Impacts of Social Drinking

Impacts of Social Drinking Antonio Miguel F. Terrado â€Å"Social Drinking: Bane or Beneficial?† Introduction Alcoholic beverages are found everywhere across the globe from cities to rural areas. Almost everyone has access to alcohol. Alcohol is used in different events. It is used in almost all kinds of celebration including religious practices. It is a part of our society and alcohol drinking has become a long standing tradition of mankind. Ever since the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, and the Americas, alcohol had already existed and it played a major role for the development of these civilizations. Because of the production of alcohol, these civilizations established class differences that would easily identify the elite from the lower class of society (e.g. wine by elites and beer by commoners). The consumption of alcohol played a vital role in religious rituals being performed back then which can be observed up until now. Alcohol was also used in medicinal practices because it is being used as a solvent. Likewise, it also being used as a source of daily nutrition due to the fact that such beverages contains calories. Lastly, alcohol also helped the government in terms of due to the very nature of alcohol and how it affects individuals especially when consumed it large amounts, alcohol needs to be regulated, and the regulation of alcohol became one of the foundations of regulations when it comes to trading. Alcohol also helped governments before because of taxation in alcohol since it is one of the primary commodities in the past (Hames, 2012). There are also some evidences that alcohol predates the ancient civilizations. Alcoholic beverages are said to exist since the Neolithic period or the New Stone age, which is between around 8000 and 3500 B.C. In the Neolithic period, it was discovered that early human settlements started making wine and beer from wild grapes and cereals. The quality of wine and beer being produced improves because it is during this time when our early ancestors discovered agriculture. However, the beer being made during those times were more of a source of nutrition compare to how beer is being used now. There are different kinds of alcohol drinkers which depends on the amount of alcohol they consume. They can be classified into three: those who abstain from drinking alcohol or only drink rarely, those who drink in moderation, and those who drink heavily also called as binge drinkers or individuals who drink alcohol for the sole purpose of getting drunk. There is a clear distinction on how we classify abstinence and heavy drinkers. So, how do we classify if an individual is a moderate drinker? â€Å"No more than one drink per day for women and no more than two drinks per day for men† is the definition of moderation as stated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005). To be clear, note that the definition of moderation is not the average number of drinks consumed on a span of several days. Examples of which counts as one drink are the following: 355mL of regular beer, 148mL of wine or 44mL of 80-proof distilled spirits. Littrell (2014) defined social drinking as â€Å"drinking more than once per month without problem consuming less than four drinks per day†. There is a general notion that alcohol drinking may cause harm to the drinker and his/her surroundings. This is true for heavy drinking because too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis, memory lapses, impulsive behavior, high blood pressure and many more. There is an old Chinese proverb â€Å"Wine does not intoxicate man; man intoxicate themselves†. This proverb says that it is the drinker’s responsibility to regulate his/herself when drinking because of the dangers that alcohol may cause to our surroundings especially people around us. On the other hand, studies have shown that there are positive effects in drinking alcohol especially when consumed in moderation also known as social drinking. Moderate alcohol drinking is said to help make new friends with strangers easier compared to other scenarios; it is also said that it strengthens the relations between friends; and lastly, studies show that there are health benefits when drinking alcohol in moderation contrary to the popular belief. Positive Effects of Moderate Drinking Human beings are generally less welcoming to people they do not know especially if they do not have a common friend. However, it is easier to make new friends with strangers when one experiences drinking with them in public drinking places such as bars, pub, taverns, etc., however one must not forget that to be always careful when going to such places because not all individuals have the same intention of making new friends. However, safety on public drinking places is not a major concern of this paper. We will focus more on the social benefits of moderate alcohol drinking. Social interactions and social bonding is said to be the purpose of drinking alcoholic beverages with peers. Majority of alcohol drinkers are more comfortable with friends and even strangers after drinking alcohol. Given the nature of alcohol, which is a mild depressant drug, the results are to be expected because it affects the central nervous system by slowing down the rate of activities (Aldrige, et al., 2013). In this way alcohol acts as a social lubricant since it lowers the anxiety that an