Chesterton's Fence Revisited

One very important philosophical principle is that of Chesterton's Fence, by author G.K. Chesterton.  

Per Wikipedia:

"Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, in the chapter, "The Drift from Domesticity":

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

In other words, before you remove or destroy a fence (or policy), make sure you know why it was put up in the first place.  That's just common sense.

(Hey DOGE, are you listening?  Seriously!)

Of course, the apocryphal "Five Monkeys Experiment" is a good foil to counterbalance that principle.  That is, sometimes various policies really have outlived their usefulness, were rotten from the start, and/or do far more harm than good.  And wisdom is to know the difference between the two cases.

(The latter pitfall is sometimes called "status quo bias".)

So where does that leave the 21 drinking age then?  Well it seems to be a bit of both, in fact.  On the one hand, the reason why they raised the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s was ostensibly to combat drunk driving at times when drunk driving was widely considered normal and socially acceptable, and generally not taken very seriously.  At the same time, any other justification (such as junk neuroscience) given for it now is an after-the-fact rationalization, so anything other than drunk driving came be considered a "Five Monkeys" case.  Back to the original justification, that has long since passed it's sell-by date for the following reasons:

• Countries that did NOT raise their drinking ages to 21, even car cultures like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, saw similar or greater declines in teen and young adult traffic deaths, both alcohol-related and otherwise, than the USA did during and right after the time that the drinking ages were in flux.  They did not diverge in the expected direction, and if anything diverged in the "wrong" direction.
• The 12 states that had been 21 since the 1930s and 1940s, and thus did not change their drinking ages at all since then, also saw similar declines in teen and young adult traffic deaths during that time period.
• Several good and rigorous studies, including, but not limited to, Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), Dee and Evans (2001), Grant (2011), and others, have either cast major doubt on the idea of the 21 drinking age having a significant net lifesaving effect, or even debunked it entirely.
• It's literally well into the 21st century now.  Drunk driving is no longer socially acceptable in the USA, and is taken far more seriously now than it was in the 1970s and early 1980s. America is almost a completely different country now than it was back then.
• Rideshare services like Uber and Lyft exist now as well, and young people are taking longer than ever now to get their driver's licenses.
• We know now that there are far more effective ways of reducing alcohol-related harms of all kinds, such as raising the taxes on alcohol, limiting alcohol outlet density, improving alcohol education, and most importantly of all, seriously cracking down on actual drunk driving, drunk violence, drunk vandalism, and stuff like that.  Rather than merely "flatten the curve", doing so can actually CRUSH the curve for good.

Thus, having applied the principle of Chesterton's Fence, we can conclude that the 21 drinking age can be safely tossed aside like so much garbage, and without looking back.

So what are we waiting for?

Would A Graduated Drinking Age Be Better? (Part Deux)

In our previous post, we discussed the idea of possibly having a split (graduated) drinking age for the first few years of lowering the drinking age, whether for quantity limits, beverage type, or both.  And we concluded that we would be open to that, but ONLY if that would eventually sunset to make it 18 across the board within a few years at most.  Remember, our goal at Twenty-One Debunked remains to fully lower it to 18, and not a day later.

Another idea could be to lower it completely to 18 for on-premise purchases (bars and restaurants), while requiring anyone 18-20 buying alcohol at stores for off-premise consumption to simply have someone 21 or older with them for the purchase, except if those 18-20 have and present a college or military ID.  And they could not have anyone under 18 with them (except their own children) either.  That would be more than enough to discourage 18-20 year olds from buying for their younger friends, which of course would still remain just as illegal as it is now.  

And of course, 18-20 year olds should be fully allowed to drink, possess, and be furnished alcohol in private as well, just like people over 21 currently are.  That would be head and shoulders better than ONLY allowing them to possess and consume alcohol on premise, a truly half-baked idea which would thus create a perverse incentive to drive under the influence, especially in rural areas where such a policy would be tantamount to legalized entrapment in practice.

