That is the biggest takeaway from the latest World Health Organization (WHO) study. Since 2002, teen drinking has indeed plummeted worldwide, including the USA. And lest the pro-21 crowd try to take any credit for this trend, keep in mind that this secular trend also occurred in other countries with drinking ages of 18 or even lower still. The UK, for example, despite their legendary binge drinking culture and relatively loosely enforced (albeit more so than in the past) drinking age of 18, saw their rate of weekly teen drinking among boys decline from 50.3% to 10% by 2014, a relative drop of over 80% and one of the largest declines of any nation. And British teen girls also saw a drop almost as large as well.
Both among teens and adults alike, gender gaps on drinking are also clearly narrowing. The difference is that among teens, the convergence is primarily due to drinking more rapidly decreasing among males (while still dropping for both primary genders), whereas among adults, it is primarily due to an increase in drinking among females in many countries. Let that sink in for a moment.
And as Twenty-One Debunked has noted before, another such notable example of this is Germany, whose drinking age is still 16 for beer and wine, and 18 for distilled spirits. In fact, one can even drink at 14 in public when accompanied by a parent or guardian, and there is no age limit for drinking in private residences. Such laws have essentially been in effect for as long as anyone can remember (with perhaps the notable exception of the Nazi era), so what were the results of maintaining them in recent decades? From 1979 to 2016, the percentage of 12-17 year old Germans who drink at least weekly dropped from 25.4% to 10.0%, a relative drop of more than 60%. For 18-25 year olds, the percentage dropped by nearly half during the same timeframe, and from 1973-2016 dropped from from two out of three (67.1%) to less than one out of three (30.7%). These trends are comparable to if not faster than the corresponding figures for American youth.
In other words, consider this the final nail in the coffin for the specious claim that the 21 drinking age had anything more than a minor impact on overall teen or young adult drinking. Prost!
Friday, September 28, 2018
Sunday, September 23, 2018
The Banality of Evil
Why is it that, despite all of those who fight against raising the latest age limits, after losing the battle, most of them suddenly go quiet? I mean, the silence is truly deafening, as we saw after they raised the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s as well as the smoking age to 21 in recent years in some states and localities.
The answer is the "banality of evil", that is, it becomes normalized. Just like every other form of tyranny and oppression, most people simply adapt to it. And that is very dangerous, as history has so painfully shown time and time again. History may not exactly repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
All the more reason to redouble our efforts, yesterday. So what are we waiting for?
The answer is the "banality of evil", that is, it becomes normalized. Just like every other form of tyranny and oppression, most people simply adapt to it. And that is very dangerous, as history has so painfully shown time and time again. History may not exactly repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
All the more reason to redouble our efforts, yesterday. So what are we waiting for?
Saturday, September 22, 2018
OK, Ageists, Here's A Modest Proposal Just For You (Part Deux)
In a previous post, we discussed the issue of age of consent for sex and the hypocrisy of ageists who tend to set it lower than the age of other "adult" rights and responsibilities. We thought we should clarify our position a bit on this issue, noting that we do not really want to raise any such age limit higher than 18 in any case. Rather all of the higher age limits than 18, such as the drinking age, should be lowered.
Yesterday.
Yesterday.
For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not take a firm position on what the exact age of consent for sex should be, as the issue is far too fraught, nuanced, and beyond the scope of our organization. But we do not think it should be abolished or drastically lowered from current levels (in the 16-18 range) as that would do far more harm than good overall. Nor do we really think it should be raised any higher than 18. But we do think there needs to be a close-in-age exemption (when one OR both partners is below the age limit) of four or even five years, and there is really no problem with reasonable age of consent laws that cannot be solved by such exemptions to these laws.
For example, consider the following actual law:
This is an example of a reasonable age of consent law, and we really ought to question the motives of anyone over 20 who thinks that such a law is too strict. Same goes for New Hampshire's more nuanced law, which also has an age of consent of 16, a four-year close-in-age exemption, and a hard minimum age of 13.
Think about it.
As for those who believe the age of consent should be raised to (or remain) 18 in a given state, one could simply adopt the same aforementioned law as written above, and add to it the following section or something similar:
(3) The person, being eighteen (18) years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than eighteen (18) years old and who is at least five years younger than the defendant, and is not married to the defendant.
And that would resolve essentially all of the problems associated with current age-of-consent laws even if as high as 18. Unfortunately, not every state even has close-in-age exemptions at all, and some of those laws, such as California, effectively criminalize both parties if they are both under 18. Such a thing is an absolute travesty, in dire need of reform. Ditto for any other laws that are written too broadly or vaguely or that give judges way too much discretion as well.
And come to think of it, any marriage exemptions to such laws should also be removed, since that implies marriage below the age of consent is permissible. And in many states it is, provided there is parental and/or judicial consent. But what it really is in practice is a loophole to cover up abuse and coercion. That said, existing marriages involving 16-17 year olds could be "grandfathered" as "valid but voidable" while the new laws only apply going forward.
As for commerical sex work, "survival sex", and cases where the older person is in a direct position of authority over the younger person, an addtional section can (and should) be added that sets the age limit higher than it would otherwise be (i.e. 18 rather than 16) and zero tolerance in regards to age gaps. But these examples are the exceptions, and no reason for the general age of consent to be affected by such exceptions. And we can also have graduated and enhanced penalties for very large age gaps (i.e. over 21 and under 14, over 18 and under 13, etc.) as well.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Oh, and another thing. The idea that a 17 year old sending a nude photo of him or herself to another 17 year old can be charged with "child pornography" under federal law and given a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in adult prison is absolutely unconsionable. Let that sink in. And such a travesty is a sign that our country has gone completely insane.
Meanwhile, the real rapists and child molesters are out there flying under the radar, and are often hiding in plain sight right now as we speak. Seriously.
Food for thought.
For example, consider the following actual law:
§ 61-8B-5. Sexual assault in the third degree.
(a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when:
(2) The person, being sixteen years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than sixteen years old and who is at least four years younger than the defendant....