individual is currently experiencing making conversations between two complete strangers easier and less awkward. Sometimes drinking alcohol cannot be avoided when in a particular venue such as parties because it is the thing to do in parties especially house parties and college parties. According to Alters and Schiff (2011), â€Å"Individuals often consume alcohol to ease their social interactions or because it is the thing to do in a particular social setting† (p. 195). Drinking alcohol is a way in making new friends from strangers easier. However, we must remember that we should drink responsibly. Alcohol drinking is not necessarily a requirement in certain social gatherings, but it is presented as an alternative to make conversation easier especially to complete strangers. Friends drinking alcohol together tend to get more bonded after drinking. One hindrance why people are less sociable when they are in their normal state is because of the anxiety that an individual experience when they want to disclose more about his/herself to others. This is commonly seen in males. Under normal circumstances, males do not usually disclose information about themselves to other people but they do so when they are drinking. With this being said, drinking has become a normal bonding activity for males. It is given fact that between close friends more information about has been shared about themselves. Miller, Ingham, Plant, and Miller (1977) as cited in Ruskos-Eswolden Monahan (2009) observed that for moderate drinkers there is a significant increase in the amount of self-disclosure however no such effect was observed for heavy drinkers. This is due to the less anxiety that an individual is experiencing and also drinking small amounts of alcohol gives the feeling of relaxation in contrast to when drinking more wherein the effects alcohol is heavier that it usually results to vomiting and unconsciousness. It has been observed in experiments that if an individual is under the experience of alcohol, he/she tends to be more sociable compared to when he/she is sober. This shows that that alcohol aids social interactions between individuals (Estola, et al., 1988). On a normal basis, people are always careful on what they will say but when alcohol is consumed, this behavior almost always is overridden by the effect of alcohol. If an individual does not filter he/she will say, then more things will be shared to a person or group which may eventually lead to knowing the person more. The main reason for social drinking is because people want to converse to one another without the feeling of awkwardness due to that individuals are more relaxed after drinking alcohol. This is not the same with binge drinking because as previously mentioned, they drink with the intention of getting drunk and thus there is less time for conversations. Also, binge drinking is usually fast paced such that less time is allotted for other activities. Drinking together serves to tie individuals in a special connection. Since the medieval period up until now, drinking together is a significant symbol of acknowledgement of a group to its new members (Peele Grant, 2013). Being invited to a drink by a particular group means that that group is accepting you as a member of their group and turning down such offer usually viewed negatively. Heath (1995) as cited in Peele and Grant (2013) said that holidays, rites of passage, arrivals and departures and other reasons for celebrations are valid reasons for drinking. In most studies, it has been identified that drinking plays an important part in celebrations. Celebrations have become a part of society due to how it positively affects individuals and as a group, with accompaniment of alcoholic beverages in most instances. With this being said, lacking of any alcoholic beverages during a celebration usually gives off a negative effect to the guest and to the mood of the celebration. Even if alcohol is not necessarily important to be present in celebrations. It is ancient tradition that celebrations and alcohol goes hand in hand. However, one must not view this negatively. Alcohol is always a part of every celebrations from the ancient civilizations like the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. There is a special kind of celebration which almost everyone are familiar with, these are toasts. Toasts are usually accompanied by alcoholic beverages in which a message with positive content are said to an individual, or an event. Alcohol in this sense acts as a positive symbol which has been established since ancient times because on how it affects the individual or the event. Alcohol also has several positive effects to the health of an individual but only three of them will be discussed. Some of the effects of moderate drinking is that lessens the risk of cardiovascular diseases, it also helps reduce the occurrence of gall stones, and it also helps reduce the occurrence of type 2 diabetes. According to Theobald et al. (2000), â€Å"Light-to-moderate drinkers of alcoholic beverages or wine†¦have significantly lower mortality rates [from coronary heart diseases and heart attacks] (20-40%) than nondrinkers or heavier drinkers†. There is an event which is popularly known as the French Paradox. It entails that even though that much of the diet of French people mostly consists of cheese, which is a common source of cholesterol and fats, most Frenchmen