To NYC: Don't Raise the Smoking Age

You are probably wondering and scratching your head as to why Twenty-One Debunked, an organization founded for the purpose of lowering the drinking age to 18, would care even one iota about tobacco policy and the rights of smokers.  After all, we have repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of banning 18-20 year old legal adults from drinking alcohol while simultaneously allowing them to (among other things) consume a far more toxic substance.  However, the answer is contained in the question itself--for many of the same reasons that the drinking age should lowered to 18, so should the smoking age remain 18.

New York City is currently proposing to raise the age limit for purchasing tobacco from 18 to 21, and Mayor Bloomberg is now in favor of such a change despite originally being against it.  If it passes, NYC would join two other towns (in Massachusetts) and the nation of Sri Lanka as the few places in the entire world where no one under 21 is allowed to buy cigarettes.  Proponents claim that it would dramatically reduce smoking rates among young people:  one study estimates that raising the age limit to 21 would reduce smoking among 18-20 year olds by 55% and among 14-17 year olds by nearly two-thirds within seven years, and that in turn would lead to lower rates of adult smoking over the long run, thereby saving countless lives and improving public health. 

However, there are good reasons to doubt the results of the study.  First of all, the study is purely theoretical without any empirical data on places that have actually raised the age limit to 21 in real life.  Secondly, one need look no further than the drinking age to see that such impressive results would be highly unlikely.  For example, Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) found that, after adjustment for confounders, raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 merely reduced self-reported past-month drinking among high school seniors by five percentage points and self-reported "binge" drinking by three percentage points.  Using 1980 as a base year, when the rates of these behaviors were 70% and 40%, respectively, these numbers represent declines of roughly 7%, far less than what the above study claims would happen for smoking and small enough to be mostly or even entirely due to reporting bias.  And the NSDUH found that the average age of onset of drinking actually dropped from 16.6 to 16.2 between 1980 and 2002.  If that's "success," we'd hate to see what failure looks like.

Thus, it is far from obvious that raising the age limit for tobacco would yield any substantive public health benefits.  The most likely result would be the creation of even more technical criminals, and the expansion of the city's existing black market for untaxed/low-tax/counterfeit/stolen cigarettes and fake IDs, with the primary beneficiaries being organized crime syndicates and even terrorists.  Further erosion of respect for the law would occur as well, along with possible riots.  And why the sudden desire to raise the age limit now?  Cigarette use among young people is now at a record low in both NYC and the rest of the nation, and the massive decline in youth smoking since the 1970s occurred without raising the smoking age.  If NYC is so gung-ho about further reducing smoking among the mere 8.5% of its high school students who are still foolish enough to smoke, perhaps they should better enforce existing laws before they even think of passing new ones.

More fundamentally, raising the smoking age to 21 would be (like the 21 drinking age) a serious violation of the civil rights of 18-20 year olds, who are legal adults in virtually all other aspects of life.  It is also yet another blow to everyone's freedom from the hectoring "public health" fascism of the creeping nanny state that Mayor Bloomberg exemplifies.  Both Twenty-One Debunked and the True Spirit of America Party believe that, while smoking is a stupid and filthy habit that we strongly discourage, the fact remains that 18-20 year olds are adults and if they want to choose pleasure over longevity that should be their choice, not the government's.  We believe that, in a free society, all adults should be free to do as they please as long as they do not harm or endanger nonconsenting others more than the minimum, Darwin Awards notwithstanding.  And before anyone brings out the tired, old canard about "social costs", remember the studies show that smokers actually save society money (on balance) by dying earlier than nonsmokers, and thus they more than pay their way as far as taxes go, even in many of the low-tax states.  (Unfortunately, one cannot say the same for drinkers, but that can be solved by simply raising the tax on alcoholic beverages.)  Thus, Twenty-One Debunked simply cannot tolerate raising the smoking age to any age higher than the age of majority, even if it did improve public health.

The answer is clear.  Old enough to fight and vote = old enough to drink and smoke.  'Nuff said.

Wasted in Wisconsin

It seems that the state that the irreverent 1999 comedy film Dogma referred to as being "worse than hell" has a pretty bad drinking problem, according to a new report.  Wisconsin is apparently significantly worse than the national average in terms of "binge" drinking (#1 in the nation), heavy drinking, drunk driving, and overall alcohol-related costs to society.  The intensity of binge drinking is also the highest in the nation, averaging a whopping 9 drinks (!) per session.  And it should come as no surprise when we consider the things that set Wisconsin apart from most other states.

