25, You Say? Let's Nip That In The Bud

A handful of psychiatrists in Minnestota, where cannabis has not yet been legalized for recreational use (but is currently being considered), is calling for the age limit to be 25 when it is legalized.  They cite anecdotal evidence of young patients with psychosis that they claim is caused by today's high-potency weed.  And here is why they are, in a word, wrong:

1. First of all, these psychoses that they cite are occurring despite recreational cannabis remaining illegal in Minnesota for all ages.  Legalizing it with an utterly unrealistic age limit of 25 will only preserve and entrench the current black market while worsening criminal justice inequities, both age and racial disparities.
2. The brain continues developing well into the 30s and 40s, and the risk period for schizophrenia continues until about 30, so 25 is arbitrary.
3. While excessive cannabis use can be harmful at any age, and starting use before age 18 and especially before 15 is likely more harmful than starting at 18 or older, there is really no clear and convincing evidence that using it at 18-20 is any worse than using at 21-24 or 25+, especially for light or moderate use.  To claim otherwise is unscientific, disingenuous, and really pushes the limits of the precautionary principle.
4. As we have noted many times before, the relationship between cannabis and psychosis is quite complex, and far more nuanced than Reefer Madness.  Though there is likely a tiny, exquisitely vulnerable sliver of the population that should really avoid weed like the plague at any age, that is no reason for blanket bans or restrictions (by age or otherwise) for legal adults.  That would be unscientific and unjust.
5. And finally, if today's high-potency weed is in fact the culprit in an alleged (and far from certain) recent increase in psychosis among young people, the solution is NOT to raise the age limit and force it deeper underground, but to put a cap (say, 10% or 15%) on the potency of THC on legal weed (and perhaps also setting a minimum level of CBD, which counteracts many of the adverse effects of too much THC), and/or taxing it based on THC/CBD levels.  And also warn people who are at increased risk of psychosis as well via honest public education messaging without sensational fearmongering.

There it is.  Problem solved.  No good reason to set the age limit any higher than 18, let alone 25.  Let's nip this ageist idea in the bud, pun intended of course.

UPDATE:  Twenty-One Debunked believes that proper labeling and tax incentives alone will likely be enough to encourage lower THC and higher CBD levels even in the absence of hard THC/CBD limits.  Taxing cannabis at a higher rate base on THC levels (whether proportionally, or perhaps disproportionally when exceeding a specific threshold or for specific product categories) and applying an offsetting tax discount based on CBD levels would do the trick, as the market would adjust accordingly.

Also, getting back to the subject of psychosis in young people, don't forget to take your fish oil.  Yes, you read that right.  Apparently a new study found that there is an inverse correlation between omega-3 fatty acid levels during adolescence and psychosis in young adulthood.  This dovetails nicely with a study from 2010 that found that just 12 weeks of giving fish oil supplements to teens at ultra-high risk of psychosis greatly reduced their risk of developing psychosis a year later compared with those given placebo.

Our Position on Parental Notification

With the recent kerfuffle in New Jersey regarding their long-overdue cannabis legalization, particularly regarding parental notification for underage possession offenders under 21, we at Twenty-One Debunked thus see a need to clarify our position on parental notification for underage possession consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.  We believe the age limit for all three should be 18 and not a day later (i.e. the Alberta Model), and regardless of the age limit we believe the following as well:

• For anyone over 18, parental notification should be prohibited, period, as 18 is the legal age of majority.  Why this is even the least bit controversial is truly mind-boggling.
• For anyone under 18, parental notification should NOT be mandatory, but rather should be discretionary, at least for first offenses of simple possession.  Even for subsequent offenses, there should still be nuance and proportionality.
• For younger teens/tweens under 15 or 16, parental notification may very well be the preferable go-to option in many cases, but for older teens it should be regarded as more of a "nuclear" option for serious or repeat offenders.
• Underage possession/consumption per se should be decriminalized.  That is, it should bypass the criminal justice system entirely, and should carry no arrest, no jail time, and no criminal record.  Rather, the penalties (if any) should include only a verbal or written warning, a modest civil fine (i.e. a parking or traffic-style ticket), a brief educational course, and/or confiscation of the contraband items.
• Any more serious penalties should be reserved solely for more serious and/or flagrant offenses that go beyond simple possession or sharing among peers, such as when impaired driving, violence, vandalism, theft, trespassing, obstructing traffic, disturbing the peace, and/or disorderly conduct is involved.  For ALL ages.  (Note that most of these are arrestable offenses.)
• No one should lose their driver's license for any non-driving related infractions.
• Rather than disproportionately targeting young people themselves, there should be a much greater focus on adults over 18 who sell or furnish such substances to people under 18, especially when there is a large age difference between the furnisher and furnishee.

None of these should be controversial at all.  If you honestly think these are extremist positions, you seriously need to have your head examined!

Clarification of Our Position on Cannabis

For years now, Twenty-One Debunked (along with its parent organization, the True Spirit of America Party or TSAP), has supported the full legalization of cannabis (marijuana, reefer, pot, herb, ganja, etc.) for all Americans over 18 years of age, period.  Our position for adult-use legalization is roughly the same as NORML's, with the differences highlighted in red from the otherwise cut-and-paste from the below:

Adult-Use

The TSAP supports the removal of all penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults over 18, including cultivation for personal use, and casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts. TSAP also advocates for the creation of a legal and regulatory framework for marijuana’s production and retail sale to adults over 18.

Core Attributes of Adult Access Regulations

Adults ought to have the legal option to cultivate personal use quantities of marijuana in private residences

The TSAP supports the right of individuals to grow their own cannabis as an alternative to purchasing it from licensed retail producers, and maintains that provisions permitting this behavior should be codified in adult use access laws. maintains that the inclusion of legislative provisions protecting the non-commercial home cultivation of cannabis serves as leverage to assure the product available at retail outlets is high quality, safe and affordable. Additionally, permitting home cultivation provides adult consumers with an immediate source of cannabis — providing an alternative to the illicit market. Such a source is necessary because it typically takes state regulators several months, or even years, following the law’s enactment to establish licensed retail operators.

At present, most adult use laws permit this behavior and there exists no compelling state interest to infringe upon it. State regulations governing the alcohol market permit adults the option to legally brew non-commercial quantities of their own alcohol, and it is consistent with this policy to similarly permit home cultivation.

Taxes imposed on either the commercial production or retail sales of cannabis must not be excessive

The commercial production and retail sale of recreational cannabis in legal jurisdictions is presently subject to both excise taxes and sales taxes, similar to many other commercial goods. The taxation of these goods remains popular with elected officials as well with the general public — particularly among those who do not personally use cannabis, but view the plant’s legalization positively as an alternative source of state revenue. The imposition of fair and reasonable taxes on these commercial activities generates support from members of the public who may otherwise show little interest in cannabis law reform. Revenue from retail marijuana taxes is currently being used to fundschool construction and other popular programs in various states, as well as to offset administrative and regulatory costs associated with adult use regulatory programs.

