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.

Australia Has Fallen

Or, "Et Tu, Australia?"

Australia recently passed a sweeping new law setting a binding legal age limit of 16 for at least most social media.  It will take full effect in one year from its passage.  And aside from their notably illiberal and draconian measures during the Covid pandemic (and the fact that they were of course descended from a penal colony), this kind of thing is quite out of character to say the least for a country that has long prided itself on being relatively free-spirited and is quite famous for the saying and attitude of "no worries, mate". 

Mike Males wrote an excellent Substack article from a youth rights perspective, discussing just how wrong and harmful it is for the state to do that to young people.  And we at Twenty-One Debunked agree with him.  But even if you the reader don't agree with him, and are smug about this law perhaps appeasing the illiberal and ageist social-mediaphobes in charge, consider this: it will NOT stop there.  Mark my words, the moment they see that their voodoo didn't really work, they will triple down and expand the restrictions, tighten the age verification requirements, and/or keep increasing the age limit higher and higher.  And this will also backfire on adults as well, endangering everyone's civil rights way beyond anonymity, given the privacy and cybersecurity pitfalls inherent to ALL forms of online age verification that would be even modestly effective. 

What should be done instead is what we have long advocated, as has the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):  a "Privacy First" approach, that is, comprehensive data privacy legislation for ALL ages, which, at a minimum, bans surveillance advertising as well as "dark patterns" and other similarly deceptive and ethically questionable practices.  That will throw the proverbial One Ring into the fire for good.  But of course, Big Tech would NOT like that.

Also, simply adding more "friction" would also make such platforms safer and less addictive overall.

So what are we waiting for?

P.S. Australia has never had any equivalent to America's Section 230, so the fact that they saw the need to "get tough" on social media companies implies that they had just as much of a problem as the USA.  Thus, outright repeal of Section 230 (as opposed to much more nuanced and narrow reforms in regards to personalization of feeds and algorithms) as some ignorant social-mediaphobes have suggested would solve absolutely nothing, and would do far more harm than good. Don't do it!  You have been warned.

UPDATE:  Pari Esfandiari also wrote a great essay about how such a ban will do more harm than good.

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.

P.S.  The Dutch seem to understand this better.  They even have a proverb:  "when you permit, you control", which is the antithesis of the American proverb, "when you permit, you promote".  Carl Jung would also likely have a field day with that as well.

Blowing Hot And Cold (Cognition)

In psychology, the concept of "hot and cold cognition" has gained much currency in recent years.  "Cold cognition" is thinking while NOT being swayed by strong emotions, time pressure, and/or peer pressure, while "hot cognition" is thinking when one IS thus potentially swayed in the "heat of the moment".

In what passes for pop neuroscience these days, it has become in vogue to claim that while cold cognition fully matures by around age 16 or so, hot cognition takes much longer, often well into the mid to late 20s.  A major proponent of this theory is Laurence Steinberg, who has written extensively on the topic.  One major study by Steinberg et al. can be found here, which compares various ages in various countries on several hot and cold cognitive tests.  (What the authors call "psychosocial maturity" is a synonym for "hot cognition".) And while such a pattern was apparently seen to some extent in the aggregate, when you break it down by country, the pattern breaks down as well.  And the weak results cannot be explained away by individualism vs collectivism, rich vs poor, Global North vs Global South, eastern vs western, or any other obvious societal characteristics.  And notably, the USA was an outlier where instead of hot cognition improving steadily and largely linearly to (and likely beyond) age 30 like most other countries, it began to level off in the early to mid 20s and plateaued from then onwards.  And one of the other countries actually saw a regress (oops!) in hot cognition in the mid to late 20s.  Cold cognition, on the other hand, was generally much more consistent by country, and nearly always leveled off around 16.

It's almost like hot cognition is actually a skill where "practice makes good enough", as opposed to "biology is destiny".  There is far too wide a variation between individuals and societies to seriously argue otherwise.  And even a quick and cursory observation will reveal that most older adults aren't really all that great at it in the real world.  All the more reason to call BS on any claim that young people's civil rights be curtailed in the name of specious junk neuroscience.

As for the tempting idea that the juvenile injustice system (or a third category) thus be expanded to include young adults (ages 18-25 or so), or otherwise going easier on young adults, please allow me to channel the late criminologist James Q. Wilson.  He noted that even if disadvantaged demographics have a "steeper hill to climb" in terms of staying out of trouble, the prospect of punishment actually has greater utility for them to make it easier for them to climb that proverbial hill.  To that I would add, of course, as long as they are not completely incompetent, and it is in the interest of justice to do so.  And treating young adults as non-adults for that purpose is ultimately a trap, a velvet glove to the iron fist of revoking their hard-won civil rights as well.

That said, it is certainly the very height of hypocrisy to try and punish young people of any age as adults when they commit "status offenses" based entirely on age like underage drinking or smoking, curfew violations, and stuff like that which would not be crimes when adults do these things.  All such "status offenses" thus need to be either decriminalized or removed from the law books entirely, just like victimless crimes (or what the late, great Peter McWilliams called "consensual crimes") more generally.  Ageists really cannot have it both ways!

And finally, people of ALL ages really need to use their cold cognition to plan ahead better, to avoid the pitfalls of relying solely on hot cognition in potentially dangerous situations.  We ignore that at our peril.

Tobacco 21 Laws' Benefits Are An Illusion

Another recent study found that while self-reported teen smoking and vaping rates declined after Tobacco 21 laws, biomarker exposure showed mixed evidence at best, implying that fewer young smokers are identifying as smokers (and similar findings for vaping).  Thus, the supposed reductions in smoking and vaping in surveys and sales data are at least largely an artifact of underreporting and cross-border shopping rather than real reductions.  Oops!

Looks like it was all just another mirage, kinda like with the 21 drinking age.  What next, a study that finds that water is wet and the sun rises in the east?

Excellent New Insights From Renowned Sociologist and Youth Rights Activist Mike Males

The renowned sociologist and youth rights activist Mike Males has some excellent new Substack articles debunking the latest moral panic about young people, smartphones and social media.  As we stand at a crossroads in terms of how public policy is evolving (or devolving), his words should be food for thought for any direct or indirect policymaker as well as anyone going to the polls this November. 

And here is what I added in the comments:

Honestly, I would be fine with making schools phone-free IF AND ONLY IF they alao applied the same rules to teachers, staff, and administrators. Fair is fair. After all, they wouldn't want to be flaming hypocrites about it, right? (But we all know these zealots would probably rather drink Drano than apply their double standards to themselves, of course.)

Excellent work, Mike. I would also add about the ageist abomination that is 21 drinking age, the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, that Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) also further debunked any claim of a lifesaving effect. The supposed lifesaving effect was all a mirage driven by a handful of early-adopoting states, while for the federal coerced states it was inconsequential at best or even perverse. And notably, counterintuitive as it may be, in that study not even the graduated 18/21 age limits for beer/wine vs hard liquor in some states were vindicated either (those states were disproportionately likely to be coerced late-adopters) as any better than a straight age limit of 18. So any age limit higher than 18 was a net loser in the long run, even for the early adopters whose supposed lifesaving effects evaporated after the first year or two. Oops!

Is Drunk Walking Really More Dangerous Than Drunk Driving?

Or, "Why People Absolutely Need to Stop Citing Superfreaknomics, Yesterday"

Talk about losing the plot!

