Does Drinking Alcohol Damage Young Brains?
by David J. Hanson, Ph. D.

Does drinking in adolescence harm brain development? Does consuming alcohol before age 21 cause permanent brain damage? Does underage drinking retard mental development?

The evidence about teen drinking and potential brain damage comes from two sources.

(1) The first source of evidence is from lab rats that are typically given very large doses of alcohol. Large enough quantities of alcohol appear to cause brain impairment in young rats, especially if given over a long enough period of time.

A serious problem is that rats aren’t humans and many if not most processes found in rats don’t apply at all to humans. For example, innumerable drugs cure diseases in rats but the vast majority of such drugs fail to do so in humans.

(2) The second source of evidence comes from humans. However, the humans who are studied are virtually always alcohol and/or drug dependent individuals. Not surprisingly, long-time alcohol abusers tend not to do as well at a variety of mental tasks as those who don’t abuse alcohol. 1

It appears that large enough quantities of alcohol can impair brain development in rats and that it can also do the same in humans. There’s no surprising news there.

These studies never deal with light or moderate alcohol consumption among young humans. However, “natural experiments” on drinking among young people have been going on for thousands of years around the world.

In many societies most people drink and they begin doing so in the home from a very early age. Examples familiar to most people include Italians, Jews, Greeks, Portuguese, French, Germans and Spaniards. 13 There is neither evidence or any reason to even suspect that members of these groups are brain impaired compared to those societies that do not permit young people to consume alcohol.

There appears to be absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the light or moderate consumption of alcohol by persons under the age of 21 causes any brain impairment or harm.

Federally-funded research does suggest that teens who drink alcohol with their parents are less likely than others to have either consumed alcohol or abused it in recent weeks according to a nation-wide study of over 6,200 teenagers in 242 communities across the U.S.

Drinking alcohol with parents “may help teach them responsible drinking habits or extinguish some of the ‘novelty’ or ‘excitement’ of drinking” according to senior researcher Dr. Kristie Long Foley of the School of Medicine at Wake Forest University. Dr. Foley describes drinking with parents as a “protective” behavior.

Contrary to popular belief, drinking with parental approval is legal in many states across the country. Only seven states prohibit those under age 21 from drinking under all circumstances.

(Adapted from Alcohol Problems and Solutions www.alcoholinformation.org)

Comments(1)

I think adult bullies are a part of the problem that spawns youth bullies.

Its the same situation that gets played out all the time. Power hierarchies turn into totem poles where everyone dominates the one below them. The boss yells at the working man, who goes home and hits his wife, she screams at the kid, and the kid kicks the dog.

Being dominated gives you a sense of weakness and frustration that you aren’t able to stop it. Some people self-destruct and just get really depressed and focus their anger internally (maybe those who cut could be lumped in here). Others take their anger out on someone else and try to make themselves feel better (and more powerful) by dominating someone else.

So bullies are frustrated that they have no control over their lives, their dad or teachers boss them around and dominate them. So they dominate their classmates. What I noticed at least in middle school was it wasn’t just the bullies and the rest of us, but there was a pecking order. I suppose I was in the middle of that scheme. Bullies picked on me, and I picked on other people. So I guess that made me a bully. Yet I was also a victim. And the people who picked on me were also victims.

But yes, there is indeed bullying in the adult world. Its just more sinister and… adult. No one is going to stick your head in the toilet, but there are many other ways of more subtle ways of tormenting people at the office. Anyone who bosses around youth are bullies. Exactly the same dynamic. Indeed that’s what starts the bullying machine moving in the first place in my opinion.

Independent of this youth rights/hierarchical analysis I do believe that all humans have the capacity for cruelty. Buried away in them by the moderating effects of civilization and morality (thank God), but still there. Some part of all of us enjoys seeing others in pain. Nietzsche wrote about it. So some part of this issue is individuals with poor impulse control not suppressing their desire to be cruel to others.

These are the people who only really behave morally because there is a law backed up by force. When the rules disappear and the threat of jail or punishment disappears then they become sadistic bastards. Look at what happens to people in war. Otherwise civilized people back home commit horrific crimes and torture when put in a situation where their behavior is condoned or allowed. Anarchy brings out the horrors of human nature.

