(This is a public service announcement)
It is that time of year again when the holidays are upon us, and many of us Americans (and around the world) will be celebrating with alcohol and/or other substances. We at Twenty-One Debunked would like to remind everyone to be safe and celebrate responsibly. There is absolutely no excuse for drunk driving at any age, period. We cannot stress this enough. It's very simple--if you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive. It's really not rocket science, folks. And there are numerous ways to avoid mixing the two. Designate a sober driver, take a cab, use public transportation, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to. Or stay home and celebrate there. Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head. Seriously. And the same goes for other psychoactive substances as well, and a fortiori when combined with alcohol.
ARRIVE ALIVE, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!! If you plan to drink, don't forget to think! The life you save may very well be your own.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Saturday, December 22, 2018
The Kids Are (Mostly) Alright in 2018
According to the latest Monitoring the Future results for 2018, it was mostly good news. The use of most substances is down or unchanged compared with 2017 among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, including alcohol and combustible tobacco which are currently at record lows. The opioid epidemic still does not seem to be engulfing teens the way it has for their elders--opioids are also down among teens. And most notably, cannabis use did NOT increase in spite of increasingly widespread legalization, decriminalization, and medicalization in more and more states--and paired with the recent sharp decline in teen drinking, one could even argue that cannabis may be displacing alcohol a bit.
The bad news? The second wave of the teen vaping surge from late 2017 through 2018 (after dropping from its previous peak in 2015 to a lower level in 2017) does in fact seem to be real. And there was no similar increase in adult vaping at that time, in contrast to previous years. But for that, we can thank the mainstream media and the FDA for fanning the flames of moral panic over teen vaping, which was probably the best (and free!) advertising that JUUL could ever possibly dream of. And, of course, JUUL's unusually high nicotine content as well. And, we repeat, teen smoking has continued to drop to a new record low. As for the increase in vaping cannabis, that does not seem to have led to an overall increase in cannabis use, but rather a displacement of smoking weed to vaping it instead, much like was the case with tobacco from 2011-2017.
The bad news? The second wave of the teen vaping surge from late 2017 through 2018 (after dropping from its previous peak in 2015 to a lower level in 2017) does in fact seem to be real. And there was no similar increase in adult vaping at that time, in contrast to previous years. But for that, we can thank the mainstream media and the FDA for fanning the flames of moral panic over teen vaping, which was probably the best (and free!) advertising that JUUL could ever possibly dream of. And, of course, JUUL's unusually high nicotine content as well. And, we repeat, teen smoking has continued to drop to a new record low. As for the increase in vaping cannabis, that does not seem to have led to an overall increase in cannabis use, but rather a displacement of smoking weed to vaping it instead, much like was the case with tobacco from 2011-2017.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
There's No Benefit To The 21 Drinking Age
We need to tell the truth and see the forest for the trees. There is literally NO overarching net benefit to society in setting the drinking age so ridiculously high at 21. Zip, zilch, nada. At least compared with a properly enforced drinking age of 18.
The 21 drinking age has been the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, and that is no exaggeration. As the the famous Miron and Tetelbaum study has shown, the specious notion that the 21 drinking age saves lives was really just a mirage all along, and that was not the only study to reach this conclusion either. This ageist abomination also appears to have only a minor impact on teen drinking, small enough to be accounted for by increased underreporting in surveys, while forcing alcohol underground only makes it far more dangerous than it has to be.
And plenty of other countries have seen massive decreases in both teen drinking as well as traffic fatalities without raising the drinking age to 21. That includes our neighbor to the north, despite being a car culture like the USA. Ditto for the UK, which had historically been even more of a drink-to-get-drunk culture than the USA. Ditto for Australia, also historically a car culture and drink-to-get-drunk culture. Even Germany, with a drinking age of 16 for beer and wine and 18 for distilled spirits, has seen such progress. Now that really says something.
