One of the most infamous anti-legalization talking points is that legalizing cannabis would inevitably cause carnage on the highways. And we have thoroughly debunked that specious claim before.
But what about the recent pair of newer studies that appear to find a modest uptick in traffic deaths after legalization? In contrast to previous studies that generally found no link with traffic casualities in the first three years after recreational legalization, one of the newer ones found an increase in traffic fatalities in the most recent year in which data were available, though still no shorter-term increase (echoing another study from last year that didn't find any uptick until five years later), while the second one found an increase (compared to synthetic controls) in Colorado but not in Washington for some reason.
Far from clarifying the issue, these newer studies leave the reader with more questions than answers. Why so much heterogeneity and inconsistency between various studies and locations? Why such a long time lag for the apparent effect to occur, especially given that repealing alcohol Prohibition in 1933 was associated with short-term increase in traffic fatalities per VMT that went back down to 1930-1931 levels by 1936? And why have medical cannabis legalization laws been consistently associated with long-term decreases in traffic deaths, given the increased availability and vast gray area between recreational and medical use in practice?
Three things come to mind: changes in tourism (thus skewing the numerator but not the denominator in per-capita crash death calculations), changes in gas prices (lower prices lead to more crashes and deaths), and changes in cannabis prices (lower prices leading to more use and possibly more stoned driving). The first two can produce specious and spurious inferences when they are not controlled for, while the third factor as we have seen takes several years for prices to fall after recreational legalization, possibly explaining the apparent time lag with fatalities. (That can, of course, be resolved simply by raising the taxes on cannabis.) Or most likely of all, as per Occam's Razor, the vast inconsistencies simply mean that any supposed causal link between legalization and carnage on the highways was spurious all along.
Also, it is notable there does not seem to be such an effect seen in Canada, despite their lower age limits for cannabis (18 or 19, instead of 21 in the US states that legalized). While Quebec recently raised it to 21 on January 1, 2020, there would still be over a year's worth of data for 2019 and late 2018 when it was still 18. And Alberta's age limit still remains 18 for all three substances--alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.
Thus, as per the overall weight of the evidence, Twenty-One Debunked will continue to declare this specious claim debunked for the time being.
Showing posts with label Traffic deaths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Traffic deaths. Show all posts
Friday, July 3, 2020
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Traffic Deaths Down So Far In 2018
There is good news on the highways lately, namely that preliminary data for the first half of 2018 show a 3.1% decrease in traffic deaths, and 2017 saw a 1.8% decrease as well following two straight years of significant increases. This is true despite the fact that the economy is still improving and there is thus more driving going on now than a few years ago.
So what happened in 2017-2018? Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016. And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities. gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes. So that only explains part of the picture. And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill. So what else could it be?
The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part. But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.
Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall. Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.
So what are we waiting for?
So what happened in 2017-2018? Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016. And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities. gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes. So that only explains part of the picture. And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill. So what else could it be?
The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part. But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.
Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall. Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.
So what are we waiting for?
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Why Are Traffic Deaths on the Rise? (Part Deux)
After decades of a massive secular decline in traffic deaths, reaching an all-time record low in 2014 per VMT as well as per capita, such deaths have been creeping up again since then. 2015 and 2016 both saw national increases in fatalities, and while 2017 saw a slight decrease from 2016, the number of deaths still remains stubbornly higher than it was before the increase. In fact, 2015-2016 is the largest two-year jump in deaths in half a century. So why has progress stalled and begun to reverse in recent years?
The list of most likely factors includes the following:
Of course, drunk driving and not wearing seatbelts remain rather persistent contributors to the number of these deaths, but such behaviors remain far lower than they were decades ago. Nevertheless, they remain at dangerous levels, and it is apparently a bit too early to feel safe in that regard. And with real alcohol prices at record lows today and alcohol consumption on the rise for the past two decades, there is definitely a cause for concern in that regard.
