How America Lost The Plot (Updated Re-post)

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 eventually Tobacco 21, to the ubiquitous "culture wars" (especially about sexuality) 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?

(And why do the proverbial trees keep on voting for the axe?)

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 at large.  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 it, 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 simply 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-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 (that is really more like a horseshoe), 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 still NOT the territory.  And their reductionist "solutions" invariably affect not just this thing over here, of course, 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 enough people have gotten the memo, it seems.

FINAL THOUGHT:  Looks like McGilchrist has a sequel to the aforementioned book, titled The Matter with Things, as well.  In it, the following quote is probably the most pertinent of all:

"[Y]ou could say, to sum up a vastly complex matter in a phrase, that the brain's left hemisphere is designed to help us ap-prehend – and thus manipulate – the world; the right hemisphere to com-prehend it – see it all for what it is."

Food for thought indeed. 

In other words, a brain divided against itself cannot stand.

Let's Talk About Consent

Or, "Amanda Marcotte Was Right All Along"

I am old enough to remember when the mainstream still had some semblance of common sense about a decade ago, particularly on the topic of sex and consent to sex, before they lost the plot.  That includes mainstream feminists like Amanda Marcotte, who as far as I know still does today.  And one can also say the same about Jessica Valenti and Tracy Clark-Flory.

You really might wanna sit down when reading this article, as it is clearly NOT for the faint of heart!  It comes with a five-alarm trigger warning about discussion of the topics of rape, sexual assault, alcohol, and the biggest "third rail" of them all that divides the left, the right, the centrists, and even the youth-rights movement:  age of consent.  And to be blunt, it also contains relatively frank use of profanity and sexual language as well.

Otherwise, enjoy our most controversial article yet, from a blog that is clearly no stranger to controversy!  Please note that the opinions expressed here are NOT necessarily shared by all members and associates of Twenty-One Debunked.

PART I:  AGE OF CONSENT 

First, the biggest "third rail" of them all will be explored.  In previous posts from several years ago, Twenty-One Debunked has essentially trolled the ageists/adultists with this issue by suggesting the age of consent (for sexual activity) be raised to 21 (or even 25), albeit with a generous close-in-age exemption, to bluntly and provocatively illustrate their utter pharisaical hypocrisy of them treating young adults over 18 as second-class citizens but still defending the right of older adults to fuck or get fucked by them (and even literal minors under 18 in many states as well).  But we have still not actually taken an official position on what the age of consent should be.  Our original "modest proposal" was meant to be provocative, and it clearly produced much more heat than light in regards to serious debate.  Natch.

I myself am a moderate, lifelong youth-rights activist with absolutely no personal dog in this particular fight at all whatsoever.  And I cannot speak for other youth-rights activists either.  Furthermore, as a middle-aged man now (wow, how time has really flown since I got started the 2000s!), I have long thought that it is probably best for me to sit this debate out overall.

But now that this general topic has entered the spotlight in recent years, it is probably best to seriously discuss it now, without any trolling.  After all, per the Taboo Treadmill, old taboos often get replaced by new ones, and the biggest one right now in the mid to late 2020s is age-gap relationships, including among adults.

(NOTE:  Unless otherwise noted, when we say "age of consent" in this article, we are by default referring to the unrestricted age of consent for sexual activity across the board.)

First, all ethical questions aside, I will note that raising the legal age of consent any higher than 18 would likely do far more harm than good overall, and would further infantilize young adults and thus seriously monkey-wrench any efforts to fully recognize 18-24 year olds as the adults that they are in terms of civil rights.  Once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.  Thus, Twenty-One Debunked will officially NOT support any attempt to raise it higher than 18.  At the same time, though, we do NOT encourage older adults to pursue "barely legal" young adults either, so don't even think about putting such words in our mouths!

The "wisdom of the global crowd", for all its faults, has essentially spoken on this.  Less than a handful of countries in the entire world set their ages of consent higher than 18, even fewer than do the drinking age.  In fact, most countries tend to set it lower.

OK, but what about setting it lower than 18, like majority of US states already do to some extent at 16 or 17?  Here is where that "third rail" really begins to shock hard, and for good reason as well.  Thanks to the system of adulto-patriarchy, the power imbalance issue is very strong and cannot simply be denied or wished away.  And of course, for much younger kids, the issue of mental and developmental capacity also becomes very salient as well, no doubt.  But even for 16-17 year olds, the power imbalance is still all too real when dealing with much older partners.  It also doesn't help that we still very much live in a sexually schizophrenic society to this day as well, that has also gone backwards in terms of infantilizing young people. 

(This is essentially a textbook example of a Chesterton's Fence:  before you even consider removing a fence, make sure you know WHY it was put up in the first place!)

Thus, for the time being, Twenty-One Debunked would support Amanda Marcotte's position to set a uniform, standardized federal age of consent at 18, with one very simple exemption:  a three-year close-in-age exemption. (And also apply this very same exemption to "sexting" as well.)  This was, of course, written nearly a decade ago in 2017, before this whole age-gap discourse completely jumped the proverbial shark and went off the rails.  And people still had at least some semblance of nuance and common sense as well!  While not perfect, and literally any age limit is arbitrary, this idea seems to be the least-worst possible way to do it at this time, all things considered.  And crucially, it will NOT punish the very same young people whom it is supposed to protect either.  This is unlike many states in the current crazy patchwork quilt of state laws that do NOT have a close-in-age exemption.  If there was anything about the bizarre status quo that is most relevant to youth rights, this exemption (or lack thereof) would have to be it, and nearly all of the collateral problems with age of consent laws would be solved by doing so.

Now, Marcotte is silent on exactly how far down in age this three-year close-in-age exemption should reach.  But we think that it should best cover the entire range of the teen years, perhaps narrowed a bit more near the bottom of that range, and reach to or below the minimum "age of criminal responsibility" to be prosecuted for breaching it.  Thus, there should be NO situations where the victim and perpetrator can be the same person, and NO situations where both people are guilty of "mutual crimes" against each other (a truly bizarre state of affairs if there ever was one!). Additionally, when both people are currently college students (as some students are still under 18, often just weeks away from their birthday), the exemption should probably be broadened to four years to avoid any further unintended consequences IMHO.

(We will note that other, ancillary twists in the laws of many states and countries, such as "sexual exploitation", "performance", and "corruption of minors" that conflict with or complicate age of consent should also best be jettisoned or clarified, as those are too vague and thus create a minefield of both loopholes for perps AND also wide dragnets to ensnare innocent people at the same.)

Marcotte also said "In addition, all 50 states should have an all-out ban on marriage under 18, without exceptions. Hell, make it 21. No one should get married who isn’t old enough to drink at their own wedding".  Twenty-One Debunked agrees with this as well, except we note that there is more than one way to skin that last particular you-know-what, something we have always advocated:  lower the damn drinking age to 18!  Problem solved.

In the fullness of time, this highly complex and nuanced issue can perhaps be revisited once all youth are fully liberated from adulto-patriarchy, AND we also evolve into a sexually healthier society.  But that is not the society we live in now, unfortunately.  And in any case, the Overton window will not allow it.

Another good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes.  As he notes, it really should NOT be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter HOW much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct.  Sometimes we really do need a hard, bright line, even if it seems a bit arbitrary.  At the same time, not having any close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.  And as history has shown, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

(As for those on the fringes who don't believe in any sort of boundaries whatsoever, because reasons, well, they can go FOUCAULT themselves!  Ditto for the extremist fundies, MAGA, and other reactionaries as well, no apologies to them either.)

And finally, we believe that no changes should be made to the current federal and state laws that set a hard minimum age for commercial sex work at 18 with zero tolerance and NO exemptions, except to tighten the penalties and enforcement.  With absolutely NO apologies to the Epstein class.  It is considered human trafficking by definition, and for good reason!  Thus, anyone who speciously claims that a close-in-age exemption for age of consent to sex in general would lead to an increase in underage sex trafficking is clearly being utterly disingenuous.

Otherwise, we believe live and let live, love and let love.

