This Election Day, two states (Washington and Colorado) made history as the first states to legalize cannabis (weed) for non-medical use since it was banned in the 1930s. Notably, both states have chosen an age limit of 21 rather than 18. Thus, it is worth discussing how Twenty-One Debunked stands on cannabis-related issues, which until now have really not been much of a priority for us.
In a nutshell, our creed shall apply to cannabis the same as it does for alcohol, provided that cannabis is already legal or just about to be legalized. That means that we support an age limit of 18 rather than 21 for purchase and/or possession, and no criminal penalties or criminal record for anyone simply possessing or consuming it. Passing around a joint or bong should be treated no differently than passing around a tobacco cigarette or a bottle of beer. Growing one's own cannabis (within reason) should be treated no differently than growing one's own tobacco or brewing one's own beer or wine. In addition, we support reasonable taxation, regulation, advertising restrictions, and strict quality control of any legally-sold cannabis, and we support tough penalties for driving under the influence.
However, in states where cannabis is still illegal, our creed shall remain irrelevant and Twenty-One Debunked will not push for legalization in such states since we really have no dog in the fight. We will leave that cause up to the True Spirit of America Party (TSAP), which strongly supports full legalization of cannabis in all 50 states and especially at the federal level. But Twenty-One Debunked shall remain neutral on the issue of legalization of any substances other than alcohol.
Let us make it clear that you do NOT have to support legalization of cannabis to join our movement, which is primarily concerned with the drinking age and other alcohol-related issues. For those pragmatists who do support legalization but believe the age limit should initially be 21 in order to get the bill or initiative to pass (and then lowered to 18 at some point in the future), we see no harm in you joining either. But those ageists who strongly support legalization only for those over 21 (and harsh penalties for 18-20 year olds who indulge) are probably NOT going to be an asset to our movement to lower the drinking age to 18. Liberty for "just us, not all" has never been our style, and never will be.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
If it Ducks Like a Quack
After celebrating our recent victory in New Zealand, we almost forgot about the other country down under. While there does not appear to be any real serious chance of Australia's drinking age being raised, the head of the Australian Medical Association just revealed himself as the king of quacks by calling for his country's drinking age to be raised to not 21, but 25. Dr. Steve Hambleton claims that the brain continues to develop until age 25, and that exposure to alcohol before that age can change a person's addictive potential. He also claims that raising the age limit would reduce drunken violence, which is apparently a serious problem in Australia.
But once again, theory collides pretty hard with reality. First of all, the most recent studies have found that brain development (especially the prefrontal cortex) actually continues well into the 30s and 40s, and possibly even beyond that. Secondly, as for the risk of alcoholism, the best study we have found that addresses the issue, Agrawal et al. (2009), finds that drinking before 18 (and especially before 15) does appear to increase the risk of later alcoholism, but there was no significant difference between those who began drinking at 18, 19, 20, 21, or even 23+. So 21 or even 25 is completely arbitrary. Thirdly, some states of India have a drinking age of 25 while others are 18 or 21 and a few are "dry" for all ages, and there is currently no evidence that the parts with higher drinking ages have fewer drinking problems than the parts with lower drinking ages. In fact, the parts with an age limit of 25 find it VERY hard to enforce, with up to 90% of bar patrons on a busy night being "underage." How Australia could possibly pull it off remains an unanswered question. Finally, setting the drinking age seven years higher than the age of majority is serious violation of the civil rights of 18-24 year old legal adults, unless of course Dr. Hambleton is willing to raise the age of majority for everything else (good and bad) to 25 as well. Which we think is unlikely, by the way.
If Australia really wants to solve its legendary drinking problem, which is almost as bad as New Zealand's and affects ALL ages, they would be better off keeping the drinking age at 18 and enforcing it better while raising the alcohol taxes, setting a price floor, reducing the number and density of alcohol outlets, improving alcohol education and treatment, and most importantly, cracking down VERY hard on DUI and especially drunk violence and disorderly conduct. Australia has seen great success in reducing drunk driving fatalities, but drunk violence and extreme binge drinking remain serious problems. It is mainly a cultural problem, which can really only be solved by changing the culture. And raising the drinking age will NOT accomplish any beneficial culture change--in fact it will most likely make it worse, if the USA is any indication.
But once again, theory collides pretty hard with reality. First of all, the most recent studies have found that brain development (especially the prefrontal cortex) actually continues well into the 30s and 40s, and possibly even beyond that. Secondly, as for the risk of alcoholism, the best study we have found that addresses the issue, Agrawal et al. (2009), finds that drinking before 18 (and especially before 15) does appear to increase the risk of later alcoholism, but there was no significant difference between those who began drinking at 18, 19, 20, 21, or even 23+. So 21 or even 25 is completely arbitrary. Thirdly, some states of India have a drinking age of 25 while others are 18 or 21 and a few are "dry" for all ages, and there is currently no evidence that the parts with higher drinking ages have fewer drinking problems than the parts with lower drinking ages. In fact, the parts with an age limit of 25 find it VERY hard to enforce, with up to 90% of bar patrons on a busy night being "underage." How Australia could possibly pull it off remains an unanswered question. Finally, setting the drinking age seven years higher than the age of majority is serious violation of the civil rights of 18-24 year old legal adults, unless of course Dr. Hambleton is willing to raise the age of majority for everything else (good and bad) to 25 as well. Which we think is unlikely, by the way.
If Australia really wants to solve its legendary drinking problem, which is almost as bad as New Zealand's and affects ALL ages, they would be better off keeping the drinking age at 18 and enforcing it better while raising the alcohol taxes, setting a price floor, reducing the number and density of alcohol outlets, improving alcohol education and treatment, and most importantly, cracking down VERY hard on DUI and especially drunk violence and disorderly conduct. Australia has seen great success in reducing drunk driving fatalities, but drunk violence and extreme binge drinking remain serious problems. It is mainly a cultural problem, which can really only be solved by changing the culture. And raising the drinking age will NOT accomplish any beneficial culture change--in fact it will most likely make it worse, if the USA is any indication.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Victory in New Zealand
Last night, the New Zealand Parliament apparently listened to reason and voted to keep the drinking age unchanged at 18. This is the second time since 2006 that any attempt to raise the drinking age over there has failed. While the rest of the Alcohol Reform Bill is still being hammered out, we can thankfully rest assured that the NZ drinking age will remain 18 for the foreseeable future. As a result, we at Twenty-One Debunked hereby honor all of those who voted to keep it 18, especially Nikki Kaye (National) and all of the Greens.
To be honest, we at Twenty-One Debunked were a bit worried that New Zealand would actually go through with raising the drinking age to 20, and in doing so ruin any chances that we in the USA could lower our drinking age to 18. After all, a good 3/4 of the adult population in NZ supported raising the drinking age to 20 or even 21, which is roughly the same percentage over here that favors keeping the American drinking age at 21. That is, 18-20 year olds are an outvoted minority who would have been subject to tyranny of the majority had it been up to a popular vote alone. But that's precisely why all modern democracies, even relatively direct ones like Switzerland and several US states, still have legislatures to make laws (and courts to interpret them) rather than literally put everything up to a popular vote. Remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. Albert Einsten knew that quite well.
And it's not like raising the drinking age would have actually done much good. Next time someone claims that lowering the drinking age to 18 in 1999 created a "crisis" in problematic drinking among teens and young adults that wasn't there before, be sure to show them this link to set them straight. Long story short: from 1996/1997 to 2006/2007 it did not significantly increase among 15-24 year olds, but did increase among people over 25. But I guess it's easier to scapegoat young people for adult problems rather than actually try to solve them. Fortunately, the NZ Parliament was smart enough to see through the lies and do the right thing, at least as far as the drinking age is concerned.
As for the rest of the Alcohol Reform Bill still being debated, we at Twenty-One Debunked generally support those provisions, even though they may be rather weak. There is still no definite provision for minimum pricing of alcohol, which according to international evidence would likely have had the largest impact on New Zealand's legendary drinking problem. But some provisions, such as giving communities more say over alcohol outlets and reducing trading hours (currently 24/7), are clearly a step in the right direction. Ultimately, New Zealand's drinking culture needs to change, and Parliament needs to step up to the plate and pass sensible laws that encourage that to happen, but without violating the civil rights of any individual or demographic group. But will they have the intestinal fortitude to do so?
To be honest, we at Twenty-One Debunked were a bit worried that New Zealand would actually go through with raising the drinking age to 20, and in doing so ruin any chances that we in the USA could lower our drinking age to 18. After all, a good 3/4 of the adult population in NZ supported raising the drinking age to 20 or even 21, which is roughly the same percentage over here that favors keeping the American drinking age at 21. That is, 18-20 year olds are an outvoted minority who would have been subject to tyranny of the majority had it been up to a popular vote alone. But that's precisely why all modern democracies, even relatively direct ones like Switzerland and several US states, still have legislatures to make laws (and courts to interpret them) rather than literally put everything up to a popular vote. Remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. Albert Einsten knew that quite well.
And it's not like raising the drinking age would have actually done much good. Next time someone claims that lowering the drinking age to 18 in 1999 created a "crisis" in problematic drinking among teens and young adults that wasn't there before, be sure to show them this link to set them straight. Long story short: from 1996/1997 to 2006/2007 it did not significantly increase among 15-24 year olds, but did increase among people over 25. But I guess it's easier to scapegoat young people for adult problems rather than actually try to solve them. Fortunately, the NZ Parliament was smart enough to see through the lies and do the right thing, at least as far as the drinking age is concerned.
As for the rest of the Alcohol Reform Bill still being debated, we at Twenty-One Debunked generally support those provisions, even though they may be rather weak. There is still no definite provision for minimum pricing of alcohol, which according to international evidence would likely have had the largest impact on New Zealand's legendary drinking problem. But some provisions, such as giving communities more say over alcohol outlets and reducing trading hours (currently 24/7), are clearly a step in the right direction. Ultimately, New Zealand's drinking culture needs to change, and Parliament needs to step up to the plate and pass sensible laws that encourage that to happen, but without violating the civil rights of any individual or demographic group. But will they have the intestinal fortitude to do so?
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Listen Up, Kiwis--Keep It 18
New Zealand will vote on whether or not to raise the drinking age to 20 sometime in the next week or two. It will be a conscience vote rather than a bloc vote, so there is no reason to vote along party lines. We at Twenty-One Debunked have the following things to say to the New Zealand Parliament:
Take it from us in the USA, where the drinking age has been 21 since the 1980s. We can honestly tell you that raising the drinking age does NOT and will NOT work. All it does is force drinking underground and make it more dangerous than it has to be. Just go to any American college campus and you will see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Ditto for high school keggers.
