New Tobacco 21 Study Leaves Us With More Questions Than Answers

A new and very preliminary study of recently-passed Tobacco 21 laws appears to find that such laws significantly reduce tobacco smoking (both recent smoking and current and established smoking) by as much as 39% among 18-20 year olds.  The study looked at survey results of 1869 18-22 year old young adults in 2016-2017 in 48 states and DC (excluding New York and Massachusetts), and compared those in states and localities that raised the tobacco age to 21 versus those that did not, and further compared 18-20 year olds versus 21-22 year olds, after adjusting for potential confounders such as cigarette taxes as well as demographics and parental and peer smoking.

However, there are still reasons to be skeptical of these findings:

• Correlation is not causation, and there may still be selection bias, reporting bias, and residual or unmeasured confounding.
• Only a few states and localities had an age limit of 21 for tobacco in 2016-2017, especially when New York and Massachusetts are excluded.
• In some of these few Tobacco 21 states/localities, the number of individuals surveyed was in the single digits.
• Even if these results are 100% due to the hike of the age limit to 21, the study may only be measuring short-term effects since the laws are so recent and only data from 2016-2017 were used.  More longitudinal data are needed.
• Such "early-adopter" effects may not be generalizable or durable, as we saw with the 21 drinking age according to Miron and Tetelbaum (2009).
• Data were collected from November 2016 through May 2017, and yet New Jersey was listed a Tobacco 21 state even though their law didn't go into effect until six months later in November 2017.  Thus, we noticed at least one potential coding error.
• California raised the cigarette tax significantly as of April 1, 2017, within the period of the study.  And Illinois and Chicago have raised their cigarette taxes several times in the years before and after Chicago's Tobacco 21 law that was implemented in 2016.
• Smoking was already on the decline nationwide long before any Tobacco 21 laws were passed, and the data are not adjusted for pre-existing trends.
• Vaping was not examined in this study, and in any case all of the data was from before the JUUL craze came on the scene.
• And most importantly, the study did NOT look at people under 18 at all.

Thus, these results are preliminary at best and need to be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a whole pound.  Especially since, as we previously reported, according to the YRBSS data there is really no robust correlation between high school smoking or vaping rates and whether the smoking/vaping age is 18, 19, or 21.  And even in this new study of 18-22 year olds, the effects were limited to only those who had already tried cigarettes before, and that typically occurs well before 18.  But wait, isn't the strongest pro-21 argument that Tobacco 21 laws would reduce smoking (and vaping) among people under 18?

And for what it's worth, there is no evidence that Tobacco 21 laws (all of which now apply equally to vape products, by the way) have done anything to reduce the JUUL craze that began in very late 2017 and apparently continues unabated to this day in all states and localities regardless of the age limit.

Also, it just so happens that yet another recent and preliminary study was done, this time longitudinally using BRFSS data of 18-20 year olds from 2011-2016 compared to 23-25 year olds, and comparing the local tobacco age limits by metropolitan/micropolitan statistical area (MMSA).  This study, which was driven by even earlier adopters (mainly city and county-level Tobacco 21 ordinances), did find statistically significant reductions in current established smoking by 18-20 year olds that were not found for 23-25 year olds.  But the devil is really in the details, since the effect size was rather small (1.2 percentage points, and at most 3.1 percentage points in some models) for practical purposes, and may still have been driven by reporting bias, selection bias, and/or differential sensitivity by age to tobacco tax hikes at the same time.  And given how effect sizes for later adopters of any given policies tend to shrink over time compared to earlier adopters, these results do not look particularly encouraging.  Especially since a cursory look at the trendlines in the study finds that the slight divergence in smoking rates that emerges in 2014-2015 re-converges and essentially disappears by 2016, suggesting that the findings are likely driven by short-term effects rather than longer-term effects.