PART II:  AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT LAWS 

It has been over a decade since the idea of "affirmative consent" or "(Only) Yes Means Yes" laws have first entered into the general mainstream circa 2014.  Several countries have indeed passed such laws, and while no states in the USA have passed such criminal laws statewide yet (though Wisconsin comes the closest), a few (starting with California and then New York) have passed them for college campuses.  Amanda Marcotte has also been a vocal advocate of such laws.  And while naysayers about, we at Twenty-One Debunked agrees with Marcotte in that, while such laws are imperfect, they are essentially the least-worst possible way to legally deal with the ubiquitous pandemic of rape and sexual assault plaguing our nation and world at large.

Affirmative consent thus closes a major loophole inherent in both the traditional consent standard and force standards:  the absence of "no" does NOT equal "yes".  Silence is NOT consent, neither is inaction.  That is very important due to the fact that "fight or flight" are not the only possible responses of victims, but they can also very commonly "freeze, fawn, or flop" as well.  "Freeze" and "flop" are both easily covered by this standard, and while "fawning" (aka people-pleasing) is very difficult for any standard to cover completely, much less prove, it can at least cover this one partially as well.  And the onus of making sure one has consent for a given act would fall on the initiator, rather than on the other person to give or not give consent.

Or as Ezra Klein calls it, the "You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure" law.

Amnesty International also supports such a standard as well.

To illustrate the difference in types of legal standards regarding sexual assault:

Force standard (archaic): "No Means Yes"

Consent standard (current): "No Means No"

Affirmative consent standard (emerging): "Yes Means Yes"

Utopian standard: "Yes Means No"

The third item on the list, the affirmative consent standard, is the one that we support. It has been in place in Canada since 1983, for example, and an increasing number of countries are catching on in recent years. The archaic force standard is problematic for obvious reasons, while "No Means No" is necessary and important but NOT sufficient. The essential difference between the "No Means No" and "(Only) Yes Means Yes" is that in the former, the default answer is "yes", and in the latter, the default answer is "no". That's it. And the "utopian" standard is, to put it mildly, a legalistic nightmare at best and a dystopian kettle of fish at worst, not to mention infantilizing and agency-denying to women, while also putting men in a "double bind" as well (where men would effectively have the duty to refuse a grown woman's advances, but not the right to refuse).  We would never support that.

(And bonus points for anyone who recognizes the Horseshoe Theory inherent in the utopian-dystopian standard.)

We believe that affirmative consent laws, properly written, should be the standard in all 50 states, both in criminal law as well as otherwise.  It is the least-worst legal standard that could ever possibly exist, and protects both women AND men alike.  And in contrast we do NOT in any way, shape, or form support Catharine MacKinnon's questionably utopian idea of jettisoning the concept of consent altogether (!), which will ultimately lead to dystopia.  In fact, we will not even dignify such an utterly illiberal and infantilizing idea like that with any further discussion.

Granted, we should all be aware that a coerced "yes" (or "maybe", or "meh", or whatever) is really a "no" in disguise. No argument there. Take the first NO for an answer!  But when one defines "coercion" as broadly as MacKinnon does, and codifies it into law, then slopes become MUCH slipperier than they appear.

(There is also apparently such a thing as a "desire" standard as well, but desire is itself too slippery and fickle to codify into law for practical purposes, and ultimately leads to the same utopian-dystopian place as MacKinnon, in case you were wondering.)

In contrast, the affirmative consent standard of "Yes Means Yes" is far more realistic, and thus protopian.  And contrary to what some may believe, it still allows for due process in practice, unlike the utopian-dystopian standard.  It is perfect?  Of course not.  No standard can be.  But as we all know, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

(And no, contrary to what some may believe, consent cannot be withdrawn retroactively, in case you were wondering. That is a fringe theory that fortunately has never made it into law anywhere.  It can only be withdrawn going forward.)

But all that said, ultimately, rape and sexual assault are always and everywhere a cultural problem.  We need to change the culture to reflect enthusiastic consent as the standard:  "if it's not a HELL YEAH!, it's a HELL NO!". And furthermore, anthropological evidence has shown that it is entirely possible to have relatively "rape-free" societies as well. In such societies, which are typically matrilineal and where women are highly valued members of community and society, rape is NOT considered "macho" or virile behavior at all, but rather quite the opposite, and those very few men who would dare do so roundly face much ridicule and shame for it. It is basically seen as the ultimate loser and failure behavior, and it is not at all tolerated. (Nor would a "real man" feel the need to prove himself a man by "scoring" just to get proverbial notches on his belt, as true virility is self-evident.) Rapists thus have no "social license to operate" there at all. In other words, nurture seems to be far more important than nature, as male violence against women is a cultural problem at base.

When rape and sexual assault (and male violence against women and children in general) are seen as not only dishonorable and degenerate, but also the most unmanly thing a man could possibly do as well, that really seems to be the "Achilles' Heel" to eradicating this pandemic of sexual violence for good.

Bottom line, much like Sir Winston Churchill famously said about democracy:  affirmative consent as legal standard, coupled with enthusiastic consent as an ethical standard, is the worst possible standard that there is, except for all the others, of course.

PART III:  ALCOHOL AND CONSENT

And now we get into yet another contentious topic that has unfortunately become polarized online as well:  the intersection between alcohol and consent in regard to sexual activity.  Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti have both written articles about a decade or so ago on this topic, again back when people still had some semblance of common sense.

Put bluntly, the specious and agency-denying idea that any amount of alcohol somehow automatically invalidates consent and is thus rape no matter what (or even the milder but still specious idea that too drunk into drive is always too drunk to consent) is absolutely bonkers, and is a gross overcorrection for the very real problems of the status quo ante.

Which is really a shame, because this line of reasoning makes a mockery of a very real and serious problem:  namely, the fact that rapists all too often use alcohol as a weapon, deliberately or opportunistically, to incapacitate their victims.  (Alcohol is, when consumed in high enough doses, the number-one most common "date rape drug", but of course, "the dose makes the poison".)

And not only is it also agency-denying and infantilizing in regards to voluntarily-induced intoxication, not to mention flying in the face of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but it also gives ammunition to actual perpetrators of rape (including of the full-blown, forcible variety) to DARVO their victims (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender) if they themselves had been drinking as well.  If we assume that the standard were gender-neutral, that is, which is itself a rather bold assumption.  And the only way to rectify that latter problem of "what if both had been drinking?" is to turn it into yet another gender double standard, and that is clearly very problematic as well.  Thus, no amount of mental gymnastics can ever truly fix this utterly specious legal theory.  No amount of lipstick can fix this pig.

(And that is before we even get into the problem of a belligerent drunk woman who won't take NO for an answer from a man.)

It's one thing to err on the side of caution, and not want to give rapists one inch of perceived wiggle room to exploit, and another thing to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater entirely.  Fortunately, and contrary to what many may believe, there is no law on the books anywhere in the world to our knowledge that stipulates that the presence of any amount of alcohol automatically invalidates consent.  Nor do most laws even say anything about "intoxication" (a vague term that can mean anything from tipsy to comatose), but rather incapacitation, a more severe state of impairment in which one does not understand the "who, what, when, where, or how" of what is going on, and thus valid consent really is not possible as such.

To quote California's reasonably well-written "Yes Means Yes" law for college campuses, for example:

(a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.

(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.

(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

(Emphasis added to the most relevant words here.  And note that this also applies to any other psychoactive substances as well to the extent that they result in incapacitation.)

As Marcotte noted back then, such affirmative consent standards are indeed the best way to deal with the problem of alcohol-related rape and sexual assault.  And doing so protects everyone.

And finally, we should note that driving ability is utterly irrelevant to consent, as the BAC limit for "too drunk to drive" (in most of the world) is really quite low at a mere 0.05% or less, as little as one or two drinks. Even the 0.08% standard in all US states (except Utah) is still nowhere close to incapacitation either, despite clearly posing an unacceptable risk when behind the wheel.  So how about we NOT make a mockery of either?