Those are the exact, albeit abbreviated, words of West Virginia's law relating to age of consent, as noted on Wikipedia, and with the rather bizarre marriage exemption removed. Thus, the age of consent in WV is 16, with a close-in-age exemption of four years. And note that only people above the age of consent can be punished for violating this law. Another section of this same law also prohibits a person over 14 from engaging in such sexual activity with a person under 12, thus setting a hard limit at 12 without punishing anyone under 14.This is an example of a reasonable age of consent law, and we really ought to question the motives of anyone over 20 who thinks that such a law is too strict. Same goes for New Hampshire's more nuanced law, which also has an age of consent of 16, a four-year close-in-age exemption, and a hard minimum age of 13.
Think about it.
As for those who believe the age of consent should be raised to (or remain) 18 in a given state, one could simply adopt the same aforementioned law as written above, and add to it the following section or something similar:
(3) The person, being eighteen (18) years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than eighteen (18) years old and who is at least five years younger than the defendant, and is not married to the defendant.
And that would resolve essentially all of the problems associated with current age-of-consent laws even if as high as 18. Unfortunately, not every state even has close-in-age exemptions at all, and some of those laws, such as California, effectively criminalize both parties if they are both under 18. Such a thing is an absolute travesty, in dire need of reform. Ditto for any other laws that are written too broadly or vaguely or that give judges way too much discretion as well.
And come to think of it, any marriage exemptions to such laws should also be removed, since that implies marriage below the age of consent is permissible. And in many states it is, provided there is parental and/or judicial consent. But what it really is in practice is a loophole to cover up abuse and coercion. That said, existing marriages involving 16-17 year olds could be "grandfathered" as "valid but voidable" while the new laws only apply going forward.
As for commerical sex work, "survival sex", and cases where the older person is in a direct position of authority over the younger person, an addtional section can (and should) be added that sets the age limit higher than it would otherwise be (i.e. 18 rather than 16) and zero tolerance in regards to age gaps. But these examples are the exceptions, and no reason for the general age of consent to be affected by such exceptions. And we can also have graduated and enhanced penalties for very large age gaps (i.e. over 21 and under 14, over 18 and under 13, etc.) as well.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Oh, and another thing. The idea that a 17 year old sending a nude photo of him or herself to another 17 year old can be charged with "child pornography" under federal law and given a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in adult prison is absolutely unconsionable. Let that sink in. And such a travesty is a sign that our country has gone completely insane.
Meanwhile, the real rapists and child molesters are out there flying under the radar, and are often hiding in plain sight right now as we speak. Seriously.
Food for thought.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Is Teen Cannabis Use Really on the Rise?
The same FDA chief that has been freaking out over a supposed teen vaping "epidemic" (that is far more molehill than mountain, by the way), Scott Gottlieb, is now also freaking out about teen cannabis use and how it relates to legalization. In fact, he says he is now more worried about weed than vaping, which really says something. But is there any truth to his fears, particularly the idea that teen cannabis use is on the rise as a result of both medical and recreational legalization in more and more states?
The answer is apparently, not really. California is practically ground-zero for both medical and recreational legalization, and their survey actually shows a decrease in teen cannabis use, particularly in the younger grades, from 2013-2015 to 2015-2017 despite medical legalization in 1996, expanded decriminalization in 2011, and recreational legalization via Prop 64 in November 2016. And while the national Monitoring the Future survey showed a slight increase in teen use in 2017 compared with 2016, it had been previously dropping from 2011 to 2016 despite more and more states liberalizing their pot laws during that time. Some epidemic, huh? NOT.
In other words, there is no increase in teen cannabis use that can be unambiguously linked to legalization. And teen use is still far below its 1978-1979 and 1997 peaks, with no indication that it will even come close. Thus, another myth bites the dust. Plus, alcohol, tobacco, and most other substances are at or close to record lows among middle and high schoolers, while the opioid epidemic rages among American adults along with the "pink elephant in the room". So stop freaking out already, and see the forest for the trees.
UPDATE: In terms of problematic use of cannabis, a new study finds that the legal status of cannabis is essentially irrelevant. While that particular study focused on adults, it dovetails rather nicely with another study from last year finding no increase on problematic cannabis use among 12-17 year olds following the passage of legalization. Thus, it looks like the legalization advocates were indeed correct all along, that legalization would result in modest increases in adult use, and negligible increases (or even decreases) in teen use or abuse at any age. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
The answer is apparently, not really. California is practically ground-zero for both medical and recreational legalization, and their survey actually shows a decrease in teen cannabis use, particularly in the younger grades, from 2013-2015 to 2015-2017 despite medical legalization in 1996, expanded decriminalization in 2011, and recreational legalization via Prop 64 in November 2016. And while the national Monitoring the Future survey showed a slight increase in teen use in 2017 compared with 2016, it had been previously dropping from 2011 to 2016 despite more and more states liberalizing their pot laws during that time. Some epidemic, huh? NOT.
In other words, there is no increase in teen cannabis use that can be unambiguously linked to legalization. And teen use is still far below its 1978-1979 and 1997 peaks, with no indication that it will even come close. Thus, another myth bites the dust. Plus, alcohol, tobacco, and most other substances are at or close to record lows among middle and high schoolers, while the opioid epidemic rages among American adults along with the "pink elephant in the room". So stop freaking out already, and see the forest for the trees.
UPDATE: In terms of problematic use of cannabis, a new study finds that the legal status of cannabis is essentially irrelevant. While that particular study focused on adults, it dovetails rather nicely with another study from last year finding no increase on problematic cannabis use among 12-17 year olds following the passage of legalization. Thus, it looks like the legalization advocates were indeed correct all along, that legalization would result in modest increases in adult use, and negligible increases (or even decreases) in teen use or abuse at any age. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Latest Regression Discontinuity Study Only Confirms Powder Keg Theory (Again)
As we have noted before back in 2016, the latest type of drinking age studies, i.e. "regression discontinuity" (RD) studies, superficially appear to support the 21 drinking age, but upon closer examination actually kind of imply the opposite, namely 1) there is really nothing magical about 21, and 2) delaying legal access to alcohol to 21 compared with 18 only creates an even larger ticking time-bomb and powder keg that goes off at 21, with no real net benefit.
