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.
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.
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’
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…
I read it was 25. In any case, it sure isn’t 21.
Drinking after 32 yo has a negative impact on the brain too lmao.
But most certainly less than at a young age.
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.
Sexually? Absolutely. Do you stop growing? Of course
But there’s no age of developmental maturity for your brain. It’s a popsci myth
No one’s ever accused me of being mature.
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…
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.
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.
Go learn about harm reduction.
Looks like we both need to learn something…
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.
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.
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: