Science Finally Shows When (Cognitive) Adulthood Begins

No, this is NOT the usual "teen brain" junk science that we have quite frankly gotten tired of debunking.  This is the real deal, so listen up and pay very close attention. 

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh recently published a new, large, and groundbreaking study in Nature Communications that examined nearly two dozen laboratory measures of "executive function" of a whopping 10,000 participants (ages 8 through 35) across four different datasets.  And the results dovetail nicely with what we at Twenty-One Debunked have been generally saying all along, and we quote (emphasis added):

"The resulting analysis showed a common dynamic of executive function maturation that was shared between both sexes: a rapid burst of executive function development in late childhood to mid-adolescence (10-15 years old), followed by small but significant changes through mid-adolescence (15-18) that stabilized to adult-level performance by late adolescence (18-20)."

"Other important behavioral factors that complement executive function, such as the ability to control one's own emotions, can change with age. The ability to use executive function reliably improves with age and, at least in a laboratory setting, matures by 18 years of age."

In other words, 18-20 year olds are in fact adults, not only biologically, but also neurologically and cognitively as well.  And the data show that even 15-17 year olds are actually pretty darn close as well.  Thus, there is really no scientific reason to set the age of majority (or any related age limit for that matter) any higher than 18, period.  In fact, one can even justify setting some age limits a bit lower than that based on this research (after all, it's not binary like flicking a light switch, but rather a gradual process).

So why have so many other, flashier studies seemed to have suggested otherwise?  Well, the brain technically does continue developing to some extent well beyond 18, of course, but that apparent development has been known for over a decade now to continue well into the 30s, 40s, and likely even beyond that as well.  Clearly, any development that does occur from 18 to 21 or 25 is on the very same spectrum as the development that continues beyond that as well.  A brain that continues to change and develop throughout life does not lend itself to simplistic explanations of a magical age of neurological adulthood based on its superficial appearance on a brain scan.  Rather, the real question becomes when the brain is no longer developing on a critical or fundamental level, and when one can achieve an adult level cognitive capacity and performance.  And the University of Pittsburgh study above answers that question far better than just about any other study has so far to date.

So basically, we as a society have three choices on what to do given these findings:  1) radically redefine adulthood, 2) radically redefine adolescence, or 3) simply accept 18-20 year olds as adults, in every way, period.  Occam's Razor would clearly agree with the third option, as would any serious consideration of liberty and justice for all.

To argue otherwise is, at this point, nothing short of warmed-over phrenology at best, if not full-blown political Lysenkoism that will ultimately go down in history as the epitome of bigoted crank science.

UPDATE:  Much to the chagrin of some purists, this study is also the strongest hard evidence to date that adolescence does in fact exist as a distinct life stage that is not entirely socially constructed.  Adolescence appears to be no more socially constructed than adulthood is, in fact.  And to that we say, so what?  Glibly denying all group differences and/or attempting to erase adolescence entirely does not do young people any favors either, and it plays right into the hands of the biological determinist bigots and cranks.  That said, the study finds no scientific support for the specious idea of "emerging adulthood" as a life stage somehow distinct from young adulthood, and we really should simply jettison the term "emerging adulthood" from our collective vocabulary. 

In any case, there is nothing magical about turning 21, 25, or any other age north of 18 for that matter.  And while even 18 is hardly magical either, it is arguably the least arbitrary place to draw the default line where once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.

Have A Safe And Happy Holiday Season

 (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, pretty much back to normal now.  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 simply don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.  Seriously, don't be stupid about it!  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.

Why Banning Tobacco Is A Dumb Idea

The stupid literally burns like, well, cigarettes.  It's apparently hard to keep a bad idea down.  While New Zealand's new government is backing off from the previous government's phased tobacco ban and plans to reverse it, as Malaysia already did as well, the UK government under Rishi Sunak now wants to implement such a phased ban for anyone born after 2008.  Even Bhutan lifted their tobacco ban in 2021, as it was such a massive failure due to the massive black market it created.  (Hey, somebody answer the Clue Phone, as it is ringing loud and clear now!)  So should they go through with it, the UK now stands alone in the modern (or even semi-modern) world, leaving them in the good company of...wait for it...the Taliban and ISIL in that regard.  Only difference being that the UK is simply taking the scenic route there instead of simply making a beeline for it.  Gee, how very enlightened and progressive of them.

Hey, don't go getting any ideas, California, or any other state for that matter!  Seriously. 

Smoking tobacco, especially in this day and age, is dumb, but banning it is even dumber.  People who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Prohibition didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

Safety Third

We live in a culture where "Safety First" is increasingly taken for granted, and has been since roughly the mid-1980s following a series of moral panics and zealotry in general.  While it is generally a good thing that safety has largely improved since then (prior to that, Americans were really quite cavalier overall, and it really showed in the statistics across multiple domains), there can also be too much of a good thing as well.  

Most people at least intuitively know this on some level, and that's why even the most die-hard safety zealots seldom (if ever) practice what they preach in all areas of life all of the time, at least not for very long.  Even they still conveniently carve out selective and arbitrary exceptions for themselves and their own chosen "guilty" pleasures and activites.  

From the abomination that is the 21 drinking age to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to increasingly stringent rules and heavy monitoring of youth to lack of free play among children to prison-like schools to actual mass incarceration to the sexual counterrevolution dressed up as "culture wars" to the ever-encroaching nanny state to finally the ultimate culmination of safety zealotry, the pandemic lockdowns and related restrictions, we have clearly been sold a bill of goods in that regard.  And yet paradoxically, actual health safety statistics from life expectancy to violent deaths to traffic casualties have in the USA actually lagged behind peer nations, often well behind.  Thus, it's long past time to take a fresh approach.

We call that approach "Safety Third".  And it's really not an entirely novel idea, having been promoted in some form by diverse folks from "Dirty Jobs" pundit Mike Rowe (largely right-wing) all the way to contemporary philosopher Charles Eisenstein (largely left-wing).  That does NOT at all mean that safety is trivial or should be disregarded as such, far from it.  We do value safety as important, of course, but not THE most important thing, let alone the ultimate end-all-be-all of human flourishing.  

So if safety is third on the list of priorities, what are first and second then?  For example, Charles Eisenstein says "giving and receiving", not necessarily in that order.  That makes sense, if a bit vague perhaps, but we at the TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked would alternatively answer, "liberty and justice for all", not necessarily in that order.  Anything short of that is un-American.

It was indeed one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who said, "Whoever gives up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserves neither and loses both."  After all, safety is a great servant, but a terrible master.  We would be wise to recognize that, in all areas of life.

Should The Drinking Age Be Abolished?

In a nod to Wayland Ellis, Will Wilkinson, and the late Mark Kleiman, the question sometimes comes up:  Should we not only lower the drinking age to 18, but abolish it entirely?  That may sound radical in 21st century America, but that's precisely the point:  the Overton window has shifted way too far in the ageist and neoprohibitionist direction, and to pull it back towards rationality, all options need to be on the table.  And we must resist the urge to make ANY sort of concessions to MADD-type zealots.

Never, ever, start out with a compromised position, as one will inevitably have to compromise further.  Just look at the success, or lack thereof, of Choose Responsibility.  The pro-21 crowd ate them for lunch.

For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not officially endorse abolishing the drinking age entirely, though we really would not oppose it either.  Currently the idea is a largely academic thought experiment since it is exceedingly unlikely to occur in the USA, at least in the next few years.  We really only officially endorse lowering the drinking age to 18, but the abolition idea, on principle, is a great way to go on offense rather than be stuck playing defense.  After all, the best defense is a good offense, and vice-versa.   And by basing the argument purely on liberty and civil rights rather than utilitarianism, it also escapes the "Neanderthal Trap" where on defense we are stuck in the utterly unenviable position of having to justify to the naysayers that Americans are not in fact Neanderthals who cannot be trusted with freedom when compared to the ostensibly more mature and cultured Europeans, Canadians, etc, and also have to show that it wasn't the chicken or the egg, but rather the dinosaur, that really came first.  