Next time someone claims that lowering the drinking age to 18 in 1999 created a "crisis" in problematic drinking among teens and young adults that wasn't there before, be sure to show them this link to set them straight. Long story short: from 1996/1997 to 2006/2007 it did not significantly increase among 15-24 year olds, but did increase among people over 25. But I guess it's easier to scapegoat young people for adult problems rather than actually try to solve them.
Listen, if NZ really wants to tackle its legendary drinking problem, which affects ALL ages and not just young people, it would be best to raise the alcohol taxes, set a price floor, reduce alcohol outlet density and advertising, crack down hard on drunk driving/violence/disorderly conduct, and increase alcohol education and treatment. You may also want to lower the BAC limit for drunk driving to 0.05 to match Australia as well. But leave the drinking age alone, and actually enforce it better and close the loopholes. Keep the drinking age 18, but require ID from anyone who looks under 30, and require TWO forms of ID for anyone who looks under 18, period. Crack down hard on those who buy for minors, and stores that sell to minors (or don't check ID). And close the loophole that allows furnishing to minors under 18 other than one's own children.
Also, the split age proposal is still problematic because allowing 18-19 year olds to buy alcohol only in bars and not off-premise in stores would encourage drunk driving among that age group, particularly in rural areas with inferior public transport infrastructure and taxis that cost an arm and a leg. (Remember, this is not Sweden we're talking about.) If you want to reduce the availability to those under 18 from older friends and strangers, simply enforce the existing laws better and close the furnishing loopholes, full stop. Alternatively, you could consider putting a cap on the amount of alcohol that an 18-19 year old can purchase at the store in the same day (i.e. no kegs/cases/large liquor bottles, and no more than one off-premise transaction of any kind per day) to discourage purchasing for minors (and high school keggers) while still allowing 18-19 year olds the ability to buy alcohol for personal use legally.
Most importantly, a cultural change is desperately needed in New Zealand across the board as far as alcohol is concerned. Take a look at other countries with a drinking age of 18 or even lower, especially southern Europe. You can learn a lot from them. They generally do not fetishize alcohol by treating it as a major rite of passage. They treat it as a neutral substance that can be good or bad depending on how it’s used, and all drinkers are held to the same high standards of conduct regardless of age. Alcohol-related misbehavior is seen as a conscious choice, and (unlike in predominantly Anglo-Celtic cultures like NZ) alcohol is never accepted as an excuse for doing anything that would be considered unacceptable when sober. As a result, overindulgence and lager-lout behavior is decidedly “uncool” over there, rather than glamorized like it is NZ and other Anglo-Celtic countries. Remember that every attempt to create a culture of abstinence has failed miserably (six o'clock swill, anyone?), so it's best to aim for a culture of moderation instead. It's what Aristotle would have wanted.
Finally, if you feel that that 18-20 year olds are not mature enough to be trusted with a beer, how can you possibly trust them with a gun, voting, raising kids, or any of the other numerous rights and responsibilities of adulthood? If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
Take it from us in the USA, where the drinking age has been 21 since the 1980s. We can honestly tell you that raising the drinking age does NOT and will NOT work. All it does is force drinking underground and make it more dangerous than it has to be. Just go to any American college campus and you will see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Ditto for high school keggers.
Next time someone claims that lowering the drinking age to 18 in 1999 created a "crisis" in problematic drinking among teens and young adults that wasn't there before, be sure to show them this link to set them straight. Long story short: from 1996/1997 to 2006/2007 it did not significantly increase among 15-24 year olds, but did increase among people over 25. But I guess it's easier to scapegoat young people for adult problems rather than actually try to solve them.
Listen, if NZ really wants to tackle its legendary drinking problem, which affects ALL ages and not just young people, it would be best to raise the alcohol taxes, set a price floor, reduce alcohol outlet density and advertising, crack down hard on drunk driving/violence/disorderly conduct, and increase alcohol education and treatment. You may also want to lower the BAC limit for drunk driving to 0.05 to match Australia as well. But leave the drinking age alone, and actually enforce it better and close the loopholes. Keep the drinking age 18, but require ID from anyone who looks under 30, and require TWO forms of ID for anyone who looks under 18, period. Crack down hard on those who buy for minors, and stores that sell to minors (or don't check ID). And close the loophole that allows furnishing to minors under 18 other than one's own children.
Also, the split age proposal is still problematic because allowing 18-19 year olds to buy alcohol only in bars and not off-premise in stores would encourage drunk driving among that age group, particularly in rural areas with inferior public transport infrastructure and taxis that cost an arm and a leg. (Remember, this is not Sweden we're talking about.) If you want to reduce the availability to those under 18 from older friends and strangers, simply enforce the existing laws better and close the furnishing loopholes, full stop. Alternatively, you could consider putting a cap on the amount of alcohol that an 18-19 year old can purchase at the store in the same day (i.e. no kegs/cases/large liquor bottles, and no more than one off-premise transaction of any kind per day) to discourage purchasing for minors (and high school keggers) while still allowing 18-19 year olds the ability to buy alcohol for personal use legally.