Such taxation ought not to apply to non-commercial activities involving cannabis, such as home cultivation or cannabis gifting. Most importantly, taxation on commercial activities should not be so excessive that it incentivizes consumers to obtain cannabis from the illicit or grey market. Studies show that most consumers are comfortable paying a premium price for cannabis available legally at retail stores (up to approximately $14 per gram), but warn that excessive pricing due to heavy taxation induces consumers to return to the illegal market.

Regulators should not inadvertently create undue barriers of entry for those seeking to participate in the legal adult use marketplace

African Americans and other minorities have historically been disproportionately targeted and adversely impacted by cannabis criminalization. This lack of equity must not persist in an environment where adult use cannabis production and sales are legally regulated.

In order to provide for inclusiveness within the legal industry, regulators should strive to impose nominal to low application fees in order to encourage participation from formerly disenfranchised populations. Further, regulations must not prohibit those with prior criminal records for past violations from seeking to activity participate in the legal marketplace.

NOTE:  Excessive licensing fees are far worse than excessive taxes.  Not only are they more harmful to such businesses, but they can actually paradoxically encourage the few businesses that do get ahead to push their products even harder on the masses to recoup their losses, as has been found with alcohol license fees going back to the 19th century.  At least taxes, when properly structured per unit, reduce excessive consumption on balance.

The enactment of adult use access regulations ought not to amend or override existing medical use access laws

Laws and regulations governing medical cannabis access to qualified patients exist in a majority of US states. TSAP acknowledges that the medical cannabis market and the recreational cannabis market are not necessarily one and the same, and that individual consumers of these markets may possess needs that differ from one another.

For instance, patients may require access to a wider array of products, as well as to products of higher cannabinoid potency (e.g., concentrates), than do those consuming cannabis for recreational purposes. Further, many patients require a consistent supply of cannabis to mitigate chronic conditions, and therefore they should not necessarily be subject to the same sort of taxes, fees, or possession limits that are imposed upon those accessing the adult use market.

Cannabis products sold at retail must be subject to third-party testing in order to assure product quality

Cannabis flower sold at retail must be subject to third-party testing in order to assure that the product is free from unwanted contaminants, such as molds or pesticides. Testing of cannabis and/or cannabis infused products must further identify the precise presence of individual cannabinoids (such as THC and CBD) and terpene content, and such information must be prominently displayed on the products’ label. Such testing and labeling ensures that adult consumers have consistent access to a standardized product and have the information necessary to make an informed decision prior to purchase.

Adult use laws ought to include provisions facilitating the automatic review of past criminal records and for the expungement of those records in instances where the past behavior is no longer classified as a criminal offense

Millions of Americans, a disproportionate percentage of whom are young people and minorities, have been subject to a marijuana-related arrests and criminal conviction.

Branding these individuals, many of whom are at an age when they are just beginning their professional careers, as lifelong criminals results in a litany of lost opportunities including the potential loss of employment, housing, voting rights, professional licensing, and student aid and serves no legitimate societal purpose. The imposition of such lifelong penalties is even more punitive in instances where the criminal conviction is related to behavior or activities that have since been legalized and regulated.

In the interest of justice and fairness, TSAP maintains that adult use legalization policies must include legislative provisions to facilitate an automatic review of prior criminal records and also include a mechanism to allow for the expungement of such records in instances where the activity is no longer defined as criminal under state law. Some states, like California, already provide for this type of relief, and national polling finds that a supermajority of registered voters support the imposition of policies of sealing and/or expunging the criminal records of those formerly convicted of marijuana-related offenses in now-legal states.

The public use of marijuana in non-designated areas ought to be a violation

The use of cannabis products in public, non-designated spaces (e.g., parks, city streets) ought to be discouraged and penalized via the imposition of civil fines. In addition, regulators should take steps to provide a framework for the allowance of designated social use spaces (e.g., licensed social clubs) whereby adults would have the option to legally consume cannabis outside of their home. Such private spaces would be ideal for visiting tourists and others (such as those tenants who rent in buildings where cannabis use is not permitted), and ideally would reduce the likelihood of adults consuming cannabis in non-designated public spaces.

Some jurisdictions may choose to allow cannabis to be smoked anywhere tobacco is allowed to be smoked, with some exceptions either way, and we would be fine with that as well.  Ideally, such rules would be determined at the local (or even hyper-local) level.

Adult use laws ought to include provisions prohibiting employers from discriminating against workers in the practices of either hiring or firing solely because their off-the-job cannabis use

Contrary to the fears of critics, changes in the legal status of cannabis have not been associated with any significant adverse effects on workplace safety and, overall, off-the-job marijuana use has not been statistically associated with increased occupational accidents or injuries – as per the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and others. While cannabis use either prior to or while at work ought not to be accommodated by employers, TSAP advocates that policies which impose sanctions for those who are legally engaged in the use of cannabis off-the-job away from work are discriminatory and ought to be discouraged. As long as one’s off-the-job cannabis use does not impede one’s on-the-job performance, such behavior should be of no concern to employers.

Adult use laws should not contain any provisions amending existing traffic safety laws in a manner that impose arbitrary and non-scientific per se thresholds for the presence of either THC or its metabolite in a driver’s blood or urine

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance is defined as illegal behavior in all 50 states. Amending the illicit status of cannabis under state law does not change this fact. It remains just as illicit to drive under the influence of cannabis post-legalization as it is before legalization.

Most states prosecute drugged driving using an ‘effect based’ standard. This means that in order to gain a drugged driving conviction, law enforcement officials and prosecutors must establish 1) that a motorist recently ingested a controlled substance and 2) that his or her driving behavior was impaired by this substance.

The TSAP ideally supports the enforcement of ‘effect-based’ standards, and has opined for additional tools and resources – such as the use of modified Field Sobriety Testing and the training of additional Drug Recognition Evaluators – to assure that such laws are sufficiently enforced.

By contrast, lawmakers ought to oppose the imposition of proposed per se thresholds, which make it a criminal violation to operate a vehicle with the trace presence of either THC or its inactive metabolite above an arbitrary level in one’s blood or urine. These latter policies are not evidence based and are opposed by the majority of experts in the scientific and traffic safety community, including the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the American Automobile Association. This is because, unlike the case with alcohol, maximal levels of either THC or carboxy-THC are not consistently associated with the impairment of psychomotor performance. In addition, residual levels of THC and its metabolite may be detectable for weeks or even months following past consumption – well beyond any reasonable expectation of driver impairment. Consequently, the enforcement of these strict liability standards risks inappropriately convicting unimpaired subjects of traffic safety violations, including those persons who are consuming cannabis legally in accordance with state statutes.