Put the pro-21 side on defense, for a change.  Have the burden of proof fall on THEM to show that the alleged benefits to setting the drinking age so unrealistically high are so incredibly large for both the individual and society that it somehow overrides the basic civil rights of millions of young adults.  Because they can't prove that.  And none of their itty-bitty effect sizes in their specious studies can change that.

"If it saves one life, it's worth it," right?  Well, then.  Making the speed limit 21 and the drinking age 55 would save even more lives by their very own logic, so why don't they do that?  They can take as long as they like with their mealy-mouthed answers.  (And if they inevitably cry "pragmatism!", they have already lost the argument without even realizing it.)

It is also worth noting that many countries, especially in Europe, don't even really have a true drinking age at all, but rather just a purchase age.  And still others only have a drinking age in public but not in private.  Much like how in the USA, many states don't have a true smoking age for tobacco either, but rather only a purchase age, and even those that prohibit underage possession/consumption generally only enforce it in public places when done flagrantly or when enforced secondarily.  (And until just a few short years ago, it was 18 in nearly every state.)  So not having a true drinking age, while retaining a purchase age (which in any case, should still not be any higher than 18), is actually not nearly as radical as one may think. 

And the worst case scenario for abolishing the drinking age (but retaining a purchase age) would be....Denmark.  You know, one of the happiest countries in the world.  The horrors, right?

So what to do about drunk driving then?  Simply crack down harder on actual drunk driving:  increase enforcement, close loopholes, and toughen the penalties for such reckless and dangerous behavior for all ages.  Do the same for drunk violence, drunk vandalism, and drunk and disorderly conduct.  As for excessive drinking in general, which is a problem for all ages, we should do the one thing that is unambiguously proven to work at least at the margin:  raise the excise taxes on alcoholic beverages significantly.  It's really not rocket science.  Other than that, hands off for the most part.

If you're still worried about drunk driving, tackling the driving side of the equation would clearly save far more lives than focusing laser-like on the drinking side.  But that would make too much sense, right?

Another Kleiman-inspired idea would be to effectively deny alcohol to known problem drinkers via something like South Dakota's 24/7 Program, or perhaps the Banned Drinker Register currently used in some local parts of Australia.  Ditto for voluntary exclusion (one could perhaps call it "86 Me")  like some states do for problem gamblers as well.

But collective punishment via utterly illiberal and ageist laws like the 21 drinking age?  That has no place in a free society, period.  If we must have some flavor of a drinking age, it should be no higher than 18.  Seriously.  And not a day later!

QED

UPDATE:  To clarify, if for whatever reason we somehow must have a true drinking age, it should not be any stricter than that found in Alberta, Canada. 

The Abysmal Failure of "Peer Review"

There is an excellent Substack article by Adam Mastroianni, that dives fairly deep into why "peer review" in science is not only useless, but often worse than useless.  Continuing in the tradition of the legendary John Ioannidis, he notes how this process, which should really be called "pal review" or "gatekeeping", not only does NOT keep even glaring junk science findings from published, but actually ends up rigging the game in favor of the rich and powerful, and propping up mainstream narratives above the truth. Peer review as we know it is really only about six decades old, and it can be considered a failed experiment.  The scientific method has clearly NOT improved since then, to say the very least.

Woe, you mean that turning science into little more than a popularity contest at best, and a pay-to-play at worst, has not made science objectively any better, and likely made it worse?  Gee, I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!  Who could have seen that coming?

And while he doesn't discuss the utter abomination that passes for research on the 21 drinking age, we at Twenty-One Debunked note that this is probably the most salient example of the failure of peer review.  The pro-21 crowd basically has their own "citation mill" of the same old MADD affiliates and fellow travelers to prop up their faulty narrative, constantly moving the goalposts when eventually debunked, while anything that contradicts their narrative is censored or delayed for publication in mainstream journals.  It was truly a miracle that Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), Mike Males (1986 and 2008), and literally anything by Darren Grant ever even got published at all, and Dee and Evans (2001) probably only got published by "nerfing" their findings a bit first.  And forget most meta-analysis and reviews, as those (except for Darren Grant in 2011) have been hopelessly rigged, padded, and cherry-picked beyond all recognition.

And then they have the GALL to call the anti-21 researchers "merchants of doubt" or (usually falsely) claim that they are funded by Big Alcohol.  Riiiiight. 

It's time to end this utterly failed experiment. 

New Study Finds That Legalizing Weed Does NOT Increase Traffic Fatalities

Yet another new study finds that cannabis legalization did NOT increase traffic fatalities in the years 2016 through 2019 compared to states that did not.  Previous studies have generally agreed with their conclusion, though the evidence has been mixed overall.  And now we have the final nail in the coffin against one of the prohibitionists' most salient bits of fearmongering, which as we see, is not robust.

When including the, ahem, outlier years of 2020 and 2021, it appeared at first glance that the legalization states did worse than the control states, but removing those two pandemic years yielded the opposition conclusion.  This shows that outlier data can easily yield misleading and often spurious inferences.

This dovetails nicely with another recent study that found no evidence of a link between cannabis legalization and traffic fatalities in the USA or Canada.

2024 UPDATE:  Yet another study dovetails with these findings, again.

Does Lowering BAC Limit To 0.05% Actually Save Lives? (Part Deux)

TL;DR version:  It depends.

We at Twenty-One Debunked have long supported (and still support) lowering the legal BAC limit for DUI/DWI to 0.05%, with nuance and graduated penalties, based on what we thought was rock-solid research supporting such a move from the current 0.08% limit in most of the USA.  Indeed, most countries that have a limit (all but USA, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Cayman Islands) currently set the limit at 0.05%, and some even lower.

However, last year we also noted that a pair of more recent British studies cast serious doubt on whether such a move will actually save any lives at all by itself.  Those studies found that Scotland lowering their BAC limit from 0.08% to 0.05% in 2014 did not appear to show any net reduction in traffic crashes or fatalities relative to England and Wales (who kept their BAC limit at 0.08%), and in fact Scotland showed a small but significant net increase.  Whoops!  The lack of any detectable lifesaving effect (and perhaps even a perverse effect) in Scotland was of course chalked up to weak enforcement and insufficient alternatives for transportation, and that may very well be true.  But hey, at least they didn't show any significant negative economic impacts (e.g. on the hospitality industry) as some had predicted.

Contrast this with Utah's experience, being the only US state so far to lower their per se BAC limit from 0.08% to to 0.05%.  When they lowered their limit in 2018, they saw a 19.8% drop in their fatal crash rate and an 18.3% drop in their fatality rate by 2019, which was significantly greater than for neighboring states or the nation as a whole.  More people apparently chose to plan ahead when going out drinking.  And yet like Scotland, they did not see any negative economic impacts either.

So why such a difference between Utah and Scotland?  Well, to ask the question is to answer it:  it's pretty clear which of the two has the bigger and more legendary drinking problem overall.  And combine that with relatively weak enforcement and poor alternatives for transportation, and it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why.

And the difference is notably NOT due to Utahns under 21 either, as drivers under that age were already long covered by their strict zero tolerance law, which has no equivalent in the UK where not only is the drinking age 18, but also their BAC limit applies equally to all drivers regardless of age or license duration.  So in Utah, the change effectively only applied to drivers over 21, while in Scotland, it applied to all drivers.  Thus, Scotland should have seen a larger effect than Utah, but they did not.

We clearly need to see the forest for the trees.  While 0.05-0.08% does indeed significantly increase the risk of crashing for most people, the vast majority of alcohol-impaired driving casualties are nonetheless from drivers with much, much higher BACs.