In 2016, pro-21 researchers Kitt Carpenter and Carlos Dobkin were at it once again. As you may recall, we at Twenty-One Debunked have critiqued much of their previous work, particularly their use of the "regression discontinuity" approach. The researchers found a significant jump in statistical death rates, arrests, and stuff like that immediately after young people turn 21 compared with before. And their latest study seems to be more of the same, this time looking at non-fatal injuries as measured by both ER visits and inpatient hospital admissions.
Oddly, these researchers actually (and without even a hint of irony) claim that these studies show that the 21 drinking age is effective in saving lives and reducing alcohol-related harm! But we at Twenty-One Debunked see it rather differently--if anything, it shows that there is nothing at all magical about turning 21 that makes one invulnerable to the deleterious effects of excessive alcohol consumption. And setting the drinking age at such an arbitrarily high age only sets a powder keg (pun intended) that goes off when young people reach that age. The higher the drinking age, the larger the powder keg, it seems. And it also shows that the Law of Eristic Escalation (i.e. imposition of order leads to escalation of chaos) is correct, as well as Fenderson's Amendment (the tighter the order is maintained, the longer it takes for the chaos to escalate, but the more it does when it does). Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 21 drinking age!
Of course, Carpenter and Dobkin also find evidence of a jump in both drinking and alcohol-related deaths among Canadians upon reaching their MLDA (18 or 19, depending on the province), particularly among males, and the increase in mortality seems to be due to a sudden jump in "extreme" binge drinking. It seems there is always a risk of increased alcohol-related harm in the short-run after suddenly turning legal, regardless of age. But as much other research shows, there is good reason to believe that such an effect is worse and longer-lasting when the the legal drinking age is higher rather than lower. And furthermore, a recent study in Australia (where the drinking age is 18 and DUI laws are tougher) found essentially no link between being able to drink legally and motor vehicle accidents of any type in the state of New South Wales. Food for thought indeed.
On the plus side, one should also note that another recent study using a regression-discontinuity approach found that being able to drink legally reduced the consumption and initiation of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) among young people, with no effect on tobacco use. And still another RD study finds that when alcohol retreats, cannabis advances (and vice-versa). These findings blow yet another big hole in the junk science that is the roundly-debunked "gateway" theory of drugs.
Fast forward to 2018, when another researcher, UW-Madison Professor Jason Fletcher, conducted yet another regression discontinuity study in the USA, this time looking at previously unexplored risk behaviors and consequences relating to drinking. In addition to replicating the results of the aforementioned previous studies, these novel measures included self-reports of drunk driving, boozy and risky sex, interpersonal troubles, violence, and of course, hangovers. And not surprisingly, these effects also jumped at 21 as well, with larger effects on males than females. And again, this is simply further confirmation of the powder keg theory.
So what do we call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
In 2016, pro-21 researchers Kitt Carpenter and Carlos Dobkin were at it once again. As you may recall, we at Twenty-One Debunked have critiqued much of their previous work, particularly their use of the "regression discontinuity" approach. The researchers found a significant jump in statistical death rates, arrests, and stuff like that immediately after young people turn 21 compared with before. And their latest study seems to be more of the same, this time looking at non-fatal injuries as measured by both ER visits and inpatient hospital admissions.
Oddly, these researchers actually (and without even a hint of irony) claim that these studies show that the 21 drinking age is effective in saving lives and reducing alcohol-related harm! But we at Twenty-One Debunked see it rather differently--if anything, it shows that there is nothing at all magical about turning 21 that makes one invulnerable to the deleterious effects of excessive alcohol consumption. And setting the drinking age at such an arbitrarily high age only sets a powder keg (pun intended) that goes off when young people reach that age. The higher the drinking age, the larger the powder keg, it seems. And it also shows that the Law of Eristic Escalation (i.e. imposition of order leads to escalation of chaos) is correct, as well as Fenderson's Amendment (the tighter the order is maintained, the longer it takes for the chaos to escalate, but the more it does when it does). Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 21 drinking age!
Of course, Carpenter and Dobkin also find evidence of a jump in both drinking and alcohol-related deaths among Canadians upon reaching their MLDA (18 or 19, depending on the province), particularly among males, and the increase in mortality seems to be due to a sudden jump in "extreme" binge drinking. It seems there is always a risk of increased alcohol-related harm in the short-run after suddenly turning legal, regardless of age. But as much other research shows, there is good reason to believe that such an effect is worse and longer-lasting when the the legal drinking age is higher rather than lower. And furthermore, a recent study in Australia (where the drinking age is 18 and DUI laws are tougher) found essentially no link between being able to drink legally and motor vehicle accidents of any type in the state of New South Wales. Food for thought indeed.
On the plus side, one should also note that another recent study using a regression-discontinuity approach found that being able to drink legally reduced the consumption and initiation of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) among young people, with no effect on tobacco use. And still another RD study finds that when alcohol retreats, cannabis advances (and vice-versa). These findings blow yet another big hole in the junk science that is the roundly-debunked "gateway" theory of drugs.
Fast forward to 2018, when another researcher, UW-Madison Professor Jason Fletcher, conducted yet another regression discontinuity study in the USA, this time looking at previously unexplored risk behaviors and consequences relating to drinking. In addition to replicating the results of the aforementioned previous studies, these novel measures included self-reports of drunk driving, boozy and risky sex, interpersonal troubles, violence, and of course, hangovers. And not surprisingly, these effects also jumped at 21 as well, with larger effects on males than females. And again, this is simply further confirmation of the powder keg theory.
So what do we call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
UPDATE: A later study in Austria, where the drinking age is 16, also dovetails with this same theory as well.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Do Tobacco 21 Laws Really Work?
One preliminary study seems to think so about California's law that raised the age limit to buy tobacco and e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 as of June 9, 2016. But the devil is really in the details. The study did not, I repeat, did NOT, look at actual teen smoking rates, only the degree of retailer compliance as measured by decoys, which did in fact improve since then in terms of sales to people under 18.
The two problems with this logic are 1) it is not necessary to raise the age limit to 21 to discourage retailers from selling to people under 18, as simply better enforcement against scofflaw vendors would do the trick, and 2) survey data do not really show any decrease in teen smoking that can be unambiguously linked to the policy change, whether in California or elsewhere with a Tobacco 21 law. Teen smoking dropped nationwide from 2015 to 2017, and while it dropped somewhat faster in California, keep in mind that California also raised their cigarette tax significantly during that time, by $2.00/pack, and Pennsylvania saw an even larger drop in teen smoking despite keeping the age limit 18 and a cigarette tax hike of $1.00/pack, only half as large.