What about drugged driving, then? Is it really on the rise, like some have claimed? Perhaps, but it may simply be that we are getting better at detecting it rather than an actual increase. Or perhaps it is a bit of both. The opioid epidemic certainly doesn't make the roads any safer, with such doped-up drivers nodding off behind the wheel. And contrary to the anti-legalization folks, there does not seem to be any firm link between cannabis legalization and traffic fatalities. In fact, some studies have found decreases in highway deaths following cannabis liberalization, due to an apparent substitution with alcohol (and perhaps opioids as well). As for the specious claim of preliminary evidence linking the increase in pedestrian deaths in some legalization states in the first half of 2017 with legalization, that does not really pass the smell test because 1) not all legalization states even saw any increase during that time, 2) small numbers tend to fluctuate wildly, and 3) why would cannabis legalization only affect pedestrian deaths and not other traffic deaths during that time as well?
One thing is for sure. Whether this spike in traffic casualties is a short-term blip or the start of a longer-term trend (which will only be known in hindsight), it should be a major wake-up call that we clearly cannot afford to be complacent about it any longer. The USA has seriously lagged behind other industrialized countries for decades in terms of progress on traffic safety (all of which have lower drinking ages than we do, interestingly enough), and we need to catch up, yesterday. That includes the safety of pedestrians and cyclists as well, who have borne the brunt of the recent increase in traffic deaths. And even when vehicle miles (or kilometers) traveled are taken into account, the USA still has either higher fatality rates and/or has seen less progress since the 1980s compared with nearly all other industrialized (and even semi-industrialized) nations.
A short list of things we can do include:
The list of most likely factors includes the following:
- Lower gas prices
- An improving economy since the Great Recession
- An increase in distracted driving (and walking), primarly from smartphones
- Higher speed limits than in the past
- Infrastructure in disrepair from decades of gross neglect
- Slacking on traffic safety improvements in general since the early 1990s
Of course, drunk driving and not wearing seatbelts remain rather persistent contributors to the number of these deaths, but such behaviors remain far lower than they were decades ago. Nevertheless, they remain at dangerous levels, and it is apparently a bit too early to feel safe in that regard. And with real alcohol prices at record lows today and alcohol consumption on the rise for the past two decades, there is definitely a cause for concern in that regard.
What about drugged driving, then? Is it really on the rise, like some have claimed? Perhaps, but it may simply be that we are getting better at detecting it rather than an actual increase. Or perhaps it is a bit of both. The opioid epidemic certainly doesn't make the roads any safer, with such doped-up drivers nodding off behind the wheel. And contrary to the anti-legalization folks, there does not seem to be any firm link between cannabis legalization and traffic fatalities. In fact, some studies have found decreases in highway deaths following cannabis liberalization, due to an apparent substitution with alcohol (and perhaps opioids as well). As for the specious claim of preliminary evidence linking the increase in pedestrian deaths in some legalization states in the first half of 2017 with legalization, that does not really pass the smell test because 1) not all legalization states even saw any increase during that time, 2) small numbers tend to fluctuate wildly, and 3) why would cannabis legalization only affect pedestrian deaths and not other traffic deaths during that time as well?
One thing is for sure. Whether this spike in traffic casualties is a short-term blip or the start of a longer-term trend (which will only be known in hindsight), it should be a major wake-up call that we clearly cannot afford to be complacent about it any longer. The USA has seriously lagged behind other industrialized countries for decades in terms of progress on traffic safety (all of which have lower drinking ages than we do, interestingly enough), and we need to catch up, yesterday. That includes the safety of pedestrians and cyclists as well, who have borne the brunt of the recent increase in traffic deaths. And even when vehicle miles (or kilometers) traveled are taken into account, the USA still has either higher fatality rates and/or has seen less progress since the 1980s compared with nearly all other industrialized (and even semi-industrialized) nations.
A short list of things we can do include:
- Crack down on drunk driving, drug-impaired driving, reckless driving, and distracted driving--yesterday.
- Stiffen the penalties for hit-and-run crashes--yesterday.
- Reduce speed limits, especially on side streets, arterials, and smaller highways--yesterday.
- Install speed cameras and red-light cameras in more places (but be sure to also lengthen the yellow lights and double-reds to prevent it from backfiring with more rear-enders).
- Raise the gas tax by a penny per week until it is at least 50 cents/gal higher than now ("A Penny for Progress") and/or implement a carbon tax-and-dividend scheme.
- Raise the alcohol taxes significantly as well (note how those taxes have been lagging behind inflation for decades in most states).
- Design roads/streets to be more pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly as well.
- Invest more in public transportation, as well as "safe-rider" programs as well.
- Rebuild America's neglected and crumbling infrastructure, generating millions of new jobs in the process.