Only someone who has repeatedly read Superfreakonomics would really believe that.  (People are apparently still irresponsibly citing it to this day.)  In that rather tepid and disappointing sequel to Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner, the authors claimed that, at least on a per-mile basis, a drunk person is a whopping eight times more likely (!) to be killed while walking than driving the same distance.  However, there are a number of flaws to that claim.  First, they assume that the proportion of total miles traveled while drunk is the same for walking as it is for driving.  This is dubious because drunk driving is far less common nowadays, and many who would have driven drunk a generation ago now choose to walk instead.  Secondly, it is more realistic to compare the risk per hour of traveling time rather than per mile, since far more miles are traveled by car rather than on foot.  Thirdly, the real-world relative risk for an alcohol-related pedestrian fatality does not rise to statistically significant levels until a BAC of about 0.15, while for driving deaths it begins to rise significantly at 0.05 or even lower, which is a very large difference.  To quote NHTSA in their Alcohol and Highway Safety 2001 report:

One interesting finding...was that the relative risk of involvement in a fatal pedestrian crash did not begin to rise until the pedestrians reached a BAC of .15 to .20. This is consistent with the hypothesis that safe walking is generally easier than safe driving, since the relative risk curve for fatal motor vehicle crashes starts to rise at a much lower BAC.

Finally, there is a significant qualitative difference between the two in that while a drunk pedestrian is unlikely to endanger innocent people, a drunk driver is very likely to do so.  That's precisely why the latter is illegal while the former is generally not, though some states do have laws against public drunkenness (which are typically only enforced if the drunk pedestrian is noticeably causing a nuisance or hazard to others).  We may never be able to determine exactly how risky drunk walking is to the drunk individual, and we certainly know that the risk is not zero.  In fact, the NHTSA report suggests that it can be quite significant at very high doses of alcohol.  There is also a risk of falls when one is "falling-down drunk," which can lead to serious or even fatal injuries.  But all things considered, drunk walking is still a better option than drunk driving at any BAC level. (Not that we are encouraging either!)

In other words, if you choose to harm or endanger yourself, that's your own business in a free society.  But the moment you significantly harm or endanger non-consenting others, such as driving under the influence on a public street or highway, it then becomes everyone's business.  Why is that still so hard for so many people to understand?

Never mind, we already know why.  Because too many people are apparently far too left-brain dominant to see the forest for the trees!  And the very same people who, upon reading or hearing about that questionable passage from Superfreakonomics, will inevitably see such specious reasoning as far more of a green light to drive drunk than as a red light to walk drunk.  Now I don't believe in censorship, but come on now:  if I was the editor of Superfreakonomics, I could see myself "accidentally" deleting that particular part of the book before it got published!

And finally, research has found that the best ways to reduce the number of drunk pedestrian casualties at the population level are basically the same strategies that would benefit all pedestrians (and cyclists) drunk or sober, most notably reducing speed limits and vehicle sizes, and otherwise improving infrastructure to be more pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly in general.  We also need to crack down on and stiffen the penalties for hit-and-run crashes and distracted driving as well.  Anything else, in our view, is an Orwellian slippery slope just waiting to happen.

(Mic drop)

How America Lost The Plot

From the ageist and illiberal abomination that is the 21 drinking age and especially its authoritarian enforcement, to drunk driving, to drug policy, to transportation policy, to environmental policy, to foreign policy, to Tobacco 21, and so on, America has well and truly lost the plot long ago on so many issues.  How long ago, you may ask?  Well, roughly 40 years ago, if not even a bit earlier than that.  But how and why did it happen in the first place?  Why can't our "leaders" (and many of those who keep voting for them) ever seem to see the forest for the trees?

In the book, The Master and His Emissary:  The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist (2009), the author delves into the familiar idea of the left vs right hemispheres of the brain.  Only unlike the usual surface-level analysis in that we see in pop neuroscience, this one is a real deep dive into the truly resounding implications of these brain differences for society and civilization.  Ten years later, it was even made into a documentary, The Divided Brain (2019), by McGilchrist himself along with award-winning documentary filmmaker Vanessa Dylyn, et al.

To summarize:  the two hemispheres of the brain each see the world and process information in fundamentally different ways:  the left brain is more reductionistic in thinking, while the right is more holistic in thinking.  The left is more logical, analytical and detail-oriented, while the right is more creative, intuitive, and sees the bigger picture.  The left is more linear, while the right is more non-linear.  The left sees the map, while the right sees the territory.  And so on.  While both sides are of course quite valuable and necessary, the brain functions best overall when the right brain is in charge.  The left is a great servant, but a terrible master, hence the title of the book.  And Western culture has, for thousands of years, oscillated between favoring the overall relative dominance of each of the two hemispheres.  In recent centuries and decades, as in some other historical periods as well, we have become far too left-brain dominant, with very negative consequences, according to the author.  Not only does the left not really know what the right is doing, but at least half the time the left doesn't even know what the left is doing!  The left brain has thus essentially hijacked society, and that in turn leaves us "increasingly incapable of grappling with critical economic, environmental, and social issues, ones that shape our very future as a species", as the documentary would put it.  I am largely oversimplifying what he said, of course, but that is the basic gist of it overall.

One obvious reason for this excessive left-brain dominance could be due to poorly-designed education, of course.  But another could be that the left brain is faster in terms of processing speed than the right, and the pace of life is undoubtedly much, much faster nowadays than even the recent past.  Though the latter would be more of a chicken-or-the egg question. 

(And to all of the political conservatives and reactionaries who try in vain to shoehorn all of this into their silly left-wing vs right-wing political spectrum, like that one guy on The Daily Sceptic did recently, please get your own ideas.  This book, by a renowned Oxford scholar, truly thoroughly transcends such a naive interpretation of politics.)

A-ha!  That really explains a LOT!

Clearly, the USA (and a good chunk of the world as well, but especially the USA), has only gotten more, not less, left-brain dominant since roughly 40 years ago.  We as a society have been reactively lurching from crisis to crisis, moral panic to moral panic, trend to trend, fad to fad, idol to idol, and propaganda to propaganda, throwing at each whatever left-brained nostrums seem like a good idea at the time without really thinking it through.  But try as they may, the map is NOT the territory.  And their reductionist "solutions" invariably affect not just this thing over here, but also that thing over there, and that other thing all the way over there, and so on.  Oops!

One thing's for sure:  As the late, great Buckminster Fuller famously said, you cannot solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that got us into that problem in the first place.  Unfortunately, not nearly enough people have gotten the memo, it seems.

UPDATE:  Looks like McGilchrist has a sequel to the aforementioned book, titled The Matter with Things, as well.  Food for thought. 

A brain divided against itself cannot stand.

Case Closed: Tobacco 21 Laws Don't Work

The latest study of Tobacco 21 laws shows they were a resounding....DUD in terms or reducing young adult smoking, vaping, or smokeless tobacco use rates in the USA.  Being published in a famously anti-tobacco journal, Tobacco Control, the authors of course wanted to put a positive spin on it though nonetheless, as shown below (emphasis ours):  

Results Although we did not find evidence that state T21 laws were associated with cigarette, smokeless tobacco or ENDS [i.e. vapes] use overall, the federal T21 law was associated with lower use of all three tobacco products by 0.39–0.92 percentage points. State flavour restrictions were associated with lower use of cigarettes by 0.68 (−1.27 to –0.09) and ENDS by 0.56 (−1.11 to –0.00) percentage points, but not with smokeless tobacco. A three-way interaction revealed that state and federal T21 laws together were associated with a lower prevalence of ENDS use among 18–20 years, but there were no differences in cigarette use from both policies combined versus either alone.

Conclusion State and federal T21 laws are broadly effective at reducing adult tobacco use, while state flavour restrictions specifically lower use of cigarettes and ENDS.

Got that? The state level laws were useless, period, but the federal Tobacco 21 law passed in December 2019 was somehow "broadly effective" because it appeared to trivially reduce tobacco/nicotine product use by not even a full percentage point.  Never mind that that latter was not enforced until well into 2020, enforcement still remained spotty for a while, and that its passage coincided with two major confounds:  1) the EVALI (vaping illness) outbreak that, while clearly due to adulterated black market THC vape products, was fearmongered by the mainstream media to include all vape products, and 2) the COVID-19 pandemic that, for better or worse, seemed to discourage smoking and encourage quitting, since many people feared that smoking made them more vulnerable to the virus.  But no, it HAD to be due to the Tobacco 21 law, because reasons.  Or something. 