are fit, additionally there are relatively few recoded deaths which is caused by cardiovascular diseases. The most probable cause of such event is that wine is a primary commodity in the country and almost all citizens of France drinks it. Kloner and Rezkalla (2007) observed that a substantial amounts of data points out that an increase in High-Density Lipoprotein cholesterol. High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol is a positive effect resulting from drinking alcoholic beverages in moderation. HDL cholesterol is also known as the good cholesterol because of its function that it carries cholesterol away from different body cells, an example of this is the arteries, which is the common target of ‘bad’ cholesterol; because of HDL cholesterol it removes the unwanted cholesterol making the arteries healthy (Khan, 2011). benefits that one may obtain. zed from a significant amount of ns from drinking that he/she should start drinking rance drinksDrinking alcoholic beverages have been found to lessen the risk of having gallstones. Gallstones occurs in the gall bladder or bile duct in which â€Å"stones† are formed (Marks, 2014). There exist a relationship between alcohol intake and hospital admission for gall stone treatment. This relationship is explained in such a way that if the alcohol intake increases then admission reports are reduced. However, note that at high intakes of alcohol, the reduced risk gets minimal and is observed that the increased alcohol intake is â€Å"maximally beneficial if the intake is initially low (less than 30g per day)† (Scragg et al. 1984). However, it is also observed that alcohol abuse is one of the causes of gallstones. We can see that alcoholic beverages has a double-edged effect on the health of humans one which will potentially benefit an individual while, the other may cause a disease which may potentially be fatal if not remedied. With this information, alcohol should be consumed moderately consumed because the effect of alcohol is opposite in terms of consumption. The last health benefit that will be presented is that moderate drinking of alcohol reduces the risk of having type 2 diabetes as observed by some studies by Koppes et al and Watson. Koppes et al. (2005) found that for moderate alcohol consumers there is a 30% reduced risk for having type 2 diabetes, whereas for heavier drinkers who consumes at least 48g/day of alcohol no risk reduction have been observed. Ethanol, which is present in alcoholic beverages, is the main reason in the risk reduction of type 2 diabetes, not the kind of beverage being consumed whether it is wine, beer, or distilled spirits (Watson, 2013). Besides alcohol, an individual must also live an active lifestyle and eat properly to lessen the risk of having gall stones. Eating properly means eating low-fat and low-cholesterol, but eating high fiber and high protein meals (Clin-enguide, 2009 as cited by deWit Kumagai, 2013) It has been observed that the risk of cardiovascular disease, risk of gallstones, and risk of type 2 diabetes all follow a U-shaped graph. This entails that there is high risks that an individual will acquire the diseases given that they are either consuming large amounts of alcohol in a regular basis or they consume alcohol rarely or abstain from drinking such beverage. Conclusion People should not stereotype against alcohol drinkers. There is a reason why alcoholic beverages existed up until now. Alcohol shaped and developed the ancient civilizations and this became foundations to other areas of specialties both in science and governance. Alcohol also plays a significant role in different religions from the ancient Egyptian religions up until modern Catholicism. The original purpose why people drink alcohol is for socialization purposes. Alcohol also helps in socialization because it makes conversations easier because they are feeling more relaxed after drinking with the company of strangers especially with friends compared if both parties are sober. For some, such as males, it is one of the best ways to socialize to one another because men do not socialize with one another on a daily basis more so if they really have nothing to talk about. Alcohol is a part of socialization extending to society itself. Other than the sole purpose of socialization, there are also health benefits in drinking alcoholic beverages. Some of these benefits include reduced risks for having cardiovascular diseases, reduced risk for having gallstones and reduced risk for having type 2 diabetes. However, such benefits are only observable to individuals who consume alcoholic beverage moderately or not abusing it. This aims to encourage heavy drinkers to put an effort to minimize their alcohol consumption because nothing is lost in trying. It is observed that the risk of occurrence for these three diseases follows a U-shaped graph, indicating that non-drinkers have higher risk than moderate drinkers but heavy drinkers have the highest risk. Even with these possible health benefits, one should consider, especially if he/she is a non-drinker to suddenly start drinking just because of the health benefits that drinking alcohol beverages does. One should consider that we, human beings, have different physiological make-up and possibly we have different reactions to different chemicals. It is better to avoid such vices. Moderate drinking is relatively hard to do because it takes determination to control alcohol consumption because alcohol is one of the most abused substances in the world. To be healthy it is not necessary that you must drink alcohol, this paper aims to inform individuals who are already consuming alcohol the possible benefits he/she may attain from doing such activity he/she is already doing. Nothing beats living an active lifestyle, exercising, and eating a proper meal if you want to live a healthy life. Reference List Aldridge, J., et al. (2013). Illegal Leisure. London: Routledge. Alters, S. Schiff, W. (2011). Essential concepts for healthy living. 