Defusing The Powder Keg (Part Deux)

Or, "Code Finally Cracked:  The July 1st Rule"

In a previous post, we discussed what the best ways to lower the drinking age would be, defusing the fears and objections of the pro-21 side.  Here, we add another simple, elegant, and surgical idea that a flavor of which apparently almost passed in New Jersey in July 1979 but unfortunately failed, and then later that year they raised it to 19 effective 1980 and ultimately 21 effective 1983, influencing other states, and as they say, the rest is history.

The idea was to not even raise it to 19, but rather to keep it at 18 but make it delayed until July 1st following one's 18th birthday if one's birthday is earlier than that.  Thus, it would be 18 or July 1st of the year one turns 18, whichever is later.  Twenty-One Debunked believes that this should apply only to off-premise purchases, NOT to on-premise service or drinking in general.

The intent of this "July 1st Rule" is quite clearly to keep alcohol out of the high schools (as much as one can in practice), and thus take the wind out of the sails of those who seek to set/keep the drinking age any higher than 18.  It would likely be about as effective in doing so as setting the drinking age at 19, 20, or even 21, without throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.  It would still be 18 overall, just with a bit of nuance added, a brief embargo. And for those few who graduated high school much earlier than their peers?  They could simply show a college ID, military ID, or some other proof of no longer being in high school.

(The significance of July 1st is that is after most if not all schools in the USA are out for summer, prom and graduation season is over, and most seniors would have already graduated.  And it is also just in time for Independence Day, July 4th.)

On-premise service would basically be a non-problem in that regard (except during school hours, perhaps, which could be restricted specifically during that time).  And needlessly delaying on-premise service for millions of people until July 1st and then suddenly unleashing it all at once would likely create chaos at the bars (and on the roads) right around the July 4th holiday, already the deadliest days on the roads.  The real issue here is the off-premise purchases, which 18 year old high school seniors bring back with them to school, having "liquid lunches" and especially to share with (or buy for) their younger friends.

As for high school "keggers" or "ragers", i.e. large, unsupervised parties with an over-abundance of alcohol, those could be kept more or less at current low levels (that is, with no significant increase) simply by keeping the purchase age at 21 (or perhaps 20 or 19) for large quantities (kegs, cases, liquor handles, etc.) specifically.  That is, have quantity limits per transaction for 18-20 year olds, and no more than one transaction per person per store per day.  By adding such "friction", this will further reduce the frequency and flagrancy of both keggers/ragers as well as simply buying for their younger friends.  The latter would already have pretty stiff penalties for doing so, of course.

For bars, pubs, and restaurants (and bowling alleys, etc), one could simply make it so that if there is a group of people sitting together, no alcohol can be served to anyone if there is anyone in the party under 18, unless there is at least one person over 21 for every four people under 18 in that same party.  And pitchers of beer, which are known to encourage excessive drinking, can also be limited to parties with at least one person over 21 as well.

Similar ideas (quantity limits and/or "July 1st Rule") could be adapted for the tobacco and cannabis age limits, which we also believe should be lowered to 18 as well.  The latter could also perhaps be graduated based on THC potency as well, which would also double as a clever way to "bring back mids".

Simple. Elegant. Surgical. So what are we waiting for?

Australia, The Ghost Of Christmas Future

Twenty-One Debunked has always (within reason) supported taxation over prohibition, whether age based or otherwise.  Morally, ethically, practically, and constitutionally, it is the better idea on balance.  That goes for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and just about everything else, with the exception of things (like certain "dangerous and unusual" weapons, or extremely dangerous and irredeemable drugs like fentanyl, for example) that meet the threshold of "extraordinary justification" to ban them.

All that said, taxes really do have their limits though.  One cautionary tale about taxes is Australia, a sort of "Ghost of Christmas Future", as British libertarian Christopher Snowdon calls it.  Their cigarette and other tobacco taxes are ridiculously sky-high, highest in the whole wide world in fact, and even worse, nicotine vapes, pouches, and snus are banned there as well.  And the result?  A massive, and increasingly violent, black market that would make even NYC's look like Disneyland in comparison.  Organized crime syndicates, including some extremely vicious ones, are literally laughing all the way to the bank.

Turf wars, firebombings, and gangland shootings have all increased.  And now these syndicates are reportedly even branching out into yet another product with some of of the highest taxes in the world:  alcohol, particularly hard liquor.

And, irony of ironies, smoking still hasn't come down anywhere near like the government had hoped it would as a result.  If anything, it seems to have increased in very recent years with the practically exponential growth of the black market.  Turns out, if you tax it too much (or ban it, in the case of vapes, pouches, and snus), black markets are more than happy to supply the demand, vitiating and undermining the policy's own ostensible purpose (to say nothing of the revenue losses).  The Australian government has essentially completely lost all control over tobacco now.  

Can you say, "own goal"?  Dunning, meet Kruger.  Natch.

