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. Similarly, so does another study in Germany (also 16).
And another Canadian study, looking at sexual assault perpetration, finds mixed results. That is, for provinces with a legal drinking age of 19, they find such a significant discontinuous increase (for male perpetrators only), but in provinces with a drinking age of 18, in contrast they find no significant jump at all. A second Canadian study, looking at sexual assault victimization among women, found mixed results that varied by both location of occurrence as well as by legal drinking age, and had very wide confidence intervals. It appears that in provinces with a drinking age of 18, it was primarily a shifting of the location where the assaults took place rather than an overall increase, while in the provinces with a drinking age of 19, it was more of an increase (though modest) for the "any location" category.
And finally, a later Dutch study also dovetails with this general theory as well in terms of crime victimization. And in stark contrast to a recent American study, no effect was seen for sexual assault victimization in the Netherlands.
Put together, at least for sexual assault, it seems that drinking age laws merely shift the timing and location, and not really change overall rates in the long run. And forcing drinking underground only makes it more dangerous than it has to be. It's almost like rape is, in fact, actually caused by rapists, not by alcohol, victims, differences in drinking age laws, or anything else. But hey, what do I know? I'm just the 800 pound guerrilla in the room.
No comments:
Post a Comment