As bewildered chronological adults wring their hands and scratch their heads on how to best fight the teen vaping "epidemic", a recent article came out in Utah that actually asked teens themselves how to do it. The answer was simple: tax the hell out of it to make it more expensive. Gee, who woulda thunk it?
Notice they did not say anything about raising the age limit, by the way. America's experience with combustible cigarettes has shown that raising the price, via taxes or otherwise, seems to be the most effective and cost-effective way to do it. And while it works for all ages, the effect size is larger for young people since they are more price-sensitive overall.
Of course, if vape taxes are raised, care must be taken to also raise combustible tobacco taxes so as not to inadvertently steer young people back to smoking. And as long as vaping remains an available alternative, cigarette taxes can go much higher than they are now (except New York) without creating too much of a black market. Thus vape taxes should go up, and cigarette taxes should be even higher still. And only nicotine-containing vape juices and pods should be taxed significantly, ideally proportional to nicotine content. (Hardware devices themselves should only be taxed modestly, if at all.)
Other effective measures we have noted include capping and reducing the nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels (JUUL, we're looking at YOU), strictly enforcing the 18 age limit on vendors for all tobacco and nicotine products, and perhaps also removing kid-friendly fruity flavors of nicotine-containing vapes from the market. But raising the age limit any higher than 18 should quite frankly not even be considered. Too bad Utah is now the latest state to NOT heed that last bit of advice.
Pages
▼
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Sunday, March 24, 2019
The Verdict Is In: Legalizing Weed STILL Does NOT Increase Crime Rates
Recently, the modern-day "Reefer Madness"-type alarmist yellow journalist Alex Berenson has been claiming that cannabis legalization has caused huge spikes in violent crime since 2014 in the states in which it has been legalized. He then claims that such increases in crime are somehow causally linked to the effects of cannabis (particularly via the putative and controverisal link to psychosis), and therefore to legalization as well. But both claims are in fact highly faulty and questionable at best: 1) plenty of states, not just legalization states, saw at least modest spikes in violent crime in 2015-2016, 2) violent crime now seems to be decreasing once again regardless of legalization, 3) 2014 is an arbitrary year to choose for the base year given the timing of legalization initiatives, 4) cannabis has never been causally and conclusively linked to violence, except perhaps inversely, and 5) and most importantly, correlation does not prove causation, as so many other variables come into play here.
In fact, the latest studies on the matter have confirmed what the TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked have kinda always known. Legalizing weed does NOT seem to increase crime rates like the prohibitionists often claimed it would, and if anything, appears to decrease violent and property crimes a bit, as well as improve their clearance rates by police. For example, researchers found this by comparing the border counties of Washington and Oregon, whose timing of legalization differed but were otherwise quite similar. But we could've told you that years ago, for those actually willing to listen.
The theory for how legalization of cannabis would reduce crime is fairly simple. First, it frees up relatively scarce police and other resources that would otherwise be used to bust people for weed, and allows such resources to be put to more productive uses (i.e. targeting real crime rather than victimless crime). Secondly, cannabis is basically a non-violent drug, and can often substitute for alcohol, which is often (rightly or wrongly) linked to violence to one degree or another. Thirdly, there is the systemic aspect, the violence linked to the illicit drug trade itself, which would self-evidently decrease if not disappear upon legalization, at least with regard to the substance being legalized. And finally, victimless crime laws, especially widely unpopular ones like cannabis prohibition (and, of course, the 21 drinking age) erode respect for the law in general and also erode cooperation and cohesion between the police and the community. Thus, it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how removing such illiberal and pharisaical laws from the books would tend to decrease crime in general.
What about the opposite theory? Not the long-debunked one that cannabis per se actually causes violent and property crime (which is rather silly on its face, mind you), but the one that claims that cannabis prohibition is a useful crime-fighting tool for police? Well, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding, and we really don't see any credible evidence of that on balance. Any utility that such an abomination would have in that regard appears to be more than outweighed by its very real downsides, and thus we can consider that theory debunked as well.
(Cue the Law and Order DUN DUN sound effect.)
We need to legalize cannabis in all 50 states and all territories as well, yesterday, and lower the age limit to 18 as well, just like our neighbor to the north. It is LONG overdue. So what are we waiting for?
In fact, the latest studies on the matter have confirmed what the TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked have kinda always known. Legalizing weed does NOT seem to increase crime rates like the prohibitionists often claimed it would, and if anything, appears to decrease violent and property crimes a bit, as well as improve their clearance rates by police. For example, researchers found this by comparing the border counties of Washington and Oregon, whose timing of legalization differed but were otherwise quite similar. But we could've told you that years ago, for those actually willing to listen.
