(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.
Friday, November 23, 2018
Has the Tobacco 21 Movement Already Crested?
The ignoble experiment to raise the legal drinking age to 21 in the 1980s has generated much controversy despite the political and media pseudo-consensus favoring it, and we at Twenty-One Debunked have, well, debunked it time and again. Of course, the data from the 1970s and 1980s on which nearly all drinking age studies are based are now quite outdated, as the USA is almost a completely different country now. So what if there was a way to re-run this same natural experiment today?
Well, it turns out that there is, albeit with a different psychoactive substance: Tobacco 21 laws have proliferated since 2012 and especially since 2015, mostly at the local level but increasingly at the state level as well (with Massachusetts being the most recent one to do so). And what were the results? A big nothing in terms of teen smoking rates, basically. There has been essentially no hard evidence that there was any sort of correlation between a state's or locality's tobacco age limit vs. their teen smoking (or vaping) rate, period, regardless of whether it was 18 or 21 (or, less commonly, 19). Thus, raising the age limit from 18 to 21 has been an unnecessarily ageist endeavor, and one can thus easily extrapolate these results to alcohol and cannabis going forward as well.
True, from 2013 to 2017, there was a massive drop in teen and young adult smoking. But that was more likely due to the explosion of vaping during that time than any other factor, and happened in states in localities that kept their age limits at 18 all along as well as those who raised them. Which, by the way, also debunks the laughable idea that vaping is somehow a "gateway" to combustible cigarettes--if anything, raising the age limit for e-cigarettes/vapes may even steer young people back towards combustible cigarettes according to some studies.
As for Chicago's supposed success story in terms of reduced smoking rates in the first year after hiking their age limit to 21 in 2016, note that Chicago also recently hiked their cigarette tax as well, to make their cigarettes some of the most expensive in the nation. Pennsylvania also hiked their own cigarette tax while leaving their age limit at 18, and if anything Philadelphia has seen more progress in reducing teen smoking than Chicago from 2013-2017 according to the YRBSS. Thus, no causal link has been proven.
And while the Tobacco 21 movement luurrrves to gloat about their very first victory in the Boston suburb of Needham, MA, they conveniently ignore another Boston suburb, Cohasset, where teen tobacco use actually increased in the year following enactment of their own local Tobacco 21 law.
Some may dismiss the relevance of tobacco age limits to alcohol (or cannabis), of course, but keep in mind that just a few years ago, Tobacco 21 advocates actually predicted that raising the age limit for tobacco to 21 would be more effective that raising the drinking age to 21 was in the 1980s. Tobacco is far more addictive, which in economic terms means that while the short-run elasticity is lower than for alcohol (or cannabis), the long-run elasticity is higher than for these other substances. And easy access to a daily or almost daily source is thought to be far more important for tobacco as well. Thus, the failure of Tobacco 21 laws to have any meaningful impact on teen and young adult smoking rates would also apply a fortiori to alcohol and cannabis as well.
As for Chicago's supposed success story in terms of reduced smoking rates in the first year after hiking their age limit to 21 in 2016, note that Chicago also recently hiked their cigarette tax as well, to make their cigarettes some of the most expensive in the nation. Pennsylvania also hiked their own cigarette tax while leaving their age limit at 18, and if anything Philadelphia has seen more progress in reducing teen smoking than Chicago from 2013-2017 according to the YRBSS. Thus, no causal link has been proven.
And while the Tobacco 21 movement luurrrves to gloat about their very first victory in the Boston suburb of Needham, MA, they conveniently ignore another Boston suburb, Cohasset, where teen tobacco use actually increased in the year following enactment of their own local Tobacco 21 law.
Some may dismiss the relevance of tobacco age limits to alcohol (or cannabis), of course, but keep in mind that just a few years ago, Tobacco 21 advocates actually predicted that raising the age limit for tobacco to 21 would be more effective that raising the drinking age to 21 was in the 1980s. Tobacco is far more addictive, which in economic terms means that while the short-run elasticity is lower than for alcohol (or cannabis), the long-run elasticity is higher than for these other substances. And easy access to a daily or almost daily source is thought to be far more important for tobacco as well. Thus, the failure of Tobacco 21 laws to have any meaningful impact on teen and young adult smoking rates would also apply a fortiori to alcohol and cannabis as well.