As additional states consider amending their marijuana possession laws, lawmakers would be advised to consider legislative and regulatory approaches to address concerns over DUI cannabis behavior that do not rely on solely on the presence of THC or its metabolites in blood or urine as determinants of guilt in a court of law. Otherwise, the imposition of traffic safety laws may inadvertently become a criminal mechanism for law enforcement and prosecutors to punish those who have engage in legally protected behavior and who have not posed any actionable traffic safety threat.

The TSAP does, however, support the use of prima facie thresholds (e.g. 5 ng/mL) for THC as an alternative to per se thresholds.  Colorado's law is a current example.

We also do support rational, science based per se thresholds (when possible) for psychoactive substances other than cannabis or alcohol, as well as enhanced penalties for driving under the combined influence of alcohol and cannabis, alcohol and other drugs, and/or cannabis plus other drugs.

Those under the age of 21 18 who possess personal use amounts of cannabis ought to be subject to civil sanctions rather than a criminal arrest

Studies from legal states have determined that marijuana-related arrests fall significantly for adults over 21 post-legalization, but that many under 21 (including 18-20 year old young adults) continue to face criminal arrest for marijuana-related activities despite no significant increase in marijuana use by teenagers. These arrests of young people can potentially result in a lifelong criminal record, as well as the stigmatization and loss opportunities that accompany it (such as the loss of student financial aid and issues finding gainful employment). TSAP believes that youth marijuana use and access ought to be discouraged, but also believes that the harms of a criminal arrest carry significant adverse consequences. Therefore, TSAP supports lowering the age limit to 18 as well as provisions decriminalizing low-level marijuana possession offenses by certain youth offenders under 18.  In such cases, violators would at most face modest civil fines or have the option of other non-criminal sanctions (e.g., participation in a drug education class at no cost to the offender), but would be spared from a criminal arrest and criminal record.  (Some states/localities already do/did this with tobacco, so there is a model to follow.)

(Where it originally read "NORML" it has been replaced by TSAP.)

Fair Use Notice:  The above excerpt constitutes "fair use" as commonly understood, and is intended to criticize and comment on the work being referenced.

Our positions on medical cannabis and industrial hemp are practically identical to NORML's as well.

Does Cannabis Legalization Really Lead To More Traffic Deaths?

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.

How To Solve The Vaping Crisis In Five Easy Steps

First of all, the "vaping crisis" is actually two different problems that just happen to share the same delivery system.  The first is the explosion of nicotine vaping (particularly the JUUL brand, with very high nicotine levels) among teens from late 2017 onwards.  The second is the "mystery" vaping lung illness, now known as EVALI, that has finally been linked to the cause that we suspected for months now:  Mostly black-market and gray-market THC (and probably CBD) vape cartridges containing the additive Vitamin E Acetate, which is apparently VERY bad for the lungs.  Instead of conflating the two, we must realize that they are two different issues with different solutions, while also noting that pushing them into the black market will only pour gasoline on the fire.

Thus, Twenty-One Debunked recommends the following:

1. Legalize cannabis, vaping and otherwise, for everyone 18 and older, period. 
2. For cannabis vape products, ban Vitamin E Acetate and all other additives that are not on a narrow list of approved additives.  Implement strict quality control to test for questionable substances and issue product recalls as needed.  (Also require quality control of nicotine vape products while we're at it.)
3. Cap the nicotine content of nicotine vape products at similar levels as found in the UK, Europe, and Israel, and also subject such products to the same advertising restrictions as combustible cigarettes.
4. Tax nicotine vape products, but keep the tax lower than the tax on combustible cigarettes (or alternatively, raise the cigarette tax even higher).
5. Strictly enforce existing purchase age limits on vendors via compliance checks, but avoid knee-jerk reactionary policy measures such as broad flavor bans or raising the smoking/vaping age to 21, which will drive vapers to the black market.

Do these things and tone down the moral panic, and both of these problems will soon wither on the vine.  But that would make too much sense, of course.

The Cannabis Black Market Has A Kill Switch, And We Know What It Is

We keep hearing over and over again that the black market for cannabis comtinues to persists despite legalization for several years in several states.  And we also are learning that this black market is selling notoriously tainted counterfeit THC vape products which are the primary cause of the "mystery" vaping lung illness now known as EVALI.  National legalization should really be a no-brainer at this point.

But why does the black market persist so tenaciously even in states like Colorado and Washington that have had legal recreational sales for over five years now?  The answer is overtaxation and overregulation, particularly in terms of retail licensing fees and quotas.  And the kill switch for the black market is thus really quite simple:

So what to do?  Cut the taxes on cannabis, yesterday, for at least a year or two before raising them again.  Consider a complete tax holiday for a few months, like Oregon did when legalization began there.  Ease up a bit on licensing regulations (and fees) for both producers and retailers.  Allow at least all liquor stores to sell weed alongside their booze, and further consider allowing any store that sells cigarettes to also sell weed as well, including grocery and convenience stores.  Lower the age limit to 18, yesterday.  Encourage current black market dealers to "go legit", by giving amnesty to unlicensed sellers and allowing them to obtain retail licenses.  And once these things are done, then crack down hard on what remains of the black market, particularly the illegal commercial growers and higher-ups in the illegal businesses and organized crime syndicates.

Problem solved.

And of course, fully legalize cannabis at the federal level as well.  Period.

Of course, once the black market is dead and gone, then by all means, tax away.  But now is NOT the time for overtaxation or overregulation.

So what should the tax on cannabis be?  To start with, we at Twenty-One Debunked believe it should be no higher that $10/ounce for bud and $2.50/ounce for trim at the production/cultivation level, with no other taxes aside from regular sales tax.  Consider a three-month tax holiday as well, like Oregon did in 2015.  Then, after the first year or two, the tax should be no higher than $50/ounce for bud and $15/ounce for trim, much like it is in Alaska today.  As for concentrates and edibles, those are best to tax based on THC content, e.g. 1 cent/milligram of THC.

Indeed, recent studies in both the USA and Canada do bear this out.  Allowing a legal alternative to the black market will out-compete with the latter, but only if the price of legal cannabis flower remains below about $14/gram.  Above that threshold, adult customers will readily switch back to the black market if it is the cheaper option, at least in the first few years post-legalization.

As for the price elasticity of demand for cannabis, that has been a controversial topic, but recent studies find that it is relatively inelastic at low prices, but becomes quite elastic at high enough prices, implying an "elastic zone" above some threshold (in one study, $15/joint, or about $30/gram based on the study's half-gram definition of a joint) for high-quality weed.