FINAL THOUGHTS AND TAKEAWAYS:

All three topics in this article have one thing on comment:  when you try to remove all complexity from dating, sexuality, and even life itself, you inevitably only create more complexity as a result.

Liberty is NOT a zero-sum game.  Liberty is like love, the more you give, the more you get.  While tyranny is NEGATIVE-sum.

The sexual revolution, much like the industrial revolution, was a "mixed bag", to be sure.  And both had, and still have, a very real shadow side.  But that said, the net effect in the long run was still beneficial on balance for both.  Yes, even for the "proletariat" as well (both women and the working class, respectively).  Any attempt to roll back either one would thus be the height of folly.

Truth be told, there are unfortunately casualties in literally every revolution in history.  Natch.  To paraphrase a very (in)famous revolutionary, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.  (Or hearts, for that matter).  But truly the very biggest real problem of the sexual revolution was NOT fighting twice as hard for the right to say "NO", as they did for the right to say "YES".

While much progress has been made over the decades in tacking the very real problem of sexual violence, there is unfortunately still a long way to go.  And in recent years, especially since about 2020, society seems to have more or less lost the plot in that regard.  Thus, we shall reiterate some important points from the 2010s, when there was still some semblance of common sense:

Consensual sex is not always good sex, granted.  But non-consensual sex (aka RAPE) can never be good. Like, ever. And punishing or vilifying consensual sex has no place in a free society, and ultimately does more harm than good on balance.  Regret is NOT rape, and conflating the two makes no sense.

While consent is indeed the FLOOR and NOT the ceiling of sexual ethics, and there are indeed other dimensions as well (mutuality, respect, honesty, empathy, dignity, and so on), the fact remains that consent (without shoehorning anything else into it) is absolutely the sine qua non that makes all the others even possible at all.  It is truly a pitifully low bar to clear, folks, so clear it!

By the way, all of this is true regardless of gender.

Consent itself is as simple as FRIES:

In other words, if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a "HELL NO!". When in doubt, stop and check in.  If there is still any doubt, back off and take a raincheck.  It's really not rocket science, folks!

And it is also as simple as TEA as well (remember this video?):

As a wise person once said a while back, let's put the "sensual" back in "consensual".  And we will also add, while we're at it, let's put the "moan" back in "harmonious" as well!

And finally, let's put the onus where it really belongs, on the perpetrators, not the victims!  The following is quite instructive:

(Mic drop)

Safety Third

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

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

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

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

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

Even the biggest safety zealots have to concede that.  For example, we could theoretically save even more lives by making the speed limit 21 and the drinking age 55 rather than the other way around, but we don't and never will.  Because deep down, we all know on some level that there are other important considerations as well in any free society worthy of the name.

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

The Meta Settlement Does More Harm Than Good

The Big Tech giant Meta has recently agreed to an $18 billion settlement with coalition of U.S. states to resolve a massive, landmark lawsuit alleging that apps like Facebook and Instagram intentionally designed features to addict children and teens, and harm youth mental health.  And while we at Twenty-One Debunked are clearly NO friend to Big Tech whatsoever, and broadly agree that they should have been held accountable for their gross misdeeds over recent decades, we also believe that the settlement is highly problematic in the following ways:

• First and foremost, $18 billion is NOT a lot of money at all to Meta, who currently holds a whopping $90.26 billion in total cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities alone, and has a net worth of approximately $1.45 trillion (with a T!) based on its total market capitalization.  Hardly a deterrent!
• Young users (under age 18) will face more restrictions (including on Constitutionally protected speech), and very questionable and privacy-compromising "age assurance" (which will also backfire on adults too) will be built into every one of their products going forward.
• Most of the changes that Meta are required to make to its platforms are NOT actually corrective of any real problem, and many are in the wrong direction and therefore worse than useless.  Even if some changes are marginally good.
• The toxic algorithms and surveillance advertising business model are both still left intact, and will continue to further warp our politics, our economy, our society, and our culture for the worse, as they will continue to amplify the very worst of humanity by design.
• And things like comprehensive data privacy requirements for all ages were not even on the table, apparently.

To quote David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who described it very well indeed:

Under this settlement, young users will now have less access to Meta products, and a lesser ability to exercise their rights to speak, access information and art and culture, associate and form communities, and play. The settlement also embeds age assurance into every product, mandating the collection of even more personal information from users of all ages; this enshrines Meta's harmful surveillance into law, and it will compromise users' privacy and anonymity while increasing their exposure to data breaches and government data requests. And the data minimization and security measures don’t keep states from using data collected under the agreement for other law enforcement purposes – which could include things like criminal investigations of abortions or gender-affirming care. 

And renowned sociologist and youth rights activist Mike Males has also written some excellent articles about this as well.  Not least because this doesn't doesn't even scratch the surface of the elephant in the room:  the real problems that young people are facing (primarily offline, and primarily from parents and other adults), and from which they are using social media as a refuge.

Thus, Big Tech is still smiling like Joe Camel.  And as always, young people and other marginalized populations will ultimately pay the price.  As we like to say, Big Tech can go EFF off!

UPDATE:  The EFF has another good article as well about this.  And yet another one too, about how it silences youth activism.

The Invisible Knapsack (Updated)

Over 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.  Even if it is a negative-sum game on balance.

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.  And at least with tobacco, I can even smoke around children in my home or car as well.
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 of 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 any sort of 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 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 a much 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.

And the list goes on.  As we see, the 21 drinking age is not just about disadvantaging people under 21, but giving unearned advantages to people over 21 as well.  And while some of these advantages are 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 blithely stick their heads in the proverbial sand than simply teach their kids how to drink responsibly.  Natch.

In other words, it is a NEGATIVE-SUM game (lose-lose) that we would ALL be better off without, on balance.

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

(Mic drop)

Great Video About The Drinking Age Change

Here is a great video about how the federal government coerced the states to raise their legal drinking ages to 21 in the 1980s:

One correction:  the 21 drinking age didn't actually save any lives in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) debunked that rather nicely, as did Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990).  And Canada saw a similar or faster decline in alcohol related traffic deaths among both youth and adults, without raising the drinking age to 21.  As did the 12 no-change US states that kept it 21 throughout.

As for "blood borders" (which also exist between dry and wet counties, by the way), there is more than one way to skin that particular you-know-what.  Encouraging and rewarding states by giving extra federal highway funds with higher drinking ages to lower their drinking ages to 18 (i.e. positive reinforcement) would have been a much better idea.  Put up sobriety checkpoints and roving patrols near state lines. And make drunk driving across state lines a federal crime as well.  Problem solved. Next.

Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. Yesterday, full stop. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.

(Mic drop)

A Message To Those Who Still Support The 21 Drinking Age And Other Ageist Policies

Here's a message to those who still support the 21 drinking age and other ageist policies:

(Mic drop)

The Law Of Eristic Escalation Revisited (Re-Post)

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

Just thought we should share this re-post of a very timeless article that remains just as relevant now.

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), etc. 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.

One Tool To Replace Them All: The Curious Case Of Disorderly Conduct

About the catch-all legal concept of "disorderly conduct", we have often had mixed feelings about it.  But over time, I have come to realize that it does serve as a necessary and proper, albeit nuanced, tool as crowd control as well as a substitute that allows us to ultimately jettison from the books all "status offenses" and all of what the late, great Peter McWilliams called "consensual crimes" aka victimless crimes.  (Sorry not sorry, James Q. Wilson.)

One tool to replace them all, basically.  And additionally, we need to get tough on REAL crime, of course.  Common sense, basically.

Loitering, curfew, "underage" drinking or smoking, drunk but NOT disorderly, simple drug possession, vagrancy, and so many other things could easily be made redundant and removed from the law books.  Of course, once these things become littering, trespassing, vandalism, DUI, harassment, assault, or disturbing the peace, etc. THEN they would become and remain illegal.

When dealing with large and unruly crowds, of course, it's not always so simple or cut and dried, and in the moment, the concept of "disorderly conduct" sometimes needs to be invoked to restore order.  And all states have some flavor of this.