So what actually does work to reduce alcohol-related harms for all ages? We have known the answer for decades now, and it's really not rocket science:
"But America is different", you say. "Americans can't handle a lower drinking age", you say, even if the rest of the world can. Hey, would you like to be a bit more specific as to exactly why Americans are somehow inferior to our European, British, Canadian, Australian, etc. counterparts that would justify such a ridiculously high drinking age? Thought so. And by the way, the logical conclusion to such a specious argument would be to bring back Prohibition for ALL ages, not just people under 21. Think about it.
Thus, there is no good reason to keep the drinking age any higher than the age of majority. And in most states, that age is 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
The 21 drinking age has been the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, and that is no exaggeration. As the the famous Miron and Tetelbaum study has shown, the specious notion that the 21 drinking age saves lives was really just a mirage all along, and that was not the only study to reach this conclusion either. This ageist abomination also appears to have only a minor impact on teen drinking, small enough to be accounted for by increased underreporting in surveys, while forcing alcohol underground only makes it far more dangerous than it has to be.
And plenty of other countries have seen massive decreases in both teen drinking as well as traffic fatalities without raising the drinking age to 21. That includes our neighbor to the north, despite being a car culture like the USA. Ditto for the UK, which had historically been even more of a drink-to-get-drunk culture than the USA. Ditto for Australia, also historically a car culture and drink-to-get-drunk culture. Even Germany, with a drinking age of 16 for beer and wine and 18 for distilled spirits, has seen such progress. Now that really says something.
So what actually does work to reduce alcohol-related harms for all ages? We have known the answer for decades now, and it's really not rocket science:
- Increasing alcohol taxes, or otherwise increasing the price of alcoholic beverages
- Restricting alcohol outlet density and/or trading hours (albeit with some nuance)
- Cracking down on drunk driving, drunk violence, and drunk and disorderly conduct
- Improving educational intiatives
- Improving access to treatment
"But America is different", you say. "Americans can't handle a lower drinking age", you say, even if the rest of the world can. Hey, would you like to be a bit more specific as to exactly why Americans are somehow inferior to our European, British, Canadian, Australian, etc. counterparts that would justify such a ridiculously high drinking age? Thought so. And by the way, the logical conclusion to such a specious argument would be to bring back Prohibition for ALL ages, not just people under 21. Think about it.
Thus, there is no good reason to keep the drinking age any higher than the age of majority. And in most states, that age is 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do
A few years ago, Twenty-One Debunked had a segment called "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do" (TUDDD), to highlight some off the outrageous misbehavior that over-21 drinkers have done recently. We decided to bring it back. In the past week or two:
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into a school bus in Massachusetts, injuring many adults and children.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly and belligerently threaten other passengers and crew on an airplane, causing the flight to be diverted.
An underage drinker did NOT kill one passenger and injure several others, including the other driver, in a DUI crash in Santa Ana, CA.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly run over a pedestrian in a parking lot with a pickup truck, landing her in the hospital.
An underage drinker did NOT kill both of his passengers in a DUI crash, himself walking away unscathed, in rural Mendocino County, CA.
An underage drinker did NOT get so incredibly wasted that she literally crashed into a house, injuring a child in that house.
An underage drinker did NOT get sloshed, tried to give her 10 year old daughter and 8 year old son bourbon, had stabby thoughts, asked her daughter to get a knife so they "would all die together", then grabbed and threw her son on the bed before she (luckily) passed out before anyone was killed.
And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. But hey, at least they were over 21, right? Move along, nothing to see here folks...
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into a school bus in Massachusetts, injuring many adults and children.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly and belligerently threaten other passengers and crew on an airplane, causing the flight to be diverted.
An underage drinker did NOT kill one passenger and injure several others, including the other driver, in a DUI crash in Santa Ana, CA.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly run over a pedestrian in a parking lot with a pickup truck, landing her in the hospital.
An underage drinker did NOT kill both of his passengers in a DUI crash, himself walking away unscathed, in rural Mendocino County, CA.
An underage drinker did NOT get so incredibly wasted that she literally crashed into a house, injuring a child in that house.