Even flavor restrictions were more effective than Tobacco 21 laws!

So how many IQ points did YOU lose from the mental gymnastics of reading all for the above quoted article abstract beyond the stuff in bold?  The study was behind a paywall of course, so we couldn't delve further into it, granted.  But even a cursory reading of the abstract shows that the Tobacco 21 laws are a joke, and not a very funny one at that.  And worse, it may have even driven some young vapers (back) to smoking, which would clearly be a net public health loss.  But try convincing the zealots of that!

These unimpressive findings dovetail nicely with other studies as well.  As for whether raising the tobacco/nicotine age limit from 18 to 21 reduces the use of such products among people under 18, the evidence for that is very weak and mixed at best.

As for the few previous studies that did appear to find statistically and practically significant effects from the Tobacco 21 laws, those apparent results are most likely a result of short-term effects as well as an artifact of confounders like cigarette tax hikes.  

(Cigarette tax hikes, which mean higher prices, are in fact one of the most effective and cost-effective ways to reduce smoking at the population level, though they still have their limits of course.  And while they may be classist, at least they are not ageist, and they don't blatantly violate anyone's civil rights.)

Regardless, even if Tobacco 21 laws were ever proven to be effective, Twenty-One Debunked would still oppose them on principle, as we believe that in a free society worthy of the name, civil rights inherently supersedes "public health".  That is true in regards to tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, or anything else.  

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  A few older studies have found modest but significant decreases in retail tobacco sales following the raising of the smoking age to 21 in early adopter states like California and Hawaii.  And another study found no change in overall ever or current smoking among California 18-20 year olds, but did find a modest decrease in daily smoking among that age group relative to 21-23 year olds (whose daily smoking actually increased three years later) in the same state.  This of course echoes Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) as well as Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), Males (1986), and Dee and Evans (2001) in regards to the 21 drinking age.  That is, endogeneity, early-adopter effects, short-term effects, and seesaw/delay effects all appear to be at play here.  The supposed miracle turned out to be a mirage all along, in other words.  Thus, especially in light of the most recent study discussed in this article, there were really no benefits that cannot be alternatively achieved with higher cigarette taxes and/or better enforcement of the previous 18 age limit, and if anything the 21 age limit appears to be counterproductive in the long run.

UPDATE 2:  Even the CDC's very own 2022 study found mixed and ambiguous effects of Tobacco 21 laws, and such effects sometimes even appeared to differ by race as well (in favor of whites, with null or even perverse effects on young people of color).  Oops!

UPDATE 3:  Another recent study found that while self-reported teen smoking and vaping rates declined after Tobacco 21 laws, biomarker exposure showed mixed evidence at best, implying that fewer young smokers are identifying as smokers (and similar findings for vaping).  Thus, the supposed reductions in smoking and vaping in surveys and sales data are at least largely an artifact of underreporting and cross-border shopping rather than real reductions.  Oops!

The Journey-Destination Problem

What we call the "journey-destination problem" is the fact that journeys are often much more dangerous than destinations.  For example, there is the fear that lowering the drinking age to 18 would, even if better overall in the long run, would still have adverse unintended consequences in the short run.  And we at Twenty-One Debunked address that fear head-on in our proposal to lower the drinking age to 18.

First and foremost, lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 (in line with the rest of the world, and a good chunk of American history) is NOT a radical change at all.  So any (real or imagined) fears related to lowering it even further below 18, or abolishing the age limit altogether, do NOT apply to lowering it to 18.

Secondly, it is NOT like the (real or imagined) fears of suddenly legalizing something that was previously completely illegal for everyone.  Alcohol in its various forms has been broadly legal, tolerated, and openly advertised for most of recorded history.  It is the "devil we already know", basically.   So "same as before, but without the arrests or injustices" is actually pretty close to accurate here.

Thirdly, simple and practical things like raising the alcohol taxes and cracking down harder on drunk driving, drunk violence, drunk and disorderly conduct, and stuff like that, would basically render any feared unintended consequences academic in practice. This is true whether the drinking age is lowered to 18 gradually OR suddenly.

Fourthly, it's not the 1970s or 1980s anymore.  America is almost a completely different country now in so many ways, including for drunk driving.  The original, albeit still fatally flawed, crisis-based justification for coercively raising the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s is itself grossly outdated and basically academic now in the 21st century, hence the need for the pro-21 crowd to invent new, ever more specious and spurious justifications (such as junk neuroscience, and a perversion of the precautionary principle) for keeping it at 21, because reasons.

And finally, it is ultimately a matter of principle, as it is fundamentally a civil rights issue, far more so than it is a public health and safety issue.  Not everything can be reduced to crude utilitarianism, after all.  "Let us do evil, that good may come" is always and everywhere a trap, a lesson that is unfortunately too often learned the hard way.

(Mic drop)

One Of These Countries Is Not Like The Others

 A picture is worth a thousand words.

(Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Which country is the obvious outlier here?  Take a guess.  Oh yeah, the very same one with the legal drinking age of 21, of course: the USA.

Once the envy of the world, up until early to mid-1990s, the USA made enormous progress in traffic safety overall, only to stall out and lag behind relative to the rest of the rich world, and eventually even regress on an absolute basis from 2010 onwards.  Why? Because we failed to see the forest for the trees.  We prioritized drivers over pedestrians, speed and convenience over safety, "bigger is better", and so on.  Larger vehicles, higher speeds, and poor design of both vehicles as well as roads/streets became the norm, going in generally the opposite direction as the rest of the world.  All while piddling over the usual wedge issues of things like age restrictions.

In other words, America's pharisaical culture of fear and safetyism strains out a gnat, while swallowing a camel.  Move along, nothing to see here....

P.S.  To anyone who says that this somehow why the USA "needs" to keep the drinking age 21, well, then, you completely missed the whole point of this article.  And thus you may need your head examined. 

What Should The BAC Limit Be?

It is long past time to revisit the issue of BAC limits for driving once again, specifically for small amounts of alcohol, as it is already obvious for larger amounts.

Twenty-One Debunked believes that, in a perfect world, no one would ever dare to get behind the wheel after having even the slightest amount of alcohol in their system, period.  We would also have safe self-driving cars and state-of-the art public transportation, streets would be designed to maximize safety for all users rather than the convenience of only some users, and so on.  But unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world.  And we never will either.  Think protopian, not utopian.

Thus, we need to be realistic in terms of what sort of BAC limits and penalties we set. Note that the swiftness and certainty of punishment is far more effective than severity.  And we need to prioritize getting actual drunk drivers off the road above all.  Focus on the sharks, not the guppies or dolphins. 

Borrowing from Denmark, one of the heaviest drinking cultures in the world and not even remotely a temperance society, we currently believe that the per se legal limit should be 0.05% in general, and 0.00% if observed to be driving recklessly.

Borrowing from most of Canada, we believe that only a BAC above 0.08% should carry  criminal charges, and 0.05% to 0.08% should be only a traffic violation with a brief administrative license suspension and brief vehicle impoundment and a modest fine.  For novice drivers of any age with less than two consecutive, accident and violation-free years of licensed driving, or under 21, whichever is longer, the BAC limit should be either 0.00% or 0.02%, also a traffic violation less than or equal to that above 0.05%.

If the limit is officially set to 0.00% for effect, any test result below the limit of quantitative (LOQ) must be treated as a presumptive zero (by that, I mean a conclusive presumption).  If it is a handheld breathalyzer device, or if the LOQ is unknown for the instrument, any result below 0.02% shall be a presumptive zero.  And all failing breathalyzer results should be confirmed on a second device.