So another reason bullies exist is simply that they can get away with it. The school authorities don’t do enough to stop it.

Comments(1)

I caught a rerun of a network drama show the other night. To prevent spoiling anything, I won’t say which show or give too many details about it, but basically there was a bully at a high school who was shot and killed. It was thought a couple of his most common, most mistreated victims were responsible, but it turned out the guidance counselor did it. Why? Because she wanted to prevent another Columbine, deciding best to just kill the bully rather than have one of his victims snap and shoot up the whole school. She said the bullied students were helpless and had pretty much no one to turn to, that they were being badly abused and no one was doing a thing about it.

Now, getting to my point, all this led me to a lot of youth rights pondering. While I know the “roles” people play in high school are depicted very poorly on TV and other media, there’s some of this I recall from my own middle school and high school days. Bullying and cruelty and such does occur to some degree. So I, like many others, ask myself “Why?”

It’s about right then, the “youth rights side” of my brain gets militant. Why am I asking why? Plenty of adults are bullies as well. You just don’t hear about it as much, that side of my brain says. At the same time, “you don’t hear about it as much”, while often a good point, isn’t a very good leg to stand on. I sure as hell would never say “because teenagers are inherently violent and stupid” like a lot of folks unthinkingly say directly or indirectly. And I don’t think for a second age is a factor in the behaviors themselves. But let’s say just for the sake of argument that this show and others that say similar stuff are about accurate in their portrayal of this stereotypical bullying predator and his/her battered and increasingly insane victims.
(more…)

Comments(0)

I can think of a wide array of tasks that NYRA members can do in their spare time. Whether you spend 30 minutes a week or well over 30 hours a week, your time would greatly benefit NYRA.

Instead of watching a television show or playing your favorite video game on one night of the week, you can help NYRA. If you think you cannot help NYRA, then think again!

We currently are needing volunteer support in all of areas of the organization. If you are interested in working with people, then perhaps a job as a Regional Chapter Formation Captain would interest you. The captains work regionally with people who are interested in forming chapters of NYRA. The work is not that hard, and all you need to do is to help as much as you can so they can get their chapter formed. If you are interested, fill out an application and contact Adam King. There are currently three regions in need of chapter formation support.

If you would prefer to work behind the scenes, then you could design and develop parts of our website and forums. There is always something that could be enhanced or updated on our site, and new chapters will be needing websites to promote their chapter. If you are interested, fill out an application.

In addition to all of this, there is even more that you can do to help!

For example, you could help update and embellish the content on the Youth Rights Network.

If none of this is your cup of tea, you can start a chapter of your own in your area, join a local chapter, write brochures, write blog entries, or even donate money to NYRA.

If you have done all of this and still want more, or if you are interested in doing something else, contact NYRA.

There is also a thread on the forums that can keep you updated of opened volunteer staff positions within NYRA. Go here to view this thread.

Instead of complaining about NYRA not doing enough, help out!

Comments(1)

I totally agree with with Matt:

Surely nobody wants to take anything away from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s impressive achievements. Nevertheless, I always feel that the cult of King serves in an unfortunate way to obscure the fact that the Civil Rights movement wasn’t something one dude dreamed up in mid-1950s Alabama and achieved over the next ten years. We’re looking at a long, long, long struggle, dating back to the 19th century, involving the work of many, many, many noteworthy figures.

This issue is even more of a problem for those of us in new civil rights movements (*coughyouthrightscough*) when some people think the civil rights movement began with the Montgomery Bus Boycott. This gives people wildly high expectations for a new movement. They think that the youth rights movement can sweep onto the scene and get everything they ask for in 10 years or so. Ya know, how King did it.

Except that’s not how King did it. King came onto the scene more than 50 years after the ball started rolling and built upon past gains. Heck if you really want to make a good comparison you could date the Civil Rights Movement back to the Civil War. While not universally enforced or respected, the 14th & 15th Amendments gave the Civil Rights Movement a significant edge over the Youth Rights Movement. They were protesting for the government to enforce current laws. We have to work to get brand new laws passed, and then enforced. Twice as much work (or 10 times as much work).