Interestingly, some other studies find cross-elasticity between alcohol, tobacco and cannabis among young people, such that raising the cigarette tax and even the beer tax can lead to reduced cannabis consumption.  Thus, any fears that falling cannabis prices will lead to more teen use can be addressed by simply raising the taxes on the other two substances in the meantime, before the cannabis black market is eradicated.  (Which will also decrease the use of alcohol and tobacco as well, by the way.)

Remember, there is really no good reason why cannabis needs to be regulated any more stringently than alcohol or tobacco.  After all, while it is not completely harmless for everyone, the fact remains that by just about any objective, rational, scientific measure, cannabis is safer than alcohol, tobacco, most prescription drugs, aspirin, and even Tylenol, while it is less addictive than coffee.  Thus our laws and regulations need to align accurately with reality, since facts > feelings, even in a "post-truth" society.

One Weird Trick Reduces Binge Drinking on College Campuses By Nearly 10%

Clickbait-y title aside, a recent study confirms what we at Twenty-One Debunked have always known.  When examining substance use trends among college students from 2008-2018, it was observed that recreational cannabis legalization was associated with nearly 10% LESS "binge" drinking by students over the age of 21.  That is of course not surprising, given that alcohol and cannabis tend to be substitutes, and the legal age limit for both substances is 21 in all such legalization states so far.  No such effect was observed for students under 21, and no other effects were observed on trends for any other substance use (including nicotine use, illicit drug use, and prescription stimulant, sedative, or opioid misuse) among students under or over 21, except for a modest increase in the (mis)use of sedatives among students under 21 (but not over 21) for whatever reason. (So much for the long-debunked "gateway" theory).

We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that if the age limit was lowered to 18 for both alcohol and cannabis, the benefits of the aforementioned reduction in "binge" drinking would extend to students under 21 as well.   In any case, cannabis legalization looks like a net public health win on balance.

So what are we waiting for?

The Vaping Lung Illness Mystery Has Been Solved

Looks like the "mystery" vaping lung illness (now called EVALI) has been largely solved.  And the primary culprit is indeed the same one that Twenty-One Debunked and many others had long suspected several months ago:  Vitamin E Acetate, a common additive found almost exclusively in black-market and counterfeit THC (and probably some gray-market CBD) vape cartridges.  Though harmless when ingested orally or applied topically, when inhaled it is apparently a different story:  this "thick and greasy" oil, and perhaps also its byproducts upon heating it to high temperatures, can indeed cause serious lung damage, and quickly.  It certainly does NOT belong in the lungs at all!  And both samples of vape cartridges as well as (more recently) samples of lung fluids taken from EVALI patients now confirm such suspicions, as noted recently by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).  But we could have told you that a while ago.

The illness was apparently quite rare before June 2019, when the epidemic apparently exploded, peaked in September, and sharply declined thereafter.  In other words, this was not a trend, this was an event.  Something had clearly changed about vaping between 2018 and the first half of 2019.

Prior to 2019, Vitamin E Acetate was not widely used in THC vape products, whether legal or illegal, and according to cannabis industry insiders it first emerged as a cutting agent for products made in late 2018 at the earliest.  It may very well have been used before that, but if it was it was too rare to be of any concern or on anyone's radar.  But then, the black-market and counterfeit THC vape product purveyors discovered that this cheap additive can be used to dilute (or "cut") the expensive THC distillate oil while (unlike with other, thinner cutting agents) still maintaining a thick enough consistency to fool unsuspecting buyers into thinking it is purer than it really is, and thus greatly increasing the profit margins.  Yes, you read that right--for filthy lucre.  And they now have a ton of karma to answer for.

And while there apparently have also been some bad actors in the legitimate cannabis market that used this additive here and there, the fact remains that it has been quite rare overall.  And there is still no evidence that Vitamin E Acetate was ever used in any nicotine-containing vapes, whether legitimate or counterfeit.  (Note that those EVALI patients who reported "only nicotine" vaping and not THC may not have been entirely honest.)  In other words, it is fundamentally a black-market and counterfeiting problem that is best solved with legalization and sensible regulation, not blanket prohibition or overregulation.

There may very well have been other additives to blame as well, along with heavy and hard metals leaching from the heating coils of janky devices.  And perhaps some statistical flukes thrown in for good measure.  But these other minor culprits are basically sideshows compared with Vitamin E Acetate, and again the best solution is legalization and regulation of such products and devices, not prohibition.

Of course, that would make too much sense.  But truth is always the first casualty in any moral panic.

And really, SHAME on anyone (politicians, pundits, regulators, and activists) who cynically and disingenuously used the horrendous and hellish suffering of the over 2500 EVALI victims (and over 50 deaths) as a ploy to push their hateful and regressive prohibitionist agendas, while essentially hiding or denying the real cause of the illness for several months, before finally admitting it well after the epidemic had peaked.  You had a chance to save so many lives and prevent so much suffering, but you chose to sit on it, because reasons.  You now have just as much blood on your hands as the aforementioned bad actors that chose to adulterate their products with questionable additives for filthy lucre.  What you did was unforgivable in our view, but you now have a chance to make amends (albeit belatedly) to keep your karma from getting any worse.  So what are you waiting for?  Legalize and regulate yesterday!

JANUARY 2020 UPDATE:  The latest CDC report confirms yet again that the vast, vast majority of EVALI patients, among those for whom data is available, reported obtaining THC vapes from "informal" sources.  And while the anti-legalization lobby seized upon the finding that 16% of those reporting THC vaping reported obtaining their products from "commerical" sources, keep mind that that figure also includes unlicensed pop-up shops that may appear legitimate but are not, and there is always the possibility of recall bias when more than one product is used or shared.  Again, the real solution is to legalize, regulate, and root out the bad actors, not to categorically ban cannabis or vaping.

Though relatively rare, Vitamin E Acetate  has recently been found in some legal THC vape cartridges on the shelves of licensed dispensaries, including medical dispensaries upon testing, at least in Michigan.  A product recall was rightly issued.  Another state that bothered to test for it, such as Massachusetts had found none of that additive in their legal products, but had temporarily quarantined their products in November so they could be tested before reaching consumers.  This is how the system of quality control is supposed to work, and far better than the black market, which has ZERO quality control.

(For those who are interested, the hypothesized underlying chemistry of how exactly Vitamin E Acetate can cause EVALI can be found here and here.  Once thought to be lipoid pneumonia based on a handful of case reports, it turned out to be more like chemical burns in the vast majority of cases.)

