Having established that cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and that the 21 drinking age has been the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, it may seem a bit odd that Twenty-One Debunked has grudgingly supported cannabis legalization with a 21 age limit thus far. The reason for this was, of course, pure pragmatism, as the odds of legalization actually passing with an age limit of 18 would have been almost nil in the critical early years of 2012-2016. It was, after all, the lesser evil compared with continued prohibition. But five years and eight states later after the first initiatives passed (albeit narrowly) in November 2012, we feel it is now time to really tackle the issue of cannabis age limits.
To put it bluntly, there is absolutely no legitimate scientific or public health reason why the age limit for cannabis should be any higher than 18. Zip, zilch, nada. And while cannabis (though safer than alcohol and tobacco) is not completely harmless, and there is of course some evidence that it can be more harmful before age 18 and especially before 15, there is still no hard scientific evidence that it is any more harmful at 18 than it is at 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter. Any claims of such are merely glib conjecture rather than real science. In fact, a recent study by the American Psychological Association on the long term physical and mental health effects of teen and young adult cannabis use should be seen as the final nail in the coffin in that regard. One possible reason for the null results (i.e. no significant differences between groups regardless of cannabis use trajectory) not always echoed by other studies may be the relative lack of participants who began before age 15 and the relative lack of ultra-heavy users at any age in this study, but overall it should greatly alleviate the worst fears about both legalization itself as well as late adolescent and young adult cannabis use in general.
And after reviewing the most major studies of drugs and drug policy (with cannabis being the most heavily studied of all) throughout history, the results of this recent study should really not come as much of a surprise. Unless, of course, you have a vested interest in maintaining prohibition and/or are simply a bigoted, intolerant, ageist jerk. But in that case, you probably wouldn't be caught dead reading this blog.
Additionally, the issue of the black market comes to mind as well. Given the fact that cannabis use tends to peak around age 18-20 or so, an age limit of 21 would be more likely to encourage at least some persistence of the black market compared with an age limit of 18, particularly if taxes are high. After all, dealers don't ask for ID, and such an issue for cannabis would be more likely than alcohol or tobacco since the former has had decades of black market history and is less bulky per dose than the other two. And such dealers would probably continue to sell to people under 18 as well, including in schools, as they currently do under prohibition. So any concerns about "trickle-down effects" of an age limit of 18 need to be put in such perspective. Besides, any such "trickle-down" can be greatly curbed by simply capping how much 18-20 year olds can buy in the stores (say, no more than an eighth of an ounce per transaction, and no more than one transaction per day). You know, kinda like Twenty-One Debunked has long advocated for alcohol sales.
And let's not forget the issue of social cohesion as well. Few things are more inherently communal than sharing a joint, blunt, bowl, bong, or whatever sort of cannabis smoking implement--in fact, that is literally the origin of the term "joint". And if the 21 age limit is to be taken seriously to its logical conclusion, it would mean that every time someone over 21 passes it around to someone under 21, a crime has technically been committed. At least during prohibition, everyone is in the same illegal boat in that regard, but a 21 age limit would divide the 18-24 year old demographic in that regard, potentially inhibiting social cohesion. Not to mention it gives people over 21 one more thing to "lord it over" people under 21. At a time in history where social cohesion appears to be at a record low overall, we need that kind of additional division like we need a hole in the head!
But truly the strongest argument of all for an age limit no higher than 18 is one of civil rights. The age of majority (i.e. legal adulthood) is 18 in nearly all states, and denying legal adults the right to decide what they put into their own bodies has no place in a free society. Old enough to fight and vote = old enough to drink and toke. 'Nuff said.
One predicted objection to the study referenced in this article might be the fact that all participants were male. However, our assessment of the null results would most likely apply a fortiori given that 1) the young male brain develops slower and later on average than the young female brain, 2) males are more suscepitble to psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia at an earlier age than females, and 3) males have more addictive personalities on average and are more likely to be heavy cannabis users, much like with alcohol. So just about any long-term adverse effects would be more, not less, likely to show up in males.
ReplyDeleteMost certainly agreed, the maximum minimum age for drinking alcoholic beverages, smoking tobacco and for smoking Cannabis should be 18. Unfortunately the hate group known as MADD has influenced public opinion in this country since the 1980s, which means that MADD has had three decades to spew their ageist hatred and promote junk science. In addition, the culture of this country is inherently oppressive, specially ageist. Fortunately, every year, more and more people are realizing the lies that have been used to prop up the oppressive drinking age of 21. Earlier this year, legislators in Wisconsin introduced a bill to lower the drinking age to 19. Those are courageous legislators. Lastly, I think that the proposals of 21 Debunked should be prioritized than that of TSAP. We won't win this battle by pursuing more than one policy agenda.
ReplyDelete