- And last but not least, make the road test harder like it is in many other countries, and make driver's licenses easier to lose for serious and/or repeated traffic violations.
After all, if it saves even ONE life, it's worth it, right? Thought so. So what are we waiting for?
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Why Are Traffic Deaths On The Rise?
After decades of a massive secular decline in traffic deaths, reaching an all-time record low in 2014 per VMT as well as per capita, such deaths have been creeping up again since then. 2015 and 2016 both saw national increases in fatalities, and 2017 looks likely to continue that grim trend (and indeed has in several states). In fact, it is the largest two-year jump in deaths in half a century. So why has progress stalled and begun to reverse in recent years?
The list of most likely factors includes the following:
Of course, drunk driving and not wearing seatbelts remain rather persistent contributors to the number of these deaths, but such behaviors remain far lower than they were decades ago. Nevertheless, they remain at dangerous levels, and it is apparently a bit too early to feel safe in that regard. And with real alcohol prices at record lows today and alcohol consumption on the rise for the past two decades, there is definitely a cause for concern in that regard.
What about drugged driving, then? Is it really on the rise, like some have claimed? Perhaps, but it may simply be that we are getting better at detecting it rather than an actual increase. Or perhaps it is a bit of both. The opioid epidemic certainly doesn't make the roads any safer. And contrary to the anti-legalization folks, there does not seem to be any firm link between cannabis legalization and traffic fatalities. In fact, some studies have found decreases in highway deaths following cannabis liberalization, due to an apparent substitution with alcohol.
One thing is for sure. Whether this spike in traffic casualties is a short-term blip or the start of a longer-term trend (which will only be known in hindsight), it should be a major wake-up call that we clearly cannot afford to be complacent about it any longer.
The list of most likely factors includes the following:
- Lower gas prices
- An improving economy since the Great Recession
- An increase in distracted driving (and walking), primarly from smartphones
- Higher speed limits than in the past
- Infrastructure in disrepair from neglect
- Slacking on traffic safety improvements in general since the early 1990s
Of course, drunk driving and not wearing seatbelts remain rather persistent contributors to the number of these deaths, but such behaviors remain far lower than they were decades ago. Nevertheless, they remain at dangerous levels, and it is apparently a bit too early to feel safe in that regard. And with real alcohol prices at record lows today and alcohol consumption on the rise for the past two decades, there is definitely a cause for concern in that regard.
What about drugged driving, then? Is it really on the rise, like some have claimed? Perhaps, but it may simply be that we are getting better at detecting it rather than an actual increase. Or perhaps it is a bit of both. The opioid epidemic certainly doesn't make the roads any safer. And contrary to the anti-legalization folks, there does not seem to be any firm link between cannabis legalization and traffic fatalities. In fact, some studies have found decreases in highway deaths following cannabis liberalization, due to an apparent substitution with alcohol.
One thing is for sure. Whether this spike in traffic casualties is a short-term blip or the start of a longer-term trend (which will only be known in hindsight), it should be a major wake-up call that we clearly cannot afford to be complacent about it any longer.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Of Death And Taxes, Part Deux
While the opioid epidemic has recently been declared a public health emergency, what if we were to tell you that there is another drug epidemic that kills even more people (a whopping 88,000 per year vs. 65,000 per year for opioid and all other drug overdoses combined), a number that has actually been increasing in recent years? And that number, though staggering in itself, is merely the tip of a very large iceberg of injury, illness, crime, violence, motor vehicle crashes, family breakdown, addiction, and other social costs linked to this deadly yet ubiquitous substance. Meanwhile, the powers that be are responding to this epidemic with a collective shrug for the most part. I think the reader would figure out by now that we are talking about alcohol.
And aside from its overall banality, what is particularly notable about the alcohol epidemic is how ageist our response has been. While the epidemic clearly affects all ages, the powers that be have been focusing in laser-like fashion on people under 21 while largely ignoring people over 21, despite the fact that people over 21 make up the vast majority of this epidemic. Not only does this scapegoat young people for largely adult problems, but it also hinders any real solutions to such problems as well. It's basically the "pink elephant in the room".
