Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it should be put down to 16. In France parents give some alcohol to their kids when in their teens during meals or social events. And when growing up they are less likely to get drunk. There is a good way to drink and a bad way to drink, it is not about age.
I think it should be put down to 16. In France parents give some alcohol to their kids when in their teens during meals or social events. And when growing up they are less likely to get drunk. There is a good way to drink and a bad way to drink, it is not about age.
Alcohol is not a drug, it's a toxin. There is no good way to drink.
The French drink because it's the only way they can tolerate themselves. Note no smiley face because that comment is not a joke.
Ok. Since we've been debating rought topics like health care reform, abortion, which ideal sucks more, etc - I thought I'd open up a semi-light topic (I hope) about the drinking age.
Right now, the drinking age in America is 21. Now, I know I'm being biased in this manner. But I think that if you're an adult (18) then the responsibility of alcohol should also be bestowed upon you.
Each day, men and women join the armed forces straight out of high school. These men and women have the full on responsibility of being a soldier. However, no matter how rough of a day it is - they can't even take a shot of Wild Turkey to relax their mind.
Myself: I have a full time job. I have a husband and daughter - a family. We have our own apartment that we furnished for ourselves. We pay all of our own bills - without any sort of parental or government assistance. However, my husband could legally have champagne for New Years. Me, I was completely illegal on it.
Making it illegal to drink while under 21 hasn't helped anybody, has it? People will still have a glass of champagne for New Years (myself) and some will still go to parties with friends and drink underage. For some, it's the thrill of doing something illegal that drives them.
Cigarettes are a lot worse for you than a beer. So why, at 18, can you chose to smoke but not drink?
it is a hypocrisy no doubt...better they change the age to go to war to 21...and leave all the rest alone... speaking from experience... Id rather hand my 17 year old anything but the car keys... and lets dont even go to the insurance costs for this age group, war doesnt always mature young kids like theyre saying in this forum, and in a sense, it seems it screws them up more when they got bad memories and get behind the wheel of a car too... and cigarettes should just be banned from the whole human race... yuck...
Everything is poisonous in high enough doses, everything is benign is small enough doses, and some bad things are good for you in small doses.
It's a toxicological fact.
Belief is not fact. According to your statement, lead and mercury are benign at low levels. Because it can be tolerated at certain levels does not make it less toxic nor does it make it beneficial. Alcohol is a toxin, at least to humans, and that is a "toxicological fact" whatever that might be. A fact is a fact and adding the term "toxicological" doesn't add legitimacy to anything that isn't a fact.
While it's true that some beneficial things are indeed toxic at high levels, a blanket statement such as the one you typed is quite simply wrong and therefore not a fact, toxicological or otherwise. This debate is about alcohol, not any other substances.
No I'm not off on some anti-drinking rant. I personally could care less if people want to poison themselves. The world's too crowded anyway. Alcohol is not beneficial to people at any level. The fact that drinking is acceptable in western society does not make alcohol any less toxic either. Quoting a few obscure findings that purport wine is healthy cleverly draw attention away from the fact that any health benefits from drinking wine are attributable to ingredients other than the alcohol. In short, people use such claims as an excuse to drink. Again, I don't care if you want to drink or if you want to convince yourself each sip isn't irreversibly damaging your body but I'm not buying it because the real facts indicate otherwise.
Yes I do drink on occasion but I am completely aware that it's not good. I don't sit here and try to convince myself using faulty logic and unconfirmed and obscure so-called medical studies that I'm actually helping myself.
Belief is not fact. According to your statement, lead and mercury are benign at low levels. Because it can be tolerated at certain levels does not make it less toxic nor does it make it beneficial. Alcohol is a toxin, at least to humans, and that is a "toxicological fact" whatever that might be. A fact is a fact and adding the term "toxicological" doesn't add legitimacy to anything that isn't a fact.
While it's true that some beneficial things are indeed toxic at high levels, a blanket statement such as the one you typed is quite simply wrong and therefore not a fact, toxicological or otherwise. This debate is about alcohol, not any other substances.
No I'm not off on some anti-drinking rant. I personally could care less if people want to poison themselves. The world's too crowded anyway. Alcohol is not beneficial to people at any level. The fact that drinking is acceptable in western society does not make alcohol any less toxic either. Quoting a few obscure findings that purport wine is healthy cleverly draw attention away from the fact that any health benefits from drinking wine are attributable to ingredients other than the alcohol. In short, people use such claims as an excuse to drink. Again, I don't care if you want to drink or if you want to convince yourself each sip isn't irreversibly damaging your body but I'm not buying it because the real facts indicate otherwise.
Yes I do drink on occasion but I am completely aware that it's not good. I don't sit here and try to convince myself using faulty logic and unconfirmed and obscure so-called medical studies that I'm actually helping myself.
I'm not claiming that drinking is good for you. In fact those studies that say moderate amounts of alcohol are good for you are very much flawed. For example people who haven't drank anything in years often not only contain teetotalers, but also former alcoholics and people who cannot drink for medical reasons. So the studies were actually quite flawed to begin with.
What I am saying is that a beer or two every now and then is basically harmless because the levels of alcohol are so low and the intake is so infrequent that the damage it does to the body is basically negligible.
Oh, and "the dose makes the poison" is the most basic principle of toxicology. Look it up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.