Agreed, getting the 11 year old properly pissed up before turning them out on the street corner to perform sexual tricks for the passing trade is a bad idea. But apparently introducing them to booze gradually through their teens is also very bad indeed. M\’Kay?
Researchers at Yale University said that the younger people have their first drink, the more likely they are to suffer alcohol-related problems in sixth form and at university, and be more prone to drug abuse, liver damage and problematic brain development.
The report belies the belief of many parents who think that giving their children watered-down wine from an early age, or allow them to drink in their mid-teens whilst being supervised, will teach them the dangers of drinking and encourage them to behave more responsibly with alcohol when they grow up.
1) Boozing is hereditary.
Susceptibility to problems with booze is something we know is at least partially genetically based.
2) Boozing is hereditary.
Boozing is culturally inherited at least in part.
3) There\’s a very easy way to check these claims about teenage introduction to alcohol. Compare the figures from a country where this is regularly done (France say, Italy) to one where it is not (the US say, Iran possibly).
Finally, we\’re not really interested in whether people have problems with booze at university (especially in the absurd US where 21 is the legal drinking age). That\’s what university is for in part, a time when you can go and do the boozing thing.
What we\’d actually like to know is which method gives the fewest problems as compared to the greatest joy (is, the balance of costs and benefits) over a lifetime.
At which point it becomes rather easier: better England drunk and free than ruled by puritans.