Fortunately, we know now after decades of reams of research evidence that there is in fact a very simple solution for reducing the death rates and other harms of excessive drinking. And that solution is raising alcohol taxes. The higher the price of alcoholic beverages, the fewer deaths and other alcohol-related problems occur, all else being equal. Even modest increases seem to have a significant impact. We know this, yet not only have the powers that be generally let the alcohol taxes lag behind inflation, but have actually moved to lower such taxes as a lesser-known part of the new Republican tax bill.
So what should the ideal alcohol tax be? According to researchers, the externality costs of alcohol are estimated to be around $45-58 per proof-gallon, yet the federal tax on distilled spirits is $13.50 per proof-gallon, and for wine and beer it varies but tends to hover between $4 and $5 per proof-gallon. And while state and local alcohol taxes vary, they are also generally very modest in most states, especially for beer. So there is a very wide range by which such taxes can be raised while still being socially efficient.
Of course, those figures are now effectively even lower now that the Republican tax bill has lowered such rates even further for roughly the first 100,000 proof-gallons of all alcoholic beverage categories across the board. But the aforementioned rates still remain the top rates above the respective thresholds in the now-tiered system. Beer was always tiered with a reduced rate for the first 60,000 barrels, but now that reduced rate is even lower still, and for the first time ever distilled spirits now enjoy a reduced rate for the first 100,000 proof-gallons. The rate structure is not inherently bad in itself, of course, but both the new and old rates are simply too low.
Of course, those figures are now effectively even lower now that the Republican tax bill has lowered such rates even further for roughly the first 100,000 proof-gallons of all alcoholic beverage categories across the board. But the aforementioned rates still remain the top rates above the respective thresholds in the now-tiered system. Beer was always tiered with a reduced rate for the first 60,000 barrels, but now that reduced rate is even lower still, and for the first time ever distilled spirits now enjoy a reduced rate for the first 100,000 proof-gallons. The rate structure is not inherently bad in itself, of course, but both the new and old rates are simply too low.
Twenty-One Debunked believes that, along with lowering the drinking age to 18, that alcohol taxes should be raised significantly. Specifically, we support raising and equalizing the federal tax on all alcoholic beverages to the inflation-adjusted 1991 level for distilled spirits, which would be $24 per proof-gallon in 2016 dollars. It should also be simplified by getting rid of all credits and lower tax rates, with perhaps the exception of ones for the first X number of proof-gallons produced by very small domestic producers. At the state level, it would also be good to equalize alcohol taxes across all beverage types, while allowing localities to levy their own alcohol taxes (including sales and gross excise taxes) as they see fit. The latter is especially important for college towns.
Even a smaller hike, such as to $16 per proof-gallon across the board, would likely save thousands of lives per year according to researchers. And of course it would also raise more revenue. As for job losses, the best research suggests that the net effect is actually neutral or even positive with respect to jobs overall. So it should be a no-brainer. A win-win-win situation for everyone but the alcohol industry, basically.
Oh, and by the way: craft breweries (both macro and micro) not only exist in high-tax Canada, but actually appear to be thriving over there. Ditto for even higher-tax Iceland as well. Keep in mind that the tax hikes we propose would still leave American beverages cheaper than Canadian beverages. So even if we raise such taxes dramatically without reduced rates or credits for small producers, they will likely continue to thrive here as well (at least if such tax hikes are phased in somewhat gradually).
Even a smaller hike, such as to $16 per proof-gallon across the board, would likely save thousands of lives per year according to researchers. And of course it would also raise more revenue. As for job losses, the best research suggests that the net effect is actually neutral or even positive with respect to jobs overall. So it should be a no-brainer. A win-win-win situation for everyone but the alcohol industry, basically.
Oh, and by the way: craft breweries (both macro and micro) not only exist in high-tax Canada, but actually appear to be thriving over there. Ditto for even higher-tax Iceland as well. Keep in mind that the tax hikes we propose would still leave American beverages cheaper than Canadian beverages. So even if we raise such taxes dramatically without reduced rates or credits for small producers, they will likely continue to thrive here as well (at least if such tax hikes are phased in somewhat gradually).
Don't get us wrong, Twenty-One Debunked does not believe that alcohol is inherently evil or anything like that. We are certainly not in league with the neo-dry lobby! But when we as a society fail to appreciate that alcohol has a very real dark side for all ages, there are very serious consequences to doing so. History speaks for itself. So what are we waiting for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