Most importantly, a cultural change is desperately needed in New Zealand across the board as far as alcohol is concerned. Take a look at other countries with a drinking age of 18 or even lower, especially southern Europe. You can learn a lot from them. They generally do not fetishize alcohol by treating it as a major rite of passage. They treat it as a neutral substance that can be good or bad depending on how it’s used, and all drinkers are held to the same high standards of conduct regardless of age. Alcohol-related misbehavior is seen as a conscious choice, and (unlike in predominantly Anglo-Celtic cultures like NZ) alcohol is never accepted as an excuse for doing anything that would be considered unacceptable when sober. As a result, overindulgence and lager-lout behavior is decidedly “uncool” over there, rather than glamorized like it is NZ and other Anglo-Celtic countries. Remember that every attempt to create a culture of abstinence has failed miserably (six o'clock swill, anyone?), so it's best to aim for a culture of moderation instead. It's what Aristotle would have wanted.
Finally, if you feel that that 18-20 year olds are not mature enough to be trusted with a beer, how can you possibly trust them with a gun, voting, raising kids, or any of the other numerous rights and responsibilities of adulthood? If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Alcohol + Energy Drinks = Casual Sex?
The latest moral panic involving young people and alcohol is the idea that alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AMEDs for short) increases the odds of casual sex and/or drunk sex. It was inevitable that this moral panic, like all others in history, would eventually be about sex. But is it true?
A new study of college students found that those who mixed alcohol with energy drinks were statistically more likely to engage in casual sex and to be drunk during their most recent sexual encounter. However, that correlation does not necessarily prove a causal relationship, especially since it is a cross-sectional study. Even the author of the study acknowledges that. And one bright spot of the study was that consuming AMEDs did not affect the likelihood of the students using condoms during their most recent sexual encounter.
A recent review of the scientific literature on the topic of AMEDs suggests that the dangers have been greatly exaggerated. After surveying numerous studies of the effects of combining the two beverages, the authors concluded that there was, contrary to popular opinion:
In fact, a recent Australian study of young adults surprisingly found that mixing alcohol with energy drinks actually resulted in less risk-taking behavior and disinhibition effects than drinking alcohol alone, despite the fact that more alcohol was consumed during the AMED sessions than in the alcohol-only sessions. The reasons for this finding are not clear, but it certainly throws a monkey wrench into the specious claim that AMEDs lead to more risk taking than drinking plain alcohol.
Of course, it should go without saying that both alcohol and energy drinks, alone or in combination, can indeed be harmful when consumed to excess. Also, one should always remember that caffeine (in energy drinks or otherwise) absolutely does not make a drunk person less impaired or more able to drive. The best take-home message from all this is that moderation is the key.
One should also note that despite the explosion in energy drinks (and mixing them with alcohol) over the past decade, teen pregnancy has recently reached a record low, and surveys do not show an increase in sexual activity among teenagers or young adults in the past 10-20 years (in fact they generally show decreases). Thus, the fears of this moral panic appear to be largely unfounded. But it's still wise for drinkers to always carry condoms with them on their nights out, just in case.
A new study of college students found that those who mixed alcohol with energy drinks were statistically more likely to engage in casual sex and to be drunk during their most recent sexual encounter. However, that correlation does not necessarily prove a causal relationship, especially since it is a cross-sectional study. Even the author of the study acknowledges that. And one bright spot of the study was that consuming AMEDs did not affect the likelihood of the students using condoms during their most recent sexual encounter.
A recent review of the scientific literature on the topic of AMEDs suggests that the dangers have been greatly exaggerated. After surveying numerous studies of the effects of combining the two beverages, the authors concluded that there was, contrary to popular opinion:
- virtually no hard evidence that adding energy drinks to the mix significantly alters the behavioral effects of alcohol
- no reliable evidence that energy drinks significantly affect the perceived level of intoxication by drinkers
- zero evidence that mixing energy drinks with alcohol increases the odds of alcohol or drug abuse or dependence, and
- no significant adverse health effects for healthy individuals from combining energy drinks and alcohol in moderation.
In fact, a recent Australian study of young adults surprisingly found that mixing alcohol with energy drinks actually resulted in less risk-taking behavior and disinhibition effects than drinking alcohol alone, despite the fact that more alcohol was consumed during the AMED sessions than in the alcohol-only sessions. The reasons for this finding are not clear, but it certainly throws a monkey wrench into the specious claim that AMEDs lead to more risk taking than drinking plain alcohol.
Of course, it should go without saying that both alcohol and energy drinks, alone or in combination, can indeed be harmful when consumed to excess. Also, one should always remember that caffeine (in energy drinks or otherwise) absolutely does not make a drunk person less impaired or more able to drive. The best take-home message from all this is that moderation is the key.
One should also note that despite the explosion in energy drinks (and mixing them with alcohol) over the past decade, teen pregnancy has recently reached a record low, and surveys do not show an increase in sexual activity among teenagers or young adults in the past 10-20 years (in fact they generally show decreases). Thus, the fears of this moral panic appear to be largely unfounded. But it's still wise for drinkers to always carry condoms with them on their nights out, just in case.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Update on Guam
Two years ago, we at Twenty-One Debunked were chagrined when Guam unfortunately raised the drinking age from 18 to 21. While not all the necessary data are in yet, we have enough preliminary data to give some sort of an update on Guam since the drinking age was raised.
