Let's Talk About Consent

Or, "Amanda Marcotte Was Right All Along"

You really might wanna sit down when reading this article, as it is clearly NOT for the faint of heart!  It comes with a five-alarm trigger warning about discussion of the topics of rape, sexual assault, alcohol, and the biggest "third rail" of them all that divides the left, the right, the centrists, and even the youth-rights movement (i.e. age of consent).  And to be blunt, it also contains relatively frank use of profanity and sexual language as well.

Otherwise, enjoy the most controversial article yet, from a blog that is clearly no stranger to controversy!  Please note that the opinions expressed here are NOT necessarily shared by all members and associates of Twenty-One Debunked.

PART I:  AGE OF CONSENT 

First, the biggest "third rail" of them all will be explored.  In previous posts from several years ago, Twenty-One Debunked has essentially trolled the ageists/adultists with this issue by suggesting the age of consent (for sexual activity) be raised to 21 (or even 25), albeit with a close-in-age exemption, to bluntly and provocatively illustrate their utter pharisaical hypocrisy of them treating young adults over 18 as second-class citizens but still defending the right of older adults to fuck them (and even literal minors under 18 in many states as well).  But we have still not actually taken an official position on what the age of consent should be.  Our original "modest proposal" was meant to be provocative, and it clearly produced much more heat than light in regards to serious debate.  Natch.

I myself am a moderate, lifelong youth-rights activist with absolutely no personal dog in this particular fight at all whatsoever.  And I cannot speak for other youth-rights activists either.  Furthermore, as a middle-aged man now (wow, how time has really flown since I got started the 2000s!), I have long thought that it is probably best for me to sit this debate out overall.

But now that this topic has entered the spotlight in recent years, it is probably best to seriously discuss it now, without trolling or stonewalling about it.

First, all ethical questions aside, I will note that raising the legal age of consent any higher than 18 would likely do more harm than good overall, and would further infantilize young adults and thus seriously monkey-wrench any efforts to fully recognize 18-24 year olds as the adults that they are in terms of civil rights.  Once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.  Thus, Twenty-One Debunked will officially NOT support any attempt to raise it higher than 18.  At the same time, though, we do NOT encourage older adults to pursue "barely legal" young adults either, so don't even think about putting such words in our mouths!

OK, but what about setting it lower than 18, like most states already do to some extent?  Here is where that "third rail" really begins to shock hard, and for good reason as well.  Thanks to the system of adulto-patriarchy, the power imbalance issue is very strong and cannot simply be denied or wished away.  And of course, for much younger kids, the issue of mental and developmental capacity also becomes very salient as well, no doubt.  But even for 16-17 year olds, the power imbalance is still all too real when dealing with much older partners.  It also doesn't help that we still very much live in a sexually schizophrenic society to this day as well!

Thus, for the time being, Twenty-One Debunked would support Amanda Marcotte's position to set a uniform, standardized federal age of consent at 18, with one very simple exemption:  a three-year close-in-age exemption. (And also apply this very same exemption to "sexting" as well.)  This was, of course, written nearly a decade ago in 2017, before this whole age-gap discourse completely jumped the proverbial shark and went off the rails.  And people still had at least some semblance of nuance and common sense as well!  While not perfect, and literally any age limit is arbitrary, this idea seems to be the least-worst possible way to do it at this time, all things considered.  And crucially, it will NOT punish the very same young people whom it is supposed to protect either.  This is unlike many states in the current crazy patchwork quilt of state laws that do NOT have a close-in-age exemption.  If there was anything about the bizarre status quo that is most relevant to youth rights, this exemption (or lack thereof) would have to be it, and nearly all of the collateral problems with age of consent laws would be solved by doing so.

Now, Marcotte is silent on exactly how far down in age this three-year close-in-age exemption should reach.  But we think that it should best cover the entire range of the teen years, perhaps narrowed a bit more near the bottom of that range, and reach to or below the minimum "age of criminal responsibility" to be prosecuted for breaching it.  Thus, there should be NO situations where the victim and perpetrator can be the same person, and NO situations where both people are guilty of "mutual crimes" against each other (a truly bizarre state of affairs if there ever was one!).  Additionally, when both people are currently college students (as some students are still under 18, often just weeks away from their birthday), the exemption should probably be broadened to four years to avoid any further unintended consequences IMHO.