Recall, as Darren Grant noted in his famous study debunking the effectiveness of zero tolerance BAC laws for people under 21, it should really come as no surprise to an economist, who is used to thinking on the margin.  While driving impairment indeed begins long before reaching 0.08% or even 0.05%, it rises exponentially with each drink.  Thus, higher BACs are exponentially more dangerous than lower ones.  And the decision to have one's next drink based on trying to stay within the legal limit, even if a lower limit had the same deterrent effect at that limit, would have exponentially less effect that the decision not to cross a higher threshold.  (If anything, it's even MORE exponential for younger drivers, not less.)  And apparently once when the limit goes down to below 0.05%, any additional lifesaving effect over and above lowering the limit to 0.08% or 0.05% simply gets lost in the statistical noise.  That is especially true if the penalty is the same for crossing a lower threshold, since there is literally no marginal deterrence effect against each additional drink beyond that threshold.

(Grant also did a sort of sequel to that study in 2016, again drawing similar conclusions.)

We already know that the vast, vast majority of DUI casualties are concentrated among extremely high BAC drivers, usually 0.15%+ (average 0.16%) and often ones who do so repeatedly and frequently.  These drunk drivers are sometimes called "hardcore" drunk drivers, and are the most resistant to changing their behavior.  And most of those are in fact alcoholics to one degree or another.  They would, of course, laugh at the idea of a BAC limit being lowered to 0.05%, or at the very least, wouldn't exactly agonize over it.  This is all common knowledge, and not at all controversial, except of course among MADD and similar zealots.

Thus, if we as a society decide to set the BAC limit at 0.05%, or indeed any number below 0.08%, there should be steeply graduated penalties, with 0.05% (or 0.02% for young or novice drivers) being a mere traffic violation with a modest fine and short-term license suspension, and no criminal record, 0.08-0.10% being a misdemeanor with a steeper fine and longer license suspension or revocation, 0.10-0.15% being misdemeanor with an even steeper fine and even longer license revocation and mandatory jail time, and 0.15%+ being a felony with permanent or semi-permanent license revocation, very steep fines, vehicle forfeiture, and a stiff prison sentence.  Repeat offenses of 0.08% or higher would carry the same penalties as a 0.15%+ BAC, as would driving above 0.08% with a child under 16 in the vehicle.

Denmark, one of the most liberal drinking cultures in the world, has the BAC limit at 0.05% in general, but zero if not driving safely.  Penalties are at least largely graduated as well.  And that is for all drivers.

We also know that swiftness and certainty of punishment, or the perception of such, is a far greater deterrent than severity.  Thus, automatic administrative penalties, separate from any criminal penalties, are found to be more effective that any criminal laws on the books, most notably in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta.

Of course, we would be remiss if we did not discuss the stunning success of special DUI/DWI courts.  These are diversion programs that allow DUI offenders to plead guilty and complete coerced treatment and enforced abstinence from alcohol instead of jail or other penalties.  And they work quite well, with far lower recidivism rates than for those who do not enter such programs.  There are two types of DUI offenders these days:  1) relative normies who simply make dumb decisions and can be "scared straight", and 2) hardcore drunk drivers.  And DUI courts actually get to the root of the problem for the latter.

But first, we need to get these ticking time bombs off of the roads before they kill or maim innocent people.  Australian-style random breath testing (RBT) is one blunt way to do it, but that would not likely pass constitutional muster in the USA. And even then, the long-run effects of Australia's RBT were not very different than those of American-style sobriety checkpoints when studied in the 1980s.  Tougher and sustained enforcement in general really seems to be the key.  And that can of course be done more effectively and cost-effectively with roving and saturation patrols, that look for signs of actually impaired drivers on the roads.  Especially in the many states that do not allow sobriety checkpoints to take place, they HAVE to rely on DUI patrols instead.

(Twenty-One Debunked recently came up with an ingenious idea to turn roving and saturation police patrols against DUI into a COPS-like reality TV show called "Operation Rovin' Eyes", complete with ride-alongs for community members as well.)

Seasoned drunk drivers know how to avoid the checkpoints with ease.  But with roving and saturation patrols, they will soon learn (either the easy way, or the hard way) that you can run, but you can't hide.  "Roving eyes...are watching YOU!" would be a good slogan to publicize the program.  The "fish in a barrel" method, that is, parking a police car outside bars, clubs, or parties and catching would-be drunk drivers before they get on the road, would also be a great complement to such patrols as well.

And while we're at it, let's get all of the garden-variety reckless, negligent, and distracted drivers off the road as well.  The same patrols will of course get them too.

It's time to stop tilting at proverbial windmills, and finish the job for good.  So what are we waiting for?

Boris Johnson Talks Some Sense For Once

Here's a good one from across the pond: 

Former Prime Minister of the UK, Boris Johnson, recently wrote an good article in the Daily Mail in which he actually talks sense for once.  Or at least, for the very first time since before that fateful day on March 22, 2020.  In his article, he strongly and very rightly criticizes the government's proposal to implement a New Zealand style generational smoking ban (that is, a lifetime smoking ban on anyone born after some arbitrary point in time).  He goes right to the heart of just how ridiculous the whole thing is.  And of course, we at Twenty-One Debunked also strongly oppose such an idea, not least because it is essentially the most extreme version of the very sort of fundamentally ageist policies that we despise.  

It basically raises the age limit (currently 18 in the UK) by a year every year, and of course we oppose 100% any attempt to set the age limit higher than 18.  While Twenty-One Debunked does not recommend that anyone of any age take up smoking or otherwise using tobacco, as it is a very foolish and dangerous habit with practically no objective benefits, we still believe that legal adults should have the right to do what they will with their own bodies and minds.

Of course, the proposed ban's defenders would likely claim that Johnson is being hyperbolic in his criticism.  Truly, no one is calling for the newly disenfranchised smokers themselves to be arrested or otherwise punished for smoking, right?  It's only the sellers of tobacco to people born after that arbitrary date who will actually be on the hook, right?  Well, as history has infamously shown with less extreme age limits for other substances and/or in other places, there is absolutely no guarantee of that, especially when the measure isn't nearly as quick or effective as initially hoped for, and the zealots inevitably begin to get impatient.  And even if penalties are limited to sellers, it's still utterly ridiculous at best, and an unjust infringement of civil rights at worst.

Perhaps old Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is at least somewhat redeemable after all?

Stop The STOP POT Act

While there are several bills in Congress to legalize cannabis at the federal level, there is also a Republican bill that seeks to do the opposite:  the STOP POT Act.  Modeled explicitly after the ageist and illiberal abomination that is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act that flies in the face of the Constitution but was upheld by SCOTUS anyway, this at least equally horrible bill would withhold 10% of highway funding from any state in which recreational cannabis is legal.  Hopefully it will be defeated. 

Hey ageists, how about telling us again how the federal 21 drinking age law that you supported was not a slippery slope?  Because now they are using the exact same specious and tortured logic to target a different, less dangerous substance that already has an age limit of 21 in every state that legalized it so far.

A Better Way To Tax Alcohol

We at Twenty-One Debunked have long supported hiking alcohol taxes as an alternative to illiberal (and highly inequitable) blunt-instrument policies like the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  And there is far more evidence in favor of tax and price hikes reducing alcohol-related problems than there is for the 21 drinking age.  But what is the best way to tax alcohol?

The answer is a single tax based on alcohol by volume (ABV), regardless of whether the beverage is beer, wine, cider, distilled spirits, alcopops, or whatever, similar to what the UK recently implemented.  Instead of having multiple, widely varying tax rates based on beverage type, it makes far more sense to simply tax all alcoholic beverages equally based on their actual alcohol content, period.  It can be either a flat rate or a graduated rate with multiple rate brackets (higher alcohol content brackets have higher tax rates), but either way, it is still a major improvement over the status quo in the USA and most other countries (or the status quo ante in the UK).

The UK's new alcohol duty system is more nuanced than that, of course, and one very important nuance is the Small Producer Relief (a reduced rate for the smallest brewers and such who produce beverages of 8.5% ABV or less) which we definitely support.  Purists may not like that, of course, but tough noodles for them.  Small businesses should not get unnecessarily kicked in the teeth just to appease the purists.