Penalties should be graduated.  For those with above 0.08% but below 0.15%, a first offense should be a misdemeanor, in addition to any administrative license revocation.  There can also be an option to proceed only administratively and thus summarily.  Repeat offenses above 0.08%, or any offenses above 0.15% (or "aggravated DUI"), and/or with any kids under 16 in the car and/or when a serious accident occurs, should be automatic felonies with stiff sentences and heavy fines that can only be downgraded upon successful completion of an alcohol treatment program, that is, the classic "felony hammer".  And license revocations after the second offense above 0.08% need to be (more or less) permanent.  No more people still driving after their second, third, fourth, or fifth (!) DUI, ever again.

And those who drunkenly kill or maim innocent people, well, they need to go away for a very, very long time.  No excuses.  Do the crime, do the time.

And enforcement of these BAC limits should be done not only with checkpoints, but also with roving patrols as well, including the back roads especially.  And also use the "fish in a barrel method" in the parking lots of bars and clubs too.  We need to get these ticking time bombs off the road, yesterday.

So what are we waiting for?

An Easy Way To Quash The Black Market, Solve The Potency Problem, Protect Small Businesses, AND "Bring Back Mids" Too

Here's an idea.  In addition to moving from half-assed quasi-legalization to full legalization of cannabis, how about introducing a new type of retail license:  the "half-license"?  It would be similar to alcohol licenses that only allow the sale of beer and/or wine but not hard liquor, and would only allow the sale of weed or hash with a potency less than, say 10%, and perhaps low-potency cannabis edibles and beverages too.  Meanwhile, only those with full licenses would be able to sell the stronger stuff.  And allow any place that sells beer and/or wine to sell the lower-potency cannabis as well, and allow at least some dedicated liquor stores to sell all types of cannabis products. 

Not only would low-potency, "extraction grade" or "trim" weed (like what was normal in the 1990s and earlier) be incentivized to sell as-is rather than extracting it and turning it into concentrates, as now there would finally be a market for the new (old) stuff, but that would also undercut the black market without interfering with legitimate dispensaries that would carry on as now.  And since nostalgia is back in vogue these days, why not take advantage of that?

So many problems could be solved at once.  But that would make too much sense, right?

Cannabis Legalization STILL Not A Disaster, In Canada Or The USA

Yet another study debunks the prohibitionists once again.  When Canada legalized cannabis for recreational use in 2018 (for flower, followed by concentrates and edibles in 2020), there was no increase in cannabis-related hospitalizations for either 18-24 year olds or those 25+ following legalization.  Keep in mind that in Canada, the federal age limit for cannabis is 18, and the provinces set it at 18 in Alberta and Quebec (the latter has since raised it to 21, alas), and 19 elsewhere, largely matching the legal drinking and tobacco smoking ages in most provinces.  The study, interestingly enough, looked at data specifically from Alberta, which was the only province that kept it at 18 consistently since legalization, and thus the most permissive one.

This dovetails nicely with other studies in both Canada and the USA, in which the dire predictions of the doomsayers notably failed to materialize.

UPDATE:  And before anyone mentions "Tokelahoma", we should note that both violent and property crime in Oklahoma have actually been trending downward, not upward, since their "Wild West" of free market "medical" cannabis legalization in 2018.  Crime in the state is slightly above the national average, but that was true even long before such legalization too.  And a few odd high-profile incidents do NOT a trend make or break.  As we have noted repeatedly before, the correlation between cannabis legalization and real crime is, for all practical purposes, essentially null.  In fact, there is some evidence of a decrease in crime.

And another study finds no increase, and in fact a decrease, of young adults driving under the influence of either cannabis OR alcohol following legalization. 

And while it is debatable whether cannabis legalization actually reduces the use of alcohol or tobacco, data from state tax receipts at the very least shows no increase in the consumption of either of the latter two substances following legalization.

UPDATE:  Another study finds an inverse relationship between recreational cannabis legalization and intimate partner violence, the opposite of what researchers predicted.  That is, legalization appeared to reduce it, contrary to "Reefer Madness" stereotypes.

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day

Today 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.

(Mic drop)

Disturbing Behaviour (Satire)

The 1998 horror sci-fi film Disturbing Behavior was a classic in the youth rights-adjacent genre.  It takes place, of course, in the USA (Washington State).  But what if it took place in the nearby Canadian province of Alberta, who is light-years ahead of the USA (a pitifully low bar to clear, we know) in terms of youth rights?  How would Disturbing Behaviour (note the spelling) go in that context?

Student 1:  "Oh, so a bunch of wannabe technocrats are trying to do some sort of weird mind control thought reform brainwashing crap on us.  How cute." 

Student 2:  "It's not gonna work on us, though.  They picked the wrong town to mess with, and probably the wrong province too." (Laughs)

Technocrat:  "Foiled again!" (Packs up and moves far away)

The End

(Credits roll, to the same song as the original, "Got You (Where I Want You)" by The Flys)

Still More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do

In the past, we would chronicle and discuss countless examples of drinkers OVER 21 behaving badly, as "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do".  Time to do it again:

In the past few months or so in America:

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash her car into a birthday party, killing two children. 

An underage drinker did NOT punch a flight attendant multiple times after drinking rum, causing the flight to divert, and then have the chutzpah to spit on and groin-kick the police officers who escorted him off the flight.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly BITE a flight attendant on an international flight, forcing the flight to divert.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly drive 105 mph with a BAC of 0.23 and crash into and kill another driver.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly drive in the wrong direction on I-95 and kill a young nursing student. 

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly steal a car and then crash it into two police cars.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly run over an elderly woman with a snowplow in a parking lot, killing her.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly bite the finger off of a wedding guest who tried to restrain him after he inappropriately touched another guest.

An underage drinker did NOT have the chutzpah to get herself arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct at an AA meeting of all places.  Not to be outdone in chutzpah, she kicked the police officers and added insult to injury by puking in the patrol car.

An underage drinker did NOT pull a gun on another parent at a youth football game because of something they said, then argued with police and threatened to kill the K9 too.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just the tip of the iceberg...

UPDATE:  Also, an underage drinker did NOT drink so much that she drunkenly smashed her car into a crowd of 16 pedestrians crossing the street, injuring 14 and killing two of them, then left the scene of the crash until she was caught, all while pregnant. 

An underage drinker did NOT get so wasted that she grabbed an unrelated 10 year old boy in a Jersey Shore motel swimming pool and swung him around and dunked him underwater, then jumped on and inappropriately grabbed his father when he tried to intervene, and then became belligerent with police and proceeded to BITE one officer's hand as well.

Cannabis Legalization Still Not A Disaster After All

The latest evidence finds that cannabis legalization was NOT a disaster after all, and that essentially NONE of the prohibitionists' histrionic fears had come to pass.  Yes, really.  That's the good news.

The bad news?  Legalization has been half-assed thus far, and we need to finish the job. Yesterday.  First of all, we need to fully legalize it at the federal level and get it out of the ridiculous legal limbo it has been in for years.  Secondly, we need to treat it no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco, not tax it excessively, and make retail licenses cheaper and easier to get, to reduce barriers to entry.  And finally, we need to reduce the age limit to 18.  Do all of these things, and the black market will wither on the vine.

So what are we waiting for?

What Should The Driving Age Be? (Updated Re-Post)

One thing that Twenty-One Debunked has been slacking on lately is the other main age limit in the drinking/driving equation--the driving age.  While we have not always been very clear on that particular issue and generally left it on the back burner, it merits attention nonetheless.

There is indeed an interesting paradox compared with the drinking age.  With the notable exceptions of Canada (permit age 14, 15, or 16 depending on province, license age 16), Australia (16 1/2 in one state, 17 or 18 in the rest), and New Zealand (16), every other industrialized (and semi-industrialized) nation on Earth has a driver license age of 17 or higher, and most are 18.  Yet these countries all have drinking ages lower than the USA, and nearly all of them are 18 or lower.  Many are as low as 16 (though a few European nations have recently raised the drinking age to 18). And most of these countries have far lower rates of traffic deaths, alcohol-related or otherwise, than the USA.

