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Even the vaping data are a bit outdated now, since the MTF survey was taken in the spring of 2019, at least several weeks or months before the new "mystery" vaping illness (now called EVALI) outbreak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.

Finally, a Mainstream Social Science Article that Doesn't Trash Young People

A new article by Jeffrey Jensen Arnett is one of the very few mainstream articles that truly tell it like it is in regards to young people today.  Looking at trends in various risk behavior (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, crime and violence, traffic fatalities, teen pregnancy, unprotected sex, etc.) the author found what renowned sociologist and youth-rights activist Mike Males has been saying all along:  young people aged 13-18 today are actually better behaved overall that previous generations were at that age, at least going back to 1990.  But don't expect the ageist mainstream media to let mere facts get in the way of a good moral-panic story, of course.

Most interestingly, the authors attempts to delve into the causes of such positive trends since 1990.  Two such general explanations--public policy changes and changes in parenting practices/styles--were examined but were found quite lacking, in part due to data unavailability and in part due to no significant or even perceptible time-series correlation (sometimes even in the wrong direction).  The third explanation--the massive increase in smartphone and other media use among young people--is in fact the one that seems to carry the most weight.  Counterintuitive as it may be, such media use, for all of its faults, is quite a time sink that perhaps keeps young people too occupied to get into trouble as much as they otherwise would.

These trends have occurred despite the deteriorating behavior of the adults around them, and also seem to be more pronounced in the USA compared to other industrialized countries.  No explanation explains all of it, and some of it may simply be reversion to the mean or societal evolution.  But one should note that since 1990 there has been no further change in the drinking age since all states were already 21 by then, so there is no evidence that any trends since then were the result of that particular ageist abomination.

In fact, we actually have a very good yardstick (or perhaps meterstick) for what would have happened had the USA not raised the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s.  It's called Canada.  Again, there is no evidence that the 21 drinking age is responsible for such trends.  Zip.  Zilch.  Nada.  Sorry, try again, ageists.

So what else could it be?  Well, one likely candidate could be the retreat of an old villain--preschool lead poisoning from paint and gasoline--after its phaseout.  While the article does not mention it, the fact remains that young people today (except perhaps in Flint, Michigan) were exposed to far less lead (a known nasty neurotoxin) than previous generations were, especially the Baby Boomers.  And the phaseout of leaded gasoline began in 1976, so those born in and after that year reached adolescence in 1990 or later.  And the phaseout began and finished earlier in the USA and Canada than it did in most of Europe, the UK, and Australia, let alone the rest of the world.  In fact, only Japan phased it out significantly sooner than we did.  At the same time, the USA was also much slower in phasing out lead-based paint (1978, much later than the League of Nations did in 1922), and had significantly higher gasoline consumption per capita than the rest of the world, so the "double dose" of lead from gasoline and paint together in the mid-20th century was higher than most other countries, hence the reversion to the mean after 1990 or so.  So that explains at least largely why the trends since 1990 are more pronounced, or at least earlier, in the USA than most other industrialized countries.

Food for thought indeed.