Finally, a bit of good news for once: the abominable bill to raise the smoking and vaping age to 25 (!) in Hawaii has fortunately died unceremoniously in the House, at least for now. It may be tweaked and reintroduced at a later date, of course, but for now it has lost momentum at least.
That said, this is certainly no time for our movement to rest on our laurels.
Saturday, February 22, 2020
Thursday, February 20, 2020
And You Thought They Would Stop At 21
Hawaii was the first state to raise the tobacco smoking and vaping age to 21, just four years ago in 2016. While that may seem like only yesterday, and that is certainly bad enough, there is now a bill to raise the age limit to 25. No, this is not The Onion, this has a very real chance of passing. Additionally, there is another bill that by 2025 would raise the smoking age to...wait for it...100. Yes, you read that right.
These bills had better not pass, lest it become contagious. Just like Tobacco 21 laws have proven to be. Alas, this evil train does NOT seem to stop at 21, nor will it stop at tobacco for that matter. It is apparently an express train, with 25 being next, and other rights and privileges also in its sights as well.
Well, everything except going to war, of course, since the war machine apparently likes 'em young, fresh, and green, as they always have. And of course the age of consent for sex (and you can probably also add porn and stripping, and even prostitution in Nevada) as well, since nothing says "adulto-patriarchy" like a little "droit du seigneur", apparently. In other words, 18-24 year olds are only (non-)adults when it is convenient for those in power. Thus, not only is tyranny as whimisical as it is bipartisan, but they clearly need to stop pretending that their concerns are moral ones, or even based on public health.
RIP Hawaii, paradise well and truly lost.
These bills had better not pass, lest it become contagious. Just like Tobacco 21 laws have proven to be. Alas, this evil train does NOT seem to stop at 21, nor will it stop at tobacco for that matter. It is apparently an express train, with 25 being next, and other rights and privileges also in its sights as well.
Well, everything except going to war, of course, since the war machine apparently likes 'em young, fresh, and green, as they always have. And of course the age of consent for sex (and you can probably also add porn and stripping, and even prostitution in Nevada) as well, since nothing says "adulto-patriarchy" like a little "droit du seigneur", apparently. In other words, 18-24 year olds are only (non-)adults when it is convenient for those in power. Thus, not only is tyranny as whimisical as it is bipartisan, but they clearly need to stop pretending that their concerns are moral ones, or even based on public health.
RIP Hawaii, paradise well and truly lost.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Does Social Norms Marketing Work In The Long Run? The Latest Study Says Yes
The latest study on social norms marketing for Michigan State University students over a 14 year period is highly encouraging. From 2000 to 2014, high-risk drinking dropped significantly faster at MSU than it did for national trends:
How does social norms marketing work? Young people often falsely believe that their peers are drinking, smoking, vaping, toking, or using other substances much more than is actually the case, and they feel pressure to conform to such inaccurate norms. This is called "pluralistic ignorance". By simply setting the record straight about the actual numbers, it tends to reduce the use of such substances overall when the "reign of error" is corrected. In contrast, moral panics exaggerate the levels of use, which tends to increase the use of such substances, in what is known as a "deviancy amplification spiral".
Most other studies agree on the effectiveness of the social norms approach. The effects are quite robust and seem to occur fairly quickly in most studies. So what about the handful of studies that seem to disagree? It is true that poorly designed programs, unsurprisingly, do not work very well. And for colleges and demographics in which heavy drinking is most entrenched, it stands to reason that it can take longer to show any effects, longer than the short time periods of most studies on the matter. Attitudes generally have to change first before behavior does, as a rule. But as we see, Michigan State is clearly an example of a formerly entrenched heavy drinking "party school" that did show massive declines in both high-risk drinking practices as well as drunk driving and the frequency of drinking. And those declines were in fact quite long-term, continuing at least a decade and a half with still no signs of stalling.
(Looks like William DeJong was right the first time after all, even if the alcohol outlet density in college towns may moderate or confound the results in his later research on the subject.)
Social norms marketing is clearly a highly effective yet inexpensive way to reduce harmful alcohol and other substance use/abuse, and best of all, it does not violate anyone's civil rights or liberties at all. In contrast, legalistic crackdowns and so-called "environmental management" programs like "A Matter of Degree" are expensive, authoritarian, intrusive, ageist, and can be quite difficult to implement in practice. So what are we waiting for?
- The percentage of MSU students who said they consumed eight or more drinks in one sitting dropped from nearly 28% to 16.5%, a 41% relative decrease.
- The percentage of MSU students who said they drove after drinking fell by 58% as well.
- Additionally, another forthcoming study found that the percentage of MSU students who said they drank on 10 or more days in the past month dropped from 24.1% to 13.4% by 2016, while it remained largely flat at the national level.
How does social norms marketing work? Young people often falsely believe that their peers are drinking, smoking, vaping, toking, or using other substances much more than is actually the case, and they feel pressure to conform to such inaccurate norms. This is called "pluralistic ignorance". By simply setting the record straight about the actual numbers, it tends to reduce the use of such substances overall when the "reign of error" is corrected. In contrast, moral panics exaggerate the levels of use, which tends to increase the use of such substances, in what is known as a "deviancy amplification spiral".
Most other studies agree on the effectiveness of the social norms approach. The effects are quite robust and seem to occur fairly quickly in most studies. So what about the handful of studies that seem to disagree? It is true that poorly designed programs, unsurprisingly, do not work very well. And for colleges and demographics in which heavy drinking is most entrenched, it stands to reason that it can take longer to show any effects, longer than the short time periods of most studies on the matter. Attitudes generally have to change first before behavior does, as a rule. But as we see, Michigan State is clearly an example of a formerly entrenched heavy drinking "party school" that did show massive declines in both high-risk drinking practices as well as drunk driving and the frequency of drinking. And those declines were in fact quite long-term, continuing at least a decade and a half with still no signs of stalling.
(Looks like William DeJong was right the first time after all, even if the alcohol outlet density in college towns may moderate or confound the results in his later research on the subject.)
Social norms marketing is clearly a highly effective yet inexpensive way to reduce harmful alcohol and other substance use/abuse, and best of all, it does not violate anyone's civil rights or liberties at all. In contrast, legalistic crackdowns and so-called "environmental management" programs like "A Matter of Degree" are expensive, authoritarian, intrusive, ageist, and can be quite difficult to implement in practice. So what are we waiting for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