But even putting that aside, the premier civil rights organization, the NAACP was founded in 1909, and the movement didn’t even start with them. Booker T. Washington founded the Tuskegee Institute in 1881, maybe you could consider that the beginning. Maybe earlier yet. Martin Luther King built on decades and decades of aggitation for civil rights, lawsuits, and general awareness and organizing in the movement. He helped put the final nail in the coffin of Jim Crow, but it was already on its way out when he arrived on the scene.

A more accurate telling of our history with civil rights in this country would help individuals and onlookers involved in youth rights to learn some patience and understand things as ambitious as what Dr. King, the NAACP and NYRA attempt to accomplish do not happen overnight. Or in 10 years. Or in 50 years. As Matthew said, it takes a long, long, long struggle.

Comments(2)

Here. Read this. It’s an LA Times article.

(And when/if that link goes bad, I’ve mirrored it here.)

Should I bother saying that Mike Males kicks all kinds of ass, or is that a given?:cute:

I’d so love to get a hold of one of his or other pro-youth books out there. I could use the youth rights ammo! I could use the caulk to patch holes in my arguments.

But, well, getting back to the matter at hand, let’s have a look at the aforementioned article.

You know, that article was really making me dislike people in their 40s and 50s! Yes, I realize that’s exactly the kind of age-based generalizations youth rights supporters are trying to eliminate, but really I hear all this stuff about the so-called Baby Boomers and just think “It’s all their fault!” It’s all their fault, but no one gives a shit.

Our society is perpetually fed the notion that young people are the bad guys. Young people are the criminals. Young people are destroying the world. Young people are irresponsible, violent, lazy, and incompetent. Young people think they know everything and are out to destroy themselves and everyone else. Young people are fat and have health problems. Young people this. Young people that. We have to protect them. We have to be tough with them. They’re being led down a moral sewer. We have to hide “bad” things from them. We have to make them remember they are still children.

Enough, I say!:doitnow:
(more…)

Comments(0)

As far as modern day youth rights gospels go, you can’t get much better than Bob Franklin’s introduction to the “Handbook of Children’s Rights” I’ve seen no better succinct and cogent explanation of the assumptions that drive our work, the key logical arguments that support our work, and a complete undressing of those who disagree. Pound for pound its definitely one of the top 18 pages yet written on youth rights. I present to you 5.

Note also that Franklin’s use of the term “children” is a departure from the distinction NYRA typically makes between “children” and “youth”. So for the purposes of this excerpt, just think “youth” so you don’t read this with images of toddlers in your mind. He also uses “libertarian” only in a social context, so it’d be more like “civil libertarian”, as economics don’t seem to factor into his use of the term at all.

Anyways, this excerpt is outstanding, enjoy:

Children in all societies are denied the right to make decisions about their affairs which as adults we take for granted. This denial of rights occurs both in the public realm of children’s involvement in education and the care arrangements of the state and the private realm of the family. Children’s lack of decision-making rights includes relatively unimportant matters such as decisions about which clothes to wear or what time to go to bed, to more significant concerns about the right to help structure the educational curriculum at school and the right to vote. But any society wishing to deny children, or any other group, rights which are common property of other groups, should be able to offer clear and sustainable reasons for doing so. The burden of proof always rests with those who wish to exclude others from participation; children should not be obliged to argue their case for possessing the same rights as everyone else.

The argument for denying participation rights to children has two interrelated strands. First, it is alleged that children are not rational or capable of making reasoned and informed decisions. Rights to autonomy in decision-making grow with majority. Locked stated the matter unequivocally. ‘We are born free as we are born rational he claimed, ‘not that we have actually the exercise of either; age that brings one brings with it the other too’

Second, children lack the wisdom born of experience and consequently they are prone to make mistakes. By denying them the right to participate and make decisions for themselves, society is attempting nothing more heinous than protecting children from their own incompetence. These two strands were cogently interwoven into a classic statement and defense of paternalism by the Master of the Rolles in Re S [1993], where he claimed ‘…a child is, after all, a child.’:

The reason why the law is particularly solicitous in protecting the interests of children is because they are liable to be vulnerable and impressionable, lacking the maturity to weigh the longer term against the shorter, lacking the insight to know how they will react and the imagination to know how others will react in certain situations, lacking the experience to measure the probable against he possible.