On the surface, that strongly recommends in favor of raising the driving age in conjunction with lowering the drinking age, particularly setting the driving age higher than the drinking age instead of the other way around.  At one time, the founder of Twenty-One Debunked advocated doing exactly that.  But such an approach glosses over some serious issues involving the car culture of the USA.  First, with our inferior public transportation infrastructure, we cannot compare the situation here to Europe.  Canada or Australia would be a much better comparison.  Secondly, the odds of us ever lowering the drinking age below 18 are slim to none, and we no longer consider such a goal worthwhile.  But most importantly, the evidence that a much higher driving age would make roads any safer is questionable at best.

Renowned sociologist and youth-rights activist Mike Males did a famous study in 2006 that found that California's tough new graduated driver license (GDL) law implemented in 1996 did reduce traffic deaths among 16-17 year olds--but also increased traffic deaths for 18-19 year olds enough to more than offset the apparent lifesaving effect among younger drivers.  In other words, it merely delayed such deaths, or worse, led to a net increase.  He also found in another study that much of the increased risk among younger drivers is actually the result of poverty, not "immaturity" or "underdeveloped brains".  The rest can largely be chalked up to inexperience, and the difference between genders (males being worse) dwarfs any unaccounted for age difference.  While his research was seen as controversial among the establishment and many disputed it, it nonetheless pans out rather well.  A 2011 national study by Masten et al. confirms Mike Males' general findings: after adjusting for potential confounders, stronger GDL laws (compared with weaker ones) were associated with lower fatalities for 16 year olds but higher fatalities for 18 year olds (and possibly 19 year olds as well), and the net effect for 16-19 year olds as a whole was not significantly different from the null.  In other words, it was a wash overall.

Of course, it is true that 16 year old first-year drivers do have significantly higher fatal crash risks that 17 year old first-year drivers--though 17 year old novices are apparently no worse than 18 or 19 year old novices.  (There were apparently not enough first-year drivers 20 and older to make a valid comparison for them at the time, but I imagine it would be very similar.)  Thus, it is possible that raising the driving age to 17 would in fact result in a net reduction in traffic deaths over the lifecycle compared with the status quo, while raising it to 18 or higher would likely only delay deaths compared with a driving age of 17.  New Jersey, for example, has a driving age of 16 for permit and 17 for license--the highest in the nation besides NYC with a de facto age of 18--and their teen traffic death rates are, contrary to stereotypes, lower than neighboring states (interestingly even before their GDL law was implemented, and declined further after that).  Compared with Connecticut, New Jersey's fatality rate was much lower for 16 year olds, slightly higher for 17 year olds, and slightly lower for 18 year olds, so the net effect was death reduction.  This was true in all time periods studied, back in the day (even long before GDL in either state) as well as more recently.  So being a year behind may not necessarily negate the benefits of delaying entry to licensed driving--though raising the age any higher than that might. 

(New Jersey's GDL, unlike most states, applies night and passenger restrictions to all new drivers under 21 rather than 18.  And for drivers over 21, there is still a GDL, but minus the night and passenger restrictions.  While some form of provisional license is a wise idea for new drivers of all ages, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT support any such night and passenger restrictions on drivers over 18, and only very grudgingly tolerates them before 18.  In NJ, the best that one could say is that these restrictions "flatten the curve", to put it in the lingua franca of the 2020s)

Meanwhile, Alberta (Canada), which is fairly rural sets their permit age at 14 and license age at 16, and at any age one must have their provisional license (albeit with far fewer restrictions than the USA) for two years and be violation and accident free for the last year before upgrading to the full license.  The road test is of course more difficult than in the USA.  And their drinking age is 18.  And they seem none the worse for wear in terms of traffic casualties.

So what should the driving age be in the USA?  The optimal age may in fact vary depending on how rural or urban a state or region is, but we do not believe it should be any higher than 16 for permit and 17 for license.  And of course we believe that the drinking age should be 18.  Additionally, we should definitely make the road test tougher like it is in other countries, and improve our driver education courses as well.  Raising the alcohol taxes and the gas tax would likely save many lives as well.  But on balance, raising the driving age any higher than 17 in this country would likely do more harm than good. And while GDLs in general are likely beneficial on balance, there is likely such a thing as too strict--particularly when it only targets drivers below a certain age (as opposed to all new drivers like in many other countries like Canada), and such a poorly designed one can actually backfire.

Emancipation For A Post-Capitalist Society

One thing that needs to be better refined for a post-capitalist, protopian future is the process of "emancipation of minors," to quote the official term of art despite its derogatory connotations.  Here are some ideas from Twenty-One Debunked:

First and foremost, let's jettison the terms "emancipation" and especially "minors".  The former has historical connotations related to slavery, while the latter is an ageist slur that implies that young people below some arbitrary age are somehow less important than those above that age limit, as even Hillary Clinton famously pointed out in the 1990s.  Replace the former with "release (of restrictions)" and the latter with "youth" or "underage".  For the same reasons, the terms "access" and "custody" have already been largely replaced by "contact" and "residence", respectively, in most of the Anglosphere. 

Secondly, we need to follow "Alberta rules" and set the default age of majority (legal adulthood) at no higher than 18, and NO age limit for anything can be set even a day higher than 18, except with truly extraordinary justification (like for being President or VP of a country with hair-triggered nuclear weapons and other WMDs), or for senior citizen stuff.  And for any (non-convicted) individuals over 18 to have even one iota of their civil rights abridged or taken away even temporarily, the onus is inherently on the state to prove that the individual is incompetent, NOT on the individual to prove their own competence.  Anything else is inherently ageist, classist, racist (by extension of and intersection with classism), and/or ableist in practice, if not also in theory as well. 

Thirdly, while for young people below the default age of majority, the onus would by definition be on them as individuals to prove their own competence, it needs to be done in a fair and just manner and as objectively as possible.  And doing so needs to also provide at least some sort of alternatives to the traditional and narrow (and increasingly outmoded) milestones of adulthood for generations past.

Twenty-One Debunked's early thought is to have two categories of release:  1) "conditional release", which begins the process, and can still be revoked if the conditions are not met, and 2) "final release", which will happen after a year or two following conditional release, or age 18, whichever occurs sooner, and cannot be revoked.  The minimum requirement to achieve conditional release should be 1) the completion of Tanner Stage 5 of puberty plus a mental age of 16 or higher as measured by any standardized IQ test, college entrance exam, or graduation exit exam, OR 2) a chronological age of 16, whichever occurs sooner.  The minimum age to achieve final release should be a chronological age of 16 or at least one year since conditional release began, whichever occurs later.  All of the other details are of course not cut-and-dried, and should be flexible.  (And unlike Dr. Robert Epstein's paradigm, let's NOT follow the DMV model!  Only the most left-brained, out of touch, ivory-tower academic elites could think that is somehow a good or wise idea, because reasons.)

And when Universal Basic Income (UBI) is eventually implemented, only upon final release (or 18, whichever is sooner) should an individual receive their own unconditional UBI directly.  Rather, upon conditional release, they should receive a "conditional stipend" instead.  (Before any kind of release, by default their share of UBI would go directly to the young person's primary parent or guardian.)

Of course, for as long as we live in "mass society", for all of its myriad flaws, there probably still should be some sort of hard age limits (i.e. purchase ages for alcohol and other psychoactive substances, age of consent, working in truly and inherently dangerous jobs, etc.) that remain true regardless of one's individual status, but nearly all age limits can be at least partially replaced in that regard.  And again, no such age limits should ever be higher than 18.

So what are we waiting for?

What To Do About Lockdown-Induced Arrested Or Delayed Development?

Four years after the official start of the pandemic, two years after practically all restrictions were lifted, and roughly one year after it was declared to be over, the consequences of the lockdowns, quarantines, school closures, mask mandates, and other restrictions can still be seen in its aftermath long after these restrictions were lifted.  This is especially true among children and young people, whose development has been delayed, stunted, or arrested as a result.