So what should the tax rate be in the USA?  Twenty-One Debunked has long supported raising and equalizing the federal tax on all alcoholic beverages to the 1991 inflation-adjusted value for distilled spirits.  In 2023 dollars, that would be $30.79 per proof-gallon (proportional to alcohol content).  One could have graduated rates, of course, but if we choose a flat rate that is the one that makes the most sense.  If graduated rates are chosen, the lowest bracket should be for beverages below 3.5% at less than half the above rate, while the highest bracket (wherever it is set) could in principle be significantly higher than the above rate (note that the 1951 distilled spirits tax would be a whopping $126.92 per proof-gallon in today's dollars).  So that's actually pretty tame in comparison, as it would translate to an extra dollar or two on a six-pack of beer or bottle of wine, or a few more dollars on a bottle of spirits.

Such substantial tax hikes can be phased in gradually over several steps to minimize any downsides that may come with large, sudden tax and price hikes, of course, but the weight of the evidence suggests that any such downsides would be fairly small overall in any case (and more than outweighed by the upsides).  Note that craft breweries are apparently thriving in high-tax Canada, and even Iceland, for example.

And for small producers, the relief could either be a reduced rate up front or a tax credit later.  Additionally, similar to the UK, we could perhaps also have another nuance, "Draught Relief", which is a reduced rate (or tax credit) specifically for on-premise draught (draft) beer and cider.  As long as overall rates on the cheapest beverages end up higher than they are now, such nuances would soften the blow but not actually detract from the benefits of the tax hike.

Twenty-One Debunked is well aware that alcohol tax hikes will likely be unpopular among a sizeable chunk of the population.  But as the saying goes, if the (relatively modest) price difference bothers you so much, perhaps you are drinking too much.

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  Looks like at least some beverage makers in the UK are reducing their alcohol content somewhat in response to the tax change, especially for beer.  Alcohol giant Diageo predictably puts a negative spin on that, of course, but if that encourages moderation (and it almost certainly will), then it is a good thing on balance.  Keep in mind that, for most of recorded history, beer was on average significantly weaker in alcohol content than it has been in the past century or two, and wine was very frequently watered down as well.  So any marginal reductions in strength due to the tax would still put the product stronger than it was for most of recorded history. 

Lithuania Study Finds Raising Drinking Age Did Not Save Lives After All

Lest anyone speciously claim that Lithuania's raising of the their drinking age from 18 to 20 effective January 1, 2018 somehow saved lives, keep in mind that in 2017 they also greatly raised their alcohol taxes, banned alcohol advertising, and greatly cut trading hours for alcohol sales in 2018.  So once again, we see a great deal of confounding here.  

In fact, one recent study found that once such confounders were adjusted for, any supposed lifesaving effect of the drinking age hike itself on 18-19 year olds disappeared, implying that it was a spurious effect.  The study looked at all-cause deaths, which is probably the most bias-free measurement of the "final bill".  And the drop in deaths was actually larger in 20-21 year olds (who were already too old to have been affected at that time*) than for 18-19 year olds or 15-17 year olds. Relative to the former group, the effect was null, and interestingly no "trickle-down" effect was observed for 15-17 year olds either.  And controlling for alcohol taxes and GDP also rendered the net effect null as well.

Thus, raising the drinking age any higher than 18 is very unlikely to save lives on balance.  But raising alcohol taxes, etc. is very likely to do so, for all ages.

QED

*NOTE:  If many years of post-hike data were observed, it would probably have been better to use a slightly older age group (e.g. 22-23, 23-24, or 24-25 year olds) instead as the control group, since previous studies have found that mortality is often shifted to the age group just above the new drinking age.  However, since just one year of post-hike data was included, the choice of control group remains largely appropriate for such short-term effects, and in any case the relative results were in the "wrong" direction even if mortality were displaced as such.

About That Finland Study

This year, a new study came out in The Lancet that looked at the long-term differences in alcohol-related morbidity and mortality between birth cohorts in Finland that either were or were exposed to the lowering of their legal drinking age from 21 to 18 on January 1, 1969.  That is, based on how old they were when the drinking age was changed.  The study and its interpretation had a clear pro-21 bias. 

While the results did show that, exposed cohorts did have higher morbidity and mortality later in life relative to the unexposed cohorts, the results were ultimately inconclusive since several other changes happened at the same time. For example, the lowering of the drinking age occurred in tandem with other alcohol liberalization policies (in a previously very stringent policy regime with fairly low alcohol consumption) that greatly increased alcohol availability in general and thus consumption in a short period of time.  Urbanization also increased rapidly as well.  Culture changes (especially of the drinking culture) also inevitably occurred as well against a backdrop of increasing general alcohol consumption, and those who came of age during or right after the change would logically have been more affected than those who already came of age just before it, regardless of the legal age limit.  So teasing out the specific effects of the legal drinking age change is really practically impossible in this case.

A cursory reading of the Wikipedia article about Finnish drinking culture will tell you all you need to know about why the age limit is largely irrelevant.

Previous studies on the very long-term effects of the 21 drinking age in the USA and elsewhere have been very scarce and ultimately inconclusive at best as well.  (At least one Swedish study seems to suggest a null effect though.)  And this new Finland study, quite frankly, adds very little.  Causation can thus neither be confirmed nor ruled out, in other words.

Regardless, in any case, even if it were partly causal, using a study like this to justify the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age is mission creep at best, and grasping at straws at worst, given that the original justifications for it are either debunked, obsolete, or both.  The idea that some vague conception of "public health", especially theoretically in the distant future, somehow trumps civil rights (and selectively for only one demographic group, no less) is the very worst of utilitarianism and health fascism, and has no place in a free society.

And as long as we are on the subject of Finland, that same country has also since shown us what can be done to rapidly decrease alcohol-related mortality and morbidity at very little cost to society at large and without trampling civil rights:  raising the tax/price of alcohol.  Even the pro-21 crowd, including the authors of the aforementioned study, seem to be willing to concede that.  But apparently that doesn't satisfy the ageists' desire for power and control.  Their libido dominandi seems to know no bounds in that regard.

QED

UPDATE:  And while we are at it, lest anyone speciously claim that Lithuania's raising of the their drinking age from 18 to 20 effective January 1, 2018 somehow saved lives, keep in mind that in 2017 they also greatly raised their alcohol taxes, banned alcohol advertising, and greatly cut trading hours for alcohol sales in 2018.  So once again, we see confounding.  In fact, one study found that once such confounders were adjusted for, any supposed lifesaving effect of the drinking age hike on 18-19 year olds disappeared, implying that it was a spurious effect.

What Reactionaries Get Wrong About Drugs, Decriminalization, And Homelessness

Twenty-One Debunked does not take an official position on hard drugs (i.e. illicit drugs other than cannabis and some psychedelics) or the question of their legalization, but we generally lean more towards the decriminalization and harm reduction side of the spectrum as opposed to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs.  There is a lot of nuance that tends to get glossed over in debates that are, more often than not, typically dominated by hysterics.

Reactionaries have lately been giving some red-hot takes about the supposed perils of decriminalization and harm reduction, and often pointing fingers at Oregon for their decriminalization policy causing or exacerbating homelessness, crime, and overdose deaths.  However, such hot takes are typically completely devoid of nuance, and thus conflate correlation with causation.  Such nuances include the role of super-deadly fentanyl and its variation over time and geography, the role of the pandemic and lockdowns and their aftermath, the still-growing housing crisis, the inherent pitfalls of forced treatment, and so on.  Better articles about such nuances can be found here and here, for starters.

Those who have the GALL to oppose basic and increasingly necessary lifesaving harm reduction measures like making naloxone (Narcan) and fentanyl test strips readily available are, to put it mildly, murderously stupid.  Fentanyl often gets mixed into other drugs and can make the drug supply much deadlier than it would otherwise be.  While treatment and recovery are no doubt important goals, we also still need to meet people where they are as well.