The Kids Are Still (Mostly) Alright in 2019

The latest 2019 Montoring the Future survey results are in.  And while the mainstream media are hyping this year's significant increase in teen vaping (of both nicotine and cannabis), they seem to be glossing over the good news.  For example, teen alcohol and (combustible) tobacco use have both plummeted to record lows, prescription drug abuse (especially opioids and amphetamines) is way down (in contrast to adults), and nearly all other substances (even heroin, again unlike adults) have held steady this year at relatively low levels compared with previous decades.  The one notable exception is LSD (acid), which showed a modest increase this year, but still remains far lower than it was before 2000.

Even cannabis use in general held steady overall this year, and while "daily" (i.e. 20+ days/month) use did see a modest increase this year for grades 8 and 10, in grade 8 it was no higher than it was in 2011 (prior to recreational legalization in any state) and is still quite low.  And keep in mind that for grades 8 and 10, data only go back to 1991, unlike grade 12 which goes all the way back to 1975. Thus, one can extrapolate based on grade 12 data that "daily" use for grades 8 and 10 are also both most likely far lower than they were in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as we know to be the case for grade 12.  And actual, true daily use (i.e. literally every day) is likely even lower still as well.

Even the vaping data are a bit outdated now, since the MTF survey was taken in the spring of 2019, at least several weeks or months before the new "mystery" vaping illness (now called EVALI) outbreak was suddenly announced during the summer.  Since then, the widespread fear of this scary but fortunately now-waning epidemic has likely reduced the popularity of vaping in general, so next year's data will likely be significantly lower than it was in early 2019.

Additionally, the data from another survey, the NSDUH, show that past-year and past-month cannabis use in general has been stable or declining for years for 12-17 year olds nationwide, even as it has been modestly and steadily rising for both 18-25 and 26+ year olds in recent years, and as it has become increasingly legal and socially acceptable to use cannabis and admit to doing so.  The same survey also finds that rates of cannabis use disorder (i.e. abuse/dependence) have been steadily declining for 12-17 year olds since the pre-legalization era, and have been relatively stable for 18-25 (undulating plateau) and 26+ year olds (flat) overall since 2002.

But don't expect the fearmongering mainstream media to tell you that, of course.

The Anti-Legalization Movement Is Grasping At Straws Now

The anti-legalization movement in regards to cannabis has been getting quite desperate lately.  For example, Kevin Sabet of the anti-legalization group Project SAM has lately been disingenuously harping on the mystery vaping illness (now called EVALI) and shifting the spotlight onto legal cannabis vape products from licensed dispensaries while glossing over that inconvenient fact that the vast, vast, majority of the over 2000 EVALI cases so far are linked to black-market and counterfeit THC vape cartridges (as well as sketchy gray-market CBD vape cartridges).  In fact, non-legalization states have had far more EVALI cases than legalization states, though no state seems to be immune to it.  And the primary culprit appears to be Vitamin E Acetate (and possibly other questionable additives), and perhaps even the heavy metals from janky devices, as opposed to the actual cannabis itself, though he slyly glosses over that as well.  The biggest irony, of course, is that banning legal cannabis dispensaries will only drive even more consumers to the black market, thus pouring gasoline on the raging fires of EVALI.

In other words, Kevin Sabet and Project SAM are nothing more than concern trolls, and need to be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a whole pound.  While there have been a few outlier cases of EVALI ostensibly linked to legal cannabis products from licensed dispensaries in some states, most of these cases remain either unconfirmed and/or the use of black market, counterfeit, or modified vape products has not been entirely ruled out in such cases.  To the extent that any of these are in fact caused by rogue and adulterated products from bad actors in the legitimate cannabis market, the solution is better regulation and oversight, NOT prohbition.

(In the meantime, it is probably best for the time being for current cannabis vapers to switch to dry-herb vaporizers, which have never been linked to EVALI or any other illness, to vape regular weed if you don't want to smoke it, just to be on the safe side.  Or at the very least, do your research and due diligence, and avoid all black-market, counterfeit, janky, suspect, and/or modified products like the plague.  And there are also edibles and tinctures.)

Oh and by the way, the anti-legalization movement is apparently also tainted with some thinly- and not-so-thinly-veiled anti-Semitism as well.  Not everyone of course, but as the Labour Party in the UK has unfortunately learned the hard way, failing to condemn it, turning a blind eye to it, or even creating a mere perception of same, has the same impact as deliberate and overt Jew-hatred and Jew-baiting does, and we know impact > intent.  And of course, the anti-Semitism in the broader cannabis prohibitionist movement goes back to at least Nixon and his notorious red-baiting and Jew-baiting conspiracy theories, while the movement's virulent racism and xenophobia in general goes all the way back to the very genesis of the movement over a century ago.

To be fair, there is no evidence that Kevin Sabet (or Project SAM in general) personally holds any anti-Semitic or racist views, with their only known bigotry being against cannabis and its users.  But in the broader cannabis prohibitionist movement today, others like Roger Morgan et al. DO apparently hold enough anti-Semitic views to be willing to openly repeat (if not concoct) long-since debunked anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (mainly involving George Soros) all the same, and the silence from Sabet and Project SAM (who just so happen to also share a connection with Morgan) is truly deafening indeed.

To the cannabis prohibitionist / anti-legalization movement, we have one question for you:  how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?  Because we wouldn't know anything about that.

Finally, Some "Reefer Sanity" In The Vaping Debate

It seems that at least some pundits, politicians, and public health officials are just starting to catch up with reality.  There is rapidly mounting evidence now that the primary culprit in the mystery vaping illness (that has killed over 40 people and sickened at least 2000 in the USA as of November 15, 2019) is the thickener additive Vitamin E Acetate in mostly black-market or counterfeit THC cartridges. This "thick and greasy" oil is harmless when used topically or ingested orally, but when inhaled it is apparently VERY bad for your lungs, much like any other "thick and greasy" oil would logically be.  And finally, several cannabis legalization and even medicalization states are belatedly banning or trying to ban its use in both legal and illegal THC cartridges, since until now almost no state banned or restricted this additive.

Better late than never, but honestly, what the hell took them so long?

THIS is what more states need to be doing.  Legalize cannabis, keep vaping legal in general, but regulate better and root out any bad actors in the legitimate market, while cracking down on any remaining illicit market that continues to hawk questionable wares.  In contrast, broad vaping or flavor bans, as well as cannabis prohibition and/or age limits set higher than 18, will only drive more customers to the black market, essentially pouring gasoline on the fire.  And those who foolishly opted for the later strategy while dithering over the real cause now have the blood of over 2000 Americans on their hands.