What about the fear of "blood borders" between states that lower their drinking ages while adjacent states remain 21?  Well, first of all, that is really no worse than the problem of dry counties adjacent to wet counties in terms of perverse incentives to drive under the influence.  (And we sure as hell don't blame it on the wet counties!)  Secondly, they could always have it be where on premise establishments less than X number of miles from the state line of such adjacent states would not be allowed to accept out of state IDs for people under 21 from those specific states, except in college towns for those who also show a college ID.  And the same "temporary residence" exception should also apply to hotels serving their overnight guests as well.  There is a precedent for Wisconsin (a state that has experimented with just about every possible alcohol policy under the sun) doing something similar before 1977 when it was rescinded.

Another "novel" idea:  simply enforce existing laws against actual drunk driving better.  Checkpoints and/or roving patrols can really go a long way yo reduce the problem.

But should we even bother to start out with a compromised position at all?  That remains an open question.

The pro-21 crowd really lives in an alternate reality, it seems.  Just recently, I was debating someone on Reddit that kept on fruitlessly picking apart the methodology of Miron and Tetelbaum's groundbreaking 2009 study that thoroughly debunked the idea that the 21 drinking age saved lives.  The person I debated with kept on straining at proverbial gnats and swallowing proverbial camels, tossing red herrings, using the word "weird" repeatedly for anything they disagreed with, and kept failing to actually refute it.  The pro-21 crowd really cannot to see the forest for the trees, it seems.  They are apparently way too left-brained to do so (and perhaps smooth-brained as well).

The point being:  trying to reason with them is fundamentally an exercise in futility.  And compromising with them would also likely be just as futile as well.

Would A Graduated Drinking Age Be Better?

Twenty-One Debunked has long called for the drinking age to be lowered to 18, completely, and yesterday is not soon enough.  And that hasn't changed one iota since our founding in 2009, and it never will.  That's our North Star.

But what about a phase-in period to make the age lowering more likely to get passed at all?  We have already proposed for the first few years of the new law, to have it remain at 21 for kegs, cases, handles (large bottles) of liquor, and other bulk quantities, while otherwise lowering it to 18 yesterday, and having the higher age limit automatically sunset after X number of years (likely three to five years).  And also, keep the zero tolerance age at 21 for drinking and driving as well for the first few years.  The question remains, however:  what if that still is not enough to realistically get it passed?  We face an extremely uphill battle these days, after all.

Thus, we at Twenty-One Debunked would now grudgingly support, and ONLY for the first few years at most, also keeping the purchase age at 21 for the first few years for hard liquor, or really anything with more than 18% alcohol by volume.  Everything else in non-bulk quantities would be lowered to 18 right away, while the higher age limit would automatically sunset to 18 within a few years.  The higher age limit would not apply to drinking the liquor, of course, only for the specific act of buying it.

Alternatively, the higher age limit can be phased down gradually to 20, then 19, then 18 as well.

The higher age limit could also be kept for all internet, phone, or delivery app orders of alcohol for the first few years as well, and also perhaps have shorter trading hours allowed for off-premise sales for those below that age.

All of this would pour cold water over any real or imagined fears of a short-term increase alcohol-related problems and casualties among teens and young adults, particularly those involving high school students and keggers.  (Longer-term problems and casualties resulting from a lower drinking age have already been thoroughly debunked by Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) and several other studies, of course.)

Hey, if it actually gets us to our real goal sooner than being absolute purists about it would, why not?  Especially in light of the fact that there are more and more places (coffee shops, movie theaters, etc.) these days that serve beer, wine, cider, and/or alcopops, but not hard liquor.  That said, we will NOT support any further compromises beyond that, as that would be a compromise OF a compromise, and thus that would ultimately vitiate our goal of lowering to 18.

So what are we waiting for?

Prohibition Versus Taxation Revisited

Blast from the past:  Rediscovering two studies from the 1990s by Professor Donald S. Kenkel:

PROHIBITION VERSUS TAXATION: RECONSIDERING THE LEGAL DRINKING AGE (1993)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1993.tb00389.x

"The legal drinking age targets a group at a high risk of alcohol-related problems. This paper argues that taxation could achieve the same benefits as the legal drinking age at a substantially lower social cost. Existing empirical research suggests that simultaneously lowering the legal age to 18 and taxing alcohol purchases at between 12 to 86 percent of the current price would achieve the same results as the current legal age. Levying a special teen tax only on young adults would minimize its social costs. Teen tax revenues between $564 million to $4.03 billion measure the net social gain of replacing the current prohibition on young adults' alcohol purchases with a taxation policy."