Of course, the reactionaries do get one thing partially right, as a stopped clock always does twice a day.  There has been a general breakdown of law and order in most major North American cities in recent years due to a combination of general policy changes, anti-police sentiment, catch and release, political ideology, political correctness, and perhaps even deliberate chaos manufacture by various agents provocateur.  Of course, they should shut down and clear out the sprawling homeless encampments on the city streets and sidewalks and the open-air drug scenes that all too often go along with them.  End catch and release.  Re-criminalize theft.  Crack down on violence of all kinds.  Bring back "focused deterrence" policing, and take the classic "broken windows" theory literally.  All of these things are really just common sense, and none of them require ending harm reduction or reversing Oregon's decriminalization of simple possession of small amounts of illicit drugs.

In other words, simply enforce existing laws, and repeal bad or counterproductive ones.  But please, do it ethically, and don't let it be a springboard for an illiberal reactionary agenda.  If you feel the urge to show "tough love", look to Portugal or Alberta, not the current or historical drug warrior nations.

That said, we should always keep in mind that hard drugs called "hard" for a reason, as they are a different beast from alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.  They may not be quite a million miles away from the latter ones, but they clearly don't belong in the same category either.  While illiberal drug policy clearly makes them much more dangerous than they have to be, they are also pretty inherently dangerous, deadly, and highly addictive in their own right as well regardless.  This is especially true for opioids in particular, as there is really no such thing as a truly safe opioid.  And we have also long known that "speed kills" and "meth is death".  And yet, unfortunately these things are still not going anywhere either.  Policymakers need to handle these things with great care as they should with any wicked problem.  And consumers would be wise to avoid these substances like the plague, especially in the age of fentanyl. 

As for the perennial wicked problem of homelessness, the housing crisis still needs to be solved before there is any hope of ending it for good.  Artificial scarcity of housing needs to end, yesterday.  And a recent study found that some form of UBI can also play a net positive role in the solution as well.  Contrary to popular opinion, spending on "temptation goods" did not actually increase for such recipients.  But good luck convincing the reactionaries of that!

Yet Another Myth Bites The Dust

Last month, another study came out that debunks yet another cannabis prohibitionist myth.  The study found that cannabis use during off-hours does NOT result in an increased risk of workplace accidents.  Therefore, there is no good reason to test workers for cannabis any more than there is a reason to test for alcohol, and no good reason to punish employees for their off-hours cannabis use any more so than for off-hours alcohol use.  Which is to say, there is no good reason, period.  Anything else is serfdom. 

Twenty-One Debunked has always opposed the use of drug testing for cannabis except to determine actual impairment at the time, and even then only when truly necessary.  Urine and hair testing only detect past use (days or even weeks ago), not actual impairment at the time, and thus serve no useful purpose whatsoever.  The only chemical test for cannabis (and most other substances) that could possibly serve as a "fitness for duty" test would be saliva (oral fluid) testing, which despite its flaws we grudgingly support for "safety sensitive" jobs, much like breathalyzers for alcohol.  And even better still would be non-chemical tests like the DRUID app and AlertMeter that detect any kind of impairment regardless of the cause.

The study was done in Canada where cannabis has been legal since 2018 for everyone over 18 at the federal level (18 in Alberta, 18 in Quebec until 2020 when it was raised to 21, and 19 in all other provinces and territories).  So this study also puts the lie to the tired, old canard that legalization itself will somehow make workplace accidents worse or more likely.

(Mic drop)

Remove Cannabis From The Federal Controlled Substances Act

With all the recent talk about removing cannabis from the most stringent Schedule I (the same category as heroin) of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), we at Twenty-One Debunked believe that the best thing to do is to remove it from the Controlled Substances Act entirely (that is, "deschedule" it).  Merely reducing it to a lower schedule ("rescheduling") or creating a new schedule would not have nearly the same benefits as removing it from the CSA entirely and treating it no more stringently than alcohol and tobacco are currently treated.

As Ricardo Baca of Salon so elegantly and eloquently writes:

But rescheduling cannabis under the CSA, rather than descheduling it completely, doesn't address the underlying issue: The cannabis plant shouldn't be a controlled substance under federal law. Period. Alcohol isn't a controlled substance. Tobacco isn't a controlled substance. Not even caffeine is a controlled substance. Cannabis shouldn't be a controlled substance either. 

Indeed.  And to that we would add, there is also no good or rational reason to set a federal age limit any higher than 18 either.

(Mic drop)

Cannabis Legalization Does NOT Increase Tobacco Use

A recent study pours cold water on another prohibitionist fear, namely that legalizing cannabis for recreational use will lead to more tobacco use via a "reverse gateway" effect.  Well, the study found the opposite:  a slight decrease in tobacco use as well as e-cigarette use.  While the decrease did not quite reach statistical significance, it was lagged and perhaps builds over time.  And at the very least, it certainly puts the lie to the tired old "reverse gateway" theory.

Thus, another myth bites the dust.

If The 21 Drinking Age Really Saves Lives In The Long Run, Then Explain This

Sometimes the truth is literally hiding in plain sight.  A good, bias-free way to examine the supposed lifesaving effects of a policy would be to look at excess all-cause mortality or its inverse, life expectancy.  That gives a clear picture of the "final bill" of net effects, regardless of the "why" behind it.

For example, a recent article notes how life expectancy in the USA has lagged behind that of practically every comparable country in the world, in both absolute AND relative terms.  America is clearly an outlier, and not in a good way, despite being the richest and most powerful country on Earth.  

So what gives?

Is it Covid?  The collateral damage from lockdowns?  Or the vaccines?  While things clearly deteriorated further during the pandemic, and especially after the vaccines were introduced, the diverging trend in life expectancy began well before that.  

Is it fentanyl, or the opioid crisis more generally?  That's a big part of it, and something you really don't see nearly as bad anywhere else in the world, but the trend pre-dates even that by quite a while.

Is it illicit drugs in general?  Partly, but those "epidemics" ebbed and flowed repeatedly while the divergence continued regardless.

Is it tobacco? Well, as deadly as it is, given how Americans generally smoke less than Europeans, and always have, that cannot be a significant reason for the divergence. 

Is it obesity?  Partly, but several other countries are also catching up to us in that regard, so that only explains a fraction of it.  (And why are we so fat in the first place?)

Is it poverty?  Lack of healthcare?  Inequality?  Or any other adverse effect of neoliberalism?  Very likely at least part of it. After all, the American life expectancy began diverging from peer countries in the early 1980s during the "Reagan Revolution".  Before that, it was well within the normal range of wealthy countries.  But not even the UK under Margaret Thatcher could deteriorate quite like we did.

Is it guns?  Partly, but again that only explains a fraction of the trend, and there were already plenty of guns in the USA well before the divergence.

Is it traffic deaths?  Getting even warmer.  Traffic safety has clearly lagged behind the rest of the developed world indeed, and it's not only because we have more cars either.

Or is it perhaps the pink elephant in the room?  That is, Americans drowning themselves in the bottom of the bottle?  Yes, and we are paying a heavy price for it:  alcohol is indeed one of the largest contributors, that actually kills more Americans than opioids and all illicit drugs combined.  Let that sink in. 

Along with suicide and drug overdoses, alcohol-related deaths are in fact one of the most common types of "deaths of despair" in this country.

So to those who support the 21 drinking age, riddle me this:  if your beloved policy saved so many lives on balance like you claim, why did America's life expectancy lag behind all of our peer countries that generally did NOT raise their drinking ages any higher than 18?  And why are alcohol and traffic deaths such large contributors to the divergence?

Take as long as you like with your answer.

And bonus points for those who loudly cry "think of the children!" when it comes to public policies they dislike, and are still able to somehow explain why American infant and child mortality is so much worse than peer countries as well.

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  But don't European countries supposedly have higher liver cirrhosis death rates than the USA?  Well, some do, but many countries are the same or lower.  The UK, for example, used to be higher, but by 2016 it was lower.  Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also have lower cirrhosis death rates as well.