Of course, Vitamin E Acetate may not be the only culprit.  Other additives may also be to blame, as can perhaps the toxic cadmium fumes from cheaply-made and janky vaping devices and cartridges often made overseas (which can also be true for counterfeit nicotine vapes too, by the way).  And possibly pesticide contamination as well.  But again, in any case regulation would still work far better than prohibition to really get to the root of the problem.

As for the youth vaping epidemic driven by nicotine vapes, which is often disingenuously conflated with the mystery vaping illness, the best way to quash that is to raise the tax on nicotine-containing vape products, cap and phase-down the nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels, strictly enforce the existing age limit of 18 on vendors rather than raise it to 21, restrict vape advertising to be similar to the way it currently is for combustible tobacco products, and stop hyping this ridiculous moral panic so damn much for once.

So what are we waiting for? 

It's Not Just JUUL: The (Un-)American Vaping Association (And Trump) Also Throws Young Adults Under The Bus

As Trump announced the other day that his administration is looking at, among other things, raising the federal age limit for vaping products from 18 to 21 (which would require an act of Congress), the president of the American Vaping Association, Gregory Conley announced that he (and by extension, his trade group) openly supported the move as an alternative to prohibition.  Such a stance of regulatory appeasement by throwing 18-20 year old young adults under the bus to protect the vaping industry is cowardly at best, and will ultimately backfire as well.

And it is also all the more nonsensical given how the mysterious vaping lung illness that is sweeping the nation is driven primarily by black-market or counterfeit THC cartridges, not legal and legitimate nicotine vapes, and literally on the same day it was announced that they found further confirmatory evidence that the additive Vitamin E Acetate in the rogue THC cartridges is most likely the main culprit in causing this illness.  It is basically a thick, greasy oil that was NEVER meant to be inhaled, and can cause lipoid pneumonia when one does so.  Though likely other additives or contaminants could be causing it as well, such as cadmium fumes from the jankier vape devices themselves, since not all cases are consistent with lipoid pneumonia, and may be cadmium pneumonitis or metal fume fever instead.  And the Trump trade war with China may have led companies to shift to the use of cheaper and lower-quality devices and cartridges from 2018 onwards, ironically.

Thus, we at Twenty-One Debunked hereby excommunicate the American Vaping Association, just as we already did with the quislings at JUUL Labs.  And we can also add Trump 45 to the list as well now.  May their names and memory be forever blotted out.

When It Comes To Vaping, Don't Throw Out The Baby With The Bathwater

In the wake of both the mysterious vaping-related lung illness epidemic, and also the recent increase in vaping among young people (something for which Tobacco 21 laws have apparently done NOTHING to stem the tide, by the way) both the federal government and several state and local governments are beginning to crack down on vaping to one degree or another.  Yes, Houston, we have a problem.  But it is important to keep a cool head and not throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

The FDA plans to ban all flavored vape products other than tobacco (yuck!) or unflavored (meh), as is Michigan.  San Francisco, on the other hand, already passed a ban on ALL vape products regardless of flavor.  The state of New York just passed an emergency executive ban on all flavored vape products other than tobacco or menthol, effective October 4th.  And California's governor announced a crackdown on counterfeit vape products, though he lacks the authority to pass any flavor bans without the state legislature passing it.

Going too far with such bans would only increase the very black market that is the most likely cause of the mystery vaping illness (though with that it is mostly black-market THC products, though some appear to have been nicotine only).  At the same time, while vaping can help some adult smokers quit, it's not like there really is any overarching benefit society from nicotine that comes in fruity, candy, or dessert-like flavors either.  It really is a balancing act.

Twenty-One Debunked once grudgingly supported some degree of flavor bans in the past, mainly as an alternative to Tobacco 21 laws, but in light of current events, we no longer support such bans today.

New York's flavor ban--if there must be one at all--is somewhat more reasonable than the ones that don't even allow menthol.  And clearly counterfeit products need to be cracked down upon, and bad actors and questionable additives rooted out at once.  And capping and reducing nicotine levels of vape products down to European and Israeli levels would also make such products less addictive than they are currently.  But anything more stringent than these things would likely do more harm than good.  (That goes for setting the age limit any higher than 18 as well.)

As for cannabis vaping products, the best way to eradicate the sketchy and janky black and gray market products is to fully legalize and regulate cannabis nationwide, period, with an age limit of 18, strict quality control, and reasonable taxes on such products.  And again, crack down on counterfeit products and products with questionable additives.  But that would make too much sense, wouldn’t it?

So let's be adult about this, shall we?

UPDATE:  Looks like Michigan's emergency executive flavor ban contains a loophole that allows flavored nicotine-free e-liquids and pods, and also allows flavorless nicotine packets one can combine with such e-liquids (albeit sold separately).  So this particular ban is actually far more reasonable than meets the eye, while still having the intended effect of making it somewhat harder and less convenient for people under 18 to vape flavored nicotine.  And it will likely keep vape shops open for business for the foreseeable future, while JUUL will still get a swift kick in the margins now that their ready-made pods will be verboten if they have any flavor other than tobacco.

And at the other extreme, on September 24th, Massachusetts Governor Baker has literally banned ALL vape products for four months by an emergency executive action.  And that will just throw gasoline on the fire by dramatically growing the black market. DERP!  Didn't think that one through, did you Charlie?

Don't Fear The Reefer: Why Fearmongering Backfires

The US Surgeon General recently issued a chilling warning about cannabis, particularly in reference to young people and pregnant women.  While this announcement does contain some kernels of truth, it was overall quite exaggerated and melodramatic fear-mongering, with a touch of Reefer Madness thrown in for good measure.  The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) did a reasonably good job of setting the record straight, of course, but Twenty-One Debunked would like to add to that.

While NORML is indeed correct that legalization and regulation are far more effective at protecting vulnerable populations from any real risks of cannabis, and include age restrictions in the list, they unfortunately punt on exactly what sort of age restrictions they would support.  In an effort to remain neutral as far as the age question goes, and to not be accused of condoning teen cannabis use, they simply leave it unanswered.  And that is a shame, because setting the age limit too high only guarantees that the black market with its products of unknown safety and quality will prevail (and does not check IDs either), and also throws young adults under the bus in the process as well.  As we have noted repeatedly before, there is really no hard scientific evidence supporting an age limit any higher than 18 for cannabis.  Yes, you read that right.

The Surgeon General disingenuously conflates 18-24 year old young adults with people under 18, all the way down to 12 year olds, in fact.  That is a serious category error at best, if not full-blown ageism.  While there is evidence that using cannabis before age 18 (especially before 15, and/or heavily and frequently) is riskier than using it after 18, and that excessive use can be harmful at any age, there is really no hard scientific evidence that using it at 18 is any more harmful than using it at 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter.  And the "no safe level of exposure" claim is also unscientific and highly misleading as well.