We believe that disorderly conduct should be 1) defined broadly enough to be fit for purpose, but not too broad, 2) be a mere violation/infraction for at least the first or even the first two offenses, albeit briefly arrestable for practical purposes, and 3) applied in a non-discriminatory manner, whether by race, gender, class, ability, orientation, etc., and especially age.

There are of course whole towns on the Jersey Shore right now who have youth curfews in part because New Jersey's juvenile injustice reform went too far in that regard, with the police having to follow such restrictive protocols in practice.

The gist of this whole issue being, collective punishment (to youth or anyone else) is inherently and irredeemably evil and needs to end yesterday.  And if the admittedly imperfect concept of "disorderly conduct" needs to remain on the books to prevent resorting to collective punishment, so be it.

For example, New Jersey in fact already has a fairly decent law on the books right now.  (Just apply it to all ages, basically.)  So there should be no excuse to resort to youth curfews or anything else. 

UPDATE:  To clarify, when I say a "violation or infraction", that means an offense that carries a civil or administrative penalty, thus no criminal penalties and no criminal record.  Some states currently do this for disorderly conduct, while others have it as a misdemeanor or the equivalent (which is a criminal offense, with criminal penalties and often a criminal record that can haunt you for the rest of your life).  We believe a modest civil penalty with no criminal record is appropriate for something like this.  Ditto for any other "consensual crimes" or "status offenses", and that is IF there must even be any such thing at all (a VERY big "if").

Does Cannabis Increase The Risk Of Stroke?

One recent meta-analysis study appears to have found a link between cannabis and stroke.  And even go so far as to claim that causation is likely. But there is less here than meets the eye, once again.  To quote the abstract of the study:

Meta-analysis demonstrated significant associations of cannabis (OR = 1.37, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.14–1.65), cocaine (OR = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.27–3.01), and amphetamines (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.40–3.53) with increased stroke risk, while no significant association was observed for opioids. Findings for cannabis showed some heterogeneity and small-study effects. MR analyses revealed that cannabis use disorder was associated with any stroke (OR = 1.11 [1.01–1.51]) and large artery stroke (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.01–1.80), and cocaine dependence was associated with cardioembolic stroke (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.02–1.14) and intracerebral hemorrhage (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.15–1.65). Genetically predicted substance use disorder overall was associated with any stroke (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.02–1.72) and intracerebral hemorrhage (OR = 7.79, 95% CI = 3.46–17.54). Problematic and dependent alcohol use was linked to large artery and cardioembolic stroke, whereas nicotine dependence showed no significant associations.

While this is pretty good confirmation of one of the many notorious risks of using/abusing cocaine and amphetamines, and to a lesser extent problematic and dependent alcohol use, for cannabis the results were actually pretty weak by good epidemiological standards in terms of the odds ratios (which were even weaker still for younger people).  Remember, a "meta-analysis" is simply a study that looks at many other studies and pools them all together, with all of the pitfalls that entails, and there was a lot of "heterogeneity" among studies to put it mildly, including several studies with null (i.e. statistically insignificant) or even "wrong" signed results mixed in.  And the reddest flag of all?  The null result for nicotine (i.e. tobacco) dependence flies in the face of what has long been known about the very real and dose-dependent health risks of nicotine, or at least smoking tobacco (a two-, three-, four-, or even six-fold increase in stroke risk depending on how much one smokes).  Even vaping nicotine may not be so benign after all in terms of stroke either.  That's like that old study that found that pork consumption was significantly associated with cirrhosis of the liver, but that alcohol was no longer significant once pork was adjusted for.  Riiiiight.

In other words, selection bias, reporting bias, residual or unmeasured confounding, "thumb-on-scale syndrome", and other statistical quirks could very easily be the reasons for these findings.  To say nothing of the pitfalls of both meta-analyses and Mendelian randomization as well.  The ever-insightful John Ioannidis would likely have a field day with this one!

So what should be the key takeaways from this study then? If you don't wish to have a stroke anytime soon:

• Don't use cocaine or amphetamines.  Or if you do, the less you use, the better.  (If you feel you need a stimulant/pick-me-up, best to stick with caffeine in moderation instead.)
• If you choose to drink, do so in moderation.
• Regardless of what one particular study says, the weight of the evidence says that if you smoke tobacco or otherwise use nicotine, you should quit ASAP.  Better yet, don't start!
• If you can't quit nicotine entirely just yet, at the very least quit smoking. "The more you smoke, the more you stroke".
• Opioids may not increase the risk of stroke, but they can kill you in other ways, so beware.
• If you are at high risk for stroke yourself, be extra careful about what substances you use, and how much and how often.  Seriously!
• When it comes to cannabis, less is more.  There is not a chronic, heavy user alive that would not benefit from at least cutting back a bit.  Think of it as a spice, not a food.
• As a wise man said, you really don't need to leave the solar system every time you get high either, by the way.  Try a more "down-to-earth" approach next time perhaps. 
• Remember that there are a number of other ways to use cannabis that don't involve smoking either, FWIW.
• Above all, don't panic!  You really need the extra stress like a hole in the head!  Which can take on a rather literal significance here.

And there you have it.  Stay healthy, folks!

Et Tu, Democrats? "Project 2029" And A Social Media Age Ban

Once thought to be largely the province of Republicans (despite being bipartisan, bicoastal, and bipolar), it seems that now the Democrats (or rather, some of them) behind "Project 2029" (not to be confused with other initiatives also called "Project 2029") have gotten on board with ban on social media for anyone under 16, much like Australia and a growing number of other countries currently have.  (Spoiler alert:  it's NOT going well in the "Ghost of Christmas Future" aka Australia.  And yet they're doubling down.)

And don't think it would stop at 16 either!  This is an express train, baby!  That means 18 at the VERY least, then maybe 19 to "get it out of the high schools" (right!), and then eventually 21, using the drinking and smoking ages as specious justification (by 2030 at the very latest).  Or perhaps 25, based on junk neuroscience, or maybe even a permanent "generational ban" like the UK just enacted for tobacco products now.  All aboard the Overton Window Express!

They are currently strangely silent about age verification, but they shouldn't be. After all, it would be utterly toothless without it, and a privacy and cybersecurity nightmare for all ages with it.

To be fair, their "Kids Over Clicks" proposal is a "mixed bag" which includes a number of other things in addition to that, such as privacy by default and safety by design for all ages (which we certainly support!), a ban on surveillance advertising for all ages (now we're talking!), limits on data collection for children (good, now let's do it for ALL ages!), rules of the road for AI chatbots (probably good, but the devil is in the details), limited carveouts to update the Section 230 liability shield to make Big Tech pay for the damage they cause (again, devil is in the details, but could still be good if the carveouts are surgical), bell-to-bell cellphone bans in schools with limited exceptions (mixed feelings, and we don't endorse them unless they apply them to faculty and staff too, which you know they won't), and promoting the idea of a "smartphone-free childhood" until age 14 (meh, they likely drank the Jon Haidt Kool-Aid, but at least it's 14 and not higher, right?).

Ironically, if they did somehow get their entire wishlist granted, or at least the items that we support or largely support, then the 16 age limit would basically be redundant and unnecessary.  There is really NO legitimate purpose to that age ban that could not be sufficiently served by other, less blunt, crude, and restrictive means.  The problem of Big Tech is overall the sort of wicked problem that calls for a scalpel, NOT a sledgehammer, and yet they seem to simultaneously endorse both, because reasons.

Like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) advocates, we should adopt a "Privacy First" approach.  Any sentence about tech policy that doesn't start with "comprehensive federal data privacy legislation for all ages," is an incomplete and incoherent sentence. That, plus adding just a little bit more "friction" back into the system, will throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom for good.  So what are we waiting for?

P.S.  If they are really so serious about these social media platforms being so apocalyptically harmful for kids and teens, which would imply that they would still be quite harmful for adults too as they currently stand, then they should do a "safety recall" and summarily "quarantine" such platforms until they can be made safer.  What's that?  Don't like having YOUR rights taken away?  Then don't try to take away anyone else's.  Capisce?