Marcotte also said "In addition, all 50 states should have an all-out ban on marriage under 18, without exceptions. Hell, make it 21. No one should get married who isn’t old enough to drink at their own wedding".  Twenty-One Debunked agrees with this as well, except that there is more than one way to skin that last particular you-know-what:  lower the damn drinking age to 18!  Problem solved.

In the fullness of time, this highly complex issue can perhaps be revisited once all youth are fully liberated from adulto-patriarchy, AND we also evolve into a sexually healthier society.  But that is not the society we live in now, unfortunately.  And in any case, the Overton window will not allow it.

(As for those on the fringes who don't believe in any sort of boundaries whatsoever, because reasons, well, they can go FOUCAULT themselves!)

PART II:  AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT LAWS 

It has been over a decade since the idea of "affirmative consent" or "(Only) Yes Means Yes" laws have first entered into the general mainstream circa 2014.  Several countries have passed such laws, and while no states in the USA have passed such criminal laws statewide, a few (starting with California and then New York) have passed them for college campuses.  Amanda Marcotte has also been a vocal advocate of such laws.  And while naysayers about, we at Twenty-One Debunked agrees with Marcotte in that, while such laws are imperfect, they are essentially the least-worst possible way to legally deal with the ubiquitous pandemic of rape and sexual assault plaguing our nation and world at large.

Affirmative consent thus closes a major loophole inherent in both the traditional consent standard and force standards:  the absence of "no" does NOT equal "yes".  Silence is NOT consent, neither is inaction.  That is very important due to the fact that "fight or flight" are not the only possible responses of victims, but they can also very commonly "freeze, fawn, or flop" as well.  "Freeze" and "flop" are both easily covered by this standard, and while "fawning" (aka people-pleasing) is very difficult for any standard to cover completely, much less prove, it can at least cover this one partially as well.  And the onus of making sure one has consent for a given act would fall on the initiator, rather than on the other person to give or not give consent.

Or as Ezra Klein calls it, it's the "You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure" law.

Amnesty International also supports such a standard as well.

To illustrate the difference types of legal standards regarding sexual assault:

Force standard (archaic): "No Means Yes"

Consent standard (current): "No Means No"

Affirmative consent standard (emerging): "Yes Means Yes"

Utopian standard: "Yes Means No"

The third item on the list, the affirmative consent standard, is the one that we support. It has been in place in Canada since 1983, for example, and an increasing number of countries are catching on in recent years. The archaic force standard is problematic for obvious reasons, while "No Means No" is necessary and important but NOT sufficient. The essential difference between the "No Means No" and "(Only) Yes Means Yes" is that in the former, the default answer is "yes", and in the latter, the default answer is "no". That's it. And the "utopian" standard is, to put it mildly, a logistical nightmare at best and a dystopian kettle of fish at worst, not to mention infantilizing and agency-denying to women. We would never support that.

(And bonus points for anyone who recognizes the Horseshoe Theory inherent in the utopian standard.)

We believe that affirmative consent laws, properly written, should be the standard in all 50 states, both in criminal law as well as otherwise.  It is the least-worst legal standard that could ever possibly exist, and protects both women AND men alike.  And in contrast we do NOT in any way, shape, or form support Catharine MacKinnon's questionably utopian idea of jettisoning the concept of consent altogether, which will ultimately lead to dystopia.

(There is also apparently such a thing as a "desire" standard as well, but desire is itself too slippery and fickle to codify into law for practical purposes, and ultimately leads to the same utopian-dystopian place as MacKinnon, in case you were wondering.)

But all that said, ultimately, rape and sexual assault are always and everywhere a cultural problem.  We need to change the culture to reflect enthusiastic consent as the standard:  "if it's not a HELL YEAH!, it's a HELL NO!". And furthermore, anthropological evidence has shown that it is entirely possible to have relatively "rape-free" societies as well. In such societies, which are typically matrilineal and where women are highly valued members of community and society, rape is NOT considered "macho" or virile behavior at all, but rather quite the opposite, and those very few men who would dare do so roundly face much ridicule and shame for it. It is basically seen as the ultimate loser and failure behavior, and it is not at all tolerated. (Nor would a "real man" feel the need to prove himself a man by "scoring" just to get proverbial notches on his belt, as true virility is self-evident.) Rapists thus have no "social license to operate" there at all. In other words, nurture seems to be far more important than nature, as male violence against Women is always and everywhere a cultural problem at base.