It is a truly massive elephant in the room!

Now, the temptation would be to knee-jerkedly raise age limits for various things in response to this, up to and including even the age of majority itself.  You know some people want to.  But that would only exacerbate such developmental delays in practice by kicking the can even further down the road.  The specious idea that "kids today are infantilized, so let's infantilize them even further, because reasons" is absolutely insane.  If anything, we should be doing the opposite and lowering or even abolishing various age limits (within reason), and giving young people a megadose of independence.  That is, go "straight from zero to the Fourth of July", like the song by the band The Killers says, in both the real AND virtual worlds, and certainly no later than age 16.  And at the very, very least, seriously, let's NOT add any more restrictions whatsoever on the already most heavily monitored and (in many ways) restricted generation of children and teens in all of recorded history.

Infancy cannot be re-run.  Childhood cannot be re-run.  And, try as so many adults may, adolescence cannot be re-run either.  The best thing to do is to build a time machine and go back to March 2020 and make it so the lockdowns, school closures, etc. never happened, and that we adopted the "flu strategy" per the original pandemic plan from the get-go per the wisdom of the ages.  Failing that, the second best thing is to rectify things as best we can, yesterday.

The latest attempts to abruptly restrict or revoke teens' access to the virtual world will leave a "social media-shaped hole" in the lives of millions that will most likely NOT be filled with anything good. And after decades of gradually restricting and reducing their access to the real world, it would be a bait-and-switch to disingenuously claim that children and teens will now all of sudden be given more access to the real world in order to fill the void.  Most likely, they will lose access to both the real AND virtual worlds, and increased access to the real world will NOT be forthcoming for a while.

True, the virtual world is no substitute for the real world, as we have all learned the hard way during lockdown.  But as renowned sociologist and youth rights activist Mike Males says, "The dangers of both the virtual and real worlds have been wildly exaggerated. Teens don’t need more restrictions."  Truer words have never been spoken.

And will today's youngest generations, and future generations, ever forgive us?

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  What would be a good shorthand to describe what needs to be done?  Twenty-One Debunked thinks we should call it the "Reverse Icelandic Model", that is, the reverse of the vaunted Icelandic Prevention Model (IPM).  When the pandemic and related restrictions and isolation intersected with the existing IPM that had been in place for two decades, it really did a number on the mental health of young people in Iceland.

The View From 2030 (At The Latest)

At the rate things are going these days, the following is a very likely conversation that will happen many times over in 2030, at the latest.  At least in the USA:

18 Year Old: "I'm an adult now.  Why am I still not allowed to go on social media or have a smartphone?"

Parent:  "Because the law now forbids both until you are 21, and the law is the law."

18 Year Old:  "But Canadian, Australian, British, and European people my age are allowed to.  As are people my age in almost every other country as well."

Parent:  "Well, we're not Canada, Australia, Europe, or any other country for that matter.  Different cultures and such.  America has too many problems as it is."

18 Year Old:  "But your generation was allowed to at a much earlier age than me!"

Parent:  "That was then.  Life was cheap back then.  We know better now.  And your grandparents were allowed to drink and smoke too at your age, which we obviously no longer allow either, so your point is?"

18 Year Old:  "And they were allowed to play outside with their friends unsupervised even when they were in single digits too, or so I have heard.  Grandma and Grandpa actually got to enjoy the real world before they forgot how to, while you got to enjoy the virtual world at least.  My generation had neither."

Parent:  "Well, the real world was much safer back then compared to now, and as for me, we didn't know just how dangerous the virtual world really was."

18 Year Old:  "Statistics say otherwise".

Parent:  "You need to watch more news and true crime documentaries before you can argue statistics.  It's really a jungle out there now. In any case, I see your statistics, and I raise you a "Because I said so!""

18 Year Old: "Statistics beat logical fallacies and anecdotes every time.  Regardless, it's not fair in what is supposed to be a free country."

Parent:  "Life isn't fair.  Deal with it!"

18 Year Old:  "But I'm literally old enough to get married, and yet I can't even post my own wedding on Facebook?  That doesn't make any sense at all."

Parent:  "If you're so mature and such an adult, then why don't you get married right now?" (Tries to trick the young person into saying they are "too young".)

18 Year Old:  "Because as an adult, I know that just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean that you SHOULD.  Just like you raised me".

Parent:  (speechless)

18 Year Old:  (Mic drop)

One Silver Lining Of The Pandemic And Its Aftermath

Four years after the pandemic began, and roughly one year after the very last traces of the illiberal restrictions have been removed, 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. 

Better thing to replace it with:  "Safety Third".  So what's first and second then?  Liberty and justice for all, not necessarily in that order.

What are we waiting for?

Does Cannabis Really Cause Heart Attacks And Strokes?

A new study is making the rounds claiming so, apparently.  And unlike most previous studies on the matter, this one was not only very large, but was also able to fully tease out the massive confounding factor of tobacco as well.  It was run on both a representative sample as well as re-run on the subset of never-tobacco users, and controlled for many other variables as well.  So what did it find?

Daily cannabis users had a 25% higher risk of heart attack and 42% higher risk for stroke compared with nonusers overall.  For never tobacco users who were used cannabis daily, the odds ratios were higher, but confidence intervals were also much wider as well.  As for nondaily users, the numbers were proportionally much lower relative to days used per month, with those using weekly or less having barely any statistically increased risk for either cardiovascular outcome relative to nonusers.

And to that we give a resounding....(yawn).

Now, we all know that correlation is not causation, and this was a cross-sectional study that could not possibly rule out every other explanation for the association, nor determine temporality of the association.  And given how in all of the analyses of the study, the odds ratios were either 1) below 2.0, 2) had fairly wide confidence intervals, or 3) both, it is possible that the results were still at least partly (if not entirely) due to selection bias, reporting bias, or residual or unmeasured confounding, if not chance.  For example, while tobacco (which increased risk), alcohol (which appeared to decrease risk), and a host of individual health and demographic variables were statistically controlled for, the use or abuse of any other psychoactive substances (licit or illicit) was NOT controlled for, nor were any dietary factors.

And of course, as the study was done on BRFSS survey data, another major limitation was that it, by definition, only measured cardiovascular outcomes among those who lived to tell about it.  While longitudinal cohort studies in the past generally did not find any robust and significant differences in all-cause death rates between cannabis users in general versus nonusers, unlike in the infamous case of tobacco which has been well-known for decades.

In fact, interestingly enough, when the sample was restricted to those who never used tobacco, while daily cannabis users still fared worse, the lowest (best) point estimates for each of the cardiovascular outcomes studied were actually found among the nondaily cannabis users, not the nonusers, in the unadjusted results. And of course, that nuance was glossed over and only mentioned briefly.

That said, regardless, as a wise man once said, I have still never met a daily (or near-daily) cannabis user that could not benefit from cutting back a bit.  In other words, something about Aristotle and moderation comes to mind.  Food for thought indeed. 

UPDATE:  Another recent study, from Canada in 2023, also found a statistically significant and dose-dependent correlation between the severity of cannabis use disorder (i.e. abuse and/or dependence) and various cardiovascular disease outcomes.  But of course, the majority of cannabis users do not develop cannabis use disorders, let alone  severe ones.  And the study did not control for confounding from tobacco use either, so no causal relationship could be proven.  Either way, both studies lend themselves far more to a commonsense message of moderation, NOT the usual unscientific "no safe level" hysterics.

UPDATE 2:  One confounder that is difficult to fully measure and account for statistically is STRESS, which is a real killer when it becomes chronic.  And since one of the reasons why people use cannabis is to relieve stress, well, there is the biggest confounder right there.  Our verdict?  Cannabis is most likely no worse in this regard than, and probably less deadly than, the caffeine in coffee, tea, and elsewhere, which is about as legal and unrestricted as one can get. 