It is a proven fact that the human brain continues to develop well into the 30s and 40s, and perhaps even beyond that, but somehow the Surgeon General leaves that inconvenient truth out of his warning about "marijuana and the developing brain".  And while the brain is thus still developing well beyond 18, the key difference is that it is no longer developing at a fundamental level anymore much beyond roughly mid-adolescence.  Thus any brain development that occurs from 18-25 is essentially on the same spectrum as any development that occurs after 25, making 21 or 25 completely arbitrary age cutoffs.

Exaggerating the actual and (mostly) theoretical dangers of cannabis use has the unfortunate side effect of losing credibility among young people, who then are less likely to believe anything about the very real risks of not only cannabis, but alcohol and various other (and far worse) substances as well.  Thus, such a boneheaded strategy is thus doomed to backfire, especially among the age group being targeted the most by such messages.

Twenty-One Debunked does not encourage anyone of any age to use cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, or any other substances.  But if you do, it is important to be an informed consumer and do your research rather than blindly believe everything you hear or read.

About That Mysterious Lung Illness Related To Vaping

There have been recent reports of a mysterious lung illness that appears to be linked to vaping.  Fingers are being pointed all over the place right now, since it is still not clear exactly what (let alone which products) are causing it and why.

Here's what we do know so far.  As of the end of August 2019, there have been over 200 possible cases of severe lung illness and/or damage (and even one reported death) in the USA that may be linked to vaping, though the symptoms haven't always followed a consistent pattern.  Not all cases have been confirmed, and it all still needs to be fleshed out and other variables accounted for, but vaping of some sort is the only factor that we know is common to them all.  And it's not just young people either (though many of them are), as even people in their thirties have reportedly also succumbed to it as well.

Many, but by no means all, of the cases involved vape products containing THC (i.e. the primary psychoactive component of cannabis), and virtually all of those had been purchased on the black market (mostly in non-legalization states) based on what we know so far.  And as much as JUUL Labs wants to believe and assert it, this does NOT yet automatically exonerate nicotine-containing vape products such as theirs.  And no one should pretend that it does.

(Separately, there are also three recent reports of seizures thought to be linked to the JUUL brand specifically, presumably due to their very high nicotine content, so they really shouldn't be so smug.)

It is important not to create or fan the flames of a moral panic about vaping in general, as that is likely to be counterproductive.  Much more research is necessary until we know more.  So what advice should be given in the meantime?

• First and foremost, do NOT vape anything that you get from the black market, whether it's THC or otherwise.  They are inherently unregulated by definition, with no quality control, and thus you really don't know what you are getting.
• Especially avoid the pseudo-legitimate sounding (but actually always black market) THC brands "Dank Vapes", "Chronic Carts", and "West Coast Carts".  Avoid them like the plague!  (Ditto for the apparently very bad actor, gray market CBD brand "Diamond CBD" as well.)
• Do your research and due diligence before buying any vaping product on the legitimate market as well.  Google is your friend, but don't believe everything you hear or read.  This is true whether it is nicotine, THC, CBD, "just flavoring", or anything else for that matter.
• Avoid any oil-based vape products when possible, especially for unfamiliar brands.
• Do NOT modify vaping devices or use any homebrew products with vaping devices.
• And last but not least, if you are not currently addicted to nicotine, do NOT vape (or smoke) anything that contains nicotine.  Keep in mind that all JUUL brand products contain high levels of nicotine, as do many other brands as well.

That seems like sensible advice for now.  As for government officials, the best thing they can do right now is regulate the vaping industry better to quash bad actors and improve quality control, cap nicotine levels, and also legalize cannabis nationwide for everyone over 18 (while keeping the taxes low) in order to quash the black market as well.

Let's be adult about this, shall we?

UPDATE:  As of September 5, 2019, researchers seem to be zeroing in on the most likely cause: specific additives found in primarily black market THC vaping oils and cartridges.  Thus far, only one case has been possibly linked to a THC vape product (of undisclosed brand) purchased from a licensed dispensary (in Oregon), which could be a fluke or confounded by other products, but it is possible that even some legitimate products contain such harmful additives.  And while nothing has been ruled out as yet, the aforementioned advice still remains sound:  avoid all black market vape products, don't vape nicotine if you aren't already addicted, and do your research.

As of September 6, the number of possible (not all of which confirmed) cases of the mystery vaping illness has now reached at least 450, including four confirmed deaths and possibly a fifth one as well.  At this rate, we would hate to see what the casualty toll will ultimately climb to by Friday the 13th (next week).  Regulators really need to root out the questionable additives and bad actors, yesterday.

As of September 9, several theories abound as to what exactly is causing this now-epidemic mysterious illness, from questionable additives (such as Vitamin E oil) to black market products to home-made concoctions influenced by YouTube videos to even Chinese tariffs steering vapers towards cheaper and janky products (and this means nicotine too).  Again, it is still under investigation, but the above advice nonetheless remains sound for the time being. 

And for those who are still concerned:

If you currently vape nicotine, DO NOT go back to combustible cigarettes or any other combustible tobacco products!  If you are concerned about vaping, you can always switch to snus, lozenges, or any of the available nicotine replacement therapy products currently on the market (patches, gums, lozenges, and inhalers).  At the very least, stick to the top-shelf stuff.

If you currently vape "just flavoring", be sure that it really IS "just flavoring" (spoiler alert:  it usually is NOT, and all JUUL brand products contain high levels of nicotine).  But really, what's the point of that?

If you currently vape cannabis derivatives (whether it's THC, CBD, or both), and you don't have access to legal and licensed dispensaries where you live and/or you still don't trust the stuff on the shelves there, but you still don’t want to combust (smoke) weed, there are always dry-herb vaporizers out there (remember those?), as well as edibles, capsules, oils, and tinctures for using cannabis products orally.  Or at least stick to the top-shelf stuff for now.  But DO NOT vape, juul, or dab anything from the black market, the street, pop-up shops, or any homemade concoctions.  EVER.

Twenty-One Debunked Opposes Most Drug Testing

In light of recent reports of student drug testing now including nicotine in some schools due to the moral panic over vaping, Twenty-One Debunked needs to reiterate our general opposition to such testing:

• We oppose any drug testing that is not strictly to determine current impairment or "fitness for duty" in cases of driving, operating machinery, or working at safety-sensitive jobs.
• We oppose any drug testing that privileges or excludes some people over others, whether by age, socioeconomic status, race, or any other suspect or quasi-suspect classification.
• We oppose schools and employers having any jurisdiction whatsoever over what students and employees do to their own bodies off the clock and off the premises, as long as it does not unduly adversely affect their job or school performance and behavior.
• Even if the above criteria are satisfied, we still oppose any drug testing method that has detection times longer than a day or two at the cutoff used, and/or uses inactive metabolites as a proxy for the main substances being tested.  That excludes essentially everything except blood and saliva tests for most substances.  (Note that SCRAM bracelets and sweat testing for offenders in the 24/7 Program are an exception to this rule.)