PART III:  ALCOHOL AND CONSENT

And now we get into yet another contentious topic that has unfortunately become polarized online as well:  the intersection between alcohol and consent in regard to sexual activity.  Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti have both written articles about a decade or so ago on this topic, again back when people still had some semblance of common sense.

Put bluntly, the specious and agency-denying idea that any amount of alcohol somehow automatically invalidates consent and is thus rape no matter what (or even the milder but still specious idea that too drunk into drive is always too drunk to consent) is absolutely bonkers, and is a gross overcorrection for the very real problems of the status quo ante.

Which is really a shame, because this line of reasoning makes a mockery of a very real and serious problem:  namely, the fact that rapists all too often use alcohol as a weapon, deliberately or opportunistically, to incapacitate their victims.

And not only is it also agency-denying and infantilizing in regards to voluntarily-induced intoxication, not to mention flying in the face of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but it also gives ammunition to actual perpetrators of rape (including of the full-blown, forcible variety) to DARVO their victims (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender) if they themselves had been drinking as well.  If we assume that the standard were gender-neutral, that is, which is itself a rather bold assumption.  And the only way to rectify that latter problem of "what if both had been drinking?" is to turn it into yet another gender double standard, and that is clearly very problematic as well.  Thus, no amount of mental gymnastics can ever truly fix this utterly specious legal theory.  No amount of lipstick can fix this pig.

It's one thing to err on the side of caution, and not want to give rapists one inch of perceived wiggle room to exploit, and another thing to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater entirely.  Fortunately, and contrary to what many may believe, there is no law on the books anywhere in the world to our knowledge that stipulates that the presence of any amount of alcohol automatically invalidates consent.  Nor does any law even say that about "intoxication" (a vague term that can mean anything from tipsy to comatose), but rather incapacitation, a more severe state of impairment in which one does not understand the "who, what, when, where, or how" of what is going on, and thus valid consent really is not possible as such.

To quote California's reasonably well-written "Yes Means Yes" law for college campuses, for example:

(a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.

(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.

(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

(Emphasis added to the most relevant words here.  And note that this also applies to any other psychoactive substances as well to the extent that they result in incapacitation.)

And finally, we should note that driving ability is utterly irrelevant to consent, as the BAC limit for "too drunk to drive" is (in most of the world) is really quite low at a mere 0.05% or less, as little as one or two drinks. Even the 0.08% standard in all US states (except Utah) is still nowhere close to incapacitation either, despite clearly posing an unacceptable risk when behind the wheel.  So how about we NOT make a mockery of either?

FINAL THOUGHT AND TAKEAWAY:

All three topics in this article have one thing on comment:  when you try to remove all complexity from dating, sexuality, and even life itself, you inevitably only create more complexity as a result.

While much progress has been made over the decades in tacking the very real problem of sexual violence, there is unfortunately still a long way to go.  And in recent years, especially since about 2020, society seems to have more or less lost the plot in that regard.  Thus, we shall reiterate some important points from the 2010s, when there was still some semblance of common sense:

While consent is indeed the FLOOR and NOT the ceiling of sexual ethics, and there are indeed other dimensions as well (mutuality, respect, honesty, empathy, dignity, and so on), the fact remains that consent (without shoehorning anything else into it) is absolutely the sine qua non that makes all the others even possible at all.  It is truly a pitifully low bar to clear, folks, so clear it!

By the way, all of this is true regardless of gender.

Consent itself is as simple as FRIES:

(If it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a "HELL NO!")

And it is also as simple as TEA as well (remember this video?):

And finally, let's put the onus where it really belongs, on the perpetrators, not the victims!  The following is quite instructive:

(Mic drop)

Safety Third

We live in a culture where "Safety First" is increasingly taken for granted, and has been since roughly the mid-1980s following a series of moral panics and zealotry in general.  While it is generally a good thing that safety has largely improved since then (prior to that, Americans were really quite cavalier overall, and it really showed in the statistics across multiple domains), there can also be too much of a good thing as well.  