As we have noted before based on survey data for the past few years, there is really no robust correlation between a state or local smoking age (whether 18, 19, or 21) and the teen (or adult) smoking rate. The strongest predictors of both teen and adult smoking are the tax/price of cigarettes and the prevailing social attitudes towards smoking, and in fact prices seem to have a larger effect on young people than adults. It is practically axiomatic. Retailer compliance is also inversely correlated with smoking by people under 18, but again it has proven to be entirely possible achieve nearly 100% compliance without raising the smoking age any higher than 18, as long as there is the political will for it. And it doesn't even require the criminal justice system at all, since the best tobacco-control success stories involved only administrative penalties (i.e. fines and/or tobacco license suspensions) against rogue vendors. Nor does it require criminalizing young people themselves.
If anything, if NYC is any indication, retailer compliance actually deteriorated following their age limit hike from 18 to 21 in 2014. This was in spite of heavy crackdowns against contraband tobacco during that time. In any case, while teen smoking rates declined in NYC following the law change, they did not drop any faster than the rest of the state or the nation as a whole, in fact they declined at a slower rate in NYC compared with the control locations, and teen vaping actually increased despite the fact that the law applied equally to e-cigarettes as well as combustible cigarettes. If that's "success", we would really hate to see what failure looks like.
And in fact, this also once again calls into question how effective the 21 drinking age (and now toking age in some states) is as well. Spoiler alert: not very. Thus, if there is a silver lining to the recent hike in the smoking age to 21 in some states and localities, it is that re-running this same failed social experiment with a different age-restricted psychoactive substance only to see it fail yet again in more modern times, a fortiori, is probably the strongest evidence against the very concept of such ridiculously high age limits in general. If you give the pro-21 crowd enough rope...
The two problems with this logic are 1) it is not necessary to raise the age limit to 21 to discourage retailers from selling to people under 18, as simply better enforcement against scofflaw vendors would do the trick, and 2) survey data do not really show any decrease in teen smoking that can be unambiguously linked to the policy change, whether in California or elsewhere with a Tobacco 21 law. Teen smoking dropped nationwide from 2015 to 2017, and while it dropped somewhat faster in California, keep in mind that California also raised their cigarette tax significantly during that time, by $2.00/pack, and Pennsylvania saw an even larger drop in teen smoking despite keeping the age limit 18 and a cigarette tax hike of $1.00/pack, only half as large.
As we have noted before based on survey data for the past few years, there is really no robust correlation between a state or local smoking age (whether 18, 19, or 21) and the teen (or adult) smoking rate. The strongest predictors of both teen and adult smoking are the tax/price of cigarettes and the prevailing social attitudes towards smoking, and in fact prices seem to have a larger effect on young people than adults. It is practically axiomatic. Retailer compliance is also inversely correlated with smoking by people under 18, but again it has proven to be entirely possible achieve nearly 100% compliance without raising the smoking age any higher than 18, as long as there is the political will for it. And it doesn't even require the criminal justice system at all, since the best tobacco-control success stories involved only administrative penalties (i.e. fines and/or tobacco license suspensions) against rogue vendors. Nor does it require criminalizing young people themselves.
If anything, if NYC is any indication, retailer compliance actually deteriorated following their age limit hike from 18 to 21 in 2014. This was in spite of heavy crackdowns against contraband tobacco during that time. In any case, while teen smoking rates declined in NYC following the law change, they did not drop any faster than the rest of the state or the nation as a whole, in fact they declined at a slower rate in NYC compared with the control locations, and teen vaping actually increased despite the fact that the law applied equally to e-cigarettes as well as combustible cigarettes. If that's "success", we would really hate to see what failure looks like.
And in fact, this also once again calls into question how effective the 21 drinking age (and now toking age in some states) is as well. Spoiler alert: not very. Thus, if there is a silver lining to the recent hike in the smoking age to 21 in some states and localities, it is that re-running this same failed social experiment with a different age-restricted psychoactive substance only to see it fail yet again in more modern times, a fortiori, is probably the strongest evidence against the very concept of such ridiculously high age limits in general. If you give the pro-21 crowd enough rope...
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Israel's (and Europe's) Non-Ageist, Cool-Headed Response to Vaping
Unlike in the USA, it seems like cooler heads are prevailing in Israel and in the EU when it comes to vaping. Rather than respond from a position of moral panic over teen use, which only fuels the deviancy amplification spiral, they instead took a much more measured public health response. Israel recently banned JUUL due to its unusually high nicotine content, and almost immediately afterwards, JUUL began selling the same reduced-nicotine version there that they have already been selling in the UK and Europe to comply with EU regulations. And interestingly, Israel doesn't even have an age limit for vaping. (It varies in Europe, and is 18 in the UK.)
The kernel of truth to the concern about youth vaping in the USA has to do with the nicotine, which is hardly a benign substance. It is a highly addictive drug as well as a known neurotoxin, especially for the early adolescent brain, and yet some teens apparently don't realize that vape juices and pods even contain nicotine at all. And with JUUL's high nicotine content, by the time some young experimenters realize that it has nicotine, they may already be hooked. That said, vaping is still safer than smoking, and it seems to be making a dent in reducing youth and adult smoking rates, which are currently at a record low, as well as increasing successful quit rates among adults. That means that vaping is literally saving people's lives.
The best balancing act would probably be to stop panicking and to cap and reduce the maximum allowable nicotine levels for vape juices/pods to European and Israeli levels. The FDA already has the authority to do this. Alternatively, or in in addition, taxing vape juices/pods based on nicotine content would also be a good idea as well.
And stop panicking already! Seriously, this moral panic is the best free advertising that JUUL and other vape companies could ever possibly dream of.
And stop panicking already! Seriously, this moral panic is the best free advertising that JUUL and other vape companies could ever possibly dream of.
