Alcohol a Bigger Threat to U.S. Youth Than Drugs

inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
edited June 2006 in A Moving Train
Go figure...:confused:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060629/hl_hsn/alcoholabiggerthreattousyouththandrugs

Alcohol a Bigger Threat to U.S. Youth Than Drugs

52 minutes ago

THURSDAY, June 29 (HealthDay News) -- Alcohol abuse by minors results in almost 3,200 deaths a year -- four times more than deaths due to all illegal drug use combined, a new study finds.

Underage drinking also costs the United States $62 billion each year, the researchers found.

Despite these numbers, policymakers remain focused on the impact and prevention of drug use in minors, rather than alcohol, the study's authors said. The budget for anti-drug use by America's youth is nearly 25 times that of public funds earmarked for the prevention of alcohol use.

"Alcohol-related traffic crashes, violence, teen pregnancies, STDs, burns, drownings, alcohol poisoning, property damage and other risks take a human and economic toll that's much greater than illegal drugs. Yet, we spend so much more on youth drug abuse," study author Ted Miller, director of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), said in a prepared statement.

Miller's team at the PIRE Public Services Research Institute in Calverton, Md., found that a large number of minors are drinking great quantities of alcohol. In fact, the study showed that underage youth consume at least 16 percent of all alcohol sold in the United States, a number the researchers called conservative.

The costs of underage drinking come from a variety of sources, with expenses linked to traffic accidents alone totaling roughly $13.7 billion per year.

"Drinks in bars, drinks in cars, drinks stolen form Mom's liquor cabinet: The average harm from a kid's illegal drink is $3," said Miller. "That's far more than the 85-cent price tag those drinks carry. It dwarfs the 10 cents in taxes we collect or the 40 cents in profit the alcohol industry reaps," he said.

Miller said poor legal enforcement is a major factor in the underage drinking epidemic, and that stricter regulations and inspections of institutions where alcohol is sold would cut the amount of alcohol getting into minors' hands. Improvements in identification and age-verification, driving curfews, zero-tolerance laws and regulations placing liability on parents who allow underage drinking in their home would also help control the problem, he said.

The study is published in the July issue of Journal of Studies on Alcohol.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    yeah, combine that with tobacco and you wonder what in the hell the government is up too sometimes...

    in 2000

    deaths per year attributable to-

    Tobacco: over 300,000
    Alcohol: 50,000-200,000 (the leading cause of death among 15-24 year olds)
    All illegal drugs combined:3562


    oh well....lets have a war.
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Interesting. Sorta makes sense. If pot was available as easily as alcohol I think the numbers would be the same.

    EDIT: I would like to see the numbers compared to the users.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    I'm not even a little suprised.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Interesting. Sorta makes sense. If pot was available as easily as alcohol I think the numbers would be the same.


    really...? have you ever heard of someone dying from THC poisoning...? how about the commiting of violent acts when stoned...?

    I'm not saying it has never ever happend...but I'd be will to bet the numbers are very very low...
  • Will1659Will1659 Posts: 51
    Interesting. Sorta makes sense. If pot was available as easily as alcohol I think the numbers would be the same.
    I VERY much doubt this. Stoned people don't generally get rowdy, pick fights, break shit, or get so disinhibited they rape someone or have sex they don't want themselves. By the time you're too blazed to drive, you'd probably prefer to just sit on the couch all night or go to sleep anyway. And you would have to smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole to overdose on weed the way countless college kids drink themselves into the hospital. There is just no way marijuana is as harmful to society in general, or probably to the users themselves, as alcohol.
  • InsaneSoupInsaneSoup Posts: 37
    inmytree wrote:
    really...? have you ever heard of someone dying from THC poisoning...? how about the commiting of violent acts when stoned...?

    I'm not saying it has never ever happend...but I'd be will to bet the numbers are very very low...

    No one has ever died from THC poisoning. There is no evidence at all, anywhere to support that. Marijuana itself is non-toxic (sure it can be laced, but I do not think that is the norm-and it wouldn't be the THC that is toxic).

    The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer is a good reference for the history of marijuana.
    4/16/92...8/20/92...6/19/05...6/20/05...9/24/96...10/5/96...6/14/98...9/18/98...9/19/98...9/4/00...5/3/03...7/1/03...7/12/03...5/30/06...cuz everyone seems to be doin' it....please don't jump off any bridges.
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    Interesting. Sorta makes sense. If pot was available as easily as alcohol I think the numbers would be the same.

    bwaahaa NOT!!!!