The theory for how legalization of cannabis would reduce crime is fairly simple. First, it frees up relatively scarce police and other resources that would otherwise be used to bust people for weed, and allows such resources to be put to more productive uses (i.e. targeting real crime rather than victimless crime). Secondly, cannabis is basically a non-violent drug, and can often substitute for alcohol, which is often (rightly or wrongly) linked to violence to one degree or another. Thirdly, there is the systemic aspect, the violence linked to the illicit drug trade itself, which would self-evidently decrease if not disappear upon legalization, at least with regard to the substance being legalized. And finally, victimless crime laws, especially widely unpopular ones like cannabis prohibition (and, of course, the 21 drinking age) erode respect for the law in general and also erode cooperation and cohesion between the police and the community. Thus, it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how removing such illiberal and pharisaical laws from the books would tend to decrease crime in general.
What about the opposite theory? Not the long-debunked one that cannabis per se actually causes violent and property crime (which is rather silly on its face, mind you), but the one that claims that cannabis prohibition is a useful crime-fighting tool for police? Well, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding, and we really don't see any credible evidence of that on balance. Any utility that such an abomination would have in that regard appears to be more than outweighed by its very real downsides, and thus we can consider that theory debunked as well.
(Cue the Law and Order DUN DUN sound effect.)
We need to legalize cannabis in all 50 states and all territories as well, yesterday, and lower the age limit to 18 as well, just like our neighbor to the north. It is LONG overdue. So what are we waiting for?
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Reefer Madness Redux (Again) Is More Smoke Than Fire
Many years ago in 2011, the True Spirit of America Party wrote an article discussing the highly controversial and complex link between cannabis and psychosis. Since then, many more studies have been done, and to this day the supposed link (as to whether or not it is a causal relationship) remains as clear as mud for the most part. That, of course, does not stop the prohibitionist alarmists from harping on it as though it were certain--there is even a recent book (which can be easily debunked) titled Tell Your Children, which interestingly enough, was also the original working title for the 1936 film--wait for it--Reefer Madness. What passes for discourse on the topic these days has come full circle, it seems.
The most recent study to date is a case in point. The researchers examined 901 people aged 18-64 who experienced first-episode psychosis at a mental health facility, compared with a control group of 1200 people in 11 cities around the world. While it still does not prove causation, it did find that 1) daily use of cannabis in general, 2) initiating use before age 15, and 3) use of high-potency cannabis (i.e. above 10% THC), especially when used daily, were correlated with a higher risk of having such psychotic episodes.
And while the three cities with greatest availability of high-potency weed (London, Paris, Amsterdam) had higher rates of psychosis, though this was cross-sectional and cannot establish temporality, a rather crucial criterion of causation. And interestingly, psychosis rates were higher in London and Paris (where weed is illegal) than in Amsterdam (where it is quasi-legal), so the legal status of cannabis did not really appear to be an issue. Moreover, it is not clear which is the proverbial chicken and which is the egg.
Paul Armentano of NORML wrote an excellent and in-depth article (with links to other studies) that does a great job debunking this latest round of Reefer Madness 2.0, and is certainly worth a read. A shorter version can be found here as well.
Additionally, we at Twenty-One Debunked have previously reported on the emerging research suggesting that nicotine may be the real dark horse here in the etiology of psychosis and particularly schizophrenia. And famously in Europe, particularly in those three aforementioned cities, cannabis is usually mixed with tobacco, especially when it is high-potency and users may wish to stretch it out by giving it some bulk. Though clearly a far less toxic and nicotine-free way to stretch it out is mixing with catnip or even parsley, or just do what most American tokers do: smoke (or vape) the weed straight up without mixing, but simply take fewer hits, use bowls/bongs instead of joints, and/or seek out lower potency strains. And in Australia, not mixing with tobacco is about as common as mixing.
And as we have noted time and again, the rates of cannabis use have increased dramatically since 1960 or so in nearly every country, while the best evidence suggests that psychosis rates have generally NOT increased since then. Thus, any causal link with psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred would most likely be either weak, rare, or both, and thus likely limited to a very, very tiny percentage of the population who are unusually vulnerable and/or ultra-heavy users. And while some already psychotic users may find exacerbations of their psychosis (or its effects may make a latent or subtle psychotic disorder more noticeable to themselves or others), others may use the herb to self-medicate as well, and everything in between.
Overall, this and other studies seem to be more smoke than fire, and even if causal they do not suggest that the hyperbolic "no safe level of exposure" theory is correct. Rather, the biggest takeaway from this study is, if you do use cannabis, don't overdo it, particularly with the high-potency stuff. In other words, moderation is the key. And while age at first use was one of the lesser factors, delaying use until at least age 15 or older is likely prudent--not just for this reason but for other reasons as well. And these studies do not really militate against legalization, but rather should be seen as encouraging legalization and proper regulation and taxation of cannabis based on THC and CBD levels. Nor do these studies support setting the age limit any higher than 18 either (which of course will only encourage the black market to persist). So we need to see the forest for the trees.
And thus we will finally have Reefer Sanity in this country for once.
The most recent study to date is a case in point. The researchers examined 901 people aged 18-64 who experienced first-episode psychosis at a mental health facility, compared with a control group of 1200 people in 11 cities around the world. While it still does not prove causation, it did find that 1) daily use of cannabis in general, 2) initiating use before age 15, and 3) use of high-potency cannabis (i.e. above 10% THC), especially when used daily, were correlated with a higher risk of having such psychotic episodes.