The Tobacco 21 movement now seems to be running out of steam, as their initial euphoria pinned on irrational exuberance is fading fast. This year, only one state raised their smoking age to 21, compared with three states last year and two states in 2016, and fewer localities have changed their laws this year as well. The momentum is almost completely gone now.
And the fact that Big Tobacco has now recently jumped on the Tobacco 21 bandwagon (yes, really), after at least feigning opposition at first, shows that the movement has jumped the proverbial shark, and is now tainted as well. Strike three, yer out!
And the fact that Big Tobacco has now recently jumped on the Tobacco 21 bandwagon (yes, really), after at least feigning opposition at first, shows that the movement has jumped the proverbial shark, and is now tainted as well. Strike three, yer out!
2018 is almost over, and the current 2010s decade is also almost over as well. Let this be the time now to flush the idea of the 21 age limit (for any age-resticted product) down the toilet for good with all of the other dumb things from this despicable decade.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Americans Still Drinking Themselves To Death
With all the news about tobacco, vaping, opioids, and cannabis lately, Twenty-One Debunked had almost forgotten about the very substance that led us to our founding in the first place: alcohol. And the news about alcohol these days is hardly anything rosy: Americans are still drinking themselves to death, at an alarming and increasing rate. And yet, such very bad news (among adults) is strangely banal and often seen as not particularly newsworthy. As we like to say, it is our country's "pink elephant in the room".
Teen drinking specifically may be at or close to a record low now, as it is in many other countries as well, but the tragic truth is that Americans in general are currently drowning in the bottom of the bottle and paying a heavy price for it.
According to a recent article, there are indeed several proven strategies that can be implemented at federal, state, and local levels to help stem the tide and get a handle on America's drinking problem. We KNOW how to do it, and have known for decades now. And while they may not necessarily get at all of the deepest root causes, they are still known to work quite well in the meantime regardless:
Teen drinking specifically may be at or close to a record low now, as it is in many other countries as well, but the tragic truth is that Americans in general are currently drowning in the bottom of the bottle and paying a heavy price for it.
According to a recent article, there are indeed several proven strategies that can be implemented at federal, state, and local levels to help stem the tide and get a handle on America's drinking problem. We KNOW how to do it, and have known for decades now. And while they may not necessarily get at all of the deepest root causes, they are still known to work quite well in the meantime regardless:
- Raising alcohol taxes
- Restricting the number/density of alcohol outlets and/or the hours/days of sale
- Improving access to treatment
- Bolstering coping skills
And while the first two get the most "bang for the buck" in terms of cost-effectiveness, they are unfortunately a relatively tough sell in some places. Nevertheless, all four of these strategies should be implemented yesterday--if only our "leaders" would have the intestinal fortitude to do so.
Notice also that there was no mention of the 21 drinking age in the article. And that is probably because after maintaining such ridiculous and ageist laws in all 50 states and DC for at least three decades now, the supposed benefits of such laws are ringing more hollow than ever. And if anything, it is becoming increasingly crystal clear now that the 21 drinking age is doing more harm than good by merely forcing young adult drinking underground and kicking the proverbial can down the road.
Friday, November 16, 2018
We Know Who To Thank For The "Epidemic" In Teen Vaping (Fearmongers, We're Looking At YOU!)
The FDA found that, according to new 2018 survey data, vaping is up nearly 80% (78%) from 2017 among high school students and up nearly 50% (48%) among middle school students. Previously, teen vaping had increased 900% from 2011-2015 (while also displacing combustible cigarette smoking which is now at a record low, mind you), dropped slightly in 2016, and held steady in 2017 before this much more recent increase in 2018 that is believed to be driven by flavored vapes, particularly the JUUL brand which didn't really catch on until late 2017.