Most people at least intuitively know this on some level, and that's why even the most die-hard safety zealots seldom (if ever) practice what they preach in all areas of life all of the time, at least not for very long.  Even they still conveniently carve out selective and arbitrary exceptions for themselves and their own chosen "guilty" pleasures and activities.  

From the abomination that is the 21 drinking age to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to increasingly stringent rules and heavy monitoring of youth to lack of free play among children to prison-like schools to actual mass incarceration to the sexual counterrevolution dressed up as "culture wars" to the ever-encroaching nanny state to finally the ultimate culmination of safety zealotry, the pandemic lockdowns and related restrictions (and now futile and harmful attempts to childproof the internet as if it were a kitchen), we have clearly been sold a bill of goods in that regard.  And yet paradoxically, actual health safety statistics from life expectancy to violent deaths to traffic casualties have in the USA actually lagged behind peer nations, often well behind.  Thus, it's long past time to take a fresh approach.

We call that approach "Safety Third".  And it's really not an entirely novel idea, having been promoted in some form by diverse folks from "Dirty Jobs" pundit Mike Rowe (largely right-wing) all the way to contemporary philosopher Charles Eisenstein (largely left-wing).  That does NOT at all mean that safety is trivial or should be disregarded as such, far from it.  We do value safety as important, of course, but not THE most important thing, let alone the ultimate end-all-be-all of human flourishing.  

So if safety is third on the list of priorities, what are first and second then?  For example, Charles Eisenstein says "giving and receiving", not necessarily in that order.  That makes sense, if a bit vague perhaps, but we at the TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked would alternatively answer, "liberty and justice for all", not necessarily in that order.  Anything short of that is un-American.

Even the biggest safety zealots have to concede that.  For example, we could theoretically save even more lives by making the speed limit 21 and the drinking age 55 rather than the other way around, but we don't and never will.  Because deep down, we all know on some level that there are other important considerations as well in any free society worthy of the name.

It was indeed one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who said, "Whoever gives up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserves neither and loses both."  After all, safety is a great servant, but a terrible master.  We would be wise to recognize that, in all areas of life.

The Meta Settlement Does More Harm Than Good

The Big Tech giant Meta has recently agreed to an $18 billion settlement with coalition of U.S. states to resolve a massive, landmark lawsuit alleging that apps like Facebook and Instagram intentionally designed features to addict children and teens, and harm youth mental health.  And while we at Twenty-One Debunked are clearly NO friend to Big Tech whatsoever, and broadly agree that they should have been held accountable for their gross misdeeds over recent decades, we also believe that the settlement is highly problematic in the following ways:

• First and foremost, $18 billion is NOT a lot of money at all to Meta, who currently holds a whopping $90.26 billion in total cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities alone, and has a net worth of approximately $1.45 trillion (with a T!) based on its total market capitalization.  Hardly a deterrent!
• Young users (under age 18) will face more restrictions (including on Constitutionally protected speech), and very questionable and privacy-compromising "age assurance" (which will also backfire on adults too) will be built into every one of their products going forward.
• Most of the changes that Meta are required to make to its platforms are NOT actually corrective of any real problem, and many are in the wrong direction and therefore worse than useless.  Even if some changes are marginally good.
• The toxic algorithms and surveillance advertising business model are both still left intact, and will continue to further warp our politics, our economy, our society, and our culture for the worse, as they will continue to amplify the very worst of humanity by design.
• And things like comprehensive data privacy requirements for all ages were not even on the table, apparently.

To quote David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who described it very well indeed:

Under this settlement, young users will now have less access to Meta products, and a lesser ability to exercise their rights to speak, access information and art and culture, associate and form communities, and play. The settlement also embeds age assurance into every product, mandating the collection of even more personal information from users of all ages; this enshrines Meta's harmful surveillance into law, and it will compromise users' privacy and anonymity while increasing their exposure to data breaches and government data requests. And the data minimization and security measures don’t keep states from using data collected under the agreement for other law enforcement purposes – which could include things like criminal investigations of abortions or gender-affirming care. 