One Silver Lining Of The Pandemic And Its Aftermath

As the rolling three-year ordeal of the pandemic and its illiberal restrictions has drawn to a close, one can observe that one particular and very platitudinous phrase seems to have vanished entirely from our lexicon.  It was a phrase that long predated the pandemic, and first became common about 40 years ago, which was used to cover any number of illiberal policies, most notably the 21 drinking age.  So what is it?

"If it saves even ONE life, it's worth it"

Those nine words have clearly been a very, very slippery slope towards totalitarianism, which really came to a head during the pandemic.  And both sides of the lockdown and mandates debate have since given that idea up for the time being recently.  Thus, we may actually have a chance temporarily to finally end other illiberal policies like the 21 drinking age and similar abominations.  Pendulum Theory can therefore be used to our advantage. 

What are we waiting for?

Yet Another Study Finds No Link Between Cannabis Legalization And Traffic Casualties

Once again, yet another study finds that recreational cannabis legalization and retail commercialization did NOT lead to an increase in fatal or injury traffic crashes.  This study looked at Washington State, one of the first two states to legalize cannabis for recreational use, and actually found that legalization itself led to fewer fatal and injury crashes, while commercialization (retail sales) led to no statistically significant impacts on fatal or injury crashes (albeit correlated with a modest increase in non-injury crashes, likely from tourists).  These results jibe well with survey data that did not find a significant change in driving behavior while under the influence, despite a self-reported increase in cannabis use in general. 

These results dovetail rather nicely with several other studies in both the USA as well as Canada.

In other words, the fear that legalization or retail sales would cause carnage on the highways has turned out to be unfounded.  Look like yet another card in the prohibitionists' vast rolodex full of myths, lies, and half-truths needs to be retired for good.

UPDATE:  Also, a new study found that mental health treatment admissions actually go DOWN following recreational cannabis legalization.

Hey New York, Wanna Know A Secret?

Though cannabis legalization has been a positive development overall, in many places, the black market still exists to one degree or another, albeit much less so than when cannabis was illegal.  Nowhere else is this more true than in New York, whose uniquely arcane, difficult, and disastrously sluggish rollout of cannabis licenses statewide has led to a massive proliferation of unlicensed weed shops, especially in NYC where such shops outnumber licensed ones by a whopping 250 to one.  So how does one solve such a bedeviling problem?

Enter Rear Admiral Luther E. Gregory.  In the 1930s, Prohibition was repealed, and Washington State along with other states were now faced with the task of shutting down the well-established bootleggers and speakeasies that persisted even after Repeal.   Admiral Gregory was asked to head the state's Liquor Control Board, and given carte blanche to come up with a solution, one which worked surprisingly well in fact:

1. End Prohibition, first of all.
2. Give amnesty and issue licenses to anyone willing to play by the state's rules, whether former bootleggers or otherwise.
3. Set the alcohol taxes as low as possible at first, the lowest in the country in fact.
4. Punish sellers who don't play by the rules, with an iron fist--i.e. blacklisting scofflaws from ever selling liquor in the state again.
5. After holding down alcohol taxes for three years, abruptly raise taxes to the point where they're now the highest in the nation.

Problem solved.  The legal market proved to be competitive with what was left of the black market, and drinkers overwhelmingly preferred the former over the latter, driving the latter out of business.  And the black market never came back even after raising taxes dramatically.  Looking back, it should have been so obvious indeed.

Substitute "cannabis" for "alcohol", and there is literally no reason whatsoever why this strategy would not work in this day and age.  And instead of holding down taxes for three years, merely one or two years should be sufficient to get the same results, even if the hike is automatically scheduled.  Doing so would minimize the greatest risk of the strategy, namely, that the fledgling legal cannabis industry would then become so powerful that they would resist and successfully quash any attempt to raise taxes in the future.  They would not become that powerful in just a year or two, and probably not for several years, but the black market could be easily quashed in that timeframe all the same.  But most importantly, cut the ridiculous red tape and, and make cannabis licenses easier and cheaper to get, particularly for the current gray market shops.

Now over to you, New York.  Remember, the cart does NOT go before the horse.

Latest Twin Study Pours Cold Water Over Cannabis Prohibitionists

A new study looked at pairs of twins where one twin lived in a recreational cannabis legalization state and the other lived in a state where it remained illegal and found the following:

• Somewhat greater self-reported levels of cannabis use among those living in legalization states, but they were no more likely to experience negative consequences as a result of their cannabis use.
• Both groups consumed alcohol at similar rates, but those living in legalization states reported fewer negative consequences from their alcohol use.
• No significant difference in tobacco or other controlled substance use between the two groups.

This dovetails nicely with a previous study that finds that alcohol use disorders are also less likely in co-twins who live in legalization states as well (and also no increase in psychosis either).

No increase in adverse consequences of cannabis use (check), decrease in adverse consequences of alcohol use (check), and no increase in tobacco or other drug use (check).  And no increase in psychosis either.  Both the gateway theory and Reefer Madness have thus been thoroughly debunked, at least insofar as they relate to legalization.  Ditto for any alleged associations with (non-victimless) crime as well, especially violence.  Such robust research findings slaughter so many of the sacred cows of the prohibitionists, that it's time to have a barbecue.

Zero Evidence For Zero Tolerance Pe Se Laws

At least for cannabis, that is.  Yet another study found a stunning lack of correlation between the detection of either THC or its metabolites in blood, breath, or oral fluid (saliva) and psychomotor performance, both on a driving simulator as well as on a standard field sobriety test (SFST).  While this does not mean that cannabis cannot cause impairment (it can) or that driving while high is a good idea (it's not), it does mean that the truth about cannabis and driving is far more nuanced than the prohibitionists and MADD-type zealots like to claim, and that any strict per se thresholds (let alone zero tolerance) for THC for DUI cannabis are not supported by the science.

The reason for this lack of correlation is due to the complex pharmacokinetics of cannabis, and how trace amounts of fat-soluble THC itself and especially its metabolites can linger in the body and be detected LONG after any impairment is gone.  And there is no hard and fast blood THC level threshold that can clearly (by itself) separate the actually impaired from the non-impaired, only very roughly determining how recent the last use was.  Thus unlike how it is for alcohol, chemical testing alone cannot accurately predict actual impairment for cannabis. 

That is all true whether a threshold is zero tolerance (LOD or LOQ) OR supposedly "science-based", even if the latter is slightly less ridiculous than the former.

(Even worse still are the places where driving with non-psychoactive metabolites is treated the same as THC well.  Pennsylvania, I'm looking at YOU!)

And there is still no evidence that states with strict per se laws have seen any sort of lifesaving benefits at all compared to the many states without them.

Thus, while per se laws (of any sort) make sense for alcohol, and possibly some other drugs, they make absolutely zero sense for cannabis whatsoever.  Either have an actual impairment standard alone, like many states currently do, or have that in addition to a prima facie threshold for THC (say, 5 ng/ml in blood) like Colorado currently has.  In fact, the aforementioned study found that a 2 ng/ml THC level in oral fluid did help further distinguish impairment among those who failed an SFST.  But cut out this ridiculous per se nonsense, that accomplishes literally nothing more that catching innocent sober drivers in the same dragnet along with the actually impaired.

By the way, there is actually a smartphone app called DRUID (Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs) that CAN accurately tell whether some is too messed up to drive, whether by cannabis or otherwise.  All without any sort of chemical testing whatsoever. 

It's what the late Peter McWilliams would have most likely wanted.  So what are we waiting for?

The Stupid Literally Burns Like Cigarettes

In Australia, there is quite a furor right now among the chattering classes in regards to a sharp increase in teen tobacco smoking from 2018 to 2023 after over two straight decades of decline.  And one of the things people are blaming is.....wait for it....vaping.  Because reasons.  Or something.  But there is one very glaring problem with this theory.  In Australia, vape products are technically legal, but ONLY if they do NOT contain any nicotine at all, thus kind of defeating the purpose.  That's right, nicotine vape products have never been approved for legal sales in Australia (and probably never will be any time soon), meaning anyone who wants to use them must either smuggle them in from abroad or buy them on the black market.  And interestingly enough, vaping itself also appears to be on the rise as well down under.  Thus, it truly takes a special kind of stupid to not only perversely create a situation where vaping and smoking both increase at the same time, but to then blame the increase in smoking on vaping.