5th Ed. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett. deWit, S. Kumagai, C. (2013). Medical-surgical nursing: Concepts and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Estola, A., et al. (1988). Blind alleys in social psychology: A search for ways out. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hames, G. (2012). Alcohol in world history. London: Routledge. Khan, M. (2011). Encyclopedia of heart diseases. 2nd Ed. New York: Springer. Kloner, R. A. Rezkalla, S. H. (2007). To Drink or Not to Drink? That is the Question. Circulation, 116(11), 1306-1317. Koppes, L., et al. (2005). Moderate Alcohol Consumption Lowers Risk of Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 28(3), 716-725. Littrell, J. (2014). Understanding and treating alcoholism: Volume 1: An empirically based clinician’s handbook for the treatment of alcoholism. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis Marks, J. W. (2014) Gallstones. Retrieved from http://www.medicinenet.com/gallstones/article.htm. Peele, S., Grant, M. (2013). Alcohol and pleasure: A health perspective. London: Taylor and Francis. Ruskos-Eswolden, D.R. Monahan, J. L. (2009) Communication and social cognition theories and methods. Londonication and social cognition theories and methods1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111on: Roufledge. Scragg, R. K., et al. (1984). Diet, Alcohol, and Relative Weight in Gall Stone Disease: A Case Cont111111111111111111111111111111111111111111rol Study. British Medical Journal, 288(6424), 1113-1119. Theobald, H., et al. (2000). A Moderate Intake of Wine is Associated with Reduced Total Mortality and Reduced Mortality from Cardiovascular Diseases. Journal of studies on alcohol, 61, 652-656. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005). Dietary guidelines for Americans, 6th Ed. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.stes for healthy livinge classify abstinence and heavy drinking. such that bonds between friends are strengthened

An Examination of the History, Development, and Uses of the Beck Depression Inventory

An Examination of the History, Development, and Uses of the Beck Depression Inventory Maya A. Butler Richmont Graduate University Dr. Aaron Beck is a psychiatrist widely known for developing the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); a self-assessment instrument used to assess the severity of depression in adolescents and adults. During his work, Beck highlighted the negative thoughts experienced by his patients, and believed it was these thoughts that caused depression within them.From here, Beck developed a three-part thought process that exhibited how a person’s negative view of the world, their future, and themselves affected their depression level (Brown, Hammond, Craske, & Wickens, 1995). These components were used to construct what we have come to know as the Beck Depression Inventory. Throughout test development of the BDI, three separate instruments were created: the BDI, BDI-IA, and BDI-II.The first BDI was developed in 1961 by Aaron Beck, Clyde Ward, Myer Mendelson, John Mock, and John Erbaugh. It could be administered individually or in a group format, in written or oral form, and the test manual indicated total administration time to be no more than 15 minutes, irrespective of the mode of administration (Carlson, p. 117-118). It consisted of twenty-one questions that measured the patient’s feelings within the past week. Each question had four possible answer choices that ranged in depression intensity.In order to score the test, a value between zero and three was assigned to each answer, added, and compared to a key in order to determine the patient’s depression severity. Scores from the BDI could range from 0 to 63, and higher scores indicated severer depression symptoms. Some of the answer items on the BDI had identical numerical value to them, though the statements were not identical. This led to revision of the BDI and introduction of the BDI-IA (Beck, Steer, and Garbin, 1988). The BDI-IA was developed in 1971 by Beck and copyrig hted in 1978.In order to make the test more user-friendly and efficient in measuring depression, similar answer items with identical scoring on a question were removed, and test subjects were asked to evaluate their feelings for a time frame of two weeks instead of one (Beck, Steel, Ball, and Ranieri, 1996). Using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability, it was determined the BDI-IA reliability was around 0. 