One thing that Twenty-One Debunked has been slacking on lately is the other main age limit in the drinking/driving equation--the driving age. While we have not always been very clear on that particular issue and generally left it on the back burner, it merits attention nonetheless.
There is indeed an interesting paradox compared with the drinking age. With the notable exceptions of Canada (driving age 14, 15, or 16 depending on province), Australia (16 1/2 in one state, 17 or 18 in the rest), and New Zealand (16), every other industrialized (and semi-industrialized) nation on Earth has a driver license age of 17 or higher, and most are 18. Yet these countries all have drinking ages lower than the USA, and nearly all of them are 18 or lower. Many are as low as 16 (though a few European nations have recently raised the drinking age to 18). And most of these countries have far lower rates of traffic deaths, alcohol-related or otherwise, than the USA.
On the surface, that strongly recommends in favor of raising the driving age in conjunction with lowering the drinking age, particularly setting the driving age higher than the drinking age instead of the other way around. At one time, the founder of Twenty-One Debunked advocated doing exactly that. But such an approach glosses over some serious issues involving the car culture of the USA. First, with our inferior public transportation infrastructure, we cannot compare the situation here to Europe. Canada or Australia would be a much better comparison. Secondly, the odds of us ever lowering the drinking age below 18 are slim to none, and we no longer consider such a goal worthwhile. But most importantly, the evidence that a much higher driving age would make roads any safer is questionable at best.
Renowned sociologist and youth-rights activist Mike Males did a famous study in 2006 that found that California's tough new graduated driver license (GDL) law implemented in 1996 did reduce traffic deaths among 16-17 year olds--but also increased traffic deaths for 18-19 year olds enough to more than offset the apparent lifesaving effect among younger drivers. In other words, it merely delayed such deaths, or worse, led to a net increase. He also found in another study that much of the increased risk among younger drivers is actually the result of poverty, not "immaturity" or "underdeveloped brains". The rest can largely be chalked up to inexperience, and the difference between genders (males being worse) dwarfs any unaccounted for age difference. While his research was seen as controversial among the establishment and many disputed it, it nonetheless pans out rather well. A 2011 national study by Masten et al. confirms Mike Males' general findings: after adjusting for potential confounders, stronger GDL laws (compared with weaker ones) were associated with lower fatalities for 16 year olds but higher fatalities for 18 year olds (and possibly 19 year olds as well), and the net effect for 16-19 year olds as a whole was not significantly different from the null. In other words, it was a wash overall.
Of course, it is true that 16 year old first-year drivers do have significantly higher fatal crash risks that 17 year old first-year drivers--though 17 year old novices are apparently no worse than 18 or 19 year old novices. (There are apparently not enough first-year drivers 20 and older to make a valid comparison for them, but I imagine it would be similar.) Thus, it is possible that raising the driving age to 17 would in fact result in a net reduction in traffic deaths over the lifecycle compared with the status quo, while raising it to 18 or higher would likely only delay deaths compared with a driving age of 17. New Jersey, for example, has a driving age of 16 for permit and 17 for license--the highest in the nation besides NYC with a de facto age of 18--and their teen traffic death rates are, contrary to stereotypes, lower than neighboring states (interestingly even before their GDL law was implemented, and declined further after that). Compared with Connecticut, New Jersey's fatality rate was much lower for 16 year olds, slightly higher for 17 year olds, and slightly lower for 18 year olds, so the net effect was death reduction. So being a year behind may not necessarily negate the benefits of delaying entry to licensed driving--though raising the age any higher than that might.
So what should the driving age be in the USA? The optimal age may in fact vary depending on how rural or urban a state or region is, but we do not believe it should be any higher than 16 for permit and 17 for license. And of course we believe that the drinking age should be 18. Additionally, we should definitely make the road test tougher like it is in other countries, and improve our driver education courses as well. Raising the alcohol taxes and the gas tax would likely save many lives as well. But on balance, raising the driving age any higher than 17 in this country would likely do more harm than good. And while GDLs in general are likely beneficial on balance, there is likