Drinking and Drugs at Private Schools - I need advice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to NCS and most of my classmates did not use drugs. There was the crowd that hung out in the bishops garden smoking pot and senior year some of the "popular" rich kids (the lifer/spring valley/went to dancing school/country club types), but I never saw it.

Maret and GDS and Burke had reputations for being very drug-gy.

I think the more rigorous the better because then you attract more serious kids, whereas the less rigorous schools are more likely to attract more slacker-ish/partying/rich kid types.

She has three boys so commenting on NCS doesn’t seem to be particularly helpful…or correct for the current times. I have an US at the school and drinking is rampant. It’s definitely not a weed school (more of that at GDS, Sidwell, STA) but there is some cocaine use. A few years ago, a middle schooler had to go to rehab…just awful for the family.

I would like to point out that illicit drugs and alcohol may not be your biggest problem…many kids misue prescription drugs, particularly those for ADHD, and especially at rigorous schools. A boy at Sidwell died a few years ago misusing what he thought were clean ADHD meds but had fentanyl.

You are right to be concerned…

My children attend Sidwell, and I have never heard about a fentanyl-related death of a student. Can you post a link to a newspaper article that cites this death? I’m sure this would have made the news.

It happened and please let it go.

Googling gets me nothing, not even a whiff of a Sidwell student dying of anything (except a 5th grader in 2019 in a bombing in Sri Lanka). So either pp has some real close inside knowledge about something that was completely covered up, or this is bs.

You won't find anything online for the same reason why nobody will take your bait. I agree with PP and you should move on - or ask US admin at Sidwell if you are really part of the community. But they aren't likely going to want to talk with you either and it will likely make you look bad; super nosey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, OP is asking which private school in the DC area have more or less drugs. Let's focus on her question.

yes, there are additional ways to handle this, but yes, some schools have more drugs than others. Let's be honest.

I would argue this can vary from one cohort to another. I do not think you can point to a certain school and say it is very bad. It will always be about your own choices in the moment, what situations you expose yourself to, and who your friends are. Much more important is families explicitly discussing - and schools having very strong and explicit drug/alcohol educational programs - not just for the kids at school but also kids and parents. And just because you may have taught something in middle school - it needs to be hammered in again in HS and more than once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They all have a drinking and/or drug culture to some degree—most all privates and public schools. It might be less of an issue at certain area boarding schools, like Episcopal, but I’m not certain. St Anselms Abbey might be another possibility. BASIS in McLean perhaps?

Attending St Albans as a boarding student while coming home on the weekends, or certain weekends, is another possibility.

+1 My child’s single sex boarding school doesn’t have much of a party or drug culture. There is a bit, but the one case I heard of thru the grapevine was promptly kicked out for vaping. There is zero tolerance for this there. I think it is the same at most single sex boarding schools. I think also the more rigorous and smaller school - the less partying. It is much easier to keep track of. My child said administration told the students “we saw drinking on your social media account” (as a warning), so evidently they check that way, too? Plus, my kid and all their friends are scared to mess up their college chances. I vote for St. Anselms or St. Alban’s if they can get in. I feel less sure about Episcopal due to the co-Ed environment. Maybe a parent can weigh in.

Not saying this is school culture in broad terms - but we know of plenty of St Alban's kids that were big into partying - and this includes athletes and very smart kids. The bottom line is you can't pick a school that is going to be better. It will be more about parenting - and then about whatever choices your child makes (which is on them in the end, even if you have been parenting).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I’m not sure this is true. I didn’t drink until I was 21, and by my early 30s I was an alcoholic in the grips of addiction. I am sober now, but if you have this devil in you it can emerge at any age. I was very functional — no one outside my immediate family had any idea how far gone I was.

There is a lot of research on the topic. I’m sorry for your experience, but it doesn’t change the overwhelming data that relates early exposure to alcohol with higher addiction rates.

For example
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/early-drinking-linked-higher-lifetime-alcoholism-risk

I'm not the PP - but my family also has very bad genes in this regard. Yes, of course it is important to wait longer and first use absolutely matters. But it doesn't erase your predisposition completely, so a goal of just waiting it out in HS to drink later in college isn't enough. You need to be clear that they understand it is a very risky passing and something they should be highly aware of. If they want to start drinking in college - they should set very clear boundaries on how they partake. And be very reflective of the effect so they can step back early. There are plenty of people who are alcoholics or addicts that fell into it in college or as part of a work culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to NCS and most of my classmates did not use drugs. There was the crowd that hung out in the bishops garden smoking pot and senior year some of the "popular" rich kids (the lifer/spring valley/went to dancing school/country club types), but I never saw it.

Maret and GDS and Burke had reputations for being very drug-gy.

I think the more rigorous the better because then you attract more serious kids, whereas the less rigorous schools are more likely to attract more slacker-ish/partying/rich kid types.

She has three boys so commenting on NCS doesn’t seem to be particularly helpful…or correct for the current times. I have an US at the school and drinking is rampant. It’s definitely not a weed school (more of that at GDS, Sidwell, STA) but there is some cocaine use. A few years ago, a middle schooler had to go to rehab…just awful for the family.