Even more notable is the fact that in Australia, cigarettes have some of the highest taxes (and thus prices) in the world, plus so many other world-leading "best practices" tobacco control polices as well.  This additionally shows that while vice taxes and some other policies may work well to a point, all of these policies inherently have their limits in practice. 

Our working theory:  it is actually the banning of nicotine vaping, combined with the harmful effects of one of the strictest lockdown and Zero Covid regimes in the world, that ultimately snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the long fight against tobacco smoking, particularly for youth.  And we must stress that while nicotine in any form is far from benign and definitely NOT for kids, banning or unduly restricting vaping (which is still significantly safer than the known deadly habit of smoking that it often displaces) is therefore a net public health loser of a policy.  And a policy like Australia's that perversely increases "dual use" of both is even that much worse still.

One could even argue that their truly massive cigarette black market created by their insanely high taxes, especially combined with their vaping black market from their nicotine ban, actually increased underage (under 18) use of both products since black market sellers typically don't ask buyers for ID.

Note also how the increase did not begin until 2020 (implicating the lockdowns as a contributing cause), and occurred for 14-17 year olds but interestingly NOT 18-24 year olds (putting the lie to the idea that their age limit of 18, as opposed to 21, was in any way related).  Also note that in England, where the age limit is still 18 and vaping is literally promoted by public health authorities, teen smoking continued its long decline through at least 2021.  New Zealand, where the age limit was still 18 (until very, very recently), smoking rates among 15-24 year olds nosedived as soon as nicotine vaping was officially legalized in 2020, despite an even stricter lockdown there.  Thus it seems to be the combination of 1) black markets, 2) vaping bans, and 3) lockdowns that is the cause of the jump in teen smoking in Australia.

But good luck trying to convince the nanny-state zealots to use even a little bit of common sense!

QED

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

This coming Monday, May 29, is Memorial Day, often known as the unofficial first day of summer and National BBQ Day.  But let's remember what it really is--a day to honor all of the men and women of our armed forces who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, past and present.  And that of course includes all of those who died serving our country before they were legally old enough to drink.  Let us all take a moment of silence to honor them.

As for Candy Lightner, the ageist turncoat founder of MADD who had the chutzpah and hubris to go on national TV in 2008 and publicly insult our troops, may her name and memory be forever blotted out. 

And as always, arrive alive, don't drink and drive.  It's just not worth it, period.  And it's very simple to prevent.  If you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive.  It's not rocket science.   Designate a sober driver, call a cab or rideshare, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.

Legalizing Cannabis In Canada NOT Linked To More Traffic Crashes

A new Toronto, Canada study found that neither legalization of cannabis nor the number of cannabis retail stores was associated with an increase in traffic crashes.  This dovetails with other recent studies which came to similar conclusions about legalization across Canada, as well many US studies.

In other words, the predicted "parade of horribles" never happened.  Not with liberalization, not with legalization, and not even with commercialization of cannabis. Fearmongers, prepare to eat crow.

Note that the legal age limit for cannabis is 18 in Alberta and 19 in all other provinces except Quebec, who originally set it at 18 but unfortunately raised it to 21 in 2020.  (For comparison, the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec, and 19 elsewhere.)  Thus, a lower age limit in Canada does not seem to increase traffic crash risk either, relative to the USA where it is 21 in all legalization states.  Not even in Alberta specifically either, whether for all ages OR for Albertan youth specifically. 

Oh, and cannabis legalization does NOT seem to be crazy-making in Canada either.  Again, nt even in the province with the most liberal cannabis policies, Alberta.  Nor does legalization seem to have increased problematic cannabis use among youth or young adults in either Canada or the USA.  Thus, another tired, old myth bites the dust.

Raise Voting Age To 25? HELL To The NO!

Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy apparently want to raise the voting age to 25, the Constitution be damned.  Even his own staffers rightly oppose this utterly ageist, anti-democratic, and simultaneously radical and reactionary Horseshoe Theory idea.

Granted, his idea comes with exceptions for 18-24 year olds who either 1) join the military, 2) become first responders, or 3) pass a civics test.  While that is of course marginally better than a "hard" 25 age limit, it is still an ageist abomination that blatantly violates the Constitution all the same.  As for the idea of requiring a test to vote, well, anyone who stayed awake in history class (or even bothers to do a few seconds of Googling) would know that that such an idea has a rather checkered history in this country, right up there with poll taxes, grandfather clauses, sitting at the back of the bus, and stuff like that.

We at Twenty-One Debunked oppose this idea 100%, and in fact support lowering the voting age to 16.  Honestly, if Trump can vote, the Kardashians can vote, alcoholics can vote, drug addicts can vote, psychotics can vote, severely developmentally disabled folks can vote, and so on, there is no good reason to deny 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote due to age.  And plenty of countries like Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Malta, Nicaragua, Scotland, and Wales currently set the voting age at 16 without the sky falling or any parade of horribles occurring.  And Switzerland, the worlds largest and oldest functioning direct democracy, also currently sets the voting age at 16 for cantonal (state) and local elections, though for national elections it is still 18.

In short, raising the voting age is not only bad policy, for it to even be up for debate also shifts the Overton window in a very questionable direction at best.  Especially with the idea coming from a fairly young 37 year old Millennial like himself who apparently can't wait to pull up the drawbridge and shut the proverbial kingdom in future generations' faces.  Hey Vivek, remember you were 18 once too, buddy.

Or maybe it is all a cynical and cowardly Republican ploy to stop Gen Z from voting for their rivals, the Democrats.  Either way, it's not a good look at all.

Are THC Potency Caps Really Necessary?

Concerns about high-potency cannabis products have prompted calls for increased regulation, particularly potency caps for THC. Common suggestions include a cap of 15% THC for flower and 25-30% for concentrates.  For example, Uruguay currently sets it a 9%, which is similar to the weed that Gen X and older Millennials may remember from the 1990s, so 15% is still pretty generous.  Twenty-One Debunked does NOT oppose such efforts, and would much rather that than other types of restrictions.  But the real question is, are such caps really necessary?

A new British study casts doubt on that seemingly commonsense assertion.  Among young adults in their late teens and early 20s, the researchers failed to find any correlation between cannabis potency and dependence, depression, or psychosis-like symptoms, after adjusting for confounders.  Yes, really.

(Other recent studies on both sides of both major oceans find that the "Reefer Madness 2.0" fears in general are largely if not entirely unfounded as well.)

That said, there is also a good case for "bringing back mids" as well.  We know that too-potent weed (over 20% THC, up to even 40% sometimes), and especially concentrates (up to 90% THC), may be too much for inexperienced and/or very occasional users to handle.  Usually most users can easily self-titrate their dose when smoking or vaping (but not eating!) cannabis so they don't get too stoned, but when it is extremely potent it becomes that much more difficult.

So what is best to do then?  Simply tax cannabis based on potency, that is, by milligram of THC, and perhaps a discount for the amount of CBD it contains as well.  Current high taxes based on gross weight alone not only notoriously incentivize the persistence of black markets, but they also perversely incentivize very high potency products as well, almost to the exclusion of lower potency products.  That is especially true when leaf/trim is overtaxed as well, as that incentivizes the extraction of concentrates from such material rather than simply selling it as-is.  Untaxing leaf/trim (or trivially taxing it) would go a long way toward rebalancing the cannabis market. And overregulation that makes licenses to legally sell cannabis so ridiculously hard to get (New York, I'm looking at YOU!) needs to be fixed as well.