Oh, and by the way, there is zero evidence that raising the age limit to 21, as was done in several states and localities recently, has had any measurable impact on teen vaping OR smoking rates compared to states and localities that kept it at 18. And since the apparent success of Needham, MA still has yet to be replicated anywhere, it would be most parsimonious to consider them an outlier, with factors other than raising the age limit being the real underlying causes of success.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Tempest in a Vape Pod: Let's Be Adult About This
Just a few months ago, we at Twenty-One Debunked posted an article about the latest moral panic to sweep the nation: teen vaping, particularly Juuling. Well, that particular moral panic is now at (or approaching) its ultimate crescendo as we speak, with the FDA not only cracking down on retailers who sell to people under 18, but going so far as to give vendors an ultimatum of sorts: either they come up with a plan within 60 days to tackle youth use of their vape products, or such products will be pulled from the market. Such fighting words, aimed primarily at JUUL, have been prompted by largely unpublished data showing an alleged "epidemic" of teen vaping.
Wait, what? Oh, they must mean the "epidemic" where a whopping 2.4% of high school students in 2017 (2.0% in 2015) nationally reported daily vaping. (And that is the total--keep in mind that among never-smokers, such figures are even lower still, at 0.3%) Or maybe they mean the "epidemic" in which e-cigarettes have become more popular than combustible cigarettes in terms of experimentation and casual use, and regular vaping is making a dent in displacing regular smoking, but regular vaping among never-smokers still remains vanishingly low, and the use of combustible cigarettes has fallen to a record low.
Yes, you read that right. A record low. Smoking cigarettes is decidedly "uncool" these days. And by some measures, vaping has already crested and it too has also declined a bit as well since its 2015 peak.
So what should we make of all this? First, don't panic, lest we continue to fuel a deviancy amplification spiral rather than let this fad burn out on its own. The good news, we must repeat, is that combustible tobacco consumption is now at a record low among young people, and still falling. And again, vaping is actually rarely used by teens who have never also tried combustible cigarettes. If anything, vaping in general (including, but not limited to, Juuling) is displacing combustible cigarettes on balance, and is significantly safer as well--perhaps even 95% safer by some estimates. The bad news? Vaping is, of course, not completely safe, as most vape juices (including all JUUL brand ones, even if its users don't realize it) do contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and is even a known neurotoxin, particularly for the developing early adolescent brain. Other concerns include the relative lack of regulation as to how these things are made and what sort of contaminants may be lurking inside, but again, it still pales in comparison to the dangers of combustible tobacco cigarettes, which contain literally thousands of other nasty chemicals as well as nicotine, including many known carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens. So insofar as vaping displaces smoking, it is a net win for public health.
For currently addicted smokers of any age trying to quit, vaping can literally save their lives upon switching, and we must remember that no matter how much of a fever pitch the ridiculous moral panic over teen vaping ultimately reaches. Seriously.
Secondly, we should note that this apparent fad exists even in states and localities where the age limit is 21 for both smoking and vaping (or at least for buying these things), including New Jersey. Thus, raising the age limit is unlikely to solve anything in that regard compared with keeping it 18 and enforcing it on vendors the same as with combustible tobacco products. Keep in mind that until fairly recently there was no age limit at all for vaping devices and liquids/pods in many states and localities.
And finally, there are practical ways of reducing any potential harm from all of this:
Wait, what? Oh, they must mean the "epidemic" where a whopping 2.4% of high school students in 2017 (2.0% in 2015) nationally reported daily vaping. (And that is the total--keep in mind that among never-smokers, such figures are even lower still, at 0.3%) Or maybe they mean the "epidemic" in which e-cigarettes have become more popular than combustible cigarettes in terms of experimentation and casual use, and regular vaping is making a dent in displacing regular smoking, but regular vaping among never-smokers still remains vanishingly low, and the use of combustible cigarettes has fallen to a record low.
Yes, you read that right. A record low. Smoking cigarettes is decidedly "uncool" these days. And by some measures, vaping has already crested and it too has also declined a bit as well since its 2015 peak.
So what should we make of all this? First, don't panic, lest we continue to fuel a deviancy amplification spiral rather than let this fad burn out on its own. The good news, we must repeat, is that combustible tobacco consumption is now at a record low among young people, and still falling. And again, vaping is actually rarely used by teens who have never also tried combustible cigarettes. If anything, vaping in general (including, but not limited to, Juuling) is displacing combustible cigarettes on balance, and is significantly safer as well--perhaps even 95% safer by some estimates. The bad news? Vaping is, of course, not completely safe, as most vape juices (including all JUUL brand ones, even if its users don't realize it) do contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and is even a known neurotoxin, particularly for the developing early adolescent brain. Other concerns include the relative lack of regulation as to how these things are made and what sort of contaminants may be lurking inside, but again, it still pales in comparison to the dangers of combustible tobacco cigarettes, which contain literally thousands of other nasty chemicals as well as nicotine, including many known carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens. So insofar as vaping displaces smoking, it is a net win for public health.
For currently addicted smokers of any age trying to quit, vaping can literally save their lives upon switching, and we must remember that no matter how much of a fever pitch the ridiculous moral panic over teen vaping ultimately reaches. Seriously.
Secondly, we should note that this apparent fad exists even in states and localities where the age limit is 21 for both smoking and vaping (or at least for buying these things), including New Jersey. Thus, raising the age limit is unlikely to solve anything in that regard compared with keeping it 18 and enforcing it on vendors the same as with combustible tobacco products. Keep in mind that until fairly recently there was no age limit at all for vaping devices and liquids/pods in many states and localities.
And finally, there are practical ways of reducing any potential harm from all of this:
- Regulate vaping devices and juices/pods the same as combustible cigarettes (but no stricter), and require strong quality control standards and testing
- Warning labels alerting users about the fact that they contain the highly addictive drug nicotine
- Tax nicotine-containing vape juices/pods by weight or volume adjusted for nicotine content (but much lower than combustible cigarettes)
- Increase the number of nicotine-free vape juices, particularly for JUUL brand ones which currently lack such options
- Consider banning or phasing out any vape juices/pods that have fruity, floral, or any other non-neutral or non-tobacco-style flavors unless they are completely nicotine-free ones
- Consider capping/reducing the maximum nicotine content in vape juice/pods, as is already the case in the EU and now in Israel as well.