Both objections to children’s rights claims can be met either positively or negatively; i.e., by asserting that children do possess the qualities which critics allege that they do not, or by conceding that if children do lack the skills and qualities necessary for participating in decision-making, they lack them in no greater degree than adults who are not, on this ground, disqualified from participation. Libertarians offer a number of arguments.
(more…)

Comments(1)

In the summer of 1863, the Union army began forming all-black regiments to fight in the Civil War. Many black leaders were ecstatic that their people could take a greater role in a war that was being fought in large part for their freedom. They also felt that if they proved themselves worthy in battle, people would be more inclined to respect them and their inalienable rights. Frederick Douglass, who played a key role in recruiting black troops, said that “He who fights the battles of America may claim America as his country – and have that claim respected.”

We would all like to think that Douglass’ statement is true, but those who have fought for this country have often been among its most oppressed inhabitants. Black men fought valiantly in the Civil War, but when it was all over a system of segregation and de facto slavery still existed for decades to come. Black men fought for America in the two World Wars, but it was not until the 1960’s that the country they fought and died for made any serious effort to recognize their rights and respect their sacrifice.

Like the black man, the young man has fought this country’s battles only to face oppression and ridicule when he returns. During the Vietnam War, Americans became aware of this injustice and lowered the voting age to eighteen. But how many soldiers must have died in Iraq and Afghanistan without ever having the opportunity to vote for the people who sent them there? Injustice remains and more must be done. If Americans really “supported the troops,” the voting and drinking ages would be lowered or abolished.

The Minimum Legal Drinking Age, an ineffective and authoritarian piece of federal blackmail, stands as a colossal insult to all young people, but particularly to young people in the Armed Services. It is revolting to think that we are asking people to fight a war, and at the same time we are telling them that they are too stupid and irresponsible to consume a beverage.

Recently, Maine Representative Jim Splaine introduced a bill that will lower the drinking age to eighteen for people in the military. Rep. Splaine, who was once among Maine’s principal proponents of the MLDA, says that while he believes the drinking age should be lowered outright, his bill is aimed at those in the Military because he feels it is particularly unconscionable to criminalize drinking for young people in the Military.

Representative Splaine’s comments could not possibly posses more truth. While Military service should never be a prerequisite for liberty, there is a repulsive irony attached to the notion that we deny rights and liberties to those people who are supposedly making the ultimate sacrifice to defend them.

If we continue to oppress our young people, they will soon wake up and realize what is going on. One day young people will decide that they are not willing to wait. One day the youth of this nation will realize that ageism is a long standing evil, even though it might not personally apply to them much longer. Sooner or later American youth are bound to rise up in far greater numbers than they have in the past and demand that the government honor their birthrights. When that day comes, our soldiers will come to the harsh realization that they are fighting for a country that holds them in contempt and treats them as second class citizens. One wonders what will become of the ageists – the Hamiltons, the Oddos, and the Pirros, when young people stop fighting for the rights of their elders rights and begin fighting for their own.

Comments(5)

The automotive club AAA released the results from a so-called teenage driving study today.

New teenage drivers are more dangerous than previously thought: Nearly two of every three people killed in crashes involving 15- to 17-year-old drivers are people other than the driver, auto club AAA will announce today.

The newspaper USA Today began its article about the study with this paragraph. From the beginning, we must question the validity and authenticity of the study because of the notable bias. The study does not state that the teenaged drivers were at fault in the crashes. The adults could have been at fault, but would the newspapers have reported that? No.

AAA plans to use the findings to push state legislators to enact tougher teen-licensing laws. Thirty-two states restrict whom new teen drivers can transport and when they can drive.

The AAA or the news media has yet to release the factual and unbiased ‘findings’ to the public. A study by the AAA must be seriously questioned in the first place because of a conflict of interest.