At least one Guam news website trumpets the July 2010 law change as a success. For example, they note (correctly) that according to the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), 13.6% of Guam's high school students engaged in "binge" drinking, compared to 19.2% in 2007, the last available year in the survey before the law change. This drop by nearly a third sounds impressive until you consider the following facts:
The most recent Uniform Crime Report for Guam is for 2010. In it we see that total DUI arrests dropped significantly from 2009 but nonetheless remain higher than 2008. DUI arrests for 18-19 year olds were 42 in 2008, 52 in 2009, and 35 in 2010, which was a slight decrease from 2008. (Data for 20 year olds in 2010 was lumped in with 21-24 year olds, so it could not be used.) Juvenile crime (i.e. under 18) saw zero progress overall in 2010, and in fact nearly doubled from 2009. Specific crimes that rose in 2010 among juveniles included not just DUI but also murder, rape, assault, robbery, vandalism, liquor law, and drug abuse violations among others.
One must also remember that in 2010 Guam had a major crackdown on drunk driving with tougher new penalties (after many years of a very lax policy), and also increased education and awareness about the alcohol problems on the island. Also, the new drinking age of 21 appears to be more heavily enforced that the previous drinking age of 18, which was poorly enforced. That's a lot of variables to consider.
Finally, we should note that if Miron and Tetelbaum's groundbreaking study of the 21 drinking age is any guide, any apparent benefits of Guam raising the drinking age to 21 should disappear beyond the first year or two of adoption. And while tourism actually went up in 2011 (except for Japanese tourists after the tsunami) contrary to our predictions, it is still too soon to say that raising the drinking age to 21 had no adverse effect on tourism. For example, the US military buildup on the island generated increased economic growth that could have potentially masked (or delayed) any declines in tourism that would have otherwise occurred. The Fijian experience is instructive in that it took fully three years for Fiji to see that tourism was suffering due to the 2006 drinking age hike to 21, and then it was lowered back to 18 in 2009.
At least one Guam news website trumpets the July 2010 law change as a success. For example, they note (correctly) that according to the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), 13.6% of Guam's high school students engaged in "binge" drinking, compared to 19.2% in 2007, the last available year in the survey before the law change. This drop by nearly a third sounds impressive until you consider the following facts:
- The decline in high school "binge" drinking actually began in 2001, from a high of 24.9%. The drop from 2001 to 2007 was almost as large as the drop from 2007 to 2011.
- The figures also declined in the nation as a whole, from 29.9% in 2001 to 26.0% in 2011 to 21.9% in 2011.
- Due to the fact that the surveys were not done every year, we have no idea when the decline in Guam began to accelerate.
- For grades 9 and 10, the differences in "binge" drinking rates between the years 2007 and 2011 were not statstically significant, despite the fact that the differences were significant for the nation as a whole.
- In fact, 9th and 10th graders in Guam actually saw increases in self-reported riding with a drinking driver, while the mainland saw decreases. So much for the trickle-down theory.
- Guam's teen drinking and "binge" drinking rates have been consistently below the national average, even when their drinking age was 18.
- Compared with 2007, high school students in Guam saw increases in boozy sex as well as unprotected sex in 2011.
The most recent Uniform Crime Report for Guam is for 2010. In it we see that total DUI arrests dropped significantly from 2009 but nonetheless remain higher than 2008. DUI arrests for 18-19 year olds were 42 in 2008, 52 in 2009, and 35 in 2010, which was a slight decrease from 2008. (Data for 20 year olds in 2010 was lumped in with 21-24 year olds, so it could not be used.) Juvenile crime (i.e. under 18) saw zero progress overall in 2010, and in fact nearly doubled from 2009. Specific crimes that rose in 2010 among juveniles included not just DUI but also murder, rape, assault, robbery, vandalism, liquor law, and drug abuse violations among others.
One must also remember that in 2010 Guam had a major crackdown on drunk driving with tougher new penalties (after many years of a very lax policy), and also increased education and awareness about the alcohol problems on the island. Also, the new drinking age of 21 appears to be more heavily enforced that the previous drinking age of 18, which was poorly enforced. That's a lot of variables to consider.
Finally, we should note that if Miron and Tetelbaum's groundbreaking study of the 21 drinking age is any guide, any apparent benefits of Guam raising the drinking age to 21 should disappear beyond the first year or two of adoption. And while tourism actually went up in 2011 (except for Japanese tourists after the tsunami) contrary to our predictions, it is still too soon to say that raising the drinking age to 21 had no adverse effect on tourism. For example, the US military buildup on the island generated increased economic growth that could have potentially masked (or delayed) any declines in tourism that would have otherwise occurred. The Fijian experience is instructive in that it took fully three years for Fiji to see that tourism was suffering due to the 2006 drinking age hike to 21, and then it was lowered back to 18 in 2009.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Is Alcohol Really a Gateway Drug?
While the "gateway drug" theory has historically been associated more with cannabis than any other substance, many of the theory's proponents have also fingered alcohol and tobacco as possible culprits in somehow inducing hapless youth to "graduate" to harder drugs and eventually become hopeless junkies, tweakers, and/or crackheads. In this post we revisit the decades-old theory with a fairly new twist.