An underage drinker did NOT get sloshed, tried to give her 10 year old daughter and 8 year old son bourbon, had stabby thoughts, asked her daughter to get a knife so they "would all die together", then grabbed and threw her son on the bed before she (luckily) passed out before anyone was killed.
And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. But hey, at least they were over 21, right? Move along, nothing to see here folks...
Saturday, December 1, 2018
No Increase In Stoned Driving In Canada Despite Cannabis Legalization
Cannabis has been legal in Canada for everyone over 18 (or 19, depending on the province) since October 17, 2018, and yet a month later there has still been no noticeable increase in stoned driving and related crashes according to police. While it may still be too soon to tell, that is still very encouraging news that takes much of the wind out the sails of both prohibitionists and ageists alike.
This adds to the growing body of evidence that legalization of cannabis was not a disaster after all, and that there is no good reason to set the age limit any higher than 18. Food for thought indeed.
About That Tobacco Endgame Strategy
With all the fanfare about the FDA's crackdown on vaping, and then menthol cigarettes on the horizon as well, they have also been quietly mulling over another initiative since at least July 2017 if not earlier: reducing the nicotine content of manufactured combustible cigarettes to a minimally addictive or non-addictive level. This is something that Twenty-One Debunked has long discussed, and has generally supported, since 2013. And it truly has the potential to be a game-changer.
However, Twenty-One Debunked also feels that there is a right way to do so, as well one or more wrong ways to do so. Currently, as several anti-smoking groups caught wind of the FDA's still-tentative proposal, they have been making recommendations on how to do it--mostly in the direction of the wrong ways. As for the right way, Twenty-One Debunked recommends the following:
Rather, we should think of manufactured combustible cigarettes and little cigars the same way we did with A19 incandescent lightbulbs effective 2014. Did we really end up missing those? Was there ever a black market for those? Gee, I wonder why. And now, four years later, the cost of LED bulbs has plummeted so much, to the tune of 90%, that they are now available in Dollar Tree and similar dollar stores.
Gradually and gingerly is the best way to do it. And any fears of harmful compensatory behavior (i.e. puffing harder and deeper, and/or smoking more cigarettes) during the relatively brief phasedown period can be rendered moot by simply raising the federal cigarette tax a bit again, if we must.
Food for thought indeed.
However, Twenty-One Debunked also feels that there is a right way to do so, as well one or more wrong ways to do so. Currently, as several anti-smoking groups caught wind of the FDA's still-tentative proposal, they have been making recommendations on how to do it--mostly in the direction of the wrong ways. As for the right way, Twenty-One Debunked recommends the following:
- Phase the nicotine content limit down to 0.4 mg/g gradually rather than immediately, over of a period of at least one year but no more than five years.
- If decided to implement in a single step, have a delay of at least six months to a year between finalization of the rule and the effective date.
- Allow existing non-compliant inventories to be sold, applying the nicotine limits only to products manufactured or imported after the effective date of such limits.
- Exempt large cigars, defined by size or weight of tobacco, as well as pipe tobacco (which can be defined as having an alkaline pH that is a bit harder to inhale). While still addictive and harmful, the tobacco epidemic is not driven by these products.
- And of course, exempt smokeless tobacco.
- For vape products, cap nicotine levels at current European and Israeli levels (but no lower). Note that nearly all brands, with the notable exception of JUUL, would already be compliant.
- And of course, DO NOT raise the age limit for any of these products any higher than 18. Ever. Period.
Rather, we should think of manufactured combustible cigarettes and little cigars the same way we did with A19 incandescent lightbulbs effective 2014. Did we really end up missing those? Was there ever a black market for those? Gee, I wonder why. And now, four years later, the cost of LED bulbs has plummeted so much, to the tune of 90%, that they are now available in Dollar Tree and similar dollar stores.
Gradually and gingerly is the best way to do it. And any fears of harmful compensatory behavior (i.e. puffing harder and deeper, and/or smoking more cigarettes) during the relatively brief phasedown period can be rendered moot by simply raising the federal cigarette tax a bit again, if we must.
Food for thought indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