Bottom line:  it looks like the supposed benefits of raising the smoking/vaping age to 21 were, shall we say, all smoke and mirrors, at least for people under 18.  The supposed success of Needham, MA, for example, was likely a statistical fluke and/or a result of endogeneity, much like the "early adopter" effects of the first few states to raise the drinking age to 21 creating that particular mirage in the 1980s.  Or perhaps increased enforcement in general relative to neighboring towns did the trick regardless of the age limit, like it did in Woodridge, IL and several other communities the 1990s with an age limit of 18.  Studies show that whenever vendor compliance exceeds 90-95%, there is indeed a dramatic drop in teen smoking regardless, by as much as 50% compared with previously weak enforcement and low compliance rates, especially for the youngest teens.  More recent research bears this out as well, for teen smoking as well as vaping.   And keep in mind that those who make it to 18 without smoking are far less likely to take up this deadly habit later on.

This all should be food for thought for policymakers debating not just the age limit for tobacco, but also for alcohol, cannabis, or anything else for that matter.  And even if such benefits of the 21 age limit were real, we at Twenty-One Debunked would still not support an age limit any higher than 18, on principle alone.  Old enough to fight and vote = old enough to drink and smoke.  'Nuff said.

New York Raises Smoking Age To 21

Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York had to be a big shot, apparently.  Today on July 16, he finally signed the bill that raises the age limit for tobacco and vaping products to 21, effective 120 days from today.

When the lights went out on Broadway last Saturday, that was certainly an ominous sign.  And lest anyone think there is a consolation prize, Cuomo failed to even get weed legalized last month since he apparently couldn't even muster up the votes in the legislature to pass it.

Many counties and cities in the state, including NYC and now all of its "backyard", already set the tobacco/vape age limit at 21.  That of course includes my home county of Westchester, which raised it from 18 to 21 last year, and even Putnam County too.

The only silver lining is that the new age limit of 21, like the old age limit of 18, will only apply to vendors, as it will still not be illegal for "underage" people to possess or consume tobacco or vaping products.   But that still does NOT mean we should support it one bit!

With the "bookend" states of California and New York now down, plus several other populous and not-so-populous states, not to mention hundreds of localities across the country, and even our nation's capital, is our movement lost for good?  We sure hope not.  It looked like the Tobacco 21 movement had stagnated last year, but now with New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington State, Illinois, and Texas next to jump on the bandwagon, and soon the federal government as well, we clearly got way too complacent last year.  It certainly does NOT bode well for any near-future attempt to lower the drinking and toking ages to 18!

Hindsight is 2020, both the year and the vision.  There is still a slim chance that the America we know and love is not completely lost yet.  But that window is closing very, very fast.

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.

The Overton Window Has Shifted, And Not In A Good Way

With more and more states raising their smoking ages to 21 (and the federal government likely to follow very soon), along with a burgeoning movement to raise the "juvenile" injustice age to 20 or 21 (or perhaps even higher), one can conclude that the Overton window is currently shifting in the wrong direction.  That is, it is becoming increasingly politically acceptable to raise age limits higher than 18, while lowering age limits is becoming increasingly unacceptable these days.   And both corporate duopoly parties in government today seem to be equally affected/infected by this virulently ageist and illiberal trend towards higher and higher age limits.

Clearly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the odds of us successfully lowering the drinking age (and toking age) to 18 anywhere in the the USA have really never been lower than they are now.  Even the possible silver lining of a new showdown between the feds and states is exceeedingly unlikely now, since Mitch McConnell's "Tobacco-Free Youth Act" recently had that controversial section about withholding state grants removed before it got out of committee, and it looks likely to pass both houses without it.

Time and momentum are NOT on our side right now, in other words.  Slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear, and we need to turn this ship of fools around before it's too late (assuming it isn't already too late).

What's Worse Than Raising The Federal Smoking Age To 21? Forcing States To Do The Same As Well

There are a number of federal Tobacco 21 bills competing in Congress right now.  But the one that Big Tobacco and their shill Mitch McConnell both want, the Tobacco-Free Youth Act, would not only raise the federal tobacco and vape sale age from 18 to 21 (thus amending the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009), but also force states to raise their own legal sale age limit for tobacco and vaping products to 21 by changing "18" to "21" in the 1992 Synar Amendment as well.  Such coercion in the latter would revoke a portion of federal substance abuse prevention grants from states that choose to keep their age limits below 21, something that has been academic since 1993 (when all states raised their age limits to at least 18 to satisfy the Synar Amendment as written).  Sound familiar?  In 2000 the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional since back then the FDA did not have legal authority over tobacco, the FDA now does, so any new challenge would have to be one that would also attack the federal drinking age coercion in the 1980s, whether on Tenth Amendment grounds or substantive due process / equal protection under the 14th Amendment.  (Such a challenge may be the only silver lining, assuming both get overturned as a result.)