A new study of high school student survey data claims to find that alcohol, as opposed to cannabis or tobacco, is the real "gateway" drug. The study found that of all of the numerous psychoactive substances asked about in the Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey, alcohol was the one that was the single most likely to predict (statistically) the use of the others with the greatest accuracy. Ergo, if there is such a thing as a gateway drug, alcohol would most likely be it.
If there is such a thing, that is. And that's a pretty big "if" if you ask us. For starters, the historical background of the gateway theory has a rather tainted pedigree. The gateway theory as applied to cannabis turns out to be a virtually whole-cloth fabrication in the early 1950s by Harry Anslinger (the man responsible for cannabis being federally banned in 1937) who needed a justification for its continued ban and even harsher laws against it after the original Reefer Madness claims (murder, rape, insanity, and death) had been debunked by the La Guardia Committee Report in 1944. So he flip-flopped and claimed that cannabis led its users to heroin addiction, which even he himself actually said was not the case in the 1930s. But it turns out that a more general version of the theory is even older than that. It can be traced back to at least 1910, when it was believed that indulging in smaller pleasures (such as eating spicy food) would lead one to crave larger pleasures (such as opium). And that in turn would eventually lead one to the drunkard's grave. Thus, the latest manifestation of the gateway theory, besides being recycled garbage, has actually come full circle (with alcohol at the start of the sequence rather than the end). And nearly every major study of drugs and drug policy for the past century has been far more likely to refute the theory than to support it.
If not a causal relationship between alcohol (or cannabis) and later use of harder drugs, what explains the apparently strong association between the two? One study by RAND in 2002 found that there was a more parsimonious explanation based on a mathematical model of: 1) the age at which each substance was typically first available to an individual, 2) individuals' propensity to use substances, which varies and is assumed to be normally distributed among the population, and 3) chance or random factors. This explanation was equally accurate at predicting drug use progression compared with a model that assumed a causal relationship. In the case of cannabis, another likely alternative explanation of the supposed gateway effect is the black market itself, as users are exposed to harder drugs through many of the same dealers who sell them their weed. This was one of the reasons why the Netherlands adopted their policy of tolerance for cannabis (which can be purchased in "coffeshops" in many towns), and to this day the Dutch have significantly less of a problem with hard drugs than the USA and many other Western nations.
Additionally, when young people are lied to about the dangers of alcohol and cannabis, they may eventually assume that all anti-drug messages are bunk and experiment accordingly. Unfortunately, honest alcohol and drug education is not nearly as commonplace as it should be in this country.
So where does the issue of the 21 drinking age figure into all of this? For starters, the authors of the study that links alcohol with subsequent use of other substances predictably claim that the longer alcohol use is delayed, the fewer problems there will be with not just alcohol abuse but the abuse of other substances as well, and they recommend zero tolerance for teen drinking. This study would thus most likely be seen as vindication for the pro-21 crowd. However, one can also look at the study's results a bit differently and see that the supposed gateway effect occurs despite (or perhaps even because of) the 21 drinking age. For example, forcing alcohol underground makes it more likely to be used in the same environment as other substances, thus increasing young drinkers' exposure to the other substances. The fact that "underage" drinkers are already breaking the law may encourage them to break other laws as well. Also, at least some 18-20 year olds may find other substances easier to get than beer, and will thus be more likely to use them as substitutes. In fact, a recent study found that when alcohol retreats, cannabis advances (and vice versa), and that is discussed in a previous post on this blog. Therefore, one could say that the 21 drinking age acts as a "social gateway" to other drugs in a somewhat similar manner as cannabis prohibition, albeit much more modestly since there is not much of a real black market in alcohol (save for the modern-day speakeasies known as frat houses). Indeed, it may not be a coincidence that American teens are more likely to use illicit drugs than their European counterparts despite being less likely to drink or smoke cigarettes.
In other words, we ought not to put too much stock in the rather dubious gateway theory, except to note how it could be one more way that the 21 drinking age yet again does more harm than good.
A new study of high school student survey data claims to find that alcohol, as opposed to cannabis or tobacco, is the real "gateway" drug. The study found that of all of the numerous psychoactive substances asked about in the Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey, alcohol was the one that was the single most likely to predict (statistically) the use of the others with the greatest accuracy. Ergo, if there is such a thing as a gateway drug, alcohol would most likely be it.
If there is such a thing, that is. And that's a pretty big "if" if you ask us. For starters, the historical background of the gateway theory has a rather tainted pedigree. The gateway theory as applied to cannabis turns out to be a virtually whole-cloth fabrication in the early 1950s by Harry Anslinger (the man responsible for cannabis being federally banned in 1937) who needed a justification for its continued ban and even harsher laws against it after the original Reefer Madness claims (murder, rape, insanity, and death) had been debunked by the La Guardia Committee Report in 1944. So he flip-flopped and claimed that cannabis led its users to heroin addiction, which even he himself actually said was not the case in the 1930s. But it turns out that a more general version of the theory is even older than that. It can be traced back to at least 1910, when it was believed that indulging in smaller pleasures (such as eating spicy food) would lead one to crave larger pleasures (such as opium). And that in turn would eventually lead one to the drunkard's grave. Thus, the latest manifestation of the gateway theory, besides being recycled garbage, has actually come full circle (with alcohol at the start of the sequence rather than the end). And nearly every major study of drugs and drug policy for the past century has been far more likely to refute the theory than to support it.