The recently announced FDA restrictions, in which flavored vapes (other than mint, menthol, and tobacco) will no longer be sold in stores unless those stores prohibit the entrance of people under 18, are largely a reaction to such data. But let's look at the sequence of events here: despite JUUL being founded in 2015, it is unlikely that many people had ever even heard of JUUL until the fearmongering mainstream media's moral panic began in 2017, providing the very best (and free!) advertising that JUUL could ever possibly dream of. Thus, we all know who to thank for that--fearmongers, we're looking at YOU!
If they really want to reverse this media-induced deviancy amplification spiral, the best thing for the media and the FDA is to simply STFU now that the new regulations are a foregone conclusion. Also, reducing the maximum nicotine content of vape products (JUUL is apparently unusually high) down to European and Israeli levels would also make it less likely that young experimenters would get hooked. But of course, that would make too much sense.
Saturday, November 10, 2018
FDA and New York Take Aim at Flavored Vapes
After much saber-rattling with JUUL and other leading vape manufacturers, the FDA now plans to ban the sale of most flavored vape products (except mint and menthol) in retail stores and gas stations to reduce availability to young people. Flavored vapes would only be allowed to be sold in vape shops and tobacco shops, and online sites with strict age verification measures. New York State plans to go even further, banning the sale of flavored vapes entirely, much like San Francisco has already done.
Oh, and the FDA also apparently wants to ban menthol combustible cigarettes as well, because they are believed to be harder to quit than non-menthols (though that is probably due to their generally higher nicotine content, the harsher taste of which is masked by the menthol). All other flavors have already been banned as of 2009. This particular ban, however, will likely take much longer to finalize and longer still before it is actually enforced.
Twenty-One Debunked has mixed feelings about these bans. On the one hand, they are in some ways still better than hiking the age limit to 21, and there is some truth to the idea that fruity flavors may make nicotine-containing vapes seem more benign than they actually are, increasing the likelihood of accidental addiction among young people. On the other hand, these bans, though modest, can also be a slippery slope and even perhaps a boon to Big Tobacco. So while we do not oppose these bans, we are still a bit wary about them nonetheless.
What would probably have the largest effect in terms of reducing the number of young people getting hooked on vaping is capping the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels. Over there, JUUL reduced their nicotine content so they can be sold in those markets, and such products remain effective smoking cessation devices with a somewhat lower likelihood of accidental addiction happening quickly among young experimenters. Meanwhile, in the USA, there is a joke that the unusually high-nicotine JUUL products sold here are kinda like the horror film The Ring: you will get hooked in seven days. Not really far off the mark.
The best thing to stop the "epidemic" of teen vaping, of course, is to stop fanning the flames of moral panic. After such modest bans like the ones discussed above are in place, hopefully the mainstream media will finally STFU about this supposed "epidemic".
UPDATE: On November 13, 2018, JUUL announced that they will no longer restock any orders to retailers for any flavored vape pods other than tobacco or menthol, and will only continue selling them online to people 21 and older, and will also end all social media promotions as well. So it looks like 18-20 year old vapers who prefer such flavors will need to stock up very fast at their local stores before they run out.
And as of November 15, the FDA will go ahead and pursue the aforementioned regulations. The new regulations may not be fully implemented for months in the case of flavored vapes, and years in the case of menthol combustible cigarettes, but are essentially a foregone conclusion now. Flavored vapes, except for mint, menthol, and tobacco, will only be sold in stores that do not allow people under 18 to enter or have separate sections that disallow people under 18.
Thus, in their zeal to pre-empt regulators, it looks like JUUL is being unnecessarily ageist towards 18-20 year olds. And why can't JUUL just offer a nicotine-free option for pods, and reduce their sky-high nicotine content in their current ones to European levels?
Oh, and the FDA also apparently wants to ban menthol combustible cigarettes as well, because they are believed to be harder to quit than non-menthols (though that is probably due to their generally higher nicotine content, the harsher taste of which is masked by the menthol). All other flavors have already been banned as of 2009. This particular ban, however, will likely take much longer to finalize and longer still before it is actually enforced.
