Also

In your post about linguistics proving the Subcontinental origin of Rroma I out-nurtured you by arguing sometimes social science gets it wrong, as for instance with the Jews.

On the other hand, here it is possible to out-nature you.

And yet strangely, those cultures which presume, and facilitate reasonable underage drinking don't seem to have the levels of teen-deaths related to drunken-driving and binge-drinking.

But hey, the same folks also tend to not promote an "abstinence-only" view of teen sex, and tend towards fewer teen STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

In the USA, Jews and Italians are the two self-identified ethnic groups which most tolerate social drinking and particularly underage drinking in family settings. In both cases this is because they just haven't lost their original European attitudes to alcohol, unlike most other ethnicities, and this, also, possibly ties in with neither being Protestant. In both cases they stand out as comparatively free of the "teenage binge drinking" behavior that other ethnic groups (and the non-group of "undifferentiated Whites") do have.

But although you can easily contrast culture with Italians and Jews at the "moderate" end, it's not so easy with the "extreme" end.

Both Irish and Native Americans have unusually high rates of binge drinking and alcoholism. Both have a culture of disapproving drunkenness, to be sure, and yet they score even worse than the abstinence cultures from Protestant origin. Essentially, they believe they are wrong to drink themselves drunk, and flaunt it anyway, even more than Protestants do. This is significant because Catholicism certainly doesn't forbid drinking but immoderacy (again, see: Italians. And for that matter French Canadians.), while some Protestant denominations, and certainly all the ones thanks to which there are any type of dry laws, forbid ALL drinking. So why can't the Irish be more like the fellow-Catholic Italians?

Enter nature. Ireland was genetically relatively isolated from the Continent, and even from southern Britain, for thousands of years. The whole Americas, of course, were relatively genetically isolated from anywhere else for even more thousands of years. And Australia was even more isolated, in distance and time, than both. It appears to be that this has made each population have different alcohol resistance. Alcohol was first developed during very early agriculture, most probably in Egypt (as Bheer). Early writing all over the early civilizations prove they all knew Bheer and Whine. (Of course, linguistics also gives us the common Indo-European root for the word "wine", attested, afaik, since Mycenaean Greek.) So the core European, Asian and African cultures were drinking for many generations. They had time to select themselves to not be binge drinkers and alcoholics. Then they culturally absorbed first Ireland, then the Americas, and then Australia. Their inhabitants, each more isolated than the former, were no match for the alcohol of the core regions; even less so for distilled Shpirits like rum and whiskey rather than beer and wine. And this is how they are unusually prone to binge drinking and to alcoholism.

Makes for interesting speculation what would happen or have happened, had Muslims or dry Protestants founded a population and then went isolated for hundreds to thousands of years of the core civilizations. Of course, that didn't happen. Dry Protestants have always lived closed to wet Protestants, at least, and Muslims are in the middle of all the other civilizations. Would they have de-evolved alcohol metabolism and become like the isolated Irish, Amerindians and Australians?