If not a causal relationship between alcohol (or cannabis) and later use of harder drugs, what explains the apparently strong association between the two? One study by RAND in 2002 found that there was a more parsimonious explanation based on a mathematical model of: 1) the age at which each substance was typically first available to an individual, 2) individuals' propensity to use substances, which varies and is assumed to be normally distributed among the population, and 3) chance or random factors. This explanation was equally accurate at predicting drug use progression compared with a model that assumed a causal relationship. In the case of cannabis, another likely alternative explanation of the supposed gateway effect is the black market itself, as users are exposed to harder drugs through many of the same dealers who sell them their weed. This was one of the reasons why the Netherlands adopted their policy of tolerance for cannabis (which can be purchased in "coffeshops" in many towns), and to this day the Dutch have significantly less of a problem with hard drugs than the USA and many other Western nations.
Additionally, when young people are lied to about the dangers of alcohol and cannabis, they may eventually assume that all anti-drug messages are bunk and experiment accordingly. Unfortunately, honest alcohol and drug education is not nearly as commonplace as it should be in this country.
So where does the issue of the 21 drinking age figure into all of this? For starters, the authors of the study that links alcohol with subsequent use of other substances predictably claim that the longer alcohol use is delayed, the fewer problems there will be with not just alcohol abuse but the abuse of other substances as well, and they recommend zero tolerance for teen drinking. This study would thus most likely be seen as vindication for the pro-21 crowd. However, one can also look at the study's results a bit differently and see that the supposed gateway effect occurs despite (or perhaps even because of) the 21 drinking age. For example, forcing alcohol underground makes it more likely to be used in the same environment as other substances, thus increasing young drinkers' exposure to the other substances. The fact that "underage" drinkers are already breaking the law may encourage them to break other laws as well. Also, at least some 18-20 year olds may find other substances easier to get than beer, and will thus be more likely to use them as substitutes. In fact, a recent study found that when alcohol retreats, cannabis advances (and vice versa), and that is discussed in a previous post on this blog. Therefore, one could say that the 21 drinking age acts as a "social gateway" to other drugs in a somewhat similar manner as cannabis prohibition, albeit much more modestly since there is not much of a real black market in alcohol (save for the modern-day speakeasies known as frat houses). Indeed, it may not be a coincidence that American teens are more likely to use illicit drugs than their European counterparts despite being less likely to drink or smoke cigarettes.
In other words, we ought not to put too much stock in the rather dubious gateway theory, except to note how it could be one more way that the 21 drinking age yet again does more harm than good.
Monday, July 2, 2012
What the Obamacare Ruling Means
NOTE: This post is on both the TSAP blog and the Twenty-One Debunked blog
The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") was a mixed bag overall. The individual mandate (which the TSAP does not support) was upheld, but as part of the government's taxing power rather than under the Commerce Clause. While it is clearly a stretch to say it is constitutional because it is a tax (just think of poll taxes), and thus unfortunately provides a roadmap on how to make an end-run around some parts of the Constitution in the future, at least the Court recognized that the Feds do not have unlimited power under the Commerce Clause. Thus, the ruling took some of the wind out of the sails of the dangerous Gonzalez v. Raich precedent in 2005.
One thing the Court did strike down was the primary mechanism for ensuring state compliance with the Medicaid expansion, namely the withholding of existing federal Medicaid funds as a penalty for noncompliance. This was basically the same form of coercion used by the feds to force states to raise the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s, which was upheld by South Dakota v. Dole in 1987. Since then, this power has been used to coerce the states to follow other mandates as well, and not just ones related to highways. Thus if there is any silver lining to the Obamacare ruling, it is the fact that it may make it easier for states to lower the drinking age (and possibly even legalize cannabis) without federal interference.
As we have noted before, the TSAP supports a single-payer healthcare system similar to what Canada currently has, which is also what President Obama originally wanted as recently as 2008. Anything less would be uncivilized.
The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") was a mixed bag overall. The individual mandate (which the TSAP does not support) was upheld, but as part of the government's taxing power rather than under the Commerce Clause. While it is clearly a stretch to say it is constitutional because it is a tax (just think of poll taxes), and thus unfortunately provides a roadmap on how to make an end-run around some parts of the Constitution in the future, at least the Court recognized that the Feds do not have unlimited power under the Commerce Clause. Thus, the ruling took some of the wind out of the sails of the dangerous Gonzalez v. Raich precedent in 2005.
One thing the Court did strike down was the primary mechanism for ensuring state compliance with the Medicaid expansion, namely the withholding of existing federal Medicaid funds as a penalty for noncompliance. This was basically the same form of coercion used by the feds to force states to raise the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s, which was upheld by South Dakota v. Dole in 1987. Since then, this power has been used to coerce the states to follow other mandates as well, and not just ones related to highways. Thus if there is any silver lining to the Obamacare ruling, it is the fact that it may make it easier for states to lower the drinking age (and possibly even legalize cannabis) without federal interference.