America Is Still Drowning In The Bottle

Americans are still drowning in the bottle to this day, and paying a heavy price for it.  While the pandemic and especially the lockdowns were clearly gasoline on the fire, that fire has been burning for a very long time before that.  The ageist abomination that is 21 drinking age, and all of its illiberal ancillary laws, has clearly done NOTHING to stem that tide in the long run.  And it's truly no coincidence that alcohol (of all types, but especially hard liquor) is now the cheapest it has been in many, many decades relative to inflation and (especially) income.  That's largely because alcohol taxes have greatly lagged behind and were thus eroded by inflation in recent decades, with the tax on distilled spirits lagging the very most of all.

To quote the latest CDC report on the matter:

Average annual number of deaths from excessive alcohol use, including partially and fully alcohol-attributable conditions, increased approximately 29% from 137,927 during 2016–2017 to 178,307 during 2020–2021, and age-standardized death rates increased from approximately 38 to 48 per 100,000 population. During this time, deaths from excessive drinking among males increased approximately 27%, from 94,362 per year to 119,606, and among females increased approximately 35%, from 43,565 per year to 58,701.

Thus, as Twenty-One Debunked has long advocated, we need to raise the alcohol taxes across the board, and harmonize them all based on alcohol content.  To raise just the beer tax alone, for example, would result in drinkers simply switching to liquor, similar to how minimum unit pricing in Scotland disproportionately affected strong cider and perversely incentivized switching to liquor.  MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) has long heavily beaten the drum (though not so much recently) for raising the beer tax, but has also largely been strangely silent on the distilled spirits tax.  Perhaps some alleged palm-greasing from both the liquor industry and/or foreign beer industry may be at work here?  Things that (should) make you go, hmmmm.....

We advocate raising all federal alcohol taxes to about $30 per proof-gallon, equal to the inflation-adjusted value for the distilled spirits tax in 1991 (in 2023 dollars), the last time it was raised. That would add anywhere between one and two dollars (depending on alcohol content), to the price of a six-pack of beer, a gallon of wine, or a fifth of liquor, while also incentivizing reduced-alcohol beers and wines.  And while that may not be very much of a difference to a moderate drinker, for heavy drinkers it sure adds up, as it also does for the youngest drinkers as well.  And contrary to what some believe, the price elasticity of demand for alcohol is NOT zero or trivial, and the public health benefits of higher alcohol taxes and prices are well-known and established.

To sweeten the deal, we support a relatively reduced tax rate for the smallest producers, and we also support tax incentives for producers who fortify their beverages with thiamine (vitamin B1) and perhaps other vitamins as well.  And we would also support phasing in alcohol tax hikes a bit more gradually if that is the only way to get them passed.  But raise these taxes, we certainly must.

(And, of course, we also also lower the drinking age to 18 yesterday, full stop.  We are still Twenty-One Debunked, after all.)

It is true that Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "no nation is drunken where wine is cheap".  Granted.  But the second half of that very same quote was, "and none sober when the dearness [expensiveness] of wine substitutes ardent [distilled] spirits as the common beverage.  It is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of whiskey."  And now in 2024, it would seem that ALL categories of alcoholic beverages are too cheap for America's own good, and a fortiori for ardent (distilled) spirits today.

Cannabis Legalization Is STILL NOT Crazy-Making In Canada OR The USA

Reefer Madness? More like Reefer Sanity. Yet another study finds that cannabis legalization in Canada (where the age limit is 18 or 19 depending on the province*) did NOT result in any increase in cannabis-related psychosis.  This dovetails nicely with several previous studies in both Canada and the USA.

In other words, the remaining prohibitionists and fearmongers are looking less and less like Cassandra, and more and more like Chicken Little now.

(*Quebec had initially set it at 18 in 2018, but they raised it to 21 in January 2020, with no grandfather clause.  Alberta remains 18 to this day, and all other provinces are 19, mostly matching the drinking ages.)

UPDATE:  A previous Ontario study found no increase in emergency room visits for "cannabis-induced psychosis" during the first phase of "restricted legalization" in 2018-2019, but did find a modest increase during the "commercialization" phase (notably, when edibles and concentrates became available) in 2020-2021.  Of course, the latter increase cannot be disentangled from the effects of the pandemic and lockdowns, and many if not most of those visits are simply from inexperienced users taking too many edibles in a short time and having a bad reaction.  Remember, start low, go slow!  

Oh and do NOT confuse THIS either!

The Invisible Knapsack (Updated)

Three decades ago, Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh coined the term "invisible knapsack" to refer to the subtle and not-so-subtle advantages that come with white privilege and male privilege resulting from inequality.  She describes such privilege as being "like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks".  The idea is that while we are generally taught that racism and sexism put some people (i.e. women and people of color) at a disadvantage, we are often taught to remain blissfully unaware of its corollary advantages that accrue to white males.  Hence, the "invisible knapsack" of privilege.

We at Twenty-One Debunked couldn't help but notice just how much this metaphor also relates to America's 21 drinking age and the "over-21 privilege" that results.  Being well over 21 myself, as the webmaster and founder of Twenty-One Debunked I have put together a list of advantages in the invisible knapsack of over-21 privilege that people like myself carry every day.   We have updated this list to include tobacco and cannabis as well now.  As a person over 21, as long as I have a valid ID to prove it:

1. I can buy alcoholic beverages at any store that sells them, in any quantity I wish.
2. I can do the same with tobacco and cannabis as well if I desire to do so.  I can even openly smoke both in some public places if I want to.
3. I can enter pretty much any bar or nightclub of my choosing without fearing that people of my age group cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
4. If I do not want to associate with people under 21, I may frequent numerous establishments that ban younger people from entering.
5. I can get a hotel room with relatively little difficulty as long as I can afford it, since hotels are less likely to cast aspersions on me due to my age.
6. I am never asked to speak for all of the people in my age group, nor do I have to worry about my individual behavior reflecting on my entire age group.
7. I can legally host a drinking party with my friends, as long as all the guests are over 21.
8. I can join my co-workers for Happy Hour after work, and even talk about it at work, without any sort of shame.
9. When I go out with people under 21, it is generally understood that one (or more) of them will be the designated driver instead of me.
10. Generally speaking, I can drink alcoholic beverages fairly openly without having to worry about getting arrested, fined, jailed, expelled, fired, having my driver's license revoked, or being publicly humiliated.  Ditto for smoking tobacco and/or cannabis as well.
11. As long as I am not driving or operating machinery, I can legally get as drunk (or stoned, or both) as I please in many states. 
12. Even in states where public drunkenness is technically illegal, the cops are unlikely to arrest me unless my behavior is really out of control.  There is no equivalent to "internal possession" laws for my age group.
13. If I do manage to get in alcohol-related trouble on campus, which is far less likely for me, I will likely face lesser penalties, and I will not have to worry about my parents being notified without my consent.
14. If I think one of my over-21 peers may have alcohol poisoning, there would be no reason for me to hesitate to call 911 for fear of the law (and vice-versa).
15. I can have a drink or two (or maybe even three!) before driving without having to worry about being over the legal limit for DUI. 
16. Even if I drive while over the limit, I can be assured that drunk drivers in my age group will NOT be the highest law enforcement priority.  I can just take the back roads and hope for the best, and know that the law enforcement statistics are largely on my side as long as it's not a major holiday or the end of the month.
17. If I choose to drive drunk, I can know that I am statistically far more likely to kill or maim someone under 21 than the other way around.
18. Even if I had several convictions for DUI or drunken violence, I can rest assured that I will still be allowed to buy and consume alcohol as I please.
19. I enjoy less scrutiny over my own behavior, because I live in a society in which young people are scapegoated for adult problems.
20. I do not have to worry about being a good role model when it comes to drinking, since people under 21 can be punished (often severely) for emulating me.
21. To really top it off, I have an easier time getting my hands on semiautomatic assault rifles and dangerous weapons in general, especially handguns.  In fact, in some states, I can even carry concealed weapons in a bar!
22. Finally, I have a much better chance of being taken seriously on the issue of lowering the drinking age, or any other age limit for that matter, without being knee-jerkedly accused of selfishness or immaturity.  (Though to be fair, if I am much older than 21, say 30+, I might in some cases be fallaciously accused of being a "creep" or "groomer" with ulterior motives by people with their minds in the gutter, which says a LOT more about them than it does about me.)