And now the government, especially in the state of Victoria, has announced that they are cracking down on those selling illicit tobacco and nicotine products.  Anything except, of course, the obvious solution: reducing such taxes back to 2016 levels, let alone (gasp!) legalizing and reasonably regulating reduced-harm nicotine and tobacco products like vapes, pouches, and snus.  Granted, the black market is so entrenched now that crackdowns would be needed regardless.  But that is all the more reason to do both/and, not either/or.  Seriously, forest for the trees, people!

And now over to you, Britain, with your new "generational ban" on tobacco products, on top of your already high taxes and thriving black market.  Ignore Australia at your own peril.

P.S. Black markets of any sort practically never ask for ID.  Thus, it is daft to think that policies that dramatically increase the black market would actually reduce youth smoking significantly.

The Kenkel Tax Revisited

In 1993, economist Donald S. Kenkel thought of a rather ingenious idea: lower the drinking age to 18, and also raise the alcohol tax by 12% to 86% (midpoint 49%) of the current price at the time.  To quote him in the abstract of his paper, emphasis ours:

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

Note that sentence in bold right there.  This is, of course a rather unorthodox idea, and we have noted in the past (and now) that raising alcohol taxes should be done across the board, not just for one age group.  That is, the "teen tax" idea, which we prefer to call a "Kenkel tax", while lowering the drinking age to 18, is still head and shoulders better than the 21 drinking age.  We could perhaps even give some to the extra revenue to groups like MADD to buy them off as well and get them on board with it.

If we go that route, it would be best to repackage the idea a bit as a discount for people over 21, rather than a tax on 18-20 year old young adults.  That is, the list price by default would be the price that 18-20 year olds would pay, and the "over-21 discount" would be taken off at the register, much like sales tax but in reverse.  Doing so would put it on the very same spectrum as things like senior citizen discounts, which are well tolerated in our society.

It would also be essentially self-enforcing, since retailers would obviously want to get the extra money!

Of course, a LOT has changed since 1993, not least being the gradual erosion of alcohol taxes by inflation, especially in more recent years.  The last time the federal alcohol taxes were raised was in 1991, and if they were adjusted for inflation, they would be more than double what they are now.  So perhaps one could raise the alcohol taxes across the board to what they were in real dollars in 1991, and then on top of that, add an additional 12%+ or so to the new tax-inclusive price, which then can be taken off at the register as a discount for people over 21.  Or any combination.

This idea can also dovetail nicely with minimum unit pricing (MUP), which is a complementary policy to taxes.  Though it would probably be best practice to set a two-tier MUP, with stronger beverages (more than 20% ABV) having a higher MUP than weaker beverages, to avoid obvious perverse incentives of price hikes on beer, wine, and cider inadvertently steering heavy drinkers more towards distilled spirits, as seen in Scotland.  Thomas Jefferson literally predicted that over two centuries ago.

Twenty-One Debunked is by no means wedded to this idea, but we will still support nonetheless it if it means that we can FINALLY lower the drinking age to 18 sooner than later.

Bonus points for doing this idea with the gas tax as well.  That is, raising it across the board, while giving a partial rebate or "prebate" to licensed vehicle registrants over 21, and an even greater rebate or "prebate" to those over 25.  But hopefully not until gas prices come back down from current wartime highs!

Operation Rovin' Eyes (Updated Re-post)

It has been a while since Twenty-One Debunked has explored in-depth solutions to the perennial and persistent scourge of drunk driving.  Today we build on what we have learned and what we have advocated since our founding in 2009.

Enter "Operation Rovin' Eyes", an idea that combines roving patrols (saturation police patrols against DUI), citizen ride-alongs, and reality TV.  Decades of research shows that roving patrols work very well at both deterring and catching impaired drivers, with OR without sobriety checkpoints (ideally with them, as a complement).  We believe that combining them with ride-alongs will further enhance the effectiveness.  Be sure to check the back roads too, and areas that are known for lots of parties and such.  And if televised, it would also make a great reality TV show as well, even better than COPS, if you could believe that.

A good slogan would be, "Rovin' Eyes, are watching YOU!"

Another thing that can be added to this is "Operation Fish in a Barrel" or "Operation Jack in the Box", in which a police car is parked outside a bar or club, and the officer(s) watch for signs of intoxication, and wait for the drunk patrons to get to their cars.  Then there are two possible tactics.  One is to intercept the would-be drunk driver before they put the keys in the ignition, and give them a verbal warning and a free ride home.  The other is to wait until after they put the keys in the ignition, and then proceed to bust them for DUI.  GOTCHA!  Either way, they are getting these ticking time bombs off the road for the time being, before they get on the road.  And that would of course save countless lives.

(NOTE to non-American readers:  in some countries outside the USA, such as Canada and the UK, you can still get a DUI even if you have the keys in your pocket and you are within a certain distance from the vehicle.  This is from an American perspective.)

And of course, this idea would be an excellent complement to lowering the drinking age to 18.  Especially if it is done near state lines if and when drinking ages are ever lowered state-by-state and thus end up varying state-by-state, this will certainly help take the wind out of the sails of the very vocal opposition.

So what are we waiting for?