And renowned sociologist and youth rights activist Mike Males has also written some excellent articles about this as well.  Not least because this doesn't doesn't even scratch the surface of the elephant in the room:  the real problems that young people are facing (primarily offline, and primarily from parents and other adults), and from which they are using social media as a refuge.

Thus, Big Tech is still smiling like Joe Camel.  And as always, young people and other marginalized populations will ultimately pay the price.  As we like to say, Big Tech can go EFF off!

UPDATE:  The EFF has another good article as well about this.  And yet another one too, about how it silences youth activism.

The Invisible Knapsack (Updated)

Over three decades ago, Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh coined the term "invisible knapsack" to refer to the subtle and not-so-subtle advantages that come with white privilege and male privilege resulting from inequality.  She describes such privilege as being "like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks".  The idea is that while we are generally taught that racism and sexism put some people (i.e. women and people of color) at a disadvantage, we are often taught to remain blissfully unaware of its corollary advantages that accrue to white males.  Hence, the "invisible knapsack" of privilege.  Even if it is a negative-sum game on balance.

We at Twenty-One Debunked couldn't help but notice just how much this metaphor also relates to America's 21 drinking age and the "over-21 privilege" that results.  Being well over 21 myself, as the webmaster and founder of Twenty-One Debunked I have put together a list of advantages in the invisible knapsack of over-21 privilege that people like myself carry every day.   We have updated this list to include tobacco and cannabis as well now.  As a person over 21, as long as I have a valid ID to prove it:

1. I can buy alcoholic beverages at any store that sells them, in any quantity I wish.
2. I can do the same with tobacco and cannabis as well if I desire to do so.  I can even openly smoke both in some public places if I want to.  And at least with tobacco, I can even smoke around children in my home or car as well.
3. I can enter pretty much any bar or nightclub of my choosing without fearing that people of my age group cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
4. If I do not want to associate with people under 21, I may frequent numerous establishments that ban younger people from entering.
5. I can get a hotel room with relatively little difficulty as long as I can afford it, since hotels are less likely to cast aspersions on me due to my age.
6. I am never asked to speak for all of the people in my age group, nor do I have to worry about my individual behavior reflecting on my entire age group.
7. I can legally host a drinking party with my friends, as long as all of the guests are over 21.
8. I can join my co-workers for "Happy Hour" after work, and even talk about it at work, without any sort of shame.
9. When I go out with people under 21, it is generally understood that one (or more) of them will be the designated driver instead of me.
10. Generally speaking, I can drink alcoholic beverages fairly openly without having to worry about getting arrested, fined, jailed, expelled, fired, having my driver's license revoked, or being publicly humiliated.  Ditto for smoking tobacco and/or cannabis as well.
11. As long as I am not driving or operating machinery, I can legally get as drunk (or stoned, or both) as I please in many states. 
12. Even in states where public drunkenness is technically illegal, the cops are unlikely to arrest me unless my behavior is really out of control.  There is no equivalent to "internal possession" laws for my age group.
13. If I do manage to get in any sort of alcohol-related trouble on campus, which is far less likely for me, I will likely face lesser penalties, and I will not have to worry about my parents being notified without my consent.
14. If I think one of my over-21 peers may have alcohol poisoning, there would be no reason for me to hesitate to call 911 for fear of the law (and vice-versa).
15. I can have a drink or two (or maybe even three!) before driving without having to worry about being over the legal limit for DUI. 
16. Even if I drive while over the limit, I can be assured that drunk drivers in my age group will NOT be the highest law enforcement priority.  I can just take the back roads and hope for the best, and know that the law enforcement statistics are largely on my side as long as it's not a major holiday or the end of the month.
17. If I choose to drive drunk, I can know that I am statistically far more likely to kill someone under 21 than the other way around.
18. Even if I had several convictions for DUI or drunken violence, I can rest assured that I will still be allowed to buy and consume alcohol as I please.
19. I enjoy less scrutiny over my own behavior, because I live in a society in which young people are scapegoated for adult problems.
20. I do not have to worry about being a good role model when it comes to drinking, since people under 21 can be punished (often severely) for emulating me.
21. To really top it off, I have a much easier time getting my hands on semiautomatic assault rifles and dangerous weapons in general, especially handguns.  In fact, in some states, I can even carry concealed weapons in a bar!
22. Finally, I have a much better chance of being taken seriously on the issue of lowering the drinking age, or any other age limit for that matter, without being knee-jerkedly accused of selfishness or immaturity.