And the other one from three years later:

NEW ESTIMATES OF THE OPTIMAL TAX ON ALCOHOL (1996)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1996.tb01379.x

"In this paper I use a new data set to estimate the optimal alcohol tax rate. As a benchmark, the empirical results imply that the optimal tax rate is over 100 percent of the net-of-tax price. However, alcohol taxation is a second-best solution to the problems associated with alcohol abuse. I conclude that the optimal alcohol tax rate would be much lower if punishment for drunk driving were more certain and severe. Government provision of information about the health consequences of heavy drinking would also remove part of the efficiency rationale for alcohol taxes."

Twenty-One Debunked does NOT support the idea of different tax rates for different ages, as that idea would likely be impractical and still discriminatory.  It is essentially a left-brain dominant idea that mistakes the map for the territory, and almost a full-blown category error.  In that vein, Kenkel really begins to coast after being off to a good start otherwise.  And, as we see from the second study three years later, the level of the optimal tax is within the range of what would be needed to offset the putative social costs of lowering the drinking age to 18, and vice-versa.

And as we have seen from Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) and Dee and Evans (2001), and many other studies, the supposed benefits of the 21 drinking age are overstated at best, and likely non-existent in the long run.  And in fact, Miron and Tetelbaum also found by the way that the beer tax has a larger lifesaving effect than the 21 drinking age.

Putting it all together, even a relatively modest hike in the alcohol taxes would be enough to offset the supposed negative effects of lowering the drinking age to 18, especially if we also make the punishment for DUI more certain and severe (which we certainly support).  In fact, the late Mark Kleiman (hardly a libertarian zealot) actually recommended many years ago that we should abolish the drinking age entirely, and raise the alcohol tax to a level that would roughly double the price of alcohol (similar to current Canadian prices).  And while the Overton window would strongly preclude something so audacious at this time, he does make a good point regardless.

So what are we waiting for?  Lower the drinking age to 18, raise the alcohol taxes, get tougher on actual drunk driving and drunk violence, and let America be America again!

Why Do Small Alcohol Tax/Price Hikes Have Such Large Effects On Drunk Driving Casualties?

We have noted before how alcohol tax (and thus price) hikes have been proven time and again to save lives, whether from traffic deaths, other accidental deaths, violent deaths, as well as deaths from more direct alcohol-related conditions such as alcoholic liver disease.  The question remains, why such relatively small differences in price have such relatively large effects, that can sometimes even be large enough to strain the reader's credulity?

For things like liver cirrhosis, the answer is pretty straightforward:  cirrhosis is chronic and cumulative, but it is also progressive as well.  At any given time, some unknown number of people (and unknown to the people themselves as well) may be just one binge away from near-certain death.  And for them, even a very modest near-term reduction in drinking due to a price hike (which to a very heavy drinker, is not trivial, since they spend so much on alcohol) can very well save their life.

But what about less direct things like drunk driving casualties?  Well, one needs to think like an economist, that is, on the margin.  It is the last drink of any given drinking session that determines one's final BAC of the session, and it is the final BAC that determines how impaired one is in the event of driving home.  And we know that the fatal or serious crash risk rises exponentially with BAC, thus even a modest reduction (say, one fewer drink per session) would dramatically reduce the risk of such casualties, even though the risk still remains significantly elevated compared to not drinking at all before driving.  At on-premise locations like bars, a tax hike is likely to be passed through at a rate greater than one-to-one due to rounding up, so it is very plausible that at least some people will have one fewer drink per session as a result.  Or alternatively, they may drink before going out to save money, but that would make them more likely to plan ahead and not drive there, so they would be even less likely to drive back home as a result. 

Either way, the fairly recent examples of Illinois and Maryland seeing sizeable reductions in traffic deaths after relatively modest alcohol tax hikes in 2009 and 2011, respectively, definitely supports this hypothesis.  And it shows that this classic "tax-price-consumption-fatalities" relationship is still as relevant as ever now in the 21st century, even if it has been attenuated a bit since the 1980s.  And most of the gazillion studies on the matter have found that the effect is larger than that of the meretricious "crown jewel" of the neo-prohibitionist public health fascists and ageist bigots, namely the 21 drinking age, with the supposed lifesaving effect of the latter being most likely spurious, inconsequential, or even perverse in the long run.