    If pot makes people smoke harder stuff then yes... but if pot is a gateway drug then isn't alcohol?

    light up and relax...become aware...get drunk....become stupid, dulled out and careless...

    I'll take the law off pot thankyou very much... but that's me at a mature age...not some whacked out teenager looking for a fix.

    I think we need to fix the need to get a fix in the first place. Pot was on this earth long before any law or judge. Who the hell are they to tell me what I can and can't feel or use on this earth. It's just a frickn plant afterall...
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Interesting. Sorta makes sense. If pot was available as easily as alcohol I think the numbers would be the same.
    I don't know about everyone else, but when I was in school I started getting high because it was so much EASIER to get than alcohol. None of my classmates were selling booze out of their lockers, but dozens of them were selling drugs. Alcohol was a pain in the ass, you had to go to a store, get a fake ID or talk somebody's older brother into buying it for you, such a nuisance. Drugs, all you had to do was show up at school.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    So what should we do - ban alcohol again? Surely people aren't pointing to this as a reason to make other drugs legal??!!!

    If so, what's the justification? I mean, you don't point to the number of car accident deaths as a reason to outlaw motorcycle helmets....
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    hippiemom wrote:
    Drugs, all you had to do was show up at school.

    Hey!? you went to the same school as me also? hehe....

    Getting high in class certainly wasn't the coolest for me...luckily it was only my final year that I got so bold to blast the odd "splee" between classes.

    I graduated my final with just with just about a "B" average....but I was a straight A student before. I must say that my graduating year was awesome though...and I had more friends than I could meet and talk to any given day.

    But now if only I could have known then...what I know now....hoooo...boy!

    Weed grows naturally all on it's own....alcohol is far from a natural process. That speaks volumes to me IMO.
  • prohibition.
    that will solve everything, just like it did before.
    An ounce of deception
    Kills a pound of pain
  • CenterCityCenterCity Posts: 193
    the drinking and driving: the worse.

    the drug abuse i've seen has to do more with women and weight issues.

    weed was always the thing to do. not encouraging.
    other kinda rave drugs: never got into.

    unfortunately getting wasted especially for the young is still the cool thing to do. drinking more responsibly has to change though.

    on a side note: i'd always admired that cool uncle and/or aunt in the family....that's like yeah we know you're going to drink anyway....so...here...here's a beer....just promise to be responsible.
    and they were right: i was going to drink anyway....if i'd been more responsible....i could've actually enjoyed drinking more....

    (and as i look out the window) "getting hammered".....as a goal for the night......should've had my priorites in order.

    lol. i remember my first beer. at 18. so it was at a jazz bar: and i was sitting there thinking.....was i going to get drunk right away?.....lol....in hindsight....silly.....right?

    just thinking aloud: i can't think of a worse combo than drugs and alcohol. yikes.
    I need to finish writing.
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    hippiemom wrote:
    I don't know about everyone else, but when I was in school I started getting high because it was so much EASIER to get than alcohol. None of my classmates were selling booze out of their lockers, but dozens of them were selling drugs. Alcohol was a pain in the ass, you had to go to a store, get a fake ID or talk somebody's older brother into buying it for you, such a nuisance. Drugs, all you had to do was show up at school.

    I'm in high school, and though both are easy to get, alcohol is easier. I agree alcohol is more dangerous, BUT I would like to see this number in proportion to the number of users to truly form an opinion.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    I never puked from getting high. Too much? Just grab a little napsie for an hour....then yup...wake up AOK...and mega HUNGRY! That can't be bad can it?

    I've had hangovers that last days though, and I do the stupidest things drunk. Ugh..