What To Do About Online Gambling And Prediction Markets (Same Difference)?

With the rise of online gambling in recent years, first with the 2018 federal legalization of sports betting and more recently with "prediction markets" that get around state laws that still prohibit online gambling, two concerning developments have been noted especially this year.  The first is an apparent 60% rise in problem gambling (gambling addiction) diagnoses among Americans, with the largest increase in younger men, in the 39 states that legalized sports betting (while states that did not legalize saw a modest 30% decrease during that time).  The second is a call to, predictably (pun intended), raise the betting age limit from 18 to 21, particularly for prediction markets.  And the loudest voices for this effort come from....wait for it...major sports organizations.  

Leaving aside the idea that, according to rumors, most major sports are rigged and that rigging has only increased in tandem with the explosive and exponential growth of online sports betting in recent years, this is a classic, textbook, cynical selling out and deflection from the real problem at hand.  Much like how Big Alcohol ultimately supported the 21 drinking age, and even Big Tobacco (and Big Vape), after ostensibly fighting it for decades, ultimately came to support Tobacco 21 laws.  Natch.

We clearly need much better safeguards on all forms of online gambling, as well as offline gambling, no doubt about that.  But raising the age limit is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, and will not get anywhere near the root of the problem.  Such frictionless gambling is dangerous for all ages.  Here's a novel idea:  if we are really serious about it, perhaps we should do a "safety recall" on all of these platforms and summarily "quarantine" them for ALL ages until they can be made safer.  

After all, Warren Buffett famously called sports betting a "tax on stupidity", as it basically makes suckers out of We the People.  Some may call the lottery the "idiot tax" too, but this is far, far worse.  Despite the abysmal odds, there is only so much one can realistically lose at once in the lottery, and at least that money goes to education (i.e. antithesis of ignorance) in most states.

From sports to economy to politics and world events, these new prediction markets are certainly warping everything they touch, it seems, with all the ludicrous amounts of money riding on it.

And let us never lose sight of the fact that the world's oldest and largest casino is....WALL STREET.  Good luck regulating that!

In any case, the house always wins.  Always remember that.

Alternate History Of The Legal Drinking Age (Updated)

PART ONE

Recently I had been thinking a lot about alternate histories and alternate universes in regards to the 21 drinking age.  That is what would have happened if X, Y, or Z had changed but leaving everything else constant?  Here is what I came up with (updated) for the alternate timeline:

TL;DR:  NEVER ASK 57% of Michiganders what they voted for in November 1978!

Michigan, as we know, was the first state (and therefore the most influential one) to raise the drinking age back to 21, in 1978.  They did it by a constitutional amendment ballot initiative on November 7, 1978, effective December 22, 1978, just in time for the holidays of course.  Earlier that same year, the state legislature had grudgingly passed, and Governor Milliken grudgingly signed, a bill to raise the drinking age to 19 for a three year trial period to study its effects, and then sunset it back to 18.  That would have taken at least some of the wind out of the sails of the still-nascent movement to raise the drinking age further, that is, had the ballot initiative not passed.  But that initiative got only 57% of the vote, which was hardly a landslide.  And while that particular initiative (like initiatives and referenda in most states) only required a simple majority to pass (a pitifully low bar to literally change the constitution at all, let alone to do so in a way that abridges civil rights), there are nonetheless three states that require a higher supermajority threshold (such as 60% in Florida) to alter a state constitution by popular vote.

Most states (all but three) currently require only a simple majority vote for a state constitutional amendment by initiative or referendum. The three states that require a supermajority for constitutional amendments: Colorado (55%), Florida (60%), and New Hampshire (67%).

So one way to have stopped that very first domino from falling would have been to somehow raise the threshold for altering Michigan's constitution by ballot initiative to 60% sometime prior to 1978.  Alternatively, had Michigan stuck with their original 1933 law to set the drinking age at 18 for beer and 21 for wine and hard liquor, and not raised it to 21 across the board in 1937 like they did, they would have been more like their neighbor Wisconsin, who eventually lowered it to 18 across the board in 1972 when they lowered the age of majority.  Just like Michigan would have done either way in 1972.  Thus, because of their history, there would have been far less appetite among Michiganders to raise it to 21 in 1978 had that been the case, and would probably have fallen short of even a 50%-plus-one threshold in that case.  Either way, the 1978 attempt to raise the drinking age to 21 would have flopped, even if only narrowly.

OK, so what would have happened next, had that fateful ballot initiative failed in November 1978?  Well, here are what things I think would have been most likely to occur, per the domino theory:

Michigan's drinking age hike to 19 would have gone into effect as planned on December 3, 1978, and then three years later in December 1981, it would have reverted back to 18 in time for the holidays.  The same celebrated decline in traffic fatalities would have most likely occurred either way due to factors other than the drinking age (including the famous bottle deposit raising the prices of beer).  In both timelines, the bottle deposit literally went into effect on the same day as the 19 drinking age!

(Also, unlike in the current timeline where the beer tax still has not been raised since 1966 (60 years ago!), the alternate timeline does include a few fairly modest beer (and also wine and liquor) tax hikes over the decades, including sometime during the crucial years of the late 1970s and very early 1980s.  For best results, let's make it 1978 for the first tax hike, especially for hard liquor.)

Disheartened by their failure in Michigan, the nascent movement to raise the drinking age to 21 would have lost momentum very quickly.  Thus, at least the other three of the first four states to raise it back to 21 would have most likely relented and not done so, and ditto for those after that. And no further states would have raised it to 20 either.

Massachusetts would have chosen the "Michigan Model" and raised it to 19 in 1979, with a sunset clause after a few years, instead of 20.  And since they wouldn't raise it to 20, New Hampshire doesn't do so either.  They either keep it 18 or raise it to 19.  And while Rhode Island raises it to 19 in 1980, they do not raise it further in the alternate history.

New Jersey possibly still raises it to 19 in 1979 (effective January 1, 1980), but in this version of events, they add a three-year sunset clause if they do, inspired by Michigan.  (More on NJ later, we will get back to this soon as this is highly significant later on).

But much more likely NJ sticks with a flavor of a compromise idea that almost passed but failed in our timeline:  keeping it 18, but delaying purchases until July 1 of the year that one turns 18 if one's birthday is earlier than that (either for all purchases, or better yet, for only off-premise purchases), to help keep it out of the high schools. Passed sometime in July or August of 1979, the impact is not immediate, but is somewhat noticeable in 1980.  Let's stick with that one for now.  Many other states ultimately follow suit, instead of going with 19 or 20.  

(This came to be called the "July 1st Rule.")

Illinois would have instead kept it at 19 for beer/wine and 21 for liquor, instead of raising it to 21 effective in 1980.

Pennsylvania's otherwise ill-fated attempt at lowering it from 21 to 19 in 1978 does NOT die in the legislature in November, but continues to be debated on and is finally voted on sometime in 1979, when inspired by Michigan and New Jersey, narrowly votes yes and lowers it to 19, at least for beer if not all alcohol (but, facilitated by their already wonky liquor laws, keeps it 21 for larger quantities like kegs and cases for the time being, with the 192 ounce rule applied to those under 21).  This was the last chance while the zeitgeist still remained relatively permissive, before it switched to restrictive.

Meanwhile, out west, at least some of the states that had kept it 21 since the end of Prohibition, especially California and Nevada, decided to lower it to 19 by the end of 1979, following PA's lead, and also "study" its effects for a few years.  There already seems to be a convergence towards 19, and many still maintaining at 18 (with or without the July 1st Rule).  And we aren't even out of the 1970s yet.

"Give 19 a chance!" becomes the new slogan.  And of course, Ontario, Canada also raises it to 19 as well in 1979, in both versions of events.  They of course had a more pressing reason to raise it:  the fact that their high schools still had 13th grade at the time (until 2003, when it was abolished).