And the list goes on.  As we see, the 21 drinking age is not just about disadvantaging people under 21, but giving unearned advantages to people over 21 as well.  And while some of these advantages are positive rights that should be extended to everyone (or at least all adults over 18), others are not "rights" at all, but wrongs that are an unfortunate byproduct of setting arbitrary age limits and of adultism in general.  Still others could be considered either rights or wrongs depending on the context.  And let's not forget the luxury of being able to blissfully ignore the issue entirely.

So, are the advantages found in this invisible knapsack really worth it?  Many people over 21 would say yes, but upon closer examination these advantages actually come at a hefty price, even for people over 21.  Just think about social host liability laws, other annoying ancillary laws, ubiquitous ID checks, millions of tax dollars wasted on enforcement, loss of social cohesion, karma, and highly dubious legal precedent that can be used to make our supposedly free country even more of a police state via turnkey tyranny.  In fact, the only people over 21 who, on balance, really benefit from the status quo are the ones who least deserve to benefit--those who drive drunk or otherwise behave irresponsibly when it comes to alcohol, as well as those parents who would rather blithely stick their heads in the proverbial sand than simply teach their kids how to drink responsibly.  Natch.

In other words, it is a NEGATIVE-SUM game (lose-lose) that we would ALL be better off without, on balance.

Do you hear that?  That's (hopefully) the sound of the pro-21 crowd throwing up all of the proverbial Kool-Aid that they collectively drank long ago.

(Mic drop)

Great Video About The Drinking Age Change

Here is a great video about how the federal government coerced the states to raise their legal drinking ages to 21 in the 1980s:

One correction:  the 21 drinking age didn't actually save any lives in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) debunked that rather nicely, as did Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990).  And Canada saw a similar or faster decline in alcohol related traffic deaths among both youth and adults, without raising the drinking age to 21.  As did the 12 no-change US states that kept it 21 throughout.

As for "blood borders" (which also exist between dry and wet counties, by the way), there is more than one way to skin that particular you-know-what.  Encouraging and rewarding states by giving extra federal highway funds with higher drinking ages to lower their drinking ages to 18 (i.e. positive reinforcement) would have been a much better idea.  Put up sobriety checkpoints and roving patrols near state lines. And make drunk driving across state lines a federal crime as well.  Problem solved. Next.

Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. Yesterday, full stop. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.

(Mic drop)

A Message To Those Who Still Support The 21 Drinking Age And Other Ageist Policies

Here's a message to those who still support the 21 drinking age and other ageist policies:

(Mic drop)

The Law Of Eristic Escalation Revisited (Re-Post)

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

Just thought we should share this re-post of a very timeless article that remains just as relevant now.

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986), etc. illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.

P.S.  The Dutch seem to understand this better.  They even have a proverb:  "when you permit, you control", which is the antithesis of the American proverb, "when you permit, you promote".  Carl Jung would also likely have a field day with that as well.

One Tool To Replace Them All: The Curious Case Of Disorderly Conduct

About the catch-all legal concept of "disorderly conduct", we have often had mixed feelings about it.  But over time, I have come to realize that it does serve as a necessary and proper, albeit nuanced, tool as crowd control as well as a substitute that allows us to ultimately jettison from the books all "status offenses" and all of what the late, great Peter McWilliams called "consensual crimes" aka victimless crimes.  (Sorry not sorry, James Q. Wilson.)

One tool to replace them all, basically.  And additionally, we need to get tough on REAL crime, of course.  Common sense, basically.

Loitering, curfew, "underage" drinking or smoking, drunk but NOT disorderly, simple drug possession, vagrancy, and so many other things could easily be made redundant and removed from the law books.  Of course, once these things become littering, trespassing, vandalism, DUI, harassment, assault, or disturbing the peace, etc. THEN they would become and remain illegal.