In other words, it's really a no-brainer to raise alcohol taxes, yesterday.  Especially with alcohol being so dangerously cheap right now in America.  So what are we waiting for?

Sorry, Cannabis Legalization STILL NOT Crazy-Making, Or Deadly For That Matter

The latest fearmongering "Reefer Madness" study is making the rounds now.  This one insinuates (with the requisite hedging of language, of course) that cannabis legalization in Canada might have been linked to an increase in schizophrenia and other psychosis.  But the study doesn't actually say that at all.  A more careful reading of the study reveals that the incidence of schizophrenia proper has NOT actually increased overall following legalization.  Nor does the study actually show that the prevalence or incidence of psychosis in general has increased either (only the vague nebulous category of "psychosis not otherwise specified (NOS)" increased somewhat, and other psychosis diagnoses were not even looked at) for some reason. Natch.

The authors do concede that previous studies on both the USA and Canada have also repeatedly failed to find any significant link between medical or recreational legalization and either schizophrenia or psychosis in general.  But they laughably claim that such studies were too "underpowered" to detect anything.  Riiiiiight.  Perhaps because the supposed effect they were looking for was just noise all along?  

Occam's Razor, anyone?  Point is, if you torture the data enough, they will confess to anything.  And of course, one of the authors disclosed that they personally have ties to (surprise, surprise!) the pharmaceutical industry.

In other news, around the same time that was published, another Canadian study was published in the same journal that found that those who had emergency room visits or hospitalizations listed as related to "cannabis use disorder" were statistically more likely to die in the five years following such admissions.  That study made for some scary news headlines as well, but not only are such patients not even remotely representative of typical cannabis users, but as the requisite linguistic hedging reveals, no definitive casual link could be proven here either.  That is, it was impossible to rule out all alternative explanations even after attempting to adjust for known confounding factors.  

And regardless, clearly this study says nothing at all about legalization.  If weed legalization had somehow resulted in excess deaths in the general population, it certainly would have been all over the news, but it apparently didn't.

It seems like the standards for what gets published in medical and scientific journals these days are really approaching (if not already hitting) rock bottom.  When silly junk science (or approaching junk science) studies like these come out, the very best thing that we can do is to mercilessly mock them as far and wide as humanly possible.

Thomas Jefferson Predicted Exactly Why Minimum Unit Pricing Would Fail

Looks like good old Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and one of America's Founding Fathers, had uncannily predicted long ago why the recent "Minimum Unit Pricing" of alcoholic beverages in Scotland and Wales would end up failing so miserably even on its own terms:

"No nation is drunken where wine is cheap; and none sober where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent [i.e. distilled] spirits as the common beverage. It is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of whiskey."

And there you have it.  Substitute "beer" or "cider" for "wine" and it still makes just as much if not more sense, especially in the UK.  That is NOT to say that the price mechanism (via taxation or otherwise) is useless, far from it.  All else being equal, we know that higher alcohol prices = fewer alcohol-related problems and deaths, at least to a point.  But the Jeffersonian wisdom above DOES add a VERY important nuance, namely that the RELATIVE price of less-concentrated alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, cider) compared with the more-concentrated distilled spirits (hard liquor) is more important than the absolute prices of either.

Consider this:  the UK as a whole already had, and still has, fairly high but (until recently) very uneven taxes on alcohol to begin with.  Wine and especially cider have long enjoyed lower taxes (and thus lower prices per standard drink) compared with beer and hard liquor there.  Thus, the heaviest problem drinkers, especially poorer ones, often went for cheap and strong cider to get the most "bang for the buck".  Enter minimum unit pricing, a price floor across the board per standard drink which had a much larger effect on raising the price of cider compared with hard liquor.  The unintended consequence?  At least some of the heaviest drinkers likely at least partially switched to liquor as a result, and ended up getting drunker than they otherwise would, with predictable negative effects.

That said, in the USA where alcohol taxes are much lower, especially for distilled spirits, such a price floor may very well be a net benefit overall.  And even in the UK, changing it to a two-tier price floor where distilled spirits would have a higher minimum price per standard drink than non-distilled beverages may very well too.  But as it stands currently in Scotland and Wales?  It's generally pretty weak sauce at best as far as public health is considered.