The Overton Window has clearly shifted.  And the by now famous Dr. Richard Zylman, Professor at the Center for Alcohol Studies at Rutgers, is vindicated in his successful debunking of the pro-21 crowd's specious studies and talking points.  People are now finally listening to him for once!

Next, several other states that would have raised to 19 in 1979-1981, such as Florida, either keep it 18 (with or without the July 1st Rule) or raise it to 19 with a sunset clause.  Texas definitely keeps it 18, as no one tells Texas what to do!  Florida is nonetheless cool with 19 though, since Spring Break tourists are nearly all over 19 anyway.

Virginia, in both versions of events, passes a compromise bill to raise it to 19 for off-premise purchases but keep it 18 for on-premise purchases in July 1981.  And unlike in the current timeline, they never raise it any further.  Their neighbor Maryland, who otherwise would have raised it to 21 in 1982, decides to "give 19 a chance" and adopt the "Virginia Model" instead.  After all, since the Michigan and Illinois failed to raise it to 21 in this alternate history, Maryland never works up the appetite to do so themselves.  That's now three dominoes averted so far.

By 1982, other states start to think that Virginia has nailed the best compromise thus far (or alternatively, they adopt the July 1st Rule). And Minnesota, the very first state to raise their drinking age to 19 (in 1976) is the very next to adopt the "Virginia Model".

Connecticut, who previously almost passed something like Virginia did but it got vetoed due to constitutional concerns, decides to try again following Virginia, with a new governor this time. It passes, and ultimately prevents the current timeline's age hike to a flat 19 (and then 20 and then 21) by taking the wind out of the sails.

The 1982 Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving convenes, but in the alternate timeline, Dr. Richard Zylman is one of the members.  When recommendation #8 out of 39 comes up, i.e. setting a national uniform drinking age of 21, Zylman quickly and openly pours cold water on that idea, and Dr. Morris Chafetz gets the courage to speak up and also refute that.  The idea gets scrapped, and Candy Lightner eats crow and gives up on that idea.  That recommendation gets replaced with a national uniform drinking age of 18 instead.

In 1982, New York narrowly decides against raising their drinking age to 19 in the alternate history.  The appetite to raise it simply was not there in the alternate version of events.  Especially since their drinking age has been 18 since 1934, and thus the status quo bias was quite strong.  (They might do a "July 1st Rule" though, but even that is iffy there.)

Meanwhile, New Jersey decides to let the 19 drinking age lapse and revert back to 18 on January 1, 1983.  (Alternatively, if they went with the aforementioned "July 1st Rule" in 1979 instead of 19, nothing changes.)  In the version of events that actually happened, of course, NJ raises it to 21 effective on that same date.  This was probably the most important domino of them all to avert, as most of the loudest voices for the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, such as Senator Frank Lautenberg who wrote it, were from.....wait for it....New Jersey.  Thus, even more wind taken out of the sails of the pro-21 movement and the windbags in charge of it.  And the gambling age in Atlantic City remains at 18 (the only reason they raised it to 21 in the current version of events a few months later in 1983 was because it would have been extremely difficult to enforce the new drinking age of 21).  And not coincidentally, the number and extent of "blood borders" began to greatly shrink, as opposed to grow like it does in the current version of events.

Later in 1983, Oklahoma and Alaska thus decide to NOT raise it to 21 and keep it at 18 and 19, respectively.  And when Alaska hikes their beer tax dramatically that same year, which happens in both versions of events, traffic fatalities plummet either way.  That influences other states (and the feds too) to raise their alcohol taxes in 1984-1985 and beyond, to a greater extent in the alternate version of events (since the non-existent drinking age hike obviously couldn't speciously take credit for the drop in crash deaths in Alaska).

OK, so what about MADD?  Well, they start out the same way in 1980, and briefly advocate for raising the drinking age to 21 starting in 1982-1983.  But since the appetite for it just isn't there anymore by then, they grudgingly and quietly put that issue the back burner where it has been simmering ever since, and basically become more akin to MADD Canada in that regard.  Founder Candy Lightner still has a falling out with MADD in the mid-1980s, and is thus forced to resign in either version of events, for reasons unrelated to the drinking age.

(And in any case, they were unable to convince President Reagan on the supposed merits of the 21 drinking age.  The idea is now dead in the water, much like it was, and still is, in Canada.)

Having NOT been swayed, the other major anti-drunk driving group, Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID), in the alternate history does NOT end up supporting the 21 drinking age, preferring to focus solely on drunk driving, for all ages, period.  The Overton Window simply will not allow it anymore.

In New York, no attempt to raise the drinking age higher than 18 (where it remains to this day) ever succeeds in the alternate version of events.  NONE.  Not in 1982, not in 1985, NOT EVER.  Capisce?  But ever since their founding in 1981, their legendary STOP-DWI program of drunk driving enforcement (later expanded to include ALL forms of reckless and dangerous driving as well) continues to successfully target the actual problem, and thus becomes a model for the nation.

New Jersey decides to follow New York's lead in 1983, and also makes their road test much more difficult as well.  The whole "Jersey Driver" thing ultimately becomes a thing of the past, at least for the most part.  And when future generations hear such jokes about them being such horrible drivers, the most common response is, "I don't get it".

With the "quick fix" of raising the drinking age to 21 now largely off the table, more and more states pass tougher DUI laws, faster and tougher in the alternate version of events, and crack down harder on drunk driving for all ages.  Alcohol-related traffic casualties plummet as a result, even faster than they did in the current version of events.

Vermont and Louisiana famously keep holding the line at "18 and not a day higher!" in both versions of events, and several more states and DC join them.  In the alternate timeline, they only need to stick it out a few more years tops before they are home free for good.

In 1984-1985, the feds decide to not only NOT coerce states to raise their drinking ages to 21, but after reading the studies by Colon and Cutter (1983) and Colon (1984), actually does the opposite and uses positive reinforcement to nudge states with higher age limits to reduce them to 18 or 19 to reduce or eliminate any remaining "blood borders".  That is, give states an extra 10% of federal highway funding per year for ten years for reducing (or maintaining) their drinking ages to 18, or 5% per year for five years for reducing (or maintaining) it to 19.  And if the 12 states that didn't lower it from 21 in the 1970s didn't end up lowering it by then, they sure would after that!  Yes, even Utah grudgingly lowers it to 19 for 3.2 beer at least.  And much like the lowering of the tobacco purchase/sale age in the 1950s through the 1970s, an increasingly frequent rationale given (at least publicly) was to "ensure stricter enforcement".

(The feds also decide to make drunk driving across state lines a federal crime as well.  Initially, the BAC limit is set at 0.10%, but is quickly lowered to 0.08% to match Canada.  States that lower their limits to 0.08% are soon rewarded with extra highway funding.  And thus, that becomes the standard in every state much, much sooner in the alternate version of events than in the current version.)

The legendary Peter Asch and David Levy's groundbreaking 1987 study also further confirms what the anti-21 folks have known all along:  the 21 drinking age is useless at best, and more like worse than useless.  The anti-21 side is fully vindicated now, and the pro-21 side is thoroughly discredited.  And their subsequent 1990 study does so a fortiori.

And by the end of the decade, all states are either 18 or 19 depending on the state, much like Canada.  And it remains that way from then onwards.  And eventually, 18 becomes more common than 19.  The remnants of the pro-21 crowd keep trying to raise it for a while into the 1990s, but they eventually give up and swallow their pride, along with their beer when they are finally done crying in it!

And like Canada and Australia, drunk driving laws and enforcement continues to get tougher over time, and casualties continue to fall.  As for Zero Tolerance laws for DUI, starting in the 1990s, many of the same laws are passed in both versions of events.  Some are based on age, like Puerto Rico, some Canadian provinces, and some countries, while others are based on how long one has had their driver's license, like other Canadian provinces and Australian states.  And some are based on both.  The most common such laws in the alternate version of events are 0.00 to 0.02 BAC for the first three years of licensed driving or until 21, whichever is longer.  But the stated purpose is now different:  it's not because "you're too young!" and "it's illegal!", but rather because people should gain more experience with both driving as well as drinking before being allowed to mix the two, even in small amounts.  The goal is to separate drinking from driving entirely.