Wisconsin has the most lenient DUI laws in the nation (e.g. first offense is only a traffic infraction), one of the lowest beer taxes in the nation (2 cents/gallon), several major breweries, long and cold winters, and one of the most pervasive and ingrained drinking cultures in the nation.  Partying hard is almost like a religion in the Badger State, and not just among young people.  And this has been true for most (if not all) of the state's history.

While we do not dispute that the state has a serious problem with excessive drinking, and agree with some of their recommendations, we at Twenty-One Debunked do take exception to the report authors' strident pro-21 stance.  When Wisconsin raised the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s, it did not seem to solve anything, mainly because it failed to change the underlying drinking culture significantly.   If anything, the 21 drinking age likely makes things worse in the long run.  It would make far more sense to lower the drinking age back to 18, while also improving alcohol education, raising the beer tax, and toughening laws against drunk driving.  Only then would it be possible to create a more responsible drinking culture than the one they have now.  Of course, changing the culture will not be particularly easy, but it nonetheless can and should be done.  And Wisconsin would probably be the best place to start changing America's overall drinking culture.

Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do (Part Six)

It's been a while since we posted a "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do" post, and after one of the biggest drinking days of the year, we felt that it was time to post a new one.

In the past few weeks or so:

An underage drinker did NOT kill his 9 year old nephew in a drunk driving crash.

An underage drinker did NOT rear-end a police car while driving drunk.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into a gas pump, causing it to burst into flames and injuring her passenger.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash his semi-truck into another person's car (and injuring her) after driving the wrong way.

An underage drinker did NOT injure a police officer and two children in a drunk driving crash.

An underage drinker did NOT run over and pin a pedestrian after drunkenly crashing into several cars and a stop sign--all in the same night.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into both a restaurant's fence AND a the front porch of a nearby house in the same night.

An underage drinker did NOT wrap her car around a telephone pole with a BAC of 0.223, breaking the pole in half, and then try to flee the scene--and this was her second DUI offense.  (Some people never learn)

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into two cars and a group of pedestrians while speeding, injuring five people and putting one in critical condition.

An underage drinker did not throw such a drunken fit in public that they needed 10-12 cop cars to come and arrest her for disorderly conduct.  All because the bartender wouldn't serve her anymore.

The cop that killed two people while speeding and driving with a BAC of double the legal limit was clearly over 21, since they generally don't allow anyone under 21 to become police officers.

An underage drinker did NOT have the chutzpah to sue his friend and Applebees for serving him the alcohol he drank on the night he drunkenly crashed into and killed two teenage girls.  (Another repeat offender, by the way)

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Baby Boomers are Not the Best Model for Today's Youth

Essentially all American studies of the effects of raising or lowering the legal drinking age were based on a single generation:  the Baby Boomers.  And the latest junk science study is no exception.  Remember, many states lowered their drinking ages in the early 1970s and raised them to 21 in the 1980s, so that was the generation most affected by such changes.  But there is a fundamental question that is rarely asked, especially by the pro-21 crowd:  Could the Baby Boomers (i.e. those born from 1946 to 1964) have been an exceptional generation that was actually affected perversely by the changes in the drinking age?  That is, could the effects that some studies found actually be the opposite of what would have happened for other generations?

We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that the answer is yes, that they are a unique generation that was likely affected differently (if at all) by the changes in the drinking age, and that studies that only look at them are outdated and obsolete for determining the supposed effects of lowering the drinking age in 2013.   There are several reasons for this:

• Baby Boomers came of age at a time when America's drinking culture was very different, a fact that was true regardless of the drinking age.
• Baby Boomers (and early Gen-X) were more affected by lead poisoning that any other generation that is still alive today, thanks to the leaded gasoline (and paint) that was used when they were children.  Lead is a neurotoxin that causes serious and often permanent damage to the developing brain, resulting in reduced intelligence, increased impulsivity, and arrested development.  And changes in crime statistics and standardized test scores verify this fact.
• Baby Boomers were exposed to numerous other developmental toxins as well:  mercury, PCBs, DDT, dioxins, fluoride, and many others.   And they did lots of drugs as well.
• Baby Boomers, for whatever reason, were apparently raised to be rather narcissistic and self-important as a rule.
• Baby Boomers, regardless of the drinking age in their home states when they were growing up, succeeded in becoming the drunkest and druggiest generation in American history (at least since the Founding Fathers), yet they have the audacity and hubris to overwhelmingly support the 21 drinking age and other anti-youth laws.
• And most ironically of all, the Baby Boomers also became the wealthiest generation in American history despite screwing up the economy for everyone else (to say nothing about what is happening to our planet).

