Last month, a new study looking at the results of California's smoking age hike from 18 to 21 in 2016 turns out to be less than meets the eye. The study, looking at BRFSS survey data for 18-20 year olds pre versus post implementation, found that, compared to 21-23 year olds in California and to 18-20 year olds in the eight comparison states, 18-20 year olds did not see any significant change in the rate of decline of current or ever smoking, but did see significantly faster declines in the rates of daily smoking in the three years after the age limit was hiked to 21 versus before implementation. Interestingly, vaping was not examined at all due to apparent data gaps at the time, so this study says absolutely nothing about vaping.
While the part about daily smoking sounds impressive on the surface, one should keep in mind that cigarette taxes were hiked by $2.00/pack in 2016 (effective April 2017), and generally the younger a person is, the more price-sensitive they are since they tend to have less disposable income, and furthermore the earlier they are in the course of their tobacco habits. So it would stand to reason that the tax hike alone, which makes regular and especially daily smoking that much more of an expensive burden on the smoker, would have had a larger impact on 18-20 year olds than 21-23 year olds in California. That would also explain why current or ever smoking (which were essentially not affected at all) would be much less affected than daily smoking as well.
Of note, Pennsylvania had also raised their cigarette tax in 2016 yet still kept their age limit at 18 (until July 2020, that is), yet interestingly that state was NOT one of the eight comparison states. The results of this study would thus likely have been very different if Pennsylvania was one of the comparison states.
Alternatively, some of the progression to daily smoking may simply have been delayed by a few years by the age limit hike, yielding no real long-run benefits, kinda like some studies have strongly suggested about drunk driving deaths when the drinking age was raised to 21. Indeed, by 2019 the daily smoking rate among 21-23 year olds was actually a bit higher than it was in 2016.
And as we have previously noted, in NYC and elsewhere, raising the smoking age to 21 does not seem to actually reduce high school smoking rates compared with keeping it 18, so the "trickle-down" theory that is often used as a specious justification for Tobacco 21 laws is very unlikely to be the case in California (or anywhere else) either.
Thus, this study is more smoke than fire. And regardless, we at Twenty-One Debunked would still oppose the 21 smoking age on principle regardless of its effects. Young adults who are old enough to go to war, be tried as adults, etc. should NOT have the state dictating what otherwise legal substances they choose to put into their own bodies at all, period. Seriously.
And that is a hill we will die on.
If organizations were truly interested in reducing smoking among young people, then those organizations would not have advocated a smoking/vaping minimum age of 21. Real answers in reducing smoking/vaping among young people include better compliance from vendors, higher taxes on tobacco products and reducing nicotine levels in nicotine products. If people who are 18 or older want to smoke cigarettes or vape, then that is their personal choice. Organizations should respect the rights of young adults who are 18-20 years old just as society respects the rights of people who are older.
ReplyDeleteAlmost like drinking, it just delays the inevitable. Adults between the ages of 21-24 have the highest drunk driving crash rates, yet we don’t hear any proposals about bumping the drinking age to 25 and that group has slightly better car insurance rates compared to those under 21.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day there’s always some modicum of risk, and you have to pick an age when people are presumed competent to take those risks. Whether that’s 18 or 21, be consistent in your approach to adulthood.
Almost like drinking, it just delays the inevitable. Adults between the ages of 21-24 have the highest drunk driving crash rates, yet we don’t hear any proposals about bumping the drinking age to 25 and that group has slightly better car insurance rates compared to those under 21.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day there’s always some modicum of risk, and you have to pick an age when people are presumed competent to take those risks. Whether that’s 18 or 21, be consistent in your approach to adulthood.
The drinking age of 21 is hypocrisy. The age of majority is 18, where it should be, while the drinking age is set at 21. As you said, there should be a uniform guideline when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. If the age of majority is 18, where it should be, then the drinking age should also be 18 as well. Any problems that the drinking age of 21 has created can be solved with a drinking age of 18. People who are 21-24 years old have more drunk driving crashes because the drinking age of 21 is prohibition for people who are 18-20 years old. A young adult in that age category is not allowed to know alcohol responsibility. The outcome is that people who are 21-24 years don't know what the blood alcohol limit of 0.08 means when it comes to drinking.
DeleteI agree. I understand that we have to set an age limit for things, but I think about the driving age which is generally 16 (or at least the age to get a restricted learners permit) and the preparation needed to drive successfully. You have to take a written test, take an eye exam in order to get the permit. In my state, (New York) if you’re under 18, you hold that permit for a minimum of six months and your parent or legal guardian must log 50 hours of driving with 15 at night. You must also take a 5 hour educational class OR an approved high school driver’s Ed course. At age 16 1/2 after passing the actual road test that will get you a junior license to drive alone, but you’re not done with restrictions yet and depending on where you live in this big state those restrictions vary. In New York City, you can’t drive at all. The city is fast paced with a big population that even adults have trouble navigating. In Upstate New York (anywhere north of NYC) you can drive alone between the hours of 5 am - 9 pm only and can have only one passenger under the age of 21, unless they’re members of your immediate family or household, which in that case you can have more. Between 9 pm- 5 am you’re restricted from driving unless it’s for work purposes. In the region of Long Island (east of NYC) you can’t drive alone unless you’re driving to and from work, a driver’s Ed program, farm work, or a program in which scholastic credit is given. Besides that, you’re still stuck driving with a parent even after passing the road test. However at 17, one can upgrade to their full license if they have taken and passed a driver’s Ed course at their high school which consists of both classes and hands on lessons with an instructor. If you choose not to, you’re junior license automatically updates to a full adult license at age 18. As with NY, many states has GDL laws that introduces driving in steps with accompanying restrictions. You don’t just turn 16, and have presumed competence to take on the road with no education or training.
DeleteSo why do we assume that 21 is the magic age to go out and drink when we treat it like taboo before and don’t allow for responsibility and education? Germany is a good example of a form of “GDL” for drinking. You can drink beer and wine at 14 but only in the presence of a parent or guardian at a controlled environment like a restaurant or pub etc. You can independently purchase beer and wine at 16, and enter bars or pubs at that age to, but you can’t buy spirits or hard liquor until age 18 and of course it’s not illegal for a parent to serve their kids alcohol in the privacy of their own home which most states in the US allow. Admittedly, our cultures are different and that influences how we view alcohol. The culture in the US has to change first, considering we were a nation that practiced prohibition. But clearly we see how one country gradually exposes its youth to alcohol and how one is very puritanical and treats as forbidden fruit until 21.
But I also think about Canada a nation while not the same, shares some similar values and culture with US. They were also a nation that practiced prohibition and yet most provinces allow drinking at 18 or 19. However, many provinces have adopted zero-tolerance laws for younger drivers. For example, in Quebec the drinking age is 18 but zero-tolerance BAC laws apply until age 22. In Alberta, you can drink at 18 and while the BAC is 0.08 for all adults 18 or over administrative (not criminal) sanctions start at 0.05 -0.07. So there’s ways to keep the roadways safe and prevent drunk driving accidents among younger and older adults alike, without telling the latter that they must not drink at all.
DeleteHere in the U.S., Neo-Prohibitionist attitudes dominate. People would rather blame alcoholic beverages for any bad actions rather than their own personal decisions for causing those bad actions.
Delete