Drunk driving casualties for young and old alike continue to plummet even further, now reaching an all-time record low by the mid-1990s.  And they continue to fall after that as well, rather than stubbornly stall and stagnate like in the current timeline.

And while only Utah ultimately lowers their criminal BAC limit down to 0.05% from 0.08%, that doesn't stop many states from experimenting with Canadian-style brief administrative license suspensions and brief vehicle impoundments for drivers above 0.05%, albeit as a traffic violation. 

And while truly "random breath testing" (RBT) still remains unconstitutional to this day in the USA in both versions of events, that really just means that enforcement needs to be a bit more creative with sobriety checkpoints and roving/saturation patrols to approximate its effect.  The tools already exist (at least in the states that choose to allow them).  The real key is for such enforcement to be sustained, and create the perception of swift and certain punishment.  And in the alternate version of events, that is precisely what happens.

They even make a popular reality TV show out of it!  Called "Operation Rovin' Eyes", and complete with ride-alongs, it was an instant success.  It's birthplace was (where else?) New York, the ultimate pioneering state against drunk driving, and it has expanded to many other states from there. Legend has it, it was inspired by the Australian reality show "RBT", but it most likely pre-dated that show.

"Rovin' Eyes....are watching YOU!!!"

Alcohol taxes are raised more frequently and to a greater extent in the alternate version of events, albeit still not quite as high as Canada or Australia. 

Enforcement of the 18 (or 19, or mixed, depending on the state) drinking age over time has evolved to be quite strict, but primarily targeting the sellers of alcohol.  In fact, part of the reason why the former 21 age states lowered it was to "ensure stricter enforcement".  And underage drinking itself is almost everywhere decriminalized to a parking-style or traffic-style ticket offense, with no jail and no criminal record.

Hawaii's meth epidemic in the 1990s, while it still happens unfortunately, is at least somewhat blunted by keeping the drinking age at 18. 

In the alternate version of events, research, science, public policy, politics, and culture all remain far less warped than they would have become in the current version of events.  And states truly remain "laboratories of democracy," while being careful to avoid "tyranny of the majority" or mob rule as well (like what almost happened in Michigan in 1978!)

Fast forward to the 2020s:

"Tobacco 21?  What's that?  Never heard of it." (In other words, smoking and vaping ages remain 18, or in a vanishingly tiny few states and localities, 19.  Needham, MA doesn't even bother.)

It literally never even occurs to Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York to raise the smoking age to 21, especially since his father gave up after failing to the get the drinking age raised any higher than 18.  Similarly, Mayors Mike Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio of NYC never bothered to do so either.

Cannabis is legalized in much the same way as in the current version of events, but with one crucial detail different:  all states that legalize it choose 18 or 19 as their toking ages instead of 21, typically choosing to match their drinking and/or tobacco smoking ages.  And also, a greater number of states legalize it in the alternate version, including Hawaii after finally calling off their abominable Operation Green Harvest eradication and  interdiction program, and ultimately the federal government does the same.  Even Florida finally ends up doing so, when the ballot referendum gets over the necessary 60% of the vote to pass.

As for other countries, some differences can be seen there as well due to America's influence.  Take Canada, for example.  Ontario, shortly after abolishing 13th grade in 2003, decides to lower their drinking age from 19 back to 18, and when they legalize weed in 2018, they choose 18 for that as well.  Prince Edward Island never raises their drinking age from 18 to 19, and never adopts a Tobacco 21 law.  Saskatchewan eventually lowers their drinking age and cannabis age to 18 to match their neighbors.  Quebec keeps their age limit for cannabis at its original 18, and never raises it to 21.  Otherwise, Canada remains the same in both versions of events.

Japan lowers their drinking age and smoking age to 18 when they lower their age of majority to 18 in 2022.  And they at least end up considering legalizing weed at some point as well.

And Lithuania keeps their drinking age at 18, refusing to raise it to 20 in 2018.  Ditto for Sri Lanka, who keeps it at 18 instead of raising it to 21 in 2006.

Can you say, "Butterfly Effect?"

Oh, and by the way:  alcohol-related death rates, both on and off the highways, are really not very different between the two versions of events, at least in the long run.  In fact, they are most likely lower in the alternate version of events.  Ditto for alcohol-related problems in general as well.

NOTE:  Another pathway to this alternate timeline could have been if Minnesota had decided NOT to raise the drinking age from 18 to 19 in 1976.  They were the very first state to raise it from 18, so they likely influenced other states after that.  Alternatively, as their stated goal was simply to keep alcohol out of the high schools, they could have chosen to do something similar to what Virginia did five years later, namely, raise only the off-premise purchase age to 19 and keep it 18 otherwise.  Or they could have chosen the aforementioned "July 1st Rule", which would be even more surgical.  Additionally, another pathway could have been if at least some of the 12 states that kept it 21 throughout had decided to lower it to 18 or 19 in the early 1970s along with the age of majority, especially the highly influential states of California and Pennsylvania.

PART TWO

Previously, we explored what an alternate timeline would have looked like if the drinking age was NOT raised to 21 in the 1980s.  The most critical point in preventing that from happening in that timeline was Michigan (the first domino) NOT raising it to 21 in 1978.  And the result?  The Overton window did NOT shift in favor of 21, and with most states choosing to keep it at 18 or 19 depending on the state, the feds did NOT force or coerced and states to raise their drinking ages.  If anything, the feds used positive reinforcement to get the Dirty Dozen states that were 21 since the 1930s and 1940s to lower their drinking ages, and by the end of the 1980s, all states except Utah were either 18 or 19 depending on the state.  Some states had a split 18/19 age limit for different beverage types (i.e. beer vs wine vs liquor), while some others had a split 18/19 age limit for on-premise vs. off-premise purchases, or more often, limits on quantities and/or hours of sale for off-premise purchases if under 19, but otherwise set at 18.  The most common was states who set it at 18 across the board, but allowed "local option" to set it 19 for off-premise purchases and/or quantity limits, though some of the 18 states chose to preempt even that on principle.  (The higher age limit in states with graduated age limits was often called the "No Trickle-Down Law" or the "No Gray Market Law".)

Alternatively, many states and localities chose a "July 1st Rule", where the drinking age is 18 across the board, except that off-premise purchases are delayed until July 1st of the year one turns 18 if one's birthday is earlier than that.  And in many states and especially localities, that still exists.

A few states chose to keep it (or raise it to) 20 or 21 for very large quantities (kegs or multiple cases or multiple handles bought in the same transaction or same day), but those states were in the minority.  Many states did so temporarily in the 1980s, but most of them simply let it lapse eventually.  But Pennsylvania would almost certainly continue.  And it was not unusual for local laws to keep it.

Even Utah, the strictest state of all for obvious reasons, held their collective noses and grudgingly lowered their drinking age to 19 for weak beer and 21 for everything else by 1990, and then briefly 19/20, then finally a flat 19 across the board (except kegs) sometime during the 1990s.  Though they still retained their other bizarre and Byzantine liquor laws all the same in both timelines, of course.

So what would the 2020s look like in greater detail in this alternate timeline of events?