That is not to say that all Baby Boomers are reflected in these facts, since a rather large number of them defied these trends.  But enough of them were so as to call into question the wisdom of using that generation as a model for the effects of policy changes on today's youth.  And we certainly should not continue punishing today's youth for the sins of their Boomer parents.  Perhaps some generations can indeed handle freedom better than others--and the best statistics are indeed more on the side of today's generation of young people.

Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18.  If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.

Take the 40-Day Challenge

Now that Lent has officially begun, we at Twenty-One Debunked hereby challenge anyone over 21 to give up something that is not usually given up for Lent--alcohol.  Can you go 40 days and 40 nights* in a row without any drinking at all?

Those who are not quite as stout of heart may opt for a somewhat lesser challenge:  at least not buying any alcohol at all during the 40 days of Lent, as well as not entering any bars for any reason except to order food and/or to be a designated driver.  And go as many days in a row as possible without drinking any alcohol, even if someone else buys it.

Just so everyone knows, Twenty-One Debunked is not affiliated with any religion; we came up with this Lenten challenge for purely secular reasons (similar to Febfast in Australia), with an important twist.  While the original purpose of Catholic Lent was for the non-poor to have a taste of what the poor were experiencing, our 40-Day Challenge gives people over 21 a chance to remember what it was like before they turned 21, at least in terms of buying alcohol and entering bars.  We feel that drinking members of the pro-21 crowd would benefit the most from this exercise in self-denial.  But just about any drinker can benefit in one way or another from the cleansing of a good detox period.

*We checked our calendars and found that this year there are actually 46 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday.  Thus, one can still complete the challenge successfully if 40 of those days are spent sans alcohol, as long as it is 40 days in a row with no interruptions.

If It Smells Like Junk Science, It Probably Is

The news of the latest study about the 21 drinking age now appears to be going viral.   According to this study, which is now available (only to subscribers) online ahead of print, folks who were young adults in states that allowed them to drink legally before age 21 at that time were statistically more likely to become more frequent "binge" drinkers later in life compared to those who were not allowed to drink legally until age 21.  The research, which used data from surveys in 1992 and 2002 taken by those who were born between 1949 and 1972 (i.e. were young adults in the 1970s and 1980s), interestingly found no difference in overall alcohol consumption or frequency between the two groups, but apparently found that those allowed to drink before 21 had more "binge" days and fewer "non-binge" days per month compared to those who were not allowed to drink until 21.  The former were 19% more likely to "binge" more than once per month compared with the latter, and the differences were largely (if not entirely) driven by men and those who never attended college.  So what should we make of this study, which is not yet available for the general public to read?

First of all, we at Twenty-One Debunked always put the term "binge drinking" in scare quotes when we are referring to the 5+ or 5/4+ drinks definitions, as we believe that such definitions are grossly inaccurate measures of the very real problem of truly dangerous drinking, and can potentially mask actual trends in the latter.  (More information about this issue can be found in our previous posts here and here)  And we know based on the article's summary that a 5+ drinks threshold is the one used in this study, as is the case in virtually every other pro-21 study out there.  Strike one.

Secondly, no information is provided about which, if any, confounding factors are controlled for.  This is crucial because there are numerous other differences between people who grew up in different parts of the country and/or at different times.  One should also note that the effect size is fairly small as well, with a relative risk (or odds ratio) of 1.19 overall (1.31 for men who never attended college).  In epidemiological research, relative risks below 2.0 are especially likely to be due to a combination of chance, bias, and/or confounding, and thus should be taken with at least a grain of salt (if not a whole pound).  Strike two.

Finally, the study really adds nothing else new to the scientific literature beyond what was mentioned above.  Zip, zilch, nada.  And nothing about whether there were any between-group differences in actual problem drinking.  The authors (as well as MADD member Ralph Hingson) refer to other past studies (including a 2009 study which we had debunked years ago) by other authors in an attempt to connect the dots.  But given enough dots, one can pretty much connect them any way to form any picture one chooses.  Strike three, you're out!

Thus, our preliminary analysis of the study (to which we were unable to gain full access--stay tuned for updates!) suggests that the study reeks of junk science, and clearly should not be used to set public policy.  However, let us be clear that even if it (and the 2009 study about increased risk of alcoholism) somehow were 100% true, which we seriously doubt, we at Twenty-One Debunked would still support lowering the drinking age to 18.  Why?  The 21 drinking age is nothing less than a hate crime against young people, plain and simple.  In our society we know, for example, that certain ethnic groups are statistically more prone to alcoholism than others, yet we do not arrest, jail, revoke privileges, or publicly humiliate members of such groups for the simple act of drinking alcohol in the name of "public health."   That, of course, would be illegal discrimination since it violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law, and no amount of "scientific" research can justify it.  And even known alcoholics over 21 are not jailed simply for being alcoholics--they simply hold too much political power for that.  But 18-20 year old men and women, despite being legal adults in virtually every other way, are apparently a much more acceptable target for "public health" fascism run amok, no matter how responsibly they drink.