85, suggesting that items on the BDI-IA are highly correlated with one another (Ambrosini, Metz, Bianchi, Rabinovich, and Undie, 1991).However, one of the main problems with this instrument was its inability to address all nine criteria for depression in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-III (DSM-III). In response to this, the BDI-II was developed. In 1996, the BDI-II was introduced; mainly due to the release of revised criteria for Major Depressive Disorder in the DSM-IV in 1994. Some of the changes made to the BDI-II were the replacement of items that measured changes in body image, work difficulty, and hypochondria.In addition to this, items that measured sleep loss and appetite loss were changed to examine increases and decreases in both sleep and appetite. The entire question wording was changed on the BDI-II except questions used to measure sexual interest, suicidal thoughts, and questions dealing with feelings of being punished. In addition to this, the measuring scale used to evaluate the total points from the BDI-II was changed. When compared with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Pearson correlation coefficient between this test and the BDI-II was 0. 1, which proves both instruments agree with one another (Beck, Steel, Ball, and Ranieri, 1996). In addition to this, the BDI-II has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0. 92, surpassing its predecessor the BDI. In addition to improving the relation between its instrument items, the BDI-II can be scored and interpreted via computer software. The BDI- II has expanded well beyond its original intended application with psychiatric populations. In addition to its continued use among this population, it is accepted and commonly used by clinicians as a screening instrument among normal populations (Carlson, p. 17). Because it is designed to reflect the depth of depression, it can be used to monitor changes over time, and objectively measure the likelihood of improvement and the effectiveness of treatment methods (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, and Erbaugh, 1961). The facts stand that the BDI-II is a simple measure that encompasses the majority of symptoms associated with depression, is easily and rapidly administered, and can be scored and interpreted via computer software. However, it is only a quality instrument when it is used in samples with cooperative subjects; not exaggerated or minimized by the erson completing the instrument (Waller, p. 121). In cases where a person could be motivated to deceive or malinger, the administrator i s advised to use additional or less transparent means of assessment (Carlson, p. 119). In addition to this, the intent and purpose for using the BDI-II is for assessment and not diagnosis. Improper use of this assessment for diagnosing can create falsely positive or negative results. References Ambrosini PJ, Metz C, Bianchi MD, Rabinovich H, Undie A (January 1991). â€Å"Concurrent validity and psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory in outpatient adolescents†.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 30 (1): 51–7. doi:10. 1097/00004583-199101000-00008. PMID 2005064. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/sites/entrez. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri W (December 1996). â€Å"Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories -IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients†. Journal of Personality Assessment 67 (3): 588–97. doi:10. 1207/s15327752jpa6703_13. PMID 8991972. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/sites/entrez. Beck AT, Steer RA, G arbin MG J (1988). â€Å"Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory Twenty-five years of evaluation†. Clin. Psych. Review 8: 77-100.Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J (June 1961). â€Å"An inventory for measuring depression†. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 4 (6): 561–71. doi:10. 1001/archpsyc. 1961. 01710120031004. PMID 13688369. Brown GP, Hammen CL, Craske MG, Wickens TD (August 1995). â€Å"Dimensions of dysfunctional attitudes as vulnerabilities to depressive symptoms†. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 104 (3): 431–5. doi:10. 1037/0021-843X. 104. 3. 431. PMID 7673566. http://content. apa. org/journals/abn/104/3/431. (2012, 10). Beck Depression Inventory. StudyMode. com. Retrieved 10, 2012, from http://www. studymode. com/essays/Beck-Depression-Inventory-617021. html

Perceptions of health risk and smoking habit in young people

Young people are also more likely to start mocking If their friends or family are smokers. The present study Is a quantitative research with young adult smokers (at the xx Learning Centre) based on focus group discussions where a range of smoking-related topics were covered. 2. Sample The sample in this study included 6 males and 4 females, aged between 13 and 17 years, 7 smokers and 2 non-smokers. Of this group of adolescents only 2 parents are non-smokers.My aim was to maximize variation in our sample to include young men and women, smokers and non-smokers, and different age categories. My discourse analytic perspective here concentrates on talk between speakers and allows me to highlight how meanings around smoking and health are worked up. Debated and disputed in the group. Informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to the Focus group interview (Appendix A and B). The focus group took place in the â€Å"Unanimous† Learning Centre.For anonymity reasons the na me of the participants have been changed. 