And the list goes on.  As we see, the 21 drinking age is not just about disadvantaging people under 21, but also giving unearned advantages to people over 21 as well.  And while some of these advantages are clearly positive rights that should be extended to everyone (or at least all adults over 18), others are not "rights" at all, but wrongs that are an unfortunate byproduct of setting arbitrary age limits and of adultism in general.  Still others could be considered either rights or wrongs depending on the context.  And let's not forget the luxury of being able to blissfully ignore the issue entirely.

So, are the advantages found in this invisible knapsack really worth it?  Many people over 21 would say yes, but upon closer examination these advantages actually come at a hefty price, even for people over 21.  Just think about social host liability laws, other annoying ancillary laws, ubiquitous ID checks, millions of tax dollars wasted on enforcement, loss of social cohesion, karma, and highly dubious legal precedent that can be used to make our supposedly free country even more of a police state via turnkey tyranny.  In fact, the only people over 21 who, on balance, really benefit from the status quo are the ones who least deserve to benefit--those who drive drunk or otherwise behave irresponsibly when it comes to alcohol, as well as those parents who would rather stick their heads in the sand than teach their kids how to drink responsibly.

Do you hear that?  That's (hopefully) the sound of the pro-21 crowd throwing up all of the proverbial Kool-Aid that they drank long ago.

(Mic drop)

How To Solve The Completely Contrived Problem Of Unlicensed Weed Stores

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.  Even in early 2024, this state of affairs still persists. 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.

UPDATE:  We are now up to a grand total of 420 blog posts since 2009!  Those who still don't know the significance of that number are free to Google it.

UPDATE 2:  Another good idea:  allow cannabis with less than 10% THC to be sold anywhere that beer and wine is licensed to be sold (half-license), and cannabis with both greater and less than than 10% THC to be sold at dedicated liquor stores and/or dedicated cannabis stores (full license).  That will of course also incentivize the production and sale of lower-potency weed alongside the current high-octane weed and edibles and concentrates, instead perversely driving cannabis producers to grow exclusively strong flower and reflexively extracting THC from all of their leaf and trim into strong edibles and concentrates (as opposed to simply selling it as a loss leader).

The Law Of Eristic Escalation Revisited (Re-post)

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.

P.S.  The Dutch seem to understand this better.  They even have a proverb:  "when you permit, you control", which is the antithesis of the American proverb, "when you permit, you promote".  Carl Jung would also likely have a field day with that as well.

It Bears Repeating: Vices Are NOT Crimes

One of the most important timeless lessons learned, then forgotten, then learned again, then forgotten again, and so on, is Lysander Spooner's famous maxim that "vices are not crimes".  And to forget this crucial distinction, is to ultimately lead to numerous evils, from 1) amoralism and nihilism on the one hand, and 2) the most egregiously tyrannical abuses and overreach of government power (from things like Prohibition, the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs, the 21 drinking age, tobacco bans, media censorship, restrictions on sexual activities between consenting adults, etc. all the way to slavery, eugenics, and sometimes even full-blown genocide) on the other, typically disguised as either protecting the nation's "moral fiber", and/or "progressive" social engineering for the "greater good".  In truth, it is anything but moral or progressive.  Thus, individual rights must be inalienable, and the government should never stray from its original mission of protecting life, liberty, and property.  Once the natural right to self-ownership becomes usurped by the state, the very foundation for individual rights ceases to exist, and of course that invites all kinds of trouble, as history has so painfully shown time and again.

To quote Spooner, from his Vices Are Not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875):

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another…In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting." 

"Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be…no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property." 

"If these questions…are not to be left free and open for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to…ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice…If this great right is not to be left free and open to all, then each man’s whole right, as a reasoning human being, to 'liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' is denied him." 

"What man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, 'We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it…not only for ourselves, but for all…And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion?'" 

"[A] government, formed by voluntary association, would never have been thought of, if the object proposed had been the punishment of all vices…nobody…would voluntarily submit to it. But a government, formed by voluntary association, for the punishment of all crimes is a reasonable matter; because everybody wants protection for himself against all crimes by others." 

"It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess." 

"Nobody but a fool or an impostor pretends that he, as an individual, has a right to punish other men for their vices. But…everybody has a natural right…to defend his own person and property against aggressors…And government has no rightful existence, except in so far as it embodies, and is limited by, this natural right of individuals...It is only those who claim that government has some rightful power, which no individual or individuals ever did, or could, delegate to it, that claim that government has any rightful power to punish vices." 

"To punish men for their vices…is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed…because it would be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness." 

"Everybody wishes to be protected, in his person and property, against the aggressions of other men. But nobody wishes to be protected… against himself…He only wishes to promote his own happiness, and to be his own judge as to what will promote, and does promote, his own happiness." 

"The object aimed at in the punishment of crimes is to secure, to each and every man alike, the fullest liberty he possibly can have—consistently with the equal rights of others—to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property…the object aimed at in the punishment of vices is to deprive every man of his natural right and liberty to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property."

"[People]…must be permitted to control themselves and their property… each man’s life is his own."

We ignore such sound advice at our own peril.

And we know that the late Peter McWilliams, author of Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do:  The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society (1996), would certainly agree with Spooner 100%.

And to avoid any weaseling, dilution, or vitiation, via subjectivism, relativism, and/or denial of agency, of Spooner's (and McWilliams') basic maxim, we should clarify that only acts that objectively harm the person or property of nonconsenting others should be considered crimes in a free society. 

People will undoubtedly ask, so what about children, or young persons below the legal age of majority?  Well, as John Stuart Mill had famously noted, such a maxim would not apply directly to them, at least insofar as consent is concerned.  But even then, to impose criminal penalties on the children or young people themselves (as opposed to the adults involved) for acts that are otherwise legal for adults while simultaneously denying them any agency to consent to such acts is the very height of hypocrisy.  And regardless, whatever age we set as the age of majority, for anyone above that age the maxim would apply completely, full stop.  In other words, in a free society, once you are an adult, you are an adult.  That is something most of the world understands.

(Note that most countries currently set that age at 18, and some set it even lower than that.  And only a few radical outliers like the USA currently set any significant age limits higher.)

Also, as Emile Durkheim famously said, "When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary. When mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable".  From another angle, that is a good argument against the other side's specious claim that our society is currently somehow too immoral, weak, fractured, spoiled, undisciplined, individualistic, heterogeneous, or whatever to trust people with personal liberty and bodily autonomy.

As for the unholy trinity of collective action problems, the prevention paradox, and the (strong) precautionary principle, well, those all dovetail with begging the question and other logical fallacies, and as we have seen, slopes are much slipperier than they appear.  If you give the prohibitionists and control freaks enough rope...

And finally, there is that classic Pigouvian argument from externalities.  The best response to that is that it is literally impossible for humans to exist at all without imposing both positive and negative externalities on others to one degree or another.  And to live in any society worthy of the name, we all must tolerate some inevitable baseline level of externalities.  "No man or woman is an island" kinda cuts both ways, after all.  So arbitrarily designating select vices as crimes is both over- and under-inclusive.  And externalities are generally better dealt with via education, persuasion, and mutual consent, or failing that, via targeted Pigouvian taxes and subsidies.  Prohibition is far too blunt an instrument to deal with most externalities, and typically does far more harm than good in practice.