As we have noted before, the TSAP supports a single-payer healthcare system similar to what Canada currently has, which is also what President Obama originally wanted as recently as 2008. Anything less would be uncivilized.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
BC's New and Improved DUI Laws Take Effect
Last year, we noted the success story of British Columbia, Canada in reducing DUI fatalities by over 40% in a single year. This notable achievement, which nonetheless occured without raising the drinking age one iota, was most likely due to the province adopting (and enforcing) tougher DUI laws that provided for immediate roadside suspensions and impoundment of vehicles of alcohol-impaired drivers. To wit, if a driver is stopped by police and blows:
0.05-0.08 BAC, 1st offense = 3 day license suspension, 3 day impoundment
0.05-0.08 BAC, 2nd offense = 7 day license suspension, up to 7 day impoundment
0.05-0.08 BAC, 3rd offense = 30 day license suspension, up to 30 day impoundment
0.08+ BAC, any offense = 90 day license suspension, up to 30 day impoundment
There are also stiff fines and towing and storage costs, and an ignition interlock device must be installed (at the driver's expense) when the impoundment ends. Thus, total costs can range from $600 to $4060 (OUCH!!!) depending on the severity and number of offenses, and that alone can be a strong deterrent in itself for many people. And all of this is in addition to the possibility of criminal charges (and jail time) for those who blow above 0.08 BAC. Thus, it's not at all surprising that DUI deaths went down dramatically.
However, despite its apparent success this law was not without its detractors. In November 2011, part of the law was struck down as unconstitutional due to the lack of an adequate appeals process. In addition, there were also concerns about the accuracy of roadside breathalyzers. The province was given six months to fix these flaws or else the law would effectively become a dead letter.
And fix it they did. The new and improved version of the law, which is now in effect, now requires that the police offer drivers the option of being tested on a second breathalyzer if they fail the first, and the lower of the two readings is what will stand. Also, the accuracy of breathalyzers used by police must now be confirmed by sworn reports from the officers, and drivers retain the right to challenge their suspensions and impoundments via an administrative review. Thus, all of the tough penalties from before are officially back on the menu, so drunk drivers beware.
In addition, the neighboring province of Alberta has already adopted similar laws to BC, and those laws will go into effect on July 1 and September 1 of this year following a massive publicity campaign over the summer. And there is really no good reason why laws like this would be unconstitutional in the USA either--in fact, many states already have administrative license suspension (ALS) laws, with varying degrees of enforcement.
The truth is in. Swift justice works. So what are we waiting for?
0.05-0.08 BAC, 1st offense = 3 day license suspension, 3 day impoundment
0.05-0.08 BAC, 2nd offense = 7 day license suspension, up to 7 day impoundment
0.05-0.08 BAC, 3rd offense = 30 day license suspension, up to 30 day impoundment
0.08+ BAC, any offense = 90 day license suspension, up to 30 day impoundment
There are also stiff fines and towing and storage costs, and an ignition interlock device must be installed (at the driver's expense) when the impoundment ends. Thus, total costs can range from $600 to $4060 (OUCH!!!) depending on the severity and number of offenses, and that alone can be a strong deterrent in itself for many people. And all of this is in addition to the possibility of criminal charges (and jail time) for those who blow above 0.08 BAC. Thus, it's not at all surprising that DUI deaths went down dramatically.
However, despite its apparent success this law was not without its detractors. In November 2011, part of the law was struck down as unconstitutional due to the lack of an adequate appeals process. In addition, there were also concerns about the accuracy of roadside breathalyzers. The province was given six months to fix these flaws or else the law would effectively become a dead letter.
And fix it they did. The new and improved version of the law, which is now in effect, now requires that the police offer drivers the option of being tested on a second breathalyzer if they fail the first, and the lower of the two readings is what will stand. Also, the accuracy of breathalyzers used by police must now be confirmed by sworn reports from the officers, and drivers retain the right to challenge their suspensions and impoundments via an administrative review. Thus, all of the tough penalties from before are officially back on the menu, so drunk drivers beware.
In addition, the neighboring province of Alberta has already adopted similar laws to BC, and those laws will go into effect on July 1 and September 1 of this year following a massive publicity campaign over the summer. And there is really no good reason why laws like this would be unconstitutional in the USA either--in fact, many states already have administrative license suspension (ALS) laws, with varying degrees of enforcement.
The truth is in. Swift justice works. So what are we waiting for?
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Teen Drinking Plummets--In the UK
In the USA, teen drinking has been falling since about 1980, with the exception of a brief increase from 1993-1997, and has reached a record low in 2011 according to the Monitoring the Future survey. While many pro-21 folks like to claim credit for the decrease, they might want to rethink their position after reading the latest news from across the pond. In the UK, where the drinking age is 18, teen drinking (including "binge" drinking) has also declined recently despite not raising the drinking age to 21. In fact, weekly drinking among 11-15 year olds dropped by half since 2001, while disapproval of peers' drinking has increased. Drinking among 16-24 year olds has also dropped significantly since 1998. Unfortunately, at the same time, the drinking habits of people over 25 have gotten worse--kind of like it has over here.
So why haven't the mainstream media been talking about this good news? For starters, bad news tends to sell more than good news. But even more importantly, this news contradicts the popular belief that teenagers and young adults are the biggest contributors to the nation's drinking problem, and exposes the problem for what it really is. And that doesn't sit well with older adults too well--in either country.
So why haven't the mainstream media been talking about this good news? For starters, bad news tends to sell more than good news. But even more importantly, this news contradicts the popular belief that teenagers and young adults are the biggest contributors to the nation's drinking problem, and exposes the problem for what it really is. And that doesn't sit well with older adults too well--in either country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