When dealing with large and unruly crowds, of course, it's not always so simple or cut and dried, and in the moment, the concept of "disorderly conduct" sometimes needs to be invoked to restore order.  And all states have some flavor of this.

We believe that disorderly conduct should be 1) defined broadly enough to be fit for purpose, but not too broad, 2) be a mere violation/infraction for at least the first or even the first two offenses, albeit briefly arrestable for practical purposes, and 3) applied in a non-discriminatory manner, whether by race, gender, class, ability, orientation, etc., and especially age.

There are of course whole towns on the Jersey Shore right now who have youth curfews in part because New Jersey's juvenile injustice reform went too far in that regard, with the police having to follow such restrictive protocols in practice.

The gist of this whole issue being, collective punishment (to youth or anyone else) is inherently and irredeemably evil and needs to end yesterday.  And if the admittedly imperfect concept of "disorderly conduct" needs to remain on the books to prevent resorting to collective punishment, so be it.

For example, New Jersey in fact already has a fairly decent law on the books right now.  (Just apply it to all ages, basically.)  So there should be no excuse to resort to youth curfews or anything else. 

UPDATE:  To clarify, when I say a "violation or infraction", that means an offense that carries a civil or administrative penalty, thus no criminal penalties and no criminal record.  Some states currently do this for disorderly conduct, while others have it as a misdemeanor or the equivalent (which is a criminal offense, with criminal penalties and often a criminal record that can haunt you for the rest of your life).  We believe a modest civil penalty with no criminal record is appropriate for something like this.  Ditto for any other "consensual crimes" or "status offenses", and that is IF there must even be any such thing at all (a VERY big "if").

Does Cannabis Increase The Risk Of Stroke?

One recent meta-analysis study appears to have found a link between cannabis and stroke.  And even go so far as to claim that causation is likely. But there is less here than meets the eye, once again.  To quote the abstract of the study:

Meta-analysis demonstrated significant associations of cannabis (OR = 1.37, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.14–1.65), cocaine (OR = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.27–3.01), and amphetamines (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.40–3.53) with increased stroke risk, while no significant association was observed for opioids. Findings for cannabis showed some heterogeneity and small-study effects. MR analyses revealed that cannabis use disorder was associated with any stroke (OR = 1.11 [1.01–1.51]) and large artery stroke (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.01–1.80), and cocaine dependence was associated with cardioembolic stroke (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.02–1.14) and intracerebral hemorrhage (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.15–1.65). Genetically predicted substance use disorder overall was associated with any stroke (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.02–1.72) and intracerebral hemorrhage (OR = 7.79, 95% CI = 3.46–17.54). Problematic and dependent alcohol use was linked to large artery and cardioembolic stroke, whereas nicotine dependence showed no significant associations.

While this is pretty good confirmation of one of the many notorious risks of using/abusing cocaine and amphetamines, and to a lesser extent problematic and dependent alcohol use, for cannabis the results were actually pretty weak by good epidemiological standards in terms of the odds ratios (which were even weaker still for younger people).  Remember, a "meta-analysis" is simply a study that looks at many other studies and pools them all together, with all of the pitfalls that entails, and there was a lot of "heterogeneity" among studies to put it mildly, including several studies with null (i.e. statistically insignificant) or even "wrong" signed results mixed in.  And the reddest flag of all?  The null result for nicotine (i.e. tobacco) dependence flies in the face of what has long been known about the very real and dose-dependent health risks of nicotine, or at least smoking tobacco (a two-, three-, four-, or even six-fold increase in stroke risk depending on how much one smokes).  Even vaping nicotine may not be so benign after all in terms of stroke either.  That's like that old study that found that pork consumption was significantly associated with cirrhosis of the liver, but that alcohol was no longer significant once pork was adjusted for.  Riiiiight.

In other words, selection bias, reporting bias, residual or unmeasured confounding, "thumb-on-scale syndrome", and other statistical quirks could very easily be the reasons for these findings.  To say nothing of the pitfalls of both meta-analyses and Mendelian randomization as well.  The ever-insightful John Ioannidis would likely have a field day with this one!