- Educate the public, especially young people, on the truth about vaping, particularly with an eye towards preventing accidental addiction to something that they may not even realize contains nicotine at all
- Social norms marketing to help defuse any deviancy amplification spiral
Most importantly, we need to see the forest for the trees, and stop tilting at windmills already.
And most ironically of all, this moral panic driven by irresponsible yellow journalism is literally the very best (not to mention free) advertising that JUUL and other vape companies could ever dream of. Despite being founded in 2015, it is unlikely that very many young people (or anyone else for that matter) had ever even heard of JUUL until it became at the center of the scare stories that started in 2017 and especially 2018. And if the alleged unpublished increase in teen vaping in 2018 relative to 2017 does turn out to be real, well, we really know who to thank for that!
And most ironically of all, this moral panic driven by irresponsible yellow journalism is literally the very best (not to mention free) advertising that JUUL and other vape companies could ever dream of. Despite being founded in 2015, it is unlikely that very many young people (or anyone else for that matter) had ever even heard of JUUL until it became at the center of the scare stories that started in 2017 and especially 2018. And if the alleged unpublished increase in teen vaping in 2018 relative to 2017 does turn out to be real, well, we really know who to thank for that!
Saturday, September 8, 2018
The Other Drinking Age? Why We Oppose Any Age Limits for Energy Drinks
Given the endless hand-wringing moral panic about energy drinks and young people, it was only matter of time before an age limit for energy drinks would be proposed (in the USA and UK, for example) or in few cases even enacted (in Iceland, for example). While it should go without saying that energy drinks aren't exactly health food, to put it mildly, and can indeed be abused, they are hardly the demon drink they are made out to be when used in moderation by adults and older teens. And while prepubescent children should probably not be messing around with such concoctions, it does not follow that there should be an age limit at all, let alone one as high as 18.
We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that while a drinking age of 18 for alcohol would be rather progressive (compared to the current 21 in the USA, and 20 in Iceland), a drinking age of 18 for non-alcoholic energy drinks (compared to no age limit currently in the USA) would be utterly regressive, and thus we oppose any such attempts to enact one. The alternatives we would support, though are not necessarily wedded to, include the following:
We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that while a drinking age of 18 for alcohol would be rather progressive (compared to the current 21 in the USA, and 20 in Iceland), a drinking age of 18 for non-alcoholic energy drinks (compared to no age limit currently in the USA) would be utterly regressive, and thus we oppose any such attempts to enact one. The alternatives we would support, though are not necessarily wedded to, include the following:
- Better public education about the very real hazards of excessive energy drink consumption at any age, and any special or increased risks that children and early teens (i.e. those under 15) may face.
- Tax energy drinks themselves, as well as tax sugary drinks in general and/or even tax the sugar itself at the source.
- Consider setting a reasonable limit on caffeine content, and banning any drinks over that limit (i.e. Red Bull would be fine, but Redline would be banned). Ditto for any other ingredients that may be harmful and/or of questionable benefit.
- Restrict advertising and marketing that targets children and teens.
- Better labeling of caffeine content as well as any other ingredients, and better quality control of energy drinks as well.
- And last but not least, make the school day start later and ease up a bit on the homework, so children and teens don't feel the need to be quite so caffeinated (and sleep-deprived) all the time.
Friday, September 7, 2018
OK, Ageists, Here's a Modest Proposal Just for You
We at Twenty-One Debunked have absolutely HAD it with ageists of all stripes, especially (but not only) the pro-21 crowd. And this goes way beyond the 21 drinking age, by the way. There is an increasing tendency to treat 18-24 year olds as second-class citizens, and people under 18 as not even citizens in what is supposed to be the land of the free.
Ageism/adultism just keeps on creeping up the age scale, it seems. So many ageist jerks insist that even 18-24 year olds are somehow "not real adults" or at least not as mature as previous generations were at that age, because reasons, and thus somehow not deserving of full adult rights, also because reasons. Or something. They often appeal to junk cargo-cult neuroscience to back up their specious arguments that are quite heavy on feelings but light on facts.
So here is a modest proposal for you ageist bigots. If you insist on treating 18-24 year olds as second-class citizens, and people under 18 as not even citizens, you need to be consistent since you really can't have it both ways. Go ahead, in every way. Raise the age of majority, the age to join the military, and the age to be tried and punished as an adult to 25, full stop. You read that right, especially that last bit. (Rampage time!) But wait, there's more. If 18-24 year olds are somehow not really adults in your view, then you should also raise the age of consent for sex to 25 as well. Yes, really. After all, adults should really not be having sex with those whom they consider to be non-adults, because we all know what that is called, and it isn't anything good. So go ahead and raise it then--what's stopping you? "Under 25 gets you 25 to life." But truly nothing says adulto-patriarchal dominance like a little droit du seigneur, right ageists?
The fact that the age of consent for sex (16 in most states, 17 or 18 in a few) is lower than age of majority (18), let alone the drinking age (21) and car rental age (25), really speaks volumes as to the rank hypocrisy of the ageists who wrote these laws. Meanwhile, many states don't even have close-in-age exemptions, so many of the young people such laws are supposed to protect get caught in the dragnet and go to prison or at least have to register as sex offenders for life for having otherwise consensual sex with each other (i.e. an 18 year old and a 16 year old, or even a 16 year old and a 15 year old in some states). And under federal law, even sending nudes of oneself can land a young person under 18 in adult prison for "child pornography"--of oneself. But a 30 or 40 year old can legally have sex with someone who is not allowed to drink alcohol, vote, get a credit card, enter contracts, be out after curfew, or even see an R-rated movie in some states. Let that sink in for a moment.
Or we could, you know, just accept and treat 18-24 year olds as the full adults that they are. In every way, full stop. And while there is currently a snowball's chance in hell of lowering the general age of majority below 18 in the near term, we should at least lower the voting age to 16, abolish curfews, refrain from raising any other age limits (such as the driving age) to 18, and also make the emancipation process much easier for people under 18 as well.
For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not take a firm position on what the exact age of consent for sex should be, as the issue is far too fraught, nuanced, and beyond the scope of our organization. But we do not think it should be abolished or drastically lowered from current levels (in the 16-18 range) as that would do far more harm than good overall. Nor do we really think it should be raised any higher than 18. But we do think there needs to be a close-in-age exemption (when one OR both partners is below the age limit) of four or even five years, and there is really no problem with reasonable age of consent laws that cannot be solved by such exemptions to these laws.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Food for thought.