    They should make alcohol that only gets you so drunk i.e. not all barfy wasted and "man overboard". That would be smart, but I wonder who would buy it? :rolleyes:
  • CenterCityCenterCity Posts: 193
    yeah I can't complain: weed+conversation=good times.
    I need to finish writing.
  • drew2420drew2420 Posts: 61
    Well lets see, what has alcohol compared to drugs done to my life. Alcohol has caused me to do some really stupid things, DWI, totalled a car, and a couple other legal issues that I would have never done without the influence of alcohol. NOt to mention all the countless times i've drank myself absolutly sick in college with a hangover the entire day and hating life. I've probably wasted at least 5 grand in legal issues with alcohol throughout college. Actually i'm still in college but have finally just decided alcohol is a very dangerous thing and i need to stop. I've recently started smoking Marijuana every now and than and I cant tell you how glad I am for it. I dont get hung over, I dont get sick, I dont do stupid crazy shit, and I dont wake up in jail. personally for me Marijuana is an incredible stress releiver that helps me deal with the struggles of college. It also helps me see things from different perspectives and allows me to open my mind. Sure Marijuana can be abused just like Sex, food, caffeine, and pretty much everything else. The laws on Marijuana are absolutly rediculous. You dont hear about a stoner going home and beating his wife, thats the drunks job. And anyone who says marijuana is the gateway drug needs to stop and think a little harder. Sure some people who try marijuana wanna try other drugs, but most people who use marijuana only use marijuana, people arnt that stupid, they know what drugs do to there body and how addicting some can be. So to blame that on marijuana is rediculous, I've never tried any hard drugs and never will because i know how addicting they are and i'm not gonna do that to myself. The people who do use harder drugs probably were gonna use them anyways. And if you still wanna believe marijuana is a gateway drug, what do you think Alcohol is? I guarantee a lot of peoples first experience with marijuana or other drugs was under the influence of alcohol. It certainly was for me, I was totally against marijuana because of all the lies i was told about it, but I got drunk one night and toked up. I think sometimes we like to forget that Alcohol is also a drug, the true gateway drug. Just my two cents on the subject.

    Drew
  • drew2420drew2420 Posts: 61
    CenterCity wrote:
    yeah I can't complain: weed+conversation=good times.


    Oh yeah definatly I've had some amazing conversations with some people while kicking back and smoking a nice joint.

    Weed+guitar=Amazing
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    This guy has a pair I tell ya... Mark Emery.

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4639.html

    "Revenue Canada received $578,000 in personal income taxes (1999 to 2005) on income that was explicitly from the sale of marijuana seeds, and they ALWAYS were aware of it. It said “Marijuana Seed Vendor” on my tax returns. I explained my entire banking and money systems and always gave income tax all access to my accounts so they could verify everything I said was true. I told them the Money Mart location where I cashed some money orders; my bank accounts were explained so they could track the flow of money. I relayed how expenses and disbursements took place in the incriminating world of seeds. They knew how it all worked because I had nothing to hide. The government of Canada received about $378,000 of this money; the provincial government of British Columbia received about $200,000."

    why American policy sucks ass:

    "I was always raided after appearing in A-list American media. A month after the Wall Street Journal: raided. A month after Rolling Stone: raided. Two months after the CNN Visits Canada’s Prince of Pot special in October 1997: raided. The police took a million dollars in store and business assets in total, but I was not even charged on either occasion, and received small fines from the courts when I was charged on two others. The last fine I got for selling seeds in 1998 was $700 per count; seven counts, $5,000 in total. From a $700 fine for seeds in 1998, to life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty in 2005 ... that’s a fantastic contrast."

    "The Bush White House, the DEA, and US police forces are arresting more Americans for marijuana than ever before, pursuing marijuana people with a frenzy never before seen in history. On October 17, 2005, the FBI revealed 771,608 persons were arrested for marijuana violations in 2004. The total is the highest ever and comprised 44.2 percent of all drug arrests in the United States. Since 1965, 17 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offences, and arrests have skyrocketed in the past 12 years."
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    pretty interesting link on drug prohibition (needs realplayer)

    http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse4290.ram
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    So what should we do - ban alcohol again? Surely people aren't pointing to this as a reason to make other drugs legal??!!!

    If so, what's the justification? I mean, you don't point to the number of car accident deaths as a reason to outlaw motorcycle helmets....

    sure, let's ban alcohol...why not...it's harmful, just like other drugs...

    I would think someone who strongly supports keeping drugs illegal would support such a ban...right...?
  • Heatherj43Heatherj43 Posts: 1,254
    It has long been common knowledge that alcohol is the grandaddy of all drugs. And its not any news that it causes more problems within society that any other drug...and it is a drug, by the way!
    If you take the liquid part out of the chemical makeup, it is ether.
    As a note, prohibition did not start because of the temperance movement. What happened is that there was a war going on and they needed grain for fuel for the war, so they TEMPORARILY banned alcohol for consumption as to save the grain. But even after the war ended, they just stayed with the prohibition because of the temperance movement.
    I personally disagree with the idea that prohibition did not work. It was no different that any illegal drug now, and we don't cave into making those drugs legal because they are being sold, used, manufactured, and crime revolves them. There is no difference. Its the same thing.
    Prohibition worked as well as keeping pot illegal, or any other drug for that matter.
    Save room for dessert!
  • Heatherj43Heatherj43 Posts: 1,254
    inmytree wrote:
    sure, let's ban alcohol...why not...it's harmful, just like other drugs...