So what should be the key takeaways from this study then? If you don't wish to have a stroke anytime soon:

• Don't use cocaine or amphetamines.  Or if you do, the less you use, the better.  (If you feel you need a stimulant/pick-me-up, best to stick with caffeine in moderation instead.)
• If you choose to drink, do so in moderation.
• Regardless of what one particular study says, the weight of the evidence says that if you smoke tobacco or otherwise use nicotine, you should quit ASAP.  Better yet, don't start!
• If you can't quit nicotine entirely just yet, at the very least quit smoking. "The more you smoke, the more you stroke".
• Opioids may not increase the risk of stroke, but they can kill you in other ways, so beware.
• If you are at high risk for stroke yourself, be extra careful about what substances you use, and how much and how often.  Seriously!
• When it comes to cannabis, less is more.  There is not a chronic, heavy user alive that would not benefit from at least cutting back a bit.  Think of it as a spice, not a food.
• As a wise man said, you really don't need to leave the solar system every time you get high either, by the way.  Try a more "down-to-earth" approach next time perhaps. 
• Remember that there are a number of other ways to use cannabis that don't involve smoking either, FWIW.
• Above all, don't panic!  You really need the extra stress like a hole in the head!  Which can take on a rather literal significance here.

And there you have it.  Stay healthy, folks!

Et Tu, Democrats? "Project 2029" And A Social Media Age Ban

Once thought to be largely the province of Republicans (despite being bipartisan, bicoastal, and bipolar), it seems that now the Democrats (or rather, some of them) behind "Project 2029" (not to be confused with other initiatives also called "Project 2029") have gotten on board with ban on social media for anyone under 16, much like Australia and a growing number of other countries currently have.  (Spoiler alert:  it's NOT going well in the "Ghost of Christmas Future" aka Australia.  And yet they're doubling down.)

And don't think it would stop at 16 either!  This is an express train, baby!  That means 18 at the VERY least, then maybe 19 to "get it out of the high schools" (right!), and then eventually 21, using the drinking and smoking ages as specious justification (by 2030 at the very latest).  Or perhaps 25, based on junk neuroscience, or maybe even a permanent "generational ban" like the UK just enacted for tobacco products now.  All aboard the Overton Window Express!

They are currently strangely silent about age verification, but they shouldn't be. After all, it would be utterly toothless without it, and a privacy and cybersecurity nightmare for all ages with it.

To be fair, their "Kids Over Clicks" proposal is a "mixed bag" which includes a number of other things in addition to that, such as privacy by default and safety by design for all ages (which we certainly support!), a ban on surveillance advertising for all ages (now we're talking!), limits on data collection for children (good, now let's do it for ALL ages!), rules of the road for AI chatbots (probably good, but the devil is in the details), limited carveouts to update the Section 230 liability shield to make Big Tech pay for the damage they cause (again, devil is in the details, but could still be good if the carveouts are surgical), bell-to-bell cellphone bans in schools with limited exceptions (mixed feelings, and we don't endorse them unless they apply them to faculty and staff too, which you know they won't), and promoting the idea of a "smartphone-free childhood" until age 14 (meh, they likely drank the Jon Haidt Kool-Aid, but at least it's 14 and not higher, right?).

Ironically, if they did somehow get their entire wishlist granted, or at least the items that we support or largely support, then the 16 age limit would basically be redundant and unnecessary.  There is really NO legitimate purpose to that age ban that could not be sufficiently served by other, less blunt, crude, and restrictive means.  The problem of Big Tech is overall the sort of wicked problem that calls for a scalpel, NOT a sledgehammer, and yet they seem to simultaneously endorse both, because reasons.

Like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) advocates, we should adopt a "Privacy First" approach.  Any sentence about tech policy that doesn't start with "comprehensive federal data privacy legislation for all ages," is an incomplete and incoherent sentence. That, plus adding just a little bit more "friction" back into the system, will throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom for good.  So what are we waiting for?

P.S.  If they are really so serious about these social media platforms being so apocalyptically harmful for kids and teens, which would imply that they would still be quite harmful for adults too as they currently stand, then they should do a "safety recall" and summarily "quarantine" such platforms until they can be made safer.  What's that?  Don't like having YOUR rights taken away?  Then don't try to take away anyone else's.  Capisce?