you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Fun fact! The reason we say brain development stops at 32 is cus the study famous for it stopped at 32 😁

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Brain development never stops

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Your body is in a constant state of change your whole life, but there is still a point where you can call it mature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    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..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    You're saying a different thing than they did. They said a drunk 14-year-old on a bike is in more danger than a 21-year-old in a car, which is correct

    Drunk pedestrians and cyclists statistically are in more danger than drivers, per mile, by a decent margin

    The problem is that doesn't account for externalities, namely the risk of injuring others. A pedestrian or cyclist is unlikely to seriously injure someone else, whereas a driver would

    Edit: This is in the US, other countries will have different resukts due to more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Let me help you out. It was this one:

    A drunk 14 year old on a bike is probably in more danger than a drunk 21 year old in a car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    That statement is technically correct

    Mile per mile, drunk walking and biking is more dangerous than drunk driving for the individual. Obviously why drunk driving is not okay is the danger to others, which is why his wording specifically only mentioned the danger to themselves

    Source

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    You are very bad at communicating. You were correct in your initial comment, but really went off the rails and said many incorrect things afterwards

    Walking and biking is statistically more dangerous, mile per mile, for a drunk person than driving. The caveat is this excludes externalities such as injuring other people

    Had you said that, I think more people would have understood what you meant. As it stands, it sounds like you're advocating for drunk driving

  • source
  • parent