Remember, all of this is for a plant that is literally about as easy to grow as BASIL. Look at the prices per weight of dried basil at the store or Google it.  Then compare the prices by weight of even the cheapest weed before legalization, and also the prices for the cheapest weed right after and then years after legalization.  Notice the stark disequilibrium here?  And the headfake?  Free markets (which don't currently exist for cannabis anywhere) are clearly excellent at solving such disequilibria.  Just saying. 

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  A good op-ed debunking the "Reefer Madness 2.0" mass hysteria can be found here.

The Law of Eristic Escalation Revisited

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986) illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.

The Trouble With Mandatory Age Verification Online

(See our previous articles about this topic.)

A new bipartisan (aka the very worst kind of tyranny) bill in Congress seeks to 1) ban anyone under 13 from social media platforms entirely, 2) require parental consent for anyone over 13 but under 18 to join such platforms, 3) require mandatory age verification (and verification of parental status) to enforce the above.  This is very similar to Utah's new law, which is the strictest one passed to date.

(Arkansas recently passed a similar law as well, but theirs exempts so many social media platforms as to render it largely toothless in practice.  I'm sure the fact that the same state that recently relaxed child labor laws for youth under 16 also conveniently exempted LinkedIn is entirely a coincidence, right?)

The bill as currently written would apply the age verification requirement to all new accounts opened after enactment, and would have a two year grace period (why not simply exempt entirely, like in Josh Hawley's bill?) for existing accounts after which unverified accounts would be suspended.  Fortunately, unlike Hawley's bill, it does not specifically require government-issued ID (yet).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pitfalls of such a sledgehammer approach to a problem that really calls for a scalpel.  Not only does it arguably infringe on the First Amendment rights of people under 18, but it also backfires on adults over 18 almost as badly as well.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wrote an excellent article as to the very real perils and pitfalls that come with mandatory age verification, not least of which include the undermining of what is left of any semblance of privacy and anonymity online for all ages.  It is not much of a leap from that to further censorship and surveillance, digital ID, and ultimately social credit scoring to effectively lock "undesirable" people out of the public square for the purpose of power and control--a budding totalitarian's dream come true (and a nightmare for everyone else).  As a best case scenario, it will sound the death knell for what's still left of the free and open internet as we knew it.

Kafka, meet trap.  Pandora, meet box.  Albatross, meet neck.  Baby, meet bathwater.  Camel's nose, meet tent.  Horse, meet barn.  Trojan, meet horse.

Make no mistake, this is a Trojan horse!

The ONE possibly good thing in this bill is that it prohibits the use of algorithmic recommendation systems for people under 18 (why not all ages?), but otherwise it throws out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, and likely does more harm than good.  While it simultaneously lets Big Tech largely off the hook in terms of design safety.  That makes the bill both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.

Thus, Twenty-One Debunked categorically opposes this bill or any other that contains mandatory age verification for social media and/or the internet in general.  But in the event that mandatory age verification does become a foregone conclusion, we demand that the following safeguards be included:

• It must be as narrowly tailored as humanly possible.  Think scalpel, not sledgehammer. 
• The age limit should be no higher than 16 for social media or any other sites (except 18 for stuff like porn, gambling, and dating sites).
• All existing social media accounts (that were opened prior to the law's enactment date) must be "grandfathered" and thus fully exempt from mandatory age verification, period.
• A varied "menu" of options for age verification must be available for all.  Government-issued ID should be only one of many options. 
• All data collected for the purpose of age verification must be deleted immediately after verification, and not retained for any purpose whatsoever. 
• Age verification must be "one and done" when opening a new account.
• At most, only people who look and/or claim to be under 25 should be subject to age verification, similar to how it is done for requiring ID for buying tobacco products offline at the store.
• And there must be full liability for any misuse or abuse of data collected for the purpose of age verification. 

Then, and only then, would the slippery slope become less slippery.  Otherwise, slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear!

Until then, we will vehemently oppose any bill that is stricter than the competing bills COPPA 2.0, KOSA in its newest version, and the Kids PRIVCY Act.  And we support the current "Age Appropriate Design Codes" already in places like California and the UK as well, which put the onus on Big Tech to make their platforms safer.  Make those the national standard in the USA.  Also, make social media safer for ALL ages as well.  But any further is a bridge too far for us.

(TL;DR version:  Just make "California standards" (both CCPA and CAADCA) the national standard, and also better data privacy laws for all ages.)

Oh, and by the way:  DON'T think it will stop at 18, or stop at social media, either.  Once this inherently illiberal bill passes, it will inevitably shift the Overton window further in the dystopian direction, making further encroachments of civil liberties that much easier going forward.  Just look at history. 

Three years ago, we effectively saw just how very quickly the unthinkable and the unquestionable can completely switch places given enough of a panic.  Let's NOT make the same mistake again!

UPDATE:  Already there are some people on Twitter who believe this bill doesn't go far enough as far as age limits, with some calling for the hard age limit to be raised to 21 or even higher.  You may laugh, but once this bill passes, that is really not much of a leap.  And how long before Big Tech, who currently opposes any hard age restrictions, will flip flop and openly come out in favor of raising the hard age limit, first to 18 and then 21, in return for less regulation overall, much like Big Alcohol, Big Tobacco, and Big Vape did?  Clearly 2023 smells a LOT like 1983 in that regard.

In other words, we have seen this movie before.  And it really doesn't end well.

UPDATE 2:  The leading competing bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), has recently been resurrected with amendments that fixed some of its more glaring flaws for now.  That said, while we would MUCH rather KOSA pass compared to the much worse mandatory age verification bill discussed above, KOSA unfortunately still remains significantly problematic in its new version as well, and thus we cannot fully support it as currently written.  It can still be a potential Trojan horse.  That said, COPPA 2.0 and the Kids PRIVCY Act are good enough as written.  It is notable that the Center for Humane Technology doesn't include KOSA on their list of proposed policies.

Why there is still no serious attempt at any general comprehensive privacy legislation for all ages, and one that is content-neutral, currently remains a mystery (not).  The powers that be don't want it.

UPDATE 3:  Looks like reasonable doubt still remains about the more fanciful claims regarding the supposed causal link between social media, smartphones, and the teen mental health crisis when you zoom out and look at enough non-Anglo countries.  And yes, contrary to Jon Haidt, that IS an appropriate bar to clear before abruptly making truly radical (and likely unconstitutional) changes to society, especially from a place of moral panic.

UPDATE 4:  We should also note that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is often a frequent target for reform, if not outright repeal.  It effectively provides civil liability protection for online platforms who host user-generated content, with very few exceptions, and it is thus the sine qua non of the free and open internet as we know it.  While we can debate the merits of some degree of reform perhaps, repealing it in its entirety would throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and have a chilling effect on free speech.  Section 230 repeal would be even worse than mandatory age verification. 

UPDATE 5:  Is Big Tech the new Big Tobacco? Honestly a better analogy is that Big Tech is new Big Oil.  And while there most likely is a "there", there, in terms of teen mental health issues, the specious idea of there being absolutely no safe level of social media use before some arbitrarily high age and they should be banned completely from it is a gross exaggeration. 

See also the EFF's other excellent article.

UPDATE 6:  See another great rebuttal here.

UPDATE 7:  KOSA is even worse than we thought, and thus we vehemently oppose it.  It is literally a textbook example of a Trojan horse that will effectively censor the internet and have a chilling effect on free speech, and also act as a likely gateway to the very same (de facto) mandatory age verification discussed above.  It needs a fundamental overhaul before it can even be considered at all.  As a wise man said, "no amount of lipstick can save this pig".

UPDATE 8:  See this other new study.

FINAL THOUGHT:  If we really want to throw the proverbial One Ring into Mount Doom for good in regards to Big Tech's highly toxic business model, we need to ban surveillance advertising, ban data brokers, and implement strong, comprehensive digital privacy legislation for ALL ages, period.  And go antitrust on the adtech duopoly as well.  In other words, platforms need to put users first, period.  And call their bluff whenever Big Tech falsely claims that a parade of horribles of some sort would result from doing so.  Ask them, "is that a threat, or a promise?"  

(Mic drop)