Oh, and don't ever expect MADD to admit this either.  They have in the past at least half-heartedly called for higher beer taxes, of course, but remained strangely quiet about liquor taxes.  It's almost like someone is greasing their palms, or something.  Nah, that's crazy conspiracy talk, right?

Will There Be Nicotine Limits for Cigarettes?

Lately, there has been some talk of the outgoing Biden administration possibly doing an eleventh-hour Hail Mary, and officially propose a hard limit on nicotine levels in combustible cigarettes.  If done properly, this would make cigarettes less addictive or even non-addictive, and would be a major win for public health.  A randomized controlled trial of reduced nicotine versus full nicotine cigarettes in 2015 appears to back up that claim quite well.

Twenty-One Debunked is officially on the fence about this idea, cautiously supporting it in principle while also being wary of potential unintended consequences as far as creating a black market for full nicotine cigarettes.  If they do it, they would have to phase out the full nicotine cigarettes gradually, and also leave alone non-combustible alternative tobacco/nicotine products (except for capping the nicotine levels in vapes to European levels, which we support).  And even loose roll-your-own and pipe tobacco should be spared, as those are not the main drivers of the tobacco smoking epidemic.  Only ready-made combustible cigarettes and little cigars should be affected in our view.

Failing that, here is a "Cliffs Notes" style list on how to make cigarettes and other smokeable tobacco products less addictive and appealing WITHOUT banning it outright or nicotine below natural levels:

• First and foremost, BAN ADDITIVES!  No non-tobacco ingredients should be added, period.
• Adding extra nicotine deliberately should also be banned as well.
• Require the smoke pH to be 8 or higher to discourage deep inhalation of smoke, as it naturally was prior to the 20th century. 
• Phase out the pH-lowering and environmentally unsustainable practice of flue-curing tobacco. 
• Phase out cigarette "filters", which don't really filter, and merely provide a false sense of security to smokers, and inherently creates a major toxic waste littering problem to boot.

If they still want to reduce maximum nicotine levels to a non-addictive level in ready-made commercial cigarettes and little cigars, go right ahead.  But it would be best to do the other things on the list first.

(And of course, Twenty-One Debunked continues to strongly opposed the current age limit of 21, and believes it should be lowered back to 18 yesterday.)

Also, banning the use of radioactive (!) phosphate fertilizers to grow tobacco is really a textbook no-brainer in terms of tobacco harm reduction. 

Additionally, requiring all tobacco products to be sold only in dedicated tobacco stores, or other places where you have to be 18 or older to enter, would really not be a bad idea either.  It would certainly make it less ubiquitous, convenient, and tempting without the constant reminder in grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, pharmacies, etc.  Even then, to avoid unintended consequences to such stores, that should be phased out gradually as well.

So what are we waiting for?

What Will 2025 Bring for Youth Rights?

It's 2025 now, and things look pretty bleak for youth rights in general.  Not only is the 21 drinking age (and smoking age and toking age) not going away anytime soon, but now we have to deal with the latest social media bans and restrictions on young people.  Florida's literally goes into effect today, for example.  This law bans anyone under 14 from signing up for or maintaining a social media account at all, and for anyone over 14 but under 16 from doing so without verified parental consent.  How they plan to do it without it backfiring on older youth and adults is not clear, but either way, it is very wrong-headed at best.  And we know it won't stop there, as it won't be long before it gets raised to 18 and then 19 and then 21 and so on.  That is, slopes are MUCH, MUCH slipperier than they appear!

Fortunately, it is being challenged in court, and pending the outcome of such challenges, enforcement is unlikely to begin until at least February at the earliest.

And then of course we have Trump coming back into the office of POTUS for a second term on January 20th.  That alone will be a new dark age for America, especially with his puppet master Elon Muskrat pulling his strings.  Trump has not exactly been a friend of youth rights, as evident in his raising the federal smoking age to 21 in late 2019.  Just like DeSanctimonious did the same for Florida in 2021, after initially opposing it.  And of course, Trump and MAGA Republicans and Talibangelicals seeking to systematically revoke women's rights will of course not bode well for youth rights either, if history is any indication.

So buckle up, as it will be a VERY wild ride!