The fact that the age of consent for sex (16 in most states, 17 or 18 in a few) is lower than age of majority (18), let alone the drinking age (21) and car rental age (25), really speaks volumes as to the rank hypocrisy of the ageists who wrote these laws. Meanwhile, many states don't even have close-in-age exemptions, so many of the young people such laws are supposed to protect get caught in the dragnet and go to prison or at least have to register as sex offenders for life for having otherwise consensual sex with each other (i.e. an 18 year old and a 16 year old, or even a 16 year old and a 15 year old in some states). And under federal law, even sending nudes of oneself can land a young person under 18 in adult prison for "child pornography"--of oneself. But a 30 or 40 year old can legally have sex with someone who is not allowed to drink alcohol, vote, get a credit card, enter contracts, be out after curfew, or even see an R-rated movie in some states. Let that sink in for a moment.
Or we could, you know, just accept and treat 18-24 year olds as the full adults that they are. In every way, full stop. And while there is currently a snowball's chance in hell of lowering the general age of majority below 18 in the near term, we should at least lower the voting age to 16, abolish curfews, refrain from raising any other age limits (such as the driving age) to 18, and also make the emancipation process much easier for people under 18 as well.
For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not take a firm position on what the exact age of consent for sex should be, as the issue is far too fraught, nuanced, and beyond the scope of our organization. But we do not think it should be abolished or drastically lowered from current levels (in the 16-18 range) as that would do far more harm than good overall. Nor do we really think it should be raised any higher than 18. But we do think there needs to be a close-in-age exemption (when one OR both partners is below the age limit) of four or even five years, and there is really no problem with reasonable age of consent laws that cannot be solved by such exemptions to these laws.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Food for thought.
Sunday, September 2, 2018
The Most (Cost-)Effective Ways to Reduce Alcohol-Related Harms
It has been three decades since the last state, Wyoming, raised their legal drinking age to 21 in 1988 under federal duress. And since then, has it really led our culture to a healthier relationship with alcohol? Hardly. As Twenty-One Debunked has been noting for years now, the tragic truth is that Americans are drowning at the bottom of the bottle, and paying a heavy price for it. It is the "pink elephant in the room" that no one wants to talk about, particularly for Americans over 21. This despite the fact that alcohol continues to literally kill more people than the opioid epidemic, and yet the former has not been declared anywhere near a public health emergency the way the latter has been. Gee, I wonder why?
And while teen drinking is currently at a record low (though not unique to the USA, so don't be so quick to give credit to the 21 drinking age), adult drinking is anything but. What is most striking is how ageist (and cowardly) our culture's response has been to this epidemic of excessive drinking, essentially blaming young people for adult drinking problems.
As for what the most effective responses to America's drinking problem, the one that stands out as the lowest-hanging fruit of all in terms of both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at reducing harm is raising alcohol taxes. In fact a recent international study of 16 countries by researchers at the World Health Orgainzation (WHO) confirmed what we have basically known all along but for some reason have yet to implement fully despite reams and reams of research evidence supporting it. Other close contenders in terms of the most "bang for the buck" include restrictions on alcohol advertising/marketing and hours of sale, but higher alcohol taxes/prices emerge as the most cost-effective measure of them all. Somewhat less cost-effective is tougher enforcement of BAC limits for DUI, but it is still highly effective as well. And the least cost-effective, but still effective (and worth doing) albeit more expensive, measure is screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems by primary-care physicians.
And guess what was not mentioned at all? You guessed it: drinking age laws. And for good reason: the supposed "mountain" of evidence in favor of the 21 drinking age basically turned out to be a molehill all along, and a very shaky one at that. But as an avid reader of Twenty-One Debunked, you already knew that, right? One day we will all look at the pro-21 crowd the same way we do for flat-earthers and such.
So yes, we do need to implement these aformentioned measures, especially raising alcohol taxes. Currently, in real dollars, alcohol is cheaper than ever in the USA. Raising and equalizing all federal alcohol taxes to $24 per proof-gallon (i.e. the inflation-adjusted 1991 level for distilled spirits) would be a good idea, though even raising them to $16 per proof-gallon would still yield very large societal benefits as well. That would not be much of a price hike to a moderate drinker, but to a heavy drinker it certainly would be.
And lowering the drinking age to 18 while implementing better and more honest alcohol education would most likely, at least over time, lead to a culturally healthier relationship with alcohol as well since it would no longer be a fetishized "forbidden fruit" that fosters a "go big or go home" attitude to drinking. The status quo certainly hasn't helped America's drinking culture one bit.
Let America be America Again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go ot the bar. 'Nuff said.
And while teen drinking is currently at a record low (though not unique to the USA, so don't be so quick to give credit to the 21 drinking age), adult drinking is anything but. What is most striking is how ageist (and cowardly) our culture's response has been to this epidemic of excessive drinking, essentially blaming young people for adult drinking problems.
As for what the most effective responses to America's drinking problem, the one that stands out as the lowest-hanging fruit of all in terms of both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at reducing harm is raising alcohol taxes. In fact a recent international study of 16 countries by researchers at the World Health Orgainzation (WHO) confirmed what we have basically known all along but for some reason have yet to implement fully despite reams and reams of research evidence supporting it. Other close contenders in terms of the most "bang for the buck" include restrictions on alcohol advertising/marketing and hours of sale, but higher alcohol taxes/prices emerge as the most cost-effective measure of them all. Somewhat less cost-effective is tougher enforcement of BAC limits for DUI, but it is still highly effective as well. And the least cost-effective, but still effective (and worth doing) albeit more expensive, measure is screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems by primary-care physicians.
And guess what was not mentioned at all? You guessed it: drinking age laws. And for good reason: the supposed "mountain" of evidence in favor of the 21 drinking age basically turned out to be a molehill all along, and a very shaky one at that. But as an avid reader of Twenty-One Debunked, you already knew that, right? One day we will all look at the pro-21 crowd the same way we do for flat-earthers and such.