3. Procedure In this study we used two focus groups of five participants each. Focus groups mimic ‘natural' peer groups, so that the data will likely be authentic, rich and Informative. Focus groups have long been used In social science research, Including psychology (Crossly, 2000; Wilkinson, 2003), and can be particularly useful in identifying both diverse individual accounts and prevailing social factors which influence and constrain actions.In the context of young people and smoking, focus group research allows us to gain access to the multiplicity of perspectives presented and will also illuminate how accounts are constructed and negotiated within peer groups. Participants were given a number of prompts about their views on smoking, such as Please tell me why you believe you started smoking' and ‘Please tell me what role you believe smoking/not smoking plays in your life'. Participants were encouraged to discuss these views among themselves, with minimal input from the facilitator.The discussion, which lasted around forty minute for each group, was recorded and then transcribed verbatim. 4. Analysis Health was generally not cited as a major concern for our young people, and was not participants seemed much more concerned with the financial burden engendered by smoking. When the topic of health risks was brought up, there was a general tendency o downplay or discount these. Moreover, it was claimed that smoking could function effectively as a form of stress relief, even when the stress is engendered by exposure to smoking-related health scares, either in the media or within families.The two discursive patterns are formulated as follows: ‘ Everything is bad for you now: Contesting smoking-related health risks ‘It does make you feel better': Smoking as stress-relief 4. 1 . ‘Everything is bad for you now: Contesting smoking-related health risks Contesting smoking-related health risks ario so strategies were deployed which endured the health risks linked to smoking as exaggerated, a ploy which clearly works to rationalist and uphold current smoking – a way of misusing the self from the specter of illness and mortality.For example, other mundane practices are cited which involve risk, and life itself is presented as saturated with risk: Nicola – Mimi like to think yourself that you're not going to get cancer, I mean, they're saying that cancer is caused by all these different things 0 1 mean who's to say that smoking is definitely the worst one? † In this excerpt there is some recognition of risk but then other organogenesis are alluded to and the dedicated link between smoking and cancer is undermined (Whoso to say? ).Thus, smoking is construed as nothing special, Just one of any number of possible causes of cancer (so many things'), and therefore not worthy of disproportionate attention. E. Generalizes the notion of risk – ‘everything is bad for you now – so that living per SE becomes inured with risk, something that affects ‘everyone'. Note the extreme case formulations which litter this extract: ‘ all these different things'; ‘So, smoking is part of life and is practiced with care. Facilitator: So, are health concerns an issue? Simon: Well, yeah.Not really, I suppose, because sometimes you feel like crap because your lungs are hurting, because you've been caning it all weekend, but you think, well you might give up smoking, give up drinking, give up anything – and then get knocked down by a bus, but 0 if you're going to stop everything that you enjoy, well what's the point of living forever? You know what I mean? Aaron: But don't you, sometimes you Just think Well, what's the point of it? You're Just breathing in horrible smoke into your body Simon: It's like what's the point of drinking? It's fun!The health risks of smoking are conceded, with reference to current, minor symptom s. However, smoking is likened to other pleasurable activities (e. G. ‘drinking') and anything/'everything you enjoy so that living is defined in terms of enjoyment over risk, the emphasis is on fun' and not denying oneself gratification – even if it means a shorter life-span or inhaling ‘horrible smoke'. Bob: A guy, a guy I went to school with was cross country champion for our county, and he used to smoke like twenty a day [laughs] He used to smoke loads of weed and that, and he used to run for ages [laughs] (.You see someone like that, it's Just like, whoa! So, citing cases, where smoking has not impeded sporting performance, undermines claims about the deleterious health consequences of smoking and helps Justify continued smoking. The case of the cross-country champion cited by Bob is also interesting because impressive, and further contesting the connection between smoking and not being healthy. Lucas I knew somebody who used to smoke ten a day when they were about eighty-odd and have a glass of brandy every day 0 and when they got put in a nursing home they took it all off her and within weeks she were dead.Tara: It's like alcoholics, isn't it? If alcoholics stopped drinking they do seem to die. In this extract, the dangers of stopping smoking are emphasizes, thereby inverting the ‘normalizing about taking up or continuing smoking. Facilitator: What are the health worries you might have about smoking? Bob: Cancer David: None, ‘coos I know a guy that lived until he was 23 and Just dropped dead. He didn't smoke and didn't drink. You know, the way I see it, you only live once – you might as well do it, haven't you.Here Bobby's immediate response concerning health fears is not taken up as the others proceed to reject this pre-occupation. David immediately invokes the case of a non-smoker who died suddenly as a means of challenging the link between smoking and ill-health. The randomness of life then becomes a key theme, w hich again works to rationalist current smoking. As one participant put it: ‘it Just shows that you're having a good time, you know, drinking and having a cigarette, and it Just kind of ties in together' (Kate).Here, smoking (and drinking) is inextricably tied to enjoyment, an automatic indicator of ‘good times'. 