The injustice must end NOW.  Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18.  If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.

A Better Alternative to Choose Responsibility's Proposal

Most people in the anti-21 movement are at least vaguely aware that the organization Choose Responsibility (with which we are NOT affiliated) has a proposal to lower the drinking age to 18, but with a notable catch:  in order to be allowed to drink alcohol, 18-20 year olds must take and pass an alcohol education course, and will be granted a "drinking license" that can be revoked for alcohol-related misbehavior.   While there may be some theoretical merits to the "drinking license" idea, there are several flaws that would become apparent upon any attempt to implement it:

1) It has become a lightning rod for criticism from both sides, especially the pro-21 groups like MADD and GHSA.
2) It makes the entire movement look quixotic (i.e. idealistic but impractical, like Don Quixote).
3) It makes the movement look ambivalent about lowering the drinking age and about whether 18-20 year olds can be trusted with alcohol.
4) It adds unnecessary complexity to the issue.
5) It would be a bureaucratic nightmare to actually enforce.
6)  As any libertarian (or even quasi-libertarian) would tell you, it kind of screams "Big Brother". (What's next, a license to breed?)
7) Other countries with a drinking age of 18 don’t have a drinking license rule.  (Dubai apparently does, but their drinking age is 21).
8) But most importantly, since it applies only to 18-20 year olds and not those over 21, it is just as ageist as the current 21 drinking age.

In contrast, our proposal for Twenty-One Debunked would allow 18-20 year olds the same drinking rights as people over 21 currently enjoy, with the following safeguards:

1) The age limit for the zero tolerance law for DUI will remain as it is now, at 21. That should alleviate any fears of increased DUI among 18-20 year olds.  In fact, it would be better if it was broadened to include all ages for the first 5 years of driving.
2) The purchase age for kegs, cases, and other large bulk quantities of alcohol will remain at 21 (or at least be no lower than 20). That should alleviate any fear of increased high school keggers.
3) DUI laws would be tightened for all ages and enforcement would be significantly increased.
4) Any person of ANY age who is convicted of DUI, drunk violence, drunk vandalism, furnishing to minors under 18, or repeated drunk and disorderly conduct would be blacklisted and banned from purchasing alcohol (or even entering a bar) for a year or until they turn 21, whatever is longer. And their ID would have to read “Do not serve alcohol under penalty of law” in big red letters. In addition, problem drinkers can also have themselves voluntarily added to the blacklist for a period of time, much like problem gamblers are currently allowed to do.
5) Alcohol education would be increased for all students at all levels.  Some successful models to follow can be found here and here.
6) In addition, the federal alcohol taxes should be raised and equalized to the inflation-adjusted 1991 spirits level ($21 per proof-gallon) for all alcoholic beverages, proportional to alcohol content.

Do all or even some of these things and there will really be no need to have a drinking license.  However, some folks in our movement may still be concerned about the absence of the alcohol education requirement as found in CR's proposal, especially for newly-legal drinkers in the first year or two of the new drinking age of 18.  That can easily be addressed by doing the following:

7)  Phase-down the general drinking age from 21 to 18 over a period of a few months, rather than immediately.  For example, lower it to 20 after 30 days, 19 after 60 days, and finally 18 after 90 days from the passage of the new law.
8)  For the first year or two of the new policy, require 18-20 year olds to obtain a certificate from an alcohol education course in order to be allowed to purchase alcohol or enter a bar.  The course should be an online one such as AlcoholEdu, which has shown dramatic results despite taking only a few hours to complete.  Simple, yet highly effective.
9)  For anyone who is currently 17 or younger, require such individuals to take and pass that alcohol education course before their 18th birthday (or very shortly after), whether they plan on drinking or not.  Those who do not fulfill this requirement would have their driver license or state ID card temporarily suspended or voided until they pass, and/or be prevented from graduating high school until they pass.  Take it as many times as you wish, but charge a fee for the third time and afterwards.

Note how this is very different from CR's proposal since there would be no special drinking license, and after the first year or two the right to buy alcoholic beverages would no longer be tied to the education requirement.  Also, the course would be a lot simpler and shorter than CR's proposed course, and far easier to implement.  We at Twenty-One Debunked are not wedded to any of these last three ideas (#7, 8, and 9), and would still support lowering the drinking age to 18 without them.  But it's still something to consider.  Not only would it help to change America's drinking culture, but it would also make it easier politically to lower the drinking age.