So yes, we do need to implement these aformentioned measures, especially raising alcohol taxes. Currently, in real dollars, alcohol is cheaper than ever in the USA. Raising and equalizing all federal alcohol taxes to $24 per proof-gallon (i.e. the inflation-adjusted 1991 level for distilled spirits) would be a good idea, though even raising them to $16 per proof-gallon would still yield very large societal benefits as well. That would not be much of a price hike to a moderate drinker, but to a heavy drinker it certainly would be.
And lowering the drinking age to 18 while implementing better and more honest alcohol education would most likely, at least over time, lead to a culturally healthier relationship with alcohol as well since it would no longer be a fetishized "forbidden fruit" that fosters a "go big or go home" attitude to drinking. The status quo certainly hasn't helped America's drinking culture one bit.
Let America be America Again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go ot the bar. 'Nuff said.
A Generation of Sociopaths?
Are Baby Boomers (i.e. the generation born between 1946-1964) really a generation of sociopaths and/or narcissists? That is in fact the conclusion of a controversial new book by Bruce Gibney, titled A Generation of Sociopaths. And while we at Twenty-One Debunked are really not fond of condescending broad generalizations about any generation, there does seem to be at least a kernel of truth to his thesis, and it is nonetheless a breath of fresh air to have a book that at least doesn't glibly vilify Millennials and/or Gen Z like so many do nowadays.
According to Gibney, himself a member of Gen X, traits associated with antisocial personality disorder and narcissism do seem to be more prevalent in Boomers compared to any generation before or since. And the hard data pertaining to behaviors associated with such traits, especially crime rates and substance abuse, do indeed seem to bear this thesis out rather nicely, as do the voting records of that generation. Reagan, both Bushes, Bill Clinton, and especially Trump could never have been elected without the Boomers voting for them in large numbers. These candidates all basically promised Boomers (especially white, middle class ones) the moon while asking essentially nothing of them in return, and no price was too high as long as someone else (i.e. future generations) paid for it. And all of these candidates, to one degree or another, did serious damage to our country--economically, socially, and ecologically.
Granted, "not ALL Boomers" are like that. But enough of them are to be a problem, and more so than any other generation. Sound familiar? It really should.
The real question here is WHY this generation who had so many advantages in terms of wealth and power turned out the way that they are. Gibney, predictably, blames "permissive parenting" and the fact that they were the first generation raised with television. True, as the Dr. Spock generation they (mainly white, middle-class Boomers) were raised more permissively than previous generations, and likely more so than subsequent generations in at least some ways. The mid to late 1970s could indeed be considered a time of "peak permissiveness" in terms of both parenting practices and public policy, and such trends towards permissiveness indeed began from about 1945 onward. No doubt about that.
But stating such time-series correlations does NOT actually establish causation. Another factor, overlooked by Gibney, explains Boomer (and early Gen X) traits, behaviors, and statistics far more than anything else: preschool lead poisoning from leaded gasoline and paint. Leaded gasoline begain being used in the 1930s, and after WWII, gasoline consumption (and thus lead pollution) increased dramatically until the 1973-1974 oil crisis and the phaseout of leaded gasoline beginning in 1976. Lead paint, which was banned completely in 1978, had already been phased down in decades prior, but lingers in older housing stock. Thus, the first permissively-raised generation and the first televison-raised generation and the wealthiest generation in history and the most heavily lead-poisoned generation in history are all in fact one and the same.
And unlike the specious correlations with parental permissiveness and screen time, the correlation with early lead poisoning (a known nasty neurotoxin) and various traits and behaviors that can be described as sociopathic (or at least poor impulse control) is undeniable and meets all of the Bradford-Hills criteria of causation. As researcher Rick Nevin notes, relationship between preschool lead exposure and such adverse later outcomes as major and minor crime, juvenile delinquency, unwed/early pregnancy, and stuff like that remains highly robust across studies numerous time periods, nations, cultures, and functional forms. And while white, suburban and rural, middle-class Boomers were arguably much less affected by such lead poisoning than their poorer, urban, black, and/or Latino counterparts in terms of lead poisoning, that doesn't mean that they were completely unaffected by it, since there was still plenty of lead to go around everywhere. The difference was really one of degree, not kind.
Fortunately, thanks to the phaseout of leaded gasoline and paint, newer housing stocks, and reduction of lead emissions from incinerators, lead poisoning in children today is now at the lowest level in at least a century. But there is still much work to be done. There is plenty of old housing stock with deteriorating lead paint, and there is still too much lead in the drinking water of many communities across the country. According to Nevin, replacing old windows in old housing with new, double-glazed, energy-saving windows, along with stablilizing currently deteriorating old lead paint on walls, would be "low-hanging fruit" in terms of lead abatement that would more than pay for itself in the long run. As for drinking water, replacing the older service lines would be expensive and time consuming (though still worth doing nonetheless), but in the meantime we could stop adding fluoride yesterday (which is not only neurotoxic in its own right, but potentiates the neurotoxicity of lead and increases lead corrosion and leaching from pipes) and perhaps use ozone instead of chlorine (which also leaches lead) for disinfection of the drinking water supply.
And while many of the Boomer-induced problems left for future generations are indeed real, we should also note that Gibney's fretting about the national debt and Social Security's supposedly impending insolvency is misplaced since these things are really non-problems for a Monetarily Sovereign government like our own federal government. It is in fact a Big Lie that federal taxes actually pay for federal spending and that the federal government can somehow run short on dollars. And that big, scary number that is our so-called "national debt" is not debt in the usual sense of the term but rather more like a national savings account. Author Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, himself a member of the Silent Generation, would have some choice words for authors like Gibney in that regard. But that is a topic for another discussion.
And while many of the Boomer-induced problems left for future generations are indeed real, we should also note that Gibney's fretting about the national debt and Social Security's supposedly impending insolvency is misplaced since these things are really non-problems for a Monetarily Sovereign government like our own federal government. It is in fact a Big Lie that federal taxes actually pay for federal spending and that the federal government can somehow run short on dollars. And that big, scary number that is our so-called "national debt" is not debt in the usual sense of the term but rather more like a national savings account. Author Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, himself a member of the Silent Generation, would have some choice words for authors like Gibney in that regard. But that is a topic for another discussion.
So perhaps what is really needed here, instead of vilification of an entire generation, is that crucial trait that sociopaths and narcissists lack: empathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