Twenty-One Debunked has mixed feelings about these bans. On the one hand, they are in some ways still better than hiking the age limit to 21, and there is some truth to the idea that fruity flavors may make nicotine-containing vapes seem more benign than they actually are, increasing the likelihood of accidental addiction among young people. On the other hand, these bans, though modest, can also be a slippery slope and even perhaps a boon to Big Tobacco. So while we do not oppose these bans, we are still a bit wary about them nonetheless.
What would probably have the largest effect in terms of reducing the number of young people getting hooked on vaping is capping the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels. Over there, JUUL reduced their nicotine content so they can be sold in those markets, and such products remain effective smoking cessation devices with a somewhat lower likelihood of accidental addiction happening quickly among young experimenters. Meanwhile, in the USA, there is a joke that the unusually high-nicotine JUUL products sold here are kinda like the horror film The Ring: you will get hooked in seven days. Not really far off the mark.
The best thing to stop the "epidemic" of teen vaping, of course, is to stop fanning the flames of moral panic. After such modest bans like the ones discussed above are in place, hopefully the mainstream media will finally STFU about this supposed "epidemic".
UPDATE: On November 13, 2018, JUUL announced that they will no longer restock any orders to retailers for any flavored vape pods other than tobacco or menthol, and will only continue selling them online to people 21 and older, and will also end all social media promotions as well. So it looks like 18-20 year old vapers who prefer such flavors will need to stock up very fast at their local stores before they run out.
And as of November 15, the FDA will go ahead and pursue the aforementioned regulations. The new regulations may not be fully implemented for months in the case of flavored vapes, and years in the case of menthol combustible cigarettes, but are essentially a foregone conclusion now. Flavored vapes, except for mint, menthol, and tobacco, will only be sold in stores that do not allow people under 18 to enter or have separate sections that disallow people under 18.
Thus, in their zeal to pre-empt regulators, it looks like JUUL is being unnecessarily ageist towards 18-20 year olds. And why can't JUUL just offer a nicotine-free option for pods, and reduce their sky-high nicotine content in their current ones to European levels?
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Smoking Tobacco May Actually Be Eradicated By 2030
Well, in the UK at least, particularly in England, according to a new report. The British currently have the second lowest smoking rate in Europe after Sweden, and only slightly higher than the USA, and rapidly falling for the past several years. And if current trends of the past five years continue, smoking rates will drop below 5% of the adult population (what researchers define as a "smoke-free" country) by 2030. Given that nearly half of British adults smoked in the early 1970s, this is no small feat.
And the real kicker? This is all happening without raising the smoking age to 21, as it is currently 18 (just like their drinking age) with no plans to hike it any further. The Tobacco 21 fever currently sweeping the USA by storm simply hasn't caught on over on the other side of the Atlantic. And unlike in the USA, there is no moral panic over vaping either. If anything, Public Health England encourages current smokers to switch to vaping to help them quit. These kinds of ageist American-style moral panics, with very few exceptions, are really quite foreign to them.
And come to think of it, after an initial boom in e-cigarettes for a few years, even vaping is now on the decline as well. It appears that's what happens when you don't turn something like that into a media circus / moral panic / deviancy amplification spiral.
It is things like this that almost make us wish that Britain, our mother country, would just revoke America's hard-won (but subsequently squandered) independence. (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)
And the real kicker? This is all happening without raising the smoking age to 21, as it is currently 18 (just like their drinking age) with no plans to hike it any further. The Tobacco 21 fever currently sweeping the USA by storm simply hasn't caught on over on the other side of the Atlantic. And unlike in the USA, there is no moral panic over vaping either. If anything, Public Health England encourages current smokers to switch to vaping to help them quit. These kinds of ageist American-style moral panics, with very few exceptions, are really quite foreign to them.
And come to think of it, after an initial boom in e-cigarettes for a few years, even vaping is now on the decline as well. It appears that's what happens when you don't turn something like that into a media circus / moral panic / deviancy amplification spiral.
It is things like this that almost make us wish that Britain, our mother country, would just revoke America's hard-won (but subsequently squandered) independence. (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Guess Who Now Openly Supports Tobacco 21 Laws? Go On, Guess...