    I would think someone who strongly supports keeping drugs illegal would support such a ban...right...?
    Exactly!!! If you can think that other drugs need to stay illegal, then how in the hell can one say alcohol shlould be legal. There is no difference!!!
    Throw in tobacco and its all fucked up.
    Save room for dessert!
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    hippiemom wrote:
    I don't know about everyone else, but when I was in school I started getting high because it was so much EASIER to get than alcohol. None of my classmates were selling booze out of their lockers, but dozens of them were selling drugs. Alcohol was a pain in the ass, you had to go to a store, get a fake ID or talk somebody's older brother into buying it for you, such a nuisance. Drugs, all you had to do was show up at school.

    i had the same experience. so easy to get weed in high school, but alcohol was VERY ahrd to come by.
  • Will1659Will1659 Posts: 51
    Heatherj43 wrote:
    If you take the liquid part out of the chemical makeup, it is ether.
    Not correct. Ethanol is a liquid itself at room temperature, so "taking out the liquid part" doesn't really make sense, and also ethanol is totally different from any of the ethers. However you're completely right about ethanol being a drug though.
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    Heatherj43 wrote:
    It has long been common knowledge that alcohol is the grandaddy of all drugs. And its not any news that it causes more problems within society that any other drug...and it is a drug, by the way!
    If you take the liquid part out of the chemical makeup, it is ether.
    As a note, prohibition did not start because of the temperance movement. What happened is that there was a war going on and they needed grain for fuel for the war, so they TEMPORARILY banned alcohol for consumption as to save the grain. But even after the war ended, they just stayed with the prohibition because of the temperance movement.
    I personally disagree with the idea that prohibition did not work. It was no different that any illegal drug now, and we don't cave into making those drugs legal because they are being sold, used, manufactured, and crime revolves them. There is no difference. Its the same thing.
    Prohibition worked as well as keeping pot illegal, or any other drug for that matter.
    Prohibition was a failed policy then and a failed policy now. After 30+ years and untold billions of dollars, nothing has changed. Drugs are as easily available now as ever, cost is relatively the same and we have over 1 million people locked away.
    Prohibition does nothing but create a black-market and all the issues that come with it.
    If this country were serious about reducing illegal drug use, we would legalize all drugs and use the massive amount of money currently used for interdiction for treatment & education.
  • Heatherj43Heatherj43 Posts: 1,254
    Will1659 wrote:
    Not correct. Ethanol is a liquid itself at room temperature, so "taking out the liquid part" doesn't really make sense, and also ethanol is totally different from any of the ethers. However you're completely right about ethanol being a drug though.
    I tried to search..and I am not a chemist, so I am really unsure what this link even says....I do know that when I was getting my substance abuse license, my text books showed the chemical makeup of both and the only difference was the amount of water. That is why alcohol gives similar effects to ether. We just don't take it in to our bodies the same way and in its pure form.

    http://designer-drugs.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/chemistry/ethyl.ether.html
    Save room for dessert!
  • Heatherj43Heatherj43 Posts: 1,254
    1970RR wrote:
    Prohibition was a failed policy then and a failed policy now. After 30+ years and untold billions of dollars, nothing has changed. Drugs are as easily available now as ever, cost is relatively the same and we have over 1 million people locked away.
    Prohibition does nothing but create a black-market and all the issues that come with it.
    If this country were serious about reducing illegal drug use, we would legalize all drugs and use the massive amount of money currently used for interdiction for treatment & education.
    Kind of my point. The biggest argument, and only argument that prohibition did not work is that all it did was create a black market and crime. How is that so many people are so quick to say prohibtion did not work, but cannot see the exact thing happening with the illicit drugs we have now?
    Absolutely no difference. So, I say, that if we should not go back to prohibition....for it didn't work as so many say, why the double standard. If its okay to keep today's illicit drugs illegal, and some would say it works...then so did prohibition. What is the difference? Is it they just caved in to the public back then and are refusing to now? if so, why? There is no difference. It seems hypocritical and bad policy.

    Alcohol is the grandaddy of them all and create many more problems than most of the illicit drugs of today.
    Its a crock. Prohibition did work back then, had they stuck by it like they now are with illicit drugs. I don't see any difference.
    When I say it worked..it worked by the government's standards of today that is prohbiting illicit drugs now....the gov thinks this works today...so back then was no different and by those standards did work!
    Save room for dessert!
Sign In or Register to comment.