Latest MTF Results Are In

The 2012 Monitoring the Future survey results are finally in.  We see that, in a nutshell, alcohol use and "binge" drinking* has reached historic lows for grades 8 and 10, while there has been a slight increase from the previous year's record low for grade 12.  Cannabis use has leveled off after rising for five straight years, use of most other substances either held steady or declined, and tobacco use has fallen to record lows.  In fact, cannabis is now more popular than tobacco (but still less so than alcohol) among today's youth, and has been for the past three years in a row.  Note that this reversal of rank was more due to a decrease in tobacco use rather than due to an increase in cannabis use, since the use of both substances are down from their respective peaks in the late 1970s.

So what should we make of these results?  While the pro-21 crowd would like to take credit for the massive decrease in alcohol consumption among teenagers since 1979, one must remember that teen drinking also plummeted in Canada (and more recently in the UK) despite not raising the drinking age to 21.  Also, tobacco continued its long-term decline while for alcohol there are some signs of a turnaround, despite the smoking age remaining at 18 in nearly all states.  Thus, the relationship between the drinking age (and its enforcement) and the levels of teen drinking is not nearly as cut-and-dried as the pro-21 crowd would like us to believe.  In fact, some studies have found that the opposite may be true for dangerous drinking practices among teens and young adults.

*We at Twenty-One Debunked always put the term "binge drinking" in scare quotes when we are referring to the 5+ or 5/4+ drinks definitions, as we believe that such definitions are grossly inaccurate measures of the very real problem of truly dangerous drinking.  More information about this issue can be found in our previous posts here and here.

Have a Safe and Happy New Year

With the New Year's Eve festivities approaching, we at Twenty-One Debunked want to remind everyone to celebrate responsibly.  There is absolutely no excuse for drunk driving at any age, period.  We cannot stress this enough.  It's very simple--if you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive.  And there are numerous ways to avoid mixing the two.  Designate a sober driver, take a cab, use public transportation, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or stay home and celebrate there.  Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.

Would a Price Floor Be a Good Idea Here?

Recently, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has begun to support the idea of setting a minimum price per unit of alcohol, which currently does not exist in Britain.  The rationale is that it would cut down on excessive drinking and related problems.  Clearly, Britain’s binge-drinking culture (affecting all ages, not just youth) is nothing short of outrageous, even by American standards, though it has improved somewhat in the past decade.   The alcohol taxes in the UK have actually risen faster than inflation in recent years, but supermarkets continue to get around that by selling cheap alcohol at a loss (aka "loss leading") to attract more customers, in a race to the bottom that the overtaxed and declining pubs can never possibly win.  So a price floor seems like a great idea, at least in the UK.

Would that also be a good idea on this side of the pond as well?  Certainly the proposed price floor of 0.40-0.50 pounds per British unit of alcohol (which would be $1.12-$1.42 per American standard drink) would be a bit steep, at least for off-premise alcohol.  A case of 24 beers would be at least $27, similar to the price in Ontario, Canada, and about double the current price for the cheapest beer in much of the USA.  Not only would that idea be unlikely to fly in this country, it may not even be necessary to make set the floor that high to reap significant public health benefits.  Alcohol prices are currently significantly lower in the USA than in the UK (mostly due to our very low alcohol taxes), and the cost of living is lower in the USA as well.  American teenagers and young adults are also significantly poorer than their British counterparts, at least those in the bottom 90%. 

Twenty-One Debunked currently supports (and has always supported) raising and equalizing the alcohol taxes to $21 per proof-gallon for all alcoholic beverages, the same level as the distilled spirits tax was in 1991 adjusted for inflation.  That would push up the price of beer by about $1.20 per six-pack and $4.80 per case, wine by $1.00 per 750-mL bottle, and liquor by $1.00 per 750-mL bottle.  Microbrewers would be exempt from any such tax hike, since their products are already pretty expensive and as small businesses they would be the least able to absorb a tax hike.   A price floor would probably be a good complement to such a policy, and $1.00 (at most) per standard drink would make sense for non-bulk alcohol.  For bulk alcohol (more than an 18-pack of beer or more than 1 gallon of wine or more than 750 mL of spirits), a floor of $0.50-$0.75 would be better, especially since we support keeping the purchase age at 20 or 21 for bulk alcohol while lowering it to 18 otherwise.  This combination of policies is really not all that different in principle from the main idea discussed in Kenkel (1993), yet far more practical and equitable overall.  And bars and restaurants would likely benefit, since pre-gaming with cheap off-premise booze would be reduced.