I would like to point out that illicit drugs and alcohol may not be your biggest problem…many kids misue prescription drugs, particularly those for ADHD, and especially at rigorous schools. A boy at Sidwell died a few years ago misusing what he thought were clean ADHD meds but had fentanyl.

You are right to be concerned…

My children attend Sidwell, and I have never heard about a fentanyl-related death of a student. Can you post a link to a newspaper article that cites this death? I’m sure this would have made the news.

Nothing that goes on at Sidwell makes the news. Not this and not myriad other things that have gone on there over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I and everyone I went to high school with did drugs and drank in high school. My parents had addiction issues. I don’t drink most of the time as an adult. There’s no actual support for your beliefs here. Some possible slight increases in risk aren’t fait accompoli.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to NCS and most of my classmates did not use drugs. There was the crowd that hung out in the bishops garden smoking pot and senior year some of the "popular" rich kids (the lifer/spring valley/went to dancing school/country club types), but I never saw it.

Maret and GDS and Burke had reputations for being very drug-gy.

I think the more rigorous the better because then you attract more serious kids, whereas the less rigorous schools are more likely to attract more slacker-ish/partying/rich kid types.

She has three boys so commenting on NCS doesn’t seem to be particularly helpful…or correct for the current times. I have an US at the school and drinking is rampant. It’s definitely not a weed school (more of that at GDS, Sidwell, STA) but there is some cocaine use. A few years ago, a middle schooler had to go to rehab…just awful for the family.

I would like to point out that illicit drugs and alcohol may not be your biggest problem…many kids misue prescription drugs, particularly those for ADHD, and especially at rigorous schools. A boy at Sidwell died a few years ago misusing what he thought were clean ADHD meds but had fentanyl.

You are right to be concerned…

My children attend Sidwell, and I have never heard about a fentanyl-related death of a student. Can you post a link to a newspaper article that cites this death? I’m sure this would have made the news.

Nothing that goes on at Sidwell makes the news. Not this and not myriad other things that have gone on there over the years.

Someone should tell the parents not to let the skeletons out of the closet on DCUM, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I and everyone I went to high school with did drugs and drank in high school. My parents had addiction issues. I don’t drink most of the time as an adult. There’s no actual support for your beliefs here. Some possible slight increases in risk aren’t fait accompoli.

Children of alcoholics are four times more likely to have alcohol addiction problems themselves. It’s not an unreasonable thing for OP to be aware of and inform their children about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I’m not sure this is true. I didn’t drink until I was 21, and by my early 30s I was an alcoholic in the grips of addiction. I am sober now, but if you have this devil in you it can emerge at any age. I was very functional — no one outside my immediate family had any idea how far gone I was.

There is a lot of research on the topic. I’m sorry for your experience, but it doesn’t change the overwhelming data that relates early exposure to alcohol with higher addiction rates.

For example
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/early-drinking-linked-higher-lifetime-alcoholism-risk

The study you quote says that HALF of all AUD sufferers begin drinking after the age of 16.

The poster I quoted said that if you wait until you are 21 you will not have to worry about alcohol, more or less. That is NOT true. It might be reduced as a risk, but it is still substantial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I and everyone I went to high school with did drugs and drank in high school. My parents had addiction issues. I don’t drink most of the time as an adult. There’s no actual support for your beliefs here. Some possible slight increases in risk aren’t fait accompoli.

Children of alcoholics are four times more likely to have alcohol addiction problems themselves. It’s not an unreasonable thing for OP to be aware of and inform their children about.

DP, no but she makes it sound like, and I quote "it will be perfectly safe" to drink if they wait until they are over 21. That is a far cry from true, and I am in active recovery to prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I and everyone I went to high school with did drugs and drank in high school. My parents had addiction issues. I don’t drink most of the time as an adult. There’s no actual support for your beliefs here. Some possible slight increases in risk aren’t fait accompoli.

Children of alcoholics are four times more likely to have alcohol addiction problems themselves. It’s not an unreasonable thing for OP to be aware of and inform their children about.

DP, no but she makes it sound like, and I quote "it will be perfectly safe" to drink if they wait until they are over 21. That is a far cry from true, and I am in active recovery to prove it.

The post you are referencing/quoting is not OP’s.

[Anonymous]

All the schools have drinking and drugs. The privates and public kids party together. More drinking culture in public from my observation and more drugs in private. Both are heavily into vaping these days, girls do it for weight loss. The eating culture is a whole other problem teens have these days. Some schools in DC (NW) have a huge party scene with parents allowing it in their homes. You can't escape it and hopefully you'll be able to keep an eye on your kids and teach them well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I and everyone I went to high school with did drugs and drank in high school. My parents had addiction issues. I don’t drink most of the time as an adult. There’s no actual support for your beliefs here. Some possible slight increases in risk aren’t fait accompoli.

Children of alcoholics are four times more likely to have alcohol addiction problems themselves. It’s not an unreasonable thing for OP to be aware of and inform their children about.