4. 2. ‘It does make you feel better': Smoking as stress-relief A very predominant theme cross all discussions was the benefits of smoking in terms of stress relief, arising from various sources: Tara: It does make you feel better when you've been sat there and you've Just been in class, and you Just think ‘Oh, I'm going to go for a bag, and you go down and you have it, it does give you some kind of buzz, because it does definitely chill you out a bit, doesn't it.Rachel: It gives me a couple of minutes and just chills me out, like if something that had upset me, like my family, Vie been thrown out of my house and that's the reason why I started smokin g a lot more because of more stress and stuff. I do think that having a cigarette makes me relax a bit. Tara: At the moment I don't want to [stop smoking] because I do see smoking as helping me chill out a bit – I mean, if I didn't I'd be a tiger! Rachel: Vie actually been told by my doctor not to stop smoking – he says its got anger management, it calms me down.Both participants point to the grim consequences of not smoking I. E. Uncontaminated irritability. Earache's claim is warranted with reference to an authoritative source (a medic), which is culturally garnished with expertise. Rachel: Yes, that's the reason I first started smoking again, because I'd stopped smoking for so Eng and my dad gave up smoking, and my dad's been smoking since he was twelve, and he stopped for six month and then he had a heart attack.You would expect that to make me think ‘Right, need to stop smoking, or whatever, but straight away I went ‘Mum, give us a bag, because I hones tly didn't know what to do and I needed something to concentrate on – it gives you something to think about other than what's going on around you. In summary, smoking is popularly constructed as a positive resource in times of stress, whether provoked by , arguments with friends and family, school, and paradoxically , exposure to smoking-related disease within families. 5.Conclusions smokers since, from the focus groups shows that smoking is understood as a rational choice (rather than, say, addiction) conferring benefits (stress relief, enjoyment). This finding is in line with other research on ‘alternative rationalities' (Crossly, 2000) with adult smokers. However we should take in consideration that the qualitative research literature on smoking deploys a range of methods while in this study we analyze the young people smoking practices within a social (focus group) context.Smoking is explicitly linked to pleasure and relaxation (often tied to drinking contexts †“ see also Johnson et al. , 2000). Our participants also link other lifestyle practices to risk and they see life itself as a risk where preoccupation with smoking-related or any other problems is deemed excessive and paralyzing. To some extent, it is fair to say that our sample construed risky smoking as necessary to cope with their family/friends/ environment pressure. Overall our analysis points to the various ways in which the young smokers skillfully deflect the concerns of a health-conscious culture.It gaslights how, in a period of increasing pressure on smokers to quit, the young people in our focus group have created a series of complex and creative accounts to defend and preserve what is clearly perceived as an important social practice. Surely our young smokers are expressing ‘unrealistic optimism' (Weinstein, 1984), that is ‘inaccurate' perceptions of risk and susceptibility in relation to smoking and illness. For example some participants claimed that major health problems have not yet appeared (e. G. Current health is emphasizes) and that illness can be avoided by individual action (I. E. Tinting smoking in the near future). By contrast, psychosocial research, which conceptualizes smokers' talk, helps us to appreciate how smoking is rationalized within relevant social groups (in this case young adults in educational settings), as well as highlighting the creativity and sophistication of lay accounts. In turn, attention to the grounded discourse of smokers may well help inform more effective health promotion interventions (Crossly, 2000). To build on the current analysis, future work could include ‘street' interviews with young smokers in the public places where smoking is popularly practiced (e. Designated smoking areas at university, in pubs). This ‘live' context might prove especially illuminating in terms of the discourses reproduced with respect to how smoking is defended while people are engaged in the act of smoking . As well, it would be informative to examine patterns of naturally occurring conversation between young adult smokers where they gather. Such research would complement our focus group study by determining when and how health is introduced as a concern by younger people themselves and examining how such concerns are negotiated.

Invention and History of the Colt Revolver

The U.S. inventor and industrialist Samuel Colt (1814–1862) is generally credited with the invention of the first revolver, a firearm named after its inventor Colt, and after its revolving cylinder revolver. On Feb. 25, 1836, Colt was granted a U.S. patent for the Colt revolver, which was equipped with a revolving cylinder containing five or six bullets and an innovative cocking device. The Colt was not the first revolver, but it was the first cartridge revolver to be officially adopted by the U.S. Army, and it kept its monopoly until the single action system was superseded. The Percussion Cap The rifle was the first firearm adopted into the American military during the Revolutionary War, thought to have been invented in the 15th century by Gaspard ZÃ ¶llner or Zeller of Nuremberg, Germany. It was Zollner who first cut spiral grooves in the barrels of guns. The rifle was perfected by unnamed Pennsylvanian gunsmiths, who incorporated several modifications based on the suggestions of the pioneers. The hand-held revolver could not have been developed until a stable firing mechanism had been invented, a process which was developed for the rifle first. Early rifles were made as needed by frontiersmen. The rifles were fired using a match lock, in which a lighted match—or a fairly clumsy set of mechanics involving a burning fuse—was applied to a small pan of explosive powder. A wheel lock rotated a flint to strike steel and create sparks to light the powder. A flint lock—a three-part mechanism which included a hammer holding the flint, a frizzen or steel, and the pan of powder—was the next development. These essential details of the American rifle were perfected before 1740, and as colonial expansion headed westward, the rifle makers moved with them. About 1820, the percussion-cap—an open-ended cylinder of copper or brass holding a small amount of explosive material that is ignited by a hammer released by the trigger—was invented, a technology that made the frontier rifle makers obsolete. Colt and His Revolver The earliest flintlock hand-held pistols which were in use by when Samuel Colt became interested had one or two barrels. Elisha Collier (1788–1856) invented a self-priming revolver in 1818, and Colt always credited Cook as a precursor. Colts early life included a variety of jobs, one of which was as a sailor, and on a voyage to Calcutta, he invented a hand-held firearm which featured a six-chambered revolving barrel loaded with percussion caps. He improved his original form with a rotating breech. When he returned from his voyage in 1832, he began building guns using gunsmiths and continued to refine the technology. In 1836, with a patent in hand protecting his monopoly until 1857, he began manufacturing under the name of the Patent Arms Manufacturing Company, with foundries in Hartford, Connecticut and London, England. Smith and Wesson Colt was a bit of a patent troll to an extent, and he sued or harassed scores of imitators who copied his work. That didnt stop various gun makers from further inventions. U.S. gun makers Horace Smith (1808–1893) and Daniel Wesson (1825–1906) formed their second partnership (as Smith and Wesson) in 1856 to develop and manufacture a revolver chambered for self-contained metallic cartridges. During this development period, while researching existing patents, they discovered that Rollin White (1817–1892), a gunsmith associated with Colt, had patented a bored -through cylinder for a paper cartridge in 1855. White had brought his idea to Colt who dismissed the idea out of hand. But a licensing agreement was arranged between Smith and Wesson and White. Whites patent covered a revolver cylinder bored end to end, a highly popular improvement that was not added to Colts revolvers, which used cap-and-ball technology, until the Smith Wesson patent expired around 1869. Other gun makers were not so particular, and Smith Wesson found themselves also in an endless round of litigation surrounding copyright infringement. Eventually, several US makers were required to mark Made for SW or words to that effect on their revolvers. Sources and Further Reading Depew, Chauncey Mitchell. Firearms. One Hundred Years of American Commerce. Ed. Depew, Chauncey Mitchell. New York: D. O. Haynes, 1895. 665.Parsons, John E. The Peacemaker and Its Rivals: An Account of the Single Action Colt. New York: Skyhorse Publications, 2014.Kendall, Arthur Isaac. Rifle Making in the Great Smokies. The Regional Review 6.12 (1941).