Twenty-One Debunked, therefore, opposes the vast majority of drug testing done in this country.  We are the supposed land of the free, it's time to start acting like it!

The Smoking Gun? Not Exactly

A recent preliminary study from earlier this year by Catherine Orr et al. seems to be stirring the pot, so to speak.  Adding fuel to the already volatile tinderbox of moral panic around teen cannabis use, this study using brain scans appears to find brain changes in 14 year olds who have used cannabis only once or twice, compared with those who have never used it.  Specifically, those who had used it once or twice showed increased gray matter in various brain regions relative to those who did not, which, counterintuitively, suggests a disruption of the normal "pruning" process that occurs during adolescence (or something).  And of course, the MSM predictably just took it and ran with it.

Of course, correlation is not the same as causation, and there are still reasons to be skeptical of the findings and practical significance:

• The sample size was small:  46 people in each group.  Thus, very sensitive to potential selection bias, reporting bias, and confounding.  (Apparently from a larger brain study of over 2000 people, they could only find 47 individuals who had only tried cannabis once or twice by that age, and one had an inconclusive scan.)
• Another way that size matters is "effect size".  And while the numbers are difficult to interpret, they are also on the small side.
• Some underreporting of cannabis (and other substance) use is always very likely, and can skew results in either direction depending on what is being underreported and by whom.
• Temporality of the initial findings remains unclear (i.e. which occurred first?).
• No other study has ever found long-lasting brain changes from a single dose or two of cannabis, at least not in humans.  And no one has ever replicated these findings yet.
• Previous studies have been quite inconsistent in terms of the effects (or lack thereof) of cannabis use, even regular use, on brain structure, function, and cognition.  Some studies found increases in gray matter, others decreases, still others null.  Ditto for white matter as well.
• Given how the participants were European, it is particularly difficult to disentangle cannabis and tobacco use as the two substances are customarily mixed.  This is important because nicotine is a known neurotoxin to which the early adolescent brain appears to be exquisitely sensitive.
• The study apparently did not look at the brain effects of those who used cannabis but did not initiate until age 15 or older, so even if the effects are real, they may not necessarily be generalizable to people over 15.
• The practical significance of the findings is clear as mud right now.  Even the researchers aren't entirely sure what they mean.  Is it actually bad to have more gray matter, and compared to what exactly?  Is it disrupted brain development, or simply stimulated and enhanced neurogenesis?
• While greater gray matter in the study was correlated with differences in psychomotor performance contemporaneously for whatever reason, the only bad thing correlated with it two years later was generalized anxiety.  No other measures of psychopathology or performance were correlated at baseline or two years later.
• Come to think of it, if these 14 year olds were followed up two years later, why were their brains not scanned again a second time at 16, especially since there admittedly were many who were cannabis-naive at 14 who went on to use it two years later?
• And frankly, it really doesn't even pass the straight face test that a mere single dose or two of such a relatively mild psychoactive substance would be enough cause a long-lasting disruption to brain development, a process that occurs over several years.  To quote Paracelsus, "the dose makes the poison".  That, and Occam's Razor too.

Of course, the cliche that "more research is needed" certainly applies here, and the researchers indeed say as much.  They also plan to do a follow-up study as well in the near future.  Though if history is any indication, we should not hold our breath waiting for these results to be replicated.

Keep in mind that the infamous 2012 study that reportedly found persistently reduced IQs among adults who used cannabis before age 18, was debunked by 2014 study that found no correlation between adolescent cannabis use and IQ or exam performance (though heavy use beginning before age 15 was associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16).  This latter study did control for tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other factors.  So it is very likely that soon another study will come a long and refute the first study discussed in this article, or perhaps find that any such effects are limited to the heaviest users, particularly those who began before age 15 or 16.  In fact, a 2018 systematic review of 69 studies of adolescent and young adult cannabis use and cognitive functioning found that reported adverse effects were much smaller in size than the prohibitionists like to claim, and generally tend to be temporary rather than permanent, even for frequent and/or heavy use.  And interestingly, no correlation with age of onset, though the mean age of study participants in these 69 studies was significantly higher than in the aforementioned Montreal study.

Other studies as well cast serious doubt on the scary claims of cannabis neurotoxicity as well, and most studies find weed safer than alcohol.

So what is the best takeaway from such studies?  It would seem that while occasional or moderate cannabis use is basically a non-problem, heavy and/or daily/near-daily use (unless medically necessary) should probably be avoided at any age, but particularly for people under 18 and especially under 15.  And while delaying the onset of use, or at least regular use, for as long as possible is probably wise for people under 18 and especially under 15, there is no hard scientific evidence that cannabis is any more harmful at 18 than it is as 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter.  Thus, there is no good reason to keep it illegal or set the age limit any higher than 18.  And even for people well under 18, the criminal law is still far too harsh a tool to apply to something like this that more likely than not turns out to be a non-problem.

The prohibitionist "scientists" and their pal-reviewers really seem to be grasping at straws now.  Apparently they think if they move the goalposts enough, they will score a touchdown.  But as we all know, that is not how science really works.

Cannabis Legalization NOT Associated With Increased Teen Use

After several years of recreational cannabis legalization in several states, on the heels of up to over two decades of medical cannabis legalization in even more states, a recent study once again puts the lie to the prohibitionist claim that legalization would result in increased teen use of cannabis among other things in their supposed parade of horribles.  In fact, the study found that recreational legalization for adults was found to be correlated with a significant decrease in both overall and frequent teen use, while medical-only legalization was not significantly correlated with teen use at all either way.  Thus, the study completely lays waste to one of the prohibitionists' strongest arguments.  So consider that perennial zombie lie dead as a doornail for good.

That said, Twenty-One Debunked, in living up to our name, would be remiss if we did not note that so far, all states that have legalized weed for recreational use thus far have set the age limit at 21 (in contrast to Canada, where it is 18 or 19 depending on the province, or Uruguay and the Netherlands, where it is 18) and the study only looked at the USA.  But given that 1) medical legalization laws (which were not correlated with teen use) generally set the age limit at 18 in the absence of parental consent and often have loopholes, and 2) other countries that set lower age limits have thus far not reported a significant jump in teen use in recent years, and 3) America's experience thus far with changes in the drinking and tobacco smoking ages, one can conclude that an age limit of 18 for recreational use in the USA is unlikely to increase teen use relative to either prohibition or a 21 age limit.  Thus, no good reason to set it higher than 18.