History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.  And the odd thing is, if the federal age limit is raised to 21, coercing the states to do so is redundant at best, and counterproductive (for the feds, that is) since it opens the federal government up to legal challenges, and also makes it easy for Big Tobacco to extract special favors from states by giving them an unnecessary bargaining chip to play with.  And this flaw seems very likely to be deliberate.  So in their zeal to raise the smoking age to 21, the anti-tobacco movement becomes strange bedfellows with Big Tobacco.

Seriously.   Let that sink in.  And by the way, threatening to withhold substance abuse prevention grants from states as a cudgel during the opioid crisis is every bit as base and cowardly (if not even more so) as withholding federal highway funding while our infrastructure is rapidly decaying and crumbling.

All of these Tobacco 21 bills need to be vigorously fought against, period.  If any of these happen to pass, another little piece of America as we know it will die, and 21 will become the new 18 in so many other ways as well.  And then it would be only a matter of time before it becomes 25, and so on.

UPDATE:  Looks like as of June 26th, the bill advanced out of committee, and they apparently scrapped the part about forcing states to raise their own age limits for tobacco/vaping products.  But the bill still stinks to high heaven regardless, albeit slightly less.

How About We NOT "Raise The Age" For Juvenile Injustice Beyond 18?

For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT support any attempt raise the age for the juvenile injustice system any higher than 18.  Period.

Until recently, no one really took seriously the idea of raising the juvenile injustice age any higher than 18.  In fact, we would often half-jokingly use this idea as an intellectual checkmate against the 21 drinking age and similar illiberal and ageist laws.  But the idea is apparently now really catching on since last year.  Make no mistake, this will NOT make young adults (or anyone) any better off, but it is a Trojan horse that will later be used as an excuse to revoke ALL civil rights from 18-24 year olds, just like people under 18 today.  After all, "you can't have adult rights without adult responsibilities", they say, without even the slightest hint of nuance (or irony), of course.

I mean, we can kinda understand raising the age for the "juvenile" injustice system to 18, only because it is unfair that as long as the age of majority remains 18 and the juvenile age limit is lower than 18, people under that age are hypocritically treated as children when they are good and adults when they are bad.  A few states currently still set the age limit at 16 or 17 to this day, and they should probably raise it to 18 given what we know now about youth development.  But any higher than that is really asking for trouble, and will do far more harm than good.  If they honestly want to make the adult criminal injustice system more rehabilitative and restorative for all ages, fine.  But they really don't, and raising the age limit is both over and under inclusive, and highly counterproductive to both justice and youth rights.

As for the idea of having separate young-adult prisons for 18-24 or 18-25 year olds while still trying and sentencing them as adults, we have no problem with that.  The UK has done that for a while, and now Connecticut is experimenting with this idea as well.  It does make sense to not put those who are young enough still have a chance (however slim) to be rehabilitated in the same facility with older, more hardened criminals who will be a very bad influence on them.  Believe it or not, us youth rights activists actually are capable of nuance.  But trying and sentencing them as anything less than the adults that they are is really taking things too far in that regard.

Indeed, slopes are a LOT slipperier than they appear.  One of the very first things to do to fight this trend is to jettison the term "emerging adult" from our vocabulary, at least in regards to 18-24 year olds.  "Young adult" is the longstanding and preferred term for that age range as well as also 25-34 year olds, and there is no need for neologisms that further divide the youth or young adult demographics.  Language is very powerful, and recategorizing people with neologisms is the first step towards second-class citizenship (i.e. not REAL adults, because REASONS, or something).

And of course, we must recognize and expose the junk neuroscience behind this latest Trojan horse for what it is, as it is literally the same junk neuroscience used to justify abridging the civil rights of 18-24 year olds (to say nothing of those under 18 as well, a fortiori.)