“They just lack the experience and the maturity to multitask,” Reeves says of young drivers. “Limiting the number of passengers gives them the ability to concentrate.”

If teenagers are to be restricted from ‘mulitasking’ while driving, so should adult drivers. Teenagers are usually new drivers, and of course they would have more to concentrate on while driving. But why just limit the restriction to teenagers? Why not limit it to all new drivers, including teenagers and adults? Better yet, why don’t we just restrict the ‘amount of multitasking’ for all drivers? By doing so, it would allow all drivers to focus on the road, and shouldn’t they be doing so anyway?

“It’s tempting to be lured by the convenience of having other options for getting kids to and from school and practices, but the risks are just too great,” AAA’s Darbelnet says.

There are many advantages for teenagers to have their own car. Not only can they use it to get to school and practices, but they can also use it for any personal needs they might have to attend to. If the parents of the teenaged driver became impaired in some way, who would be driving the parents around or to the hospital? The teenager.

A lot of studies are biased and always manipulated for the advantage of the people who are doing the study. Teenagers are no different than new drivers. They are inexperienced. There should not be restrictions for teenagers simply because they are teenagers. If there are any restrictions at all, they should be for ALL new drivers. Regardless, the government shouldn’t punish the drivers who consistently do not break the law or drive recklessly.

Comments(1)

Ageism manifests itself in so many ways. Typically at NYRA we chose to focus on the big issues that are enshrined in law and stand as barriers to equal status and civic involvement for youth like the voting age or the drinking age. However it is often the day-to-day elements of our age apartheid system that are the most insulting.

Its the little indignities that build and accumulate to form the frustration young people feel. Like blacks in Montgomery, Alabama being made to sit in the back of the bus was just a small matter. It really didn’t have any wide reaching consequences for blacks like the denial of their voting rights did. However it was a daily reminder that whites were deemed better, superior, more deserving of some honor or privilege. Facing such a social system strips away one’s dignity. It is in this multitude of small ways that youth have their pride and dignity striped away from them by ageism.

This story from the NYRA Forums is one more example of this:

Earlier this morning, I was lap swimming at the YMCA, and this lifeguard came up to me and said:
LIFEGUARD: You’re going to have to stay in the shallow end.
ME: Why? (right eyebrow up)
LIFEGUARD: Because a lady wants to swim in this lane. We can’t allow children to lap swim if the pool is full.
ME: This is a problem.
LIFEGUARD: Well then you’re going to have to get out.

He wasn’t causing a disturbance. He wasn’t screwing around. He was doing laps. Exact same thing the adult wanted to do. Yet because he was young he had to get out to allow the adult to swim instead.

The adult is deemed superior in this society and is given special privileges. Just like whites were before the Civil Rights movement. Blacks had to give up their seats to whites, youth have to give up their pool lanes to adults.

This teen wasn’t just asked to give up the lap he was swimming in, he was asked to give up his dignity. Asked to give up his self-respect and his very humanity. When you have to submit yourself to such a system you lose a bit of yourself. Afflicted with a million pinpricks of ageism, the self-worth and idealism of youth dies a slow death. They grow cynical and weary. And after many years of submitting to an unjust authority, ultimately their young self dies and becomes… an adult. I can think of no worse injustice.

Age apartheid isn’t a system that protects youth, it is a system that protects adults. It enshrines and protects adult privilege, which is its intent and purpose. Indeed it creates adults, the worst kind of them. Bitter, cynical, tired, and selfish. Adults who instead of turning on the corrupt system that broke them down years ago, embrace that system and use it for their own benefit. Adults who think they can make themselves feel better by stripping the dignity away from others. But kicking kids out of the pool isn’t going to bring your youth back; it is just going to destroy someone else’s.

Some have accused the youth rights movement of trying to destroy childhood, and making all kids into adults. Indeed it is quite the opposite. Our current age apartheid system is destroying childhood and kills our youth into a bitter adulthood. We don’t wish to destroy childhood, we wish to destroy adulthood, and in so doing save both youth and adults.

Comments(1)