Tobacco 21 laws, or laws that raise the age limit to buy tobacco products to 21, are unfortunately gaining popularity as a sort of "feel good" measure despite the relative dearth of evidence backing them up. Well, now we can add a new name to the list of supporters: Philip Morris Altria Group. That's right, a company whose former name is literally synonymous with Big Tobacco now supports, whether grudgingly or otherwise, a smoking age of 21 (even at the federal level) despite at least feigning opposition just a few years ago followed by awkward silence on the topic.
So why the sudden turnaround? Probably a cynical combination of public relations as well as the realization that raising the smoking age to 21 (compared to 18) in several states and localities did NOT really end up hurting their bottom lines after all. And even more cynically, they can perhaps now leverage the arguably enhanced forbidden fruit effect to their own benefit, all while patting themselves on the back for their "corporate social responsibility".
(RALPH!)
You know, kinda like they did all along (to one degree or another) when the age limit was 18, and like the alcohol industry has done with the 21 drinking age. Put up a public fight at first, take a dive, stay quiet for a few years, then publicly support the new laws while leveraging them (and simultaneously fighting against higher taxes or any new regulations). Quislings.
Thus, it is safe to say that our cynicism is now fully maxed out. And that really says something indeed.
So why the sudden turnaround? Probably a cynical combination of public relations as well as the realization that raising the smoking age to 21 (compared to 18) in several states and localities did NOT really end up hurting their bottom lines after all. And even more cynically, they can perhaps now leverage the arguably enhanced forbidden fruit effect to their own benefit, all while patting themselves on the back for their "corporate social responsibility".
(RALPH!)
You know, kinda like they did all along (to one degree or another) when the age limit was 18, and like the alcohol industry has done with the 21 drinking age. Put up a public fight at first, take a dive, stay quiet for a few years, then publicly support the new laws while leveraging them (and simultaneously fighting against higher taxes or any new regulations). Quislings.
Thus, it is safe to say that our cynicism is now fully maxed out. And that really says something indeed.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Traffic Deaths Down So Far In 2018
There is good news on the highways lately, namely that preliminary data for the first half of 2018 show a 3.1% decrease in traffic deaths, and 2017 saw a 1.8% decrease as well following two straight years of significant increases. This is true despite the fact that the economy is still improving and there is thus more driving going on now than a few years ago.
So what happened in 2017-2018? Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016. And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities. gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes. So that only explains part of the picture. And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill. So what else could it be?
The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part. But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.
Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall. Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.
So what are we waiting for?
So what happened in 2017-2018? Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016. And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities. gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes. So that only explains part of the picture. And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill. So what else could it be?
The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part. But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.
Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall. Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.
So what are we waiting for?
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em
That is what at least some segments of the alcohol industry increasingly feel about cannabis as it becomes more and more mainstream. For decades, much of the industry has generally opposed cannabis, and legalization at first seemed to be taking a bite out of the demand for booze. But now, they are catching on and want a piece of the action now, knowing what an unstoppable juggernaut that legalized cannabis has become. And this is just the beginning.
Among Millennials, alcohol is retreating while cannabis is advancing, a trend that shows no signs of stopping anytime soon. Thus, some alcohol companies, particularly the craft brewer Lagunitas (itself owned by the Dutch multinational beer company Heineken) are now starting to market cannabis-infused beverages in California and other states where recreational cannabis is legal. Meanwhile, the more conservative segments of the alcohol industry, who are loath to associate themselves with something as controversial as cannabis, are likely going to be left behind as a result.
UPDATE: As of October 2018, it also appears that after sitting on the sidelines for years now, Big Tobacco giant Altria Group (formerly known as Philip Morris) is considering a stake in Aphria, a Canadian cannabis company. We strongly urge the cannabis industry to refrain from making such a Faustian bargain.
Among Millennials, alcohol is retreating while cannabis is advancing, a trend that shows no signs of stopping anytime soon. Thus, some alcohol companies, particularly the craft brewer Lagunitas (itself owned by the Dutch multinational beer company Heineken) are now starting to market cannabis-infused beverages in California and other states where recreational cannabis is legal. Meanwhile, the more conservative segments of the alcohol industry, who are loath to associate themselves with something as controversial as cannabis, are likely going to be left behind as a result.
UPDATE: As of October 2018, it also appears that after sitting on the sidelines for years now, Big Tobacco giant Altria Group (formerly known as Philip Morris) is considering a stake in Aphria, a Canadian cannabis company. We strongly urge the cannabis industry to refrain from making such a Faustian bargain.
Friday, October 19, 2018
Latest Teen Brain and Cannabis Study More Smoke than Fire
The scary-sounding headline from a few weeks ago in USA Today reads, "Marijuana caused more damage to teens' brains than alcohol, study finds". Yes, there was a study that claimed to find such results, but there is less here than meets the eye.
In other words, there's more smoke than fire.
The actual study itself is predictably behind a paywall, and we will not dignify such questionable research by paying for it, so we couldn't find the actual numbers and thus could not quantify any effect sizes or how long the reported effects lasted, but the abstract and several news articles summarize qualitatively the main findings. The study, which involved nearly 4000 students from 7th through 10th grades in the greater Montreal area, longitudinally following them for those four years, asking questions about both alcohol and cannanis use and giving tests on memory and response inhibition. Statistically significant correlations were noted between increased cannabis use and reduced performance on such tests, while interestingly for alcohol such correlations failed to reach statistical significance.
Again, no information about the size of such reported effects, and guess what? SIZE MATTERS. And so does duration. Also, it say nothing about any such correlations beyond 10th grade, nor clearly distinguish between lighter and heavier use. (The article did note that there were many more daily users of cannabis than alcohol, despite the fact that there were many more drinkers than tokers overall the sample.) And it is very curious that the typically pro-21 mainstream scientific community are so willing to practically exonerate alcohol in such a study of teens--or perhaps they are simply alcohol supremacists. And while the sample size and longitudinal nature of this study puts it head and shoulders about most other studies on the matter, given the aforementioned concerns it should still be viewed with caution in terms of causation.
Additionally, the study seems to be silent on the real "dark horse of drugs"--tobacco/nicotine. Nicotine is a known neurotoxin, particularly during early adolescence, and is far more correlated with cannabis than alcohol use. Thus, at least some of the reported effects in the study could in fact be due to tobacco, and/or perhaps other substances as well.
Keep in mind that the infamous 2012 study that reportedly found persistently reduced IQs among adults who used cannabis before age 18, was debunked by 2014 study that found no correlation between adolescent cannabis use and IQ or exam performance (though heavy use beginning before age 15 was associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16). This latter study did control for tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other factors. So it is very likely that soon another study will come a long and refute the first study discussed in this article, or perhaps find that any such effects are limited to the heaviest users, particularly those who began before age 15 or 16. In fact, a 2018 systematic review of 69 studies of adolescent and young adult cannabis use and cognitive functioning found that reported adverse effects were much smaller in size than the prohibitionists like to claim, and generally tend to be temporary rather than permanent, even for frequent and/or heavy use. And interestingly, no correlation with age of onset, though the mean age of study participants in these 69 studies was significantly higher than in the aforementioned Montreal study.
Other studies as well cast serious doubt on the scary claims of cannabis neurotoxicity as well, and most studies find weed safer than alcohol.
So what is the best takeaway from such studies? It would seem that while occasional or moderate cannabis use is basically a non-problem, heavy and/or daily/near-daily use (unless medically necessary) should probably be avoided at any age, but particularly for people under 18 and especially under 15. And while delaying the onset of use, or at least regular use, for as long as possible is probably wise for people under 18 and especially under 15, there is no hard scientific evidence that cannabis is any more harmful at 18 than it is as 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter. Thus, there is no good reason to keep it illegal or set the age limit any higher than 18. And even for people well under 18, the criminal law is still far too harsh a tool to apply to something like this that more likely than not turns out to be a non-problem.
In other words, there's more smoke than fire.
The actual study itself is predictably behind a paywall, and we will not dignify such questionable research by paying for it, so we couldn't find the actual numbers and thus could not quantify any effect sizes or how long the reported effects lasted, but the abstract and several news articles summarize qualitatively the main findings. The study, which involved nearly 4000 students from 7th through 10th grades in the greater Montreal area, longitudinally following them for those four years, asking questions about both alcohol and cannanis use and giving tests on memory and response inhibition. Statistically significant correlations were noted between increased cannabis use and reduced performance on such tests, while interestingly for alcohol such correlations failed to reach statistical significance.
Again, no information about the size of such reported effects, and guess what? SIZE MATTERS. And so does duration. Also, it say nothing about any such correlations beyond 10th grade, nor clearly distinguish between lighter and heavier use. (The article did note that there were many more daily users of cannabis than alcohol, despite the fact that there were many more drinkers than tokers overall the sample.) And it is very curious that the typically pro-21 mainstream scientific community are so willing to practically exonerate alcohol in such a study of teens--or perhaps they are simply alcohol supremacists. And while the sample size and longitudinal nature of this study puts it head and shoulders about most other studies on the matter, given the aforementioned concerns it should still be viewed with caution in terms of causation.
Additionally, the study seems to be silent on the real "dark horse of drugs"--tobacco/nicotine. Nicotine is a known neurotoxin, particularly during early adolescence, and is far more correlated with cannabis than alcohol use. Thus, at least some of the reported effects in the study could in fact be due to tobacco, and/or perhaps other substances as well.
Keep in mind that the infamous 2012 study that reportedly found persistently reduced IQs among adults who used cannabis before age 18, was debunked by 2014 study that found no correlation between adolescent cannabis use and IQ or exam performance (though heavy use beginning before age 15 was associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16). This latter study did control for tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other factors. So it is very likely that soon another study will come a long and refute the first study discussed in this article, or perhaps find that any such effects are limited to the heaviest users, particularly those who began before age 15 or 16. In fact, a 2018 systematic review of 69 studies of adolescent and young adult cannabis use and cognitive functioning found that reported adverse effects were much smaller in size than the prohibitionists like to claim, and generally tend to be temporary rather than permanent, even for frequent and/or heavy use. And interestingly, no correlation with age of onset, though the mean age of study participants in these 69 studies was significantly higher than in the aforementioned Montreal study.
Other studies as well cast serious doubt on the scary claims of cannabis neurotoxicity as well, and most studies find weed safer than alcohol.
So what is the best takeaway from such studies? It would seem that while occasional or moderate cannabis use is basically a non-problem, heavy and/or daily/near-daily use (unless medically necessary) should probably be avoided at any age, but particularly for people under 18 and especially under 15. And while delaying the onset of use, or at least regular use, for as long as possible is probably wise for people under 18 and especially under 15, there is no hard scientific evidence that cannabis is any more harmful at 18 than it is as 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter. Thus, there is no good reason to keep it illegal or set the age limit any higher than 18. And even for people well under 18, the criminal law is still far too harsh a tool to apply to something like this that more likely than not turns out to be a non-problem.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
O Cannabis! Canada Fully Legalizes Weed
Well, it's official. Our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada, has now fully legalized cannabis effective today, October 17, 2018. The actual law doing so, Bill C-45, was passed a few months ago in June, but officially goes into effect today. That makes Canada the second country in the world (after Uruguay in 2014) to officially and fully legalize it nationwide.
The details vary from province to province, but cannabis is generally legal in all 13 Canadian provinces and territories now. Age limits for purchase and possession are 18 or 19 depending on the province. It will be the same as the drinking age, with the notable exception of Manitoba whose drinking age is 18 but whose toking age is 19, because reasons. Thus, Alberta and Quebec will be 18 and everywhere else will be 19. Not perfect, of course, but still WAY more progressive than the USA, in which only a fraction of the states have full legalization and all of such legalization states set the age limit at 21. You know, kinda like the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age--which really needs to be lowered to 18 yesterday (along with the toking age as well).
Other advantages of the Canadian model of legalization include the fact that the prices/taxes of legal weed will be set low enough to undercut the black market, something that the legalization states in the USA still have yet to do. This, combined with a lower age limit than the USA, would lead to the black market collapsing much sooner. And once it is gone, it will be gone forever within a few years from now, and then prices/taxes can then be raised just high enough to discourage overconsumption without resurrecting that very same black market.
We can certainly learn a lot from our friendly neighbor to the north. So what are waiting for?
The details vary from province to province, but cannabis is generally legal in all 13 Canadian provinces and territories now. Age limits for purchase and possession are 18 or 19 depending on the province. It will be the same as the drinking age, with the notable exception of Manitoba whose drinking age is 18 but whose toking age is 19, because reasons. Thus, Alberta and Quebec will be 18 and everywhere else will be 19. Not perfect, of course, but still WAY more progressive than the USA, in which only a fraction of the states have full legalization and all of such legalization states set the age limit at 21. You know, kinda like the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age--which really needs to be lowered to 18 yesterday (along with the toking age as well).
Other advantages of the Canadian model of legalization include the fact that the prices/taxes of legal weed will be set low enough to undercut the black market, something that the legalization states in the USA still have yet to do. This, combined with a lower age limit than the USA, would lead to the black market collapsing much sooner. And once it is gone, it will be gone forever within a few years from now, and then prices/taxes can then be raised just high enough to discourage overconsumption without resurrecting that very same black market.
We can certainly learn a lot from our friendly neighbor to the north. So what are waiting for?
Friday, October 5, 2018
How Iceland Can Save Their Tourism Sector
A decade after their legendary financial crisis and its aftermath, it seems that Iceland is in trouble again despite their miraculous recovery. This time around, it is their tourism sector (which in fact was key to their recovery) that seems to be suffering now, cooling fast following a decade of explosive growth. Banks, of course, seem to have learned their lesson after the banksters that caused the crisis were jailed rather than bailed out like in the USA.
The reasons for the decline in tourism are not entirely clear, but since tourism is such a large chunk of Iceland's economy, a large and sustained decline has the potential to be a serious problem in the long run. So it would really behoove them to face this problem head-on before things deteriorate any further.
Two things immediately come to mind as potential solutions to reverse or at least slow the decline in tourism: 1) lower the drinking age to 18 (it is currently 20), and 2) abolish their youth curfew law, or at least stop enforcing it. And 3) legalize weed as well for everyone over 18. Problem solved. Next.
As for their alcohol tax, since they have the most expensive alcohol in the world (at least double the price it is in the USA), they might want to cut it a bit for on-premise sales while perhaps hiking it for off-premise sales, as they are way on the "wrong" side of the Laffer curve, and are very prone to "pregaming" before going out to the bar. Of course, cutting the alcohol tax too much would lead to adverse effects from an increase in excessive drinking (just look at the USA, for example), but there does seem to be such a thing as too high--and they are already there now.
Skal!
The reasons for the decline in tourism are not entirely clear, but since tourism is such a large chunk of Iceland's economy, a large and sustained decline has the potential to be a serious problem in the long run. So it would really behoove them to face this problem head-on before things deteriorate any further.
Two things immediately come to mind as potential solutions to reverse or at least slow the decline in tourism: 1) lower the drinking age to 18 (it is currently 20), and 2) abolish their youth curfew law, or at least stop enforcing it. And 3) legalize weed as well for everyone over 18. Problem solved. Next.
As for their alcohol tax, since they have the most expensive alcohol in the world (at least double the price it is in the USA), they might want to cut it a bit for on-premise sales while perhaps hiking it for off-premise sales, as they are way on the "wrong" side of the Laffer curve, and are very prone to "pregaming" before going out to the bar. Of course, cutting the alcohol tax too much would lead to adverse effects from an increase in excessive drinking (just look at the USA, for example), but there does seem to be such a thing as too high--and they are already there now.
Skal!
Friday, September 28, 2018
Teen Drinking Plummets Worldwide, Regardless of the Drinking Age
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!
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!
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)