So let's NOT give the ageists any more ammunition by taking the bait here.  Seriously, not even in jest.

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

Today is Memorial Day, often known as the unofficial first day of summer and National BBQ Day.  But let's remember what it really is--a day to honor all of the men and women of our armed forces who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.  And that of course includes all of those who died serving our country before they were legally old enough to drink.  Let us all take a moment of silence to honor them.

As for Candy Lightner, the ageist turncoat founder of MADD who had the chutzpah and hubris to go on national TV in 2008 and publicly insult our troops, may her name and memory be forever blotted out. 

And as always, arrive alive, don't drink and drive.  It's just not worth it, period.  And it's very simple to prevent.   If you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive.  It's not rocket science.

Who Are The Real Radicals?

The word radical generally refers to a person or group that wants to make drastic and fundamental (that is, radical) changes to society.  Derived from the Latin word for "root", in this way it illustrates just how fundamental such change is called for.  Classic examples that you oldsters reading this may recall from back in the day include Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.  But is Twenty-One Debunked really such a radical group like some may think?

Is it really radical to want all legal adults above the age of majority (18) to have the same rights that people over 21 currently enjoy, including (but not limited to) the right to use, possess, share, and purchase otherwise-legal psychoactive substances?

Is it really radical to believe that alcohol should be legal for all adults, period, like it is in nearly every single non-Muslim country in the world (and even some moderate Muslim countries too)?

Is it really radical to believe that cannabis, which is objectively safer overall than alcohol and tobacco and less addictive than coffee, should be re-legalized (it was not always illegal, only for a tiny fraction of history) for both recreational and medical use, fairly taxed, and regulated no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco (and legally sold and/or used in many if not most of the same places as well)?

Is it really radical to believe that, when it is legalized, the age limit for cannabis should not be any higher than the legal age of majority (18), nor any higher than for the more dangerous and addictive already-legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?

Is it really radical to believe that, for as long as tobacco remains legal and readily available, those over the age of majority (18) should retain the right to decide for themselves whether or not to choose pleasure over longevity and indulge in this (albeit dangerous and deadly) substance?

Is it really radical to not want to punish the many (such as an entire demographic group) for the actions of the few?  And to prefer to hold individuals fully and solely accountable for their own misbehavior?

Is it really radical to believe that drinking establishments, and especially social hosts at private residences, should NOT be held vicariously liable for what their adult guests or customers do after leaving the premises following participation in voluntary intoxication on the premises?  And that personal responsibility for individuals should still be a thing?

Is it really radical to believe that, as John Stuart Mill believed, that individuals are fully sovereign over their own bodies and minds, at least as far as consenting adults are concerned?

Is it really radical to believe that our own bodies are NOT property of the state or any other entity besides ourselves, regardless of what the state or entity may claim or choose to provide us with?

Is it really radical to believe that adults should NOT have to be baby-sat?

Is it really radical to believe that if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar?

Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government does NOT get to force or coerce states to raise their own legal age limits for alcohol (or any other legal substance) higher than their own ages of majority?

Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government should have far LESS (if any) latitude in terms of micro-managing authority over We the People than the state and local governments do, and when in doubt should really stay in their own lane?

Because if you think that these ideas are somehow radical, we've got news for you:  they are actually quite conservative and in line with both international and historical norms, even in our very own country before 1984 if you can believe that.  This shows just how far the Overton window has shifted both rightward and in the authoritarian direction, and just how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.

As Five Finger Death Punch would say, it's stranger than fiction, how we've decayed...

Still No Increase In Stoned Driving Post-Legalization In Canada

Cannabis has been legal in Canada for everyone over 18 (or 19, depending on the province) since October 17, 2018, and yet six months later there has still been no noticeable increase in stoned driving and related crashes overall according to police.  While it may still be too soon to tell, that is still very encouraging news that takes much of the wind out the sails of both prohibitionists and ageists alike.

This adds to the growing body of evidence that legalization of cannabis was NOT a disaster after all, and that there is no good reason to set the age limit any higher than 18.  Food for thought indeed.