• Tobacco and nicotine age limits would remain at 18 in all but a very few states which are 19.  But many states choose to put a reasonable cap on the quantities that 18-20 year olds can purchase (per transaction, and only one transaction per day), to discourage them from giving or selling to their friends under 18.
• Cannabis is legalized in mostly the same states in both timelines (though a somewhat greater number of states do so in the alternate timeline), but all who do so choose 18 or 19 as their age limits, nearly always matching their drinking and smoking ages.  And like tobacco, most states choose to limit the quantities that 18-20 year olds can purchase per transaction and per day, and for the same reasons.
• And the federal government FINALLY gets around to legalizing it as well by 2024 if not sooner, with a federal age limit of 18 for cannabis sales (but no limit for use or possession) to match the tobacco sales age limit that still remains in effect.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, Firearms, and Explosives and the FDA both have joint (pun intended) authority to enforce it on vendors.
• Alcohol taxes (and prices) in the USA are somewhat higher as a rule in the alternate timeline, though still not nearly as high as in Canada.  Thus, in nearly all states, the typical six-pack of beer costs about a dollar or two more in 2025 dollars.  Likewise, the typical gallon of wine and the average liter of hard liquor also costs an extra dollar or two more in the alternate timeline.  Some states also experiment with "minimum unit pricing" (MUP) as well, but most states still only prohibit selling "below cost."
• In 2019, instead of raising the tobacco sales age to 21, which there is virtually zero appetite for, the feds instead decided to implement the Mark Kleiman's idea to raise the federal cigarette and other combustible tobacco taxes to $5/pack or the equivalent amount of tobacco, BUT allowing states and localities to fully rebate it against their own tobacco-specific taxes.  Result?  Low-tax states states raise and largely equalize their taxes with high-tax ones, smoking rates plummet for all ages (especially among youth), and the interstate smuggling black market dries up.  Win-win-win for everyone except Big Tobacco and their sycophantic lackeys.
• Vaping products have their nicotine levels capped by the FDA at the same levels as the EU, UK, and Israel, most flavors are banned, and ingredients are better regulated as of 2019.  The "vaping epidemic" slows to a crawl.
• The drinking age of 18 (or 19, or split) is very strictly enforced on vendors and servers.  For young drinkers themselves, underage drinking is illegal but decriminalized in nearly every state by now.  It is typically treated like a minor traffic violation or parking ticket.
• While a few bars and clubs here and there set their own age limits of 21 or higher to enter, such examples remain few and far between, and are looked upon with disdain by most Americans. And for places like Dave and Busters, or really any other businesses for that matter, it would literally never even occur to the managers to set any age limits higher than 18, if even that high at all.  Such baseless age segregation remains well outside the Overton window in the alternate timeline.
• Without that specious quick fix in their toolkit, they instead implement a zero tolerance policy for fighting, vandalism, theft, and disorderly conduct of any kind, strictly enforced.  And they are NOT KIDDING!
• It remains rare for any hotels or motels to refuse anyone over 18 due to age.  Ditto for most cruise ships as well.
• Drunk driving is taken very, very seriously for people of all ages, and increasingly tough laws are increasingly strictly enforced.  The same goes for drug-impaired driving as well.
• Most states by now set the BAC limit at 0.05%, but anything below 0.08% is usually a traffic violation instead of a criminal offense.  (New York only has to add two words, per se, to their existing but currently underappreciated 0.05% law, by the way.).  And Zero Tolerance laws exist as well, albeit usually based on how long one has had their driver's license rather than age alone.  And for ALL drivers, the limit is now 0.00% if one is driving recklessly.
• Social host liability laws, while existing in some places in limited form, never really seem to catch on in most of the USA.  Most people think such laws are insane and un-American in the alternate timeline.
• The combination of the lack of a 21 drinking age and lack of social host laws results in somewhat more in-person socialization between young people, and between generations, in the alternate timeline compared to the current timeline.
• Block parties make a comeback, or more accurately, never really went away.
• Helicopter parenting, while it still exists, tends to be at least somewhat less extreme.
• Community pubs will become more common.
• America is still very much a car culture either way, but "safe rider" programs are far more common in the alternate timeline.  And slowly but surely, at least some improvements are finally being made in public transportation.
• America's drinking culture still leaves a lot to be desired, much like in the rest of the Anglosphere, but over time it becomes at least somewhat healthier and less extreme overall.
• Certainly the college drinking culture is much safer and healthier in the alternate timeline, even though it is often just as wild.  The wildness peaks during and shortly after "frosh week" at the beginning of freshman year, getting it largely out of their systems early on, after which students tend to buckle down and study a bit more and keep the partying in it's proper place in their list of priorities, certainly by the time midterms roll around. Especially since all of the major universities have finally decided to tackle the grade inflation that had been building for decades.
• Many colleges and universities even have bars and pubs on campus, sometimes even in the dorms.
• Fraternities and sororities, while they still exist, largely wither on the vine as they have become increasingly obsolete, except for the more academic and service-oriented ones.
• High school, contrary to what some may fear, is NOT radically different between the two timelines, and in many ways improved.  Drinking and "binge" drinking rates are both at most a couple of percentage points higher (if at all) in the alternate timeline for grade 12, mostly due to greater honesty in surveys (which are always taken with at least a grain of salt in the alternate timeline).  They may drink slightly more frequently, but the less they do when they do on average.  For earlier grades, the difference is practically negligible.  And differences in cannabis use rates are also practically negligible in all grades, while tobacco and nicotine use rates are actually lower in the alternate timeline.
• And no, there is NO practical difference in "liquid lunches" among high school students between the two timelines.  By now, the drinking age (regardless of what it is) is VERY strictly enforced in that regard, and K-12 school grounds are strictly "dry" for all ages.  (This is still the USA, not Denmark, after all!)
• Unfortunately, the COVID pandemic still happens, and so do the lockdowns and related restrictions.  But such restrictions generally tend to be somewhat briefer and somewhat less extreme in the alternate timeline, as America has still not been quite as afflicted by "safetyism" as in the current timeline.  Not much change either way in the case and death rates regardless, though.  Turns out, as the saying goes, virus gonna virus, and humans gonna human.  
• And in the alternate timeline, since the 1980s we as a society have clearly fallen out of love with the "illusion of control", to the extent that we ever even really loved it at all.  That has got to be the single most defining feature that differs between the two timelines.
• Traffic death rates, both alcohol-related and otherwise, are actually rather lower in the alternate timeline compared to the current one, both among youth and adults alike.  And the relative decrease in feelings of alienation and loneliness among younger people leads to at least somewhat fewer suicides and mass shootings as well.
• IF Donald Trump still gets elected President in 2016*, and that is a VERY big "if", in 2024 he certainly ends up narrowly losing to Kamala Harris instead of narrowly winning, both by popular vote as well as the Electoral College.  That is because America's loneliness epidemic and feelings of alienation among younger Americans, especially young men, while still persistent, is at least marginally less pronounced in the alternate timeline, and the fence-sitters were less likely to be swayed towards Trump.  (And Trump's second failed coup attempt in January 2025 fails even more than it did on January 6th, 2021, as he is largely greeted by crickets this time around, and he ultimately ends up in prison where he belongs.)  It turns out the age-segregation effects of the 21 drinking age (and its ancillary laws and policies) in the current timeline were much more far-reaching than anyone could have predicted.  
• And the rest is history.  And the beat goes on.....

And America shall once again become the "shining city on a hill" that we were meant to be all along.  An America to be truly proud of.  If only we were in that alternate timeline.

*P.S.  Ideally the DNC would NOT have totally screwed over Bernie Sanders, and he could have beaten Trump in 2016.  That, and the Democratic Party establishment would not have eaten its young either.  After all, Trump was literally supposed to lose, by design.  But that, of course, would have probably been yet another alternate timeline, albeit one that is largely the same as the one discussed above, but perhaps with a few more subtle differences added on.  Also, perhaps the voting age would have been lowered to 16 as a result of a greater focus on youth rights in general, and would have the same effect on preventing Trump's reelection as it successfully prevented Bolsonaro's reelection in Brazil.

P.P.S.  Of course, had Jimmy Carter been re-elected in 1980 instead of Reagan, America would now REALLY be more like Canada in so many ways, only better, having dodged the very worst of neoliberalism and all of that nonsense.  And Carter could have pulled it off had he not screwed up in the presidential debate less than two weeks before the election, as he was well ahead in the polls just before the debate.  But it was far more parsimonious to simply leave the 1980 election unchanged in the above alternate timeline, with Reagan as the winner, so as to isolate the drinking age as the variable of interest, unconfounded by that very pivotal and fateful election.  Regardless, had Michigan failed to raise the drinking age to 21 in 1978, either way, it would have been extremely unlikely that either Reagan or Carter would have ever been swayed (let alone gung-ho) in that direction.