DP, no but she makes it sound like, and I quote "it will be perfectly safe" to drink if they wait until they are over 21. That is a far cry from true, and I am in active recovery to prove it.

The post you are referencing/quoting is not OP’s.

Correct. It’s a poster giving bad advice I am refuting. That is still relevant and on topic. Regardless of the unclear pronoun reference in my post, the prior post I was responding to was giving the false idea that people who wait until they are 21 are perfectly safe from developing alcoholism. They aren’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I and everyone I went to high school with did drugs and drank in high school. My parents had addiction issues. I don’t drink most of the time as an adult. There’s no actual support for your beliefs here. Some possible slight increases in risk aren’t fait accompoli.

Children of alcoholics are four times more likely to have alcohol addiction problems themselves. It’s not an unreasonable thing for OP to be aware of and inform their children about.

DP, no but she makes it sound like, and I quote "it will be perfectly safe" to drink if they wait until they are over 21. That is a far cry from true, and I am in active recovery to prove it.

The post you are referencing/quoting is not OP’s.

Correct. It’s a poster giving bad advice I am refuting. That is still relevant and on topic. Regardless of the unclear pronoun reference in my post, the prior post I was responding to was giving the false idea that people who wait until they are 21 are perfectly safe from developing alcoholism. They aren’t.

You responded to my post in which I cited the statistic that children of alcoholics are 4 times more likely to have alcohol addiction themselves, and therefore OP’s concern is valid. Which I stated in response to the person saying there was no support to the belief that addiction has a genetic component and that “Some possible slight increases in risk aren’t fait accompoli” [sic].

I have a feeling we’re actually arguing in support of the same point, but the responses have gotten tangled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have boys. We've always been very open and matter-of-fact about this sort of thing. The two biggest drivers of addiction tend to be 1) a genetic susceptibility to substance abuse - meaning check the family tree; and 2) age of first use. But, we also explained that genetics are not destiny. The brain adapts and changes according to its environment. If a 14 year old kid with a family history of alcohol or drug abuse begins to experiment with drinking and vaping and drugs and so on, that child is likely screwed and will face a lifetime of addiction issues. This is because there is so much going on in the adolescent brain that when you introduce drugs and alcohol to kids who already have a genetic predisposition to addiction, it often rewires the brain and derails normal development.

But if that same 14 year old waits until they're over 21, when the brain is more mature, then generally it will be perfectly safe to have an occasional drink or whatever. Particularly if they've grown up in a safe, loving, and supportive environment. Their family tree might be a disaster, but they won't be because they waited until the brain was more fully developed and over the years they've learned to enjoy and deal with life without resorting to substances to mediate how they feel.

Knock on wood. So far, so good. They know what addiction is and how it can destroy lives. They're both in college now and totally normal. Neither ever drank or used drugs or vaped in high school. But in college they seem to be pretty normal. The oldest has an occasional beer. The youngest doesn't like it. Neither do any drugs. They're both gym rats and runners and extremely fit. Neither has displayed any proclivity towards substance abuse. And I think that's entirely because we really explained how vulnerable they were to addiction given the family tree. And we drilled that early - like beginning of middle school. There's no avoiding drugs or alcohol in any high school. All you can give them is the information they need to make their own decisions.

I and everyone I went to high school with did drugs and drank in high school. My parents had addiction issues. I don’t drink most of the time as an adult. There’s no actual support for your beliefs here. Some possible slight increases in risk aren’t fait accompoli.

Children of alcoholics are four times more likely to have alcohol addiction problems themselves. It’s not an unreasonable thing for OP to be aware of and inform their children about.

DP, no but she makes it sound like, and I quote "it will be perfectly safe" to drink if they wait until they are over 21. That is a far cry from true, and I am in active recovery to prove it.

The post you are referencing/quoting is not OP’s.

Correct. It’s a poster giving bad advice I am refuting. That is still relevant and on topic. Regardless of the unclear pronoun reference in my post, the prior post I was responding to was giving the false idea that people who wait until they are 21 are perfectly safe from developing alcoholism. They aren’t.

I'm not sure why people are jumping on you. Regardless of which post you replied to (I'm not even going to track it down) - I agree with the point you are making. There is someone earlier in the thread who correctly states (a) alcoholism is genetic and (b) that there is a higher risk of having substance abuse issues if you start taking drugs or drinking at a younger age, so they are encouraging their kids to wait until their 21. But while these (a) and (b) are true as separate statements - it is ALSO important that you teach your kids the SAME lessons on careful/smart choices, on risk, on moderation and on the bad bad luck of genetics so that they can apply them as adults. Just having your kid sit out the HS (or even college) party scene is not going to protect them from becoming an alcoholic or drug addict. Those genes are still there at 21 or at 30 or whenever. They suck.

I think the person who stated these things has absolutely good intentions - but what this PP (that people are oddly jumping on) and I are saying - is you have to do MORE than just tell them to abstain until 21. Tell them to wade very very carefully into that realm, whenever it is you do it (or stay out of it forever)