And while the three cities with greatest availability of high-potency weed (London, Paris, Amsterdam) had higher rates of psychosis, though this was cross-sectional and cannot establish temporality, a rather crucial criterion of causation. And interestingly, psychosis rates were higher in London and Paris (where weed is illegal) than in Amsterdam (where it is quasi-legal), so the legal status of cannabis did not really appear to be an issue. Moreover, it is not clear which is the proverbial chicken and which is the egg.
Paul Armentano of NORML wrote an excellent and in-depth article (with links to other studies) that does a great job debunking this latest round of Reefer Madness 2.0, and is certainly worth a read. A shorter version can be found here as well.
Additionally, we at Twenty-One Debunked have previously reported on the emerging research suggesting that nicotine may be the real dark horse here in the etiology of psychosis and particularly schizophrenia. And famously in Europe, particularly in those three aforementioned cities, cannabis is usually mixed with tobacco, especially when it is high-potency and users may wish to stretch it out by giving it some bulk. Though clearly a far less toxic and nicotine-free way to stretch it out is mixing with catnip or even parsley, or just do what most American tokers do: smoke (or vape) the weed straight up without mixing, but simply take fewer hits, use bowls/bongs instead of joints, and/or seek out lower potency strains. And in Australia, not mixing with tobacco is about as common as mixing.
And as we have noted time and again, the rates of cannabis use have increased dramatically since 1960 or so in nearly every country, while the best evidence suggests that psychosis rates have generally NOT increased since then. Thus, any causal link with psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred would most likely be either weak, rare, or both, and thus likely limited to a very, very tiny percentage of the population who are unusually vulnerable and/or ultra-heavy users. And while some already psychotic users may find exacerbations of their psychosis (or its effects may make a latent or subtle psychotic disorder more noticeable to themselves or others), others may use the herb to self-medicate as well, and everything in between.
Overall, this and other studies seem to be more smoke than fire, and even if causal they do not suggest that the hyperbolic "no safe level of exposure" theory is correct. Rather, the biggest takeaway from this study is, if you do use cannabis, don't overdo it, particularly with the high-potency stuff. In other words, moderation is the key. And while age at first use was one of the lesser factors, delaying use until at least age 15 or older is likely prudent--not just for this reason but for other reasons as well. And these studies do not really militate against legalization, but rather should be seen as encouraging legalization and proper regulation and taxation of cannabis based on THC and CBD levels. Nor do these studies support setting the age limit any higher than 18 either (which of course will only encourage the black market to persist). So we need to see the forest for the trees.
And thus we will finally have Reefer Sanity in this country for once.
UPDATE: Be sure NOT to confuse THIS!
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Latest Cannabis And Driving Study Suggests Mountain Meets Molehill, Again
A recent study in Germany on the effects of cannabis and driving should really put the fearmongers at ease for now. This study using a driving simulator found that 1) driving impairment does not really correlate with blood THC levels, except above a threshold of >15 ng/mL in serum (roughly 7.5 ng/mL in whole blood), and 2) any impairment that does occur apparently dissipates and driving ability returns to baseline after a mere three hours following toking.
Of course, smoking very large quantities, or very high potency strains, and/or eating cannabis edibles, will undoubtedly lead to longer periods of greater impairment than observed in the study. But as a general rule, the results of the study make sense.
Thus, zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of cannabis, as well as setting an arbitrary per se blood THC limit analogous to alcohol, appear to be unjustified. That is not to say that a reasonable prima facie blood THC limit (i.e. above which creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt) is bad--Colorado currently sets theirs at 5 ng/mL--but setting it too low or rigidly per se would punish far too many non-impaired drivers. And there is no evidence that zero-tolerance or per se limits for THC actually save lives.
Of course, this is not to suggest that driving stoned is a good idea or without risk. But driving under the influence of cannabis alone is less risky than driving under the influence of alcohol, and the often hysterical fears of prohibitionists are largely unwarranted, while legalization advocates are unsurprisingly vindicated once again.
Remember: "when in doubt, wait it out."
Of course, smoking very large quantities, or very high potency strains, and/or eating cannabis edibles, will undoubtedly lead to longer periods of greater impairment than observed in the study. But as a general rule, the results of the study make sense.
Thus, zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of cannabis, as well as setting an arbitrary per se blood THC limit analogous to alcohol, appear to be unjustified. That is not to say that a reasonable prima facie blood THC limit (i.e. above which creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt) is bad--Colorado currently sets theirs at 5 ng/mL--but setting it too low or rigidly per se would punish far too many non-impaired drivers. And there is no evidence that zero-tolerance or per se limits for THC actually save lives.
Of course, this is not to suggest that driving stoned is a good idea or without risk. But driving under the influence of cannabis alone is less risky than driving under the influence of alcohol, and the often hysterical fears of prohibitionists are largely unwarranted, while legalization advocates are unsurprisingly vindicated once again.
Remember: "when in doubt, wait it out."