I am a child of the "Just Say No" generation. My junior high school had a "No Team," and I was an officer. We took a pledge to not drink alcohol, use drugs or have sex. At the first "No Team" meeting, a heated debate ensued as we discussed whom to select as our honorary chairman. The two top contenders were Mr. T and Nancy Reagan. I rallied for Mrs. Reagan. In my junior-high earnestness, I tried to convince my fellow "No Teamers" that Mrs. Reagan would give our group integrity and a dash of panache. After much debate, Mr. T was selected. Over 20 years later, I still think Mrs. Reagan should have won.

I thought about the "No Team" when I sat down to talk with Stanton Peele. He is the author of "Addiction-Proof Your Child." A psychologist, Peele argues that the American "Just Say No" culture surrounding teen drinking actually encourages kids to binge drink. He says parents should let their kids drink at home, but in moderation. When Peele’s children were in their early teens, he allowed them to have a sip of wine or beer. By the time his children were in high school, they were allowed to have a glass of wine or beer with dinner.

Critics say that Peele is flat wrong and that teens are not psychologically or physically mature enough to drink, period. The response to Peele's story (Full Story) has been passionate and provocative. Many CNN.com readers have weighed in. Says Don, "This is as stupid as 'safe' sex. The smart answer is abstinence." Another reader, Andrew, says, "One simply needs to look at the numbers between Canada and the U.S. ... It's "madd" (pun intended) to have a forbidden fruit attitude. If the U.S. finally got out of the dark ages on the issue, we wouldn't have nearly the problem."

We want to know what you think. Should the U.S. lower the drinking age? Do you think kids drink more now than they did in previous generations? Also, what about "social hosting"? Do you think it is safer to have kids drink at home? If you are a parent, would you ever allow your child to have a party in your home that involves alcohol? You can hear more from Peele and his critics tonight on "Out in the Open" tonight at 8 ET.

When you think of high school sports concussions, whom do you envision getting banged up? Usually it's a strapping young football player - a male - isn't it?

But in sports that both girls and boys play such as basketball and soccer, girls are more likely to suffer these dangerous brain injuries - more than 1 1/2 times in basketball and almost three times more likely in soccer. That's according to a new study published in the Journal of Athletic Training, which looked at high school students at more than 100 schools nationwide. And, girls take much longer to recover and get back on the field than boys do.

What I find even more intriguing are the possible explanations behind the surprising stats. On one hand, researchers point to biophysical phenomena - for instance, the fact that boys have stronger neck muscles and larger heads than girls, so they can tolerate stronger blows.

But there is also a sociocultural explanation: The suspicion that girls tend to report their concussion symptoms more than boys, and boys hold back when they may be feeling a bit dizzy or nauseated because they want to be tough and keep playing, despite the potential long-term dangers of getting hit again too soon. (By the way, those possible dangers are no joke: repeated concussions can lead to long-term loss of cognitive function and memory loss.) And as far as returning to the field - coaches, athletic trainers and parents tend to be more cautious about letting girls back on to the court or field, more so than with their male counterparts.

So what do you think? Does it seem more plausible that girls are more protected (by themselves and others), and that boys are allowed to be more aggressive and less cautious about these injuries? Or do you think it's just a physical thing? Or both? Or something else altogether?

Most people know intuitively that our psychological well being and physical well being are connected, but it is pretty hard to prove. Sure, depression, anger, hostility, even "Type A" behavior are linked with physical health problems, but no one is exactly sure why. It could be that stress hormones are released in such high concentrations that they negatively impact the heart. It might simply be that people who are susceptible to those behaviors also are more likely to skip doctor's appointments and engage in higher-risk behavior.

Still, a new study in a publication from the Journal of the American Medical Association caught my eye today (Full Story). After studying post menopausal women who had heart attacks or strokes, something interesting emerged as a potential cause. Researchers found that having just one panic attack seemed to increase the risk of future heart attack or stroke by threefold over the next five years (Full Study). That's right, just one panic attack, and it could have a devastating physical consequence down the road.

To be fair, the absolute risk of heart problems or stroke remains low. So a panic attack may increase your risk from 1 to 3 or 4 percent. Still, it really makes you think - if you are having a psychological meltdown, what exactly is it doing to your body?

Sometimes, it is hard to even tell the difference between a panic attack and a heart attack. The symptoms of panic attack might be chest pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, trembling, sweating or a feeling of choking. The signs of a heart attack might be the same, and the only way to tell the difference is to get checked in a hospital. So, how do you avoid a panic attack in the first place? Sometimes it is easier said than done, given that most of us are at risk of having at least one in our lifetime.

Have any of you experienced a panic attack? What do you think the relationship is between the mind and the body?

I've been with women at every stage of breast cancer - from the disbelief at the diagnosis... to sitting with a single mom in the office of a patient navigator amid a sea of insurance claims and bills... to struggling to connect the dots on being out of work, chemo and child care. And I have been with women in end-stage breast cancer who have that "look"- an almost otherworldly mix of resignation, wisdom and fear. All wonder - why me?

Provocative new science adds booze - with an exclamation point- to that list of "what could have gone wrong."

Kaiser Permanente researchers looked at data on more than 70,000 women, and found that if a woman drinks just one or two alcoholic drinks a day, she's increasing her risk of breast cancer by 1o percent. If that consumption increases to three or more drinks a day, the risk shoots up to 30 percent.

It's fair to say not a whole lot of women drink three or more drinks a day. But researchers say that 30 percent increase in the relative risk of breast cancer from heavy drinking might translate into approximately an extra 5 percent of all women developing breast cancer as a result of their drinking.

The American Cancer Society has been telling women for some time now alcohol increases your breast cancer risk. This study really zeroed in, on the drink type. Researchers found it doesn't matter what you're drinking - white wine, red wine, beer, bourbon or another hard liquor-- each can raise your breast cancer risk. That certainly throws a wrench into the idea that red wine can be good for you.

Research has shown red wine does have protective benefits for your heart - but if just a drink or two a day raises your breast cancer risk, should you drink it? Every woman needs to balance her own risk of heart disease and breast cancer, says the American Cancer Society, which recommends that women who choose to drink limit consumption to one drink a day. Of course, there are other lifestyle factors that can reduce your risk, including keeping your weight down and being physically active -- which can reduce your risk of both breast cancer and heart disease.

Women, will this relationship between alcohol and breast cancer influence what, or how much you drink? We'd love to hear from you.