone once said that raising the drinking age to 21 didn’t stop 18 year olds from getting booze, but it did stop a lot of 14 year olds from getting booze.
Which is an awful idea, gladly I never had any trouble getting alcohol at 12-14, and yeah, by 22 I had fucked around so much and partied so hard that was already retiring from getting drunk… isn’t it better to be irresponsible idiots when you indeed have no responsibilities, and give a good use to all those puberty hormones?
Alcohol can have an impact on the brain’s development, which stops at around 32 years old anyway. So it is less harmful (edit : for the brain development) the older you get. Also, the earlier someone starts drinking, the higher their chances are of developing an addiction.
Fun fact! The reason we say brain development stops at 32 is cus the study famous for it stopped at 32 😁
Yep, the real point where the development stops is not widely known yet. There are even articles which say 37 might be the point, but its definite that its past 32.
I’ve always heard mid to late 20s as the point where most of the growth stops. Your brain changes to some extent throughout your entire life, but most performance metrics peak around then and decline after.
Most is all I care about. Our ears never stop growing but that doesn’t actually matter much.
Sure it does, old people look hilarious!
Maybe because the 21 y/os start drinking?
Why does everyone act like being smart is so great. I’m dumb and I’m okay with it.
So true. I’m smart and it low-key sucks
…i played an orc with 7 intelligence; he was great…
Brain development never stops
Your body is in a constant state of change your whole life, but there is still a point where you can call it mature.
No one’s ever accused me of being mature.
Sexually? Absolutely. Do you stop growing? Of course
But there’s no age of developmental maturity for your brain. It’s a popsci myth
Drinking after 32 yo has a negative impact on the brain too lmao.
But most certainly less than at a young age.
Um, there is no such thing as “less harmful”, alcohol is harmful no matter the age.
Also, if I remember correctly 32 is the lower (potential) limit to where the brain stops. Just pointing it out…
less harmful is a relative statment, like how shooting your foot is less harmful than shooting your chest.
I guess that is correct, the OP didn’t say it wasnt harmful - error on my part. But either way, the point to reinforce is that harm is harm.
Alcohol being harmful no matter the age (and most importantly in this study, no matter the quantity) does not mean that it is equally harmful at every age and every quantity.
The study your link is referring to talks about alcohol being a vector for cancer and other health problem at an older age, and disproving the myth along which low alcohol consumption would be good for the heart. It did not take into consideration the age where people started drinking.
Go learn about harm reduction.
Looks like we both need to learn something…
I read it was 25. In any case, it sure isn’t 21.
Learn to drink before you learn to drive imo
I would like to believe all the lessons I learned doing wreckless could have been learned elsehow, but also it tamed me out by the time I was 14. I could tell a lot of the kids around me at that age were acting out as a result of their newfound freedom, the kinda freedom and lack of supervision I had had for ten years at that point. I had my fill already and became a relatively calm and subdued teen. But only because I had learned my lessons through pain.
Yes, because 14 year olds are so responsible otherwise.
A drunk 14 year old on a bike is probably in more danger than a drunk 21 year old in a car.
And don’t get me started on what trouble a drunk 14 year old girl can get into.
No way a drunk 14 year old on a bike is worse than a drunk anyone in a car.
14 year olds should have more oversight from their parents though too. Better to learn from a parent or guardian than a frat bro or whatever.
Read what I wrote.
More of a danger to themselves. Most people, even drunks, put on their seatbelts. That means if there’s an accident, even at high speed, the driver is protected by restraints and airbags.
A kid on a bike doesn’t have that.
If there’s a collision between a bike and a car, which vehicle do you want to be in?
I read what you wrote but was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just to be clear, you’re saying that you’d prefer drunk drivers in cars versus bikes because you’re more concerned about the drunk driver’s safety than people they might run into/over?
My speculation is that lowering the drinking age should result in fewer deaths overall for this very reason. I don’t want drunk drivers to die either but if I had to choose I’d prefer the drunk drivers to die over the person that they hit. I also reject your premise that crashing into something with your bike is more dangerous than crashing into something with a car, seatbelt or not. Speed is a pretty big factor and while drunk biking is surely dangerous it’s a lot less likely to crash at higher speeds.
You are hilarious!
Speed is a pretty big factor and while drunk biking is surely dangerous it’s a lot less likely to crash at higher speeds.
I’m not as concerned about the safety of the drunk as I am about anyone else who may be near them while operating their chosen vehicle.
With that in mind a bike is better.
Apples and oranges.
I specifically said that a drunken 14 year old is more at risk of hurting themselves than a drunk adult wearing a safety belt. I never said that drunk driving was ‘safe’
A drunk 21 year old in a car could wipe out a family. A drunk 14 year old on a bike is probably at worst only going to kill themselves.
I wrote twice that the drunk kid was going to hurt themselves.
How you got that I approve adults driving drunk is a mystery to me, one I prefer not to waste time solving.
Let me help you out. It was this one:
Are you me? Same trajectory, really.
I did pick up hard drinking again after a several-year-hiatus, though. Then several years of that made me never touch hard liquor again.
I was a heavy drinker but I never went back, now just a beer or two very rarely on parties and only if I’m not driving
I really don’t know anybody from America who didn’t drink before 21. I’m still not a fan of alcohol outside of social events, didn’t go to parties often in the first place, and was generally a good little honors student who followed the rules. However, even I drank several times before it was legal.
I didn’t, but I was (sincerely) deeply religious at the time :\
How?
18 year olds can pass for 21 with a fake ID but a 14 year old definitely couldn’t
It’s more rather preventing seniors at high school buying it for freshmen at high school. Whereas most 21YO+'s friends are adults.
Oh
Everyone family and friends that are older
Removed by mod
or you could stop being a twat
I got 61 upvotes, which means that plenty of people understood what I was saying.
So either you were making a joke, and now you’re all salty that I joked back, or you actually had no idea, which means you really do need to get out more.
But don’t act like I made some kind of cryptic pronouncement only the illuminati can decipher.
I for one have an enormous amount of respect for people who ask questions when they don’t know something, and if you always try to find stuff out when you don’t know it, you end up learning a lot. Saying “I don’t understand - please explain” is the sign of an inquisitive and self-aware mind on the route to a better understanding of the world.
Just because something is easy and obvious for you to understand, doesn’t make it easy and obvious for someone else. We all think differently. Someone on programming.dev might find it obvious that compiled rust would process large xml data much faster than javascript running in node, but sometime on blahaj.zone might find it obvious that disagreeing with someone’s feelings about their gender is deeply harmful, but someone from outside those communities might need to have it explained to them and might need to ask how or why. Asking honest questions and answering them is a good thing in the world and we all get better if we learn from and teach each other.
Humiliating someone for not knowing something is sometimes the sign of someone insecure enough of their own understanding that they feel the need to gatekeep it. If your excellence is only because you keep other people down, your excellence is vacuous.
I’m not the original question asker. I’m just someone telling you, that you behave like an asshole
Sure thing,
I’ll stop making little jokes like telling people to go outside so you can feel like you’re accomplishing something.
Personally, I think telling someone to go outside is much milder than calling them a twat, but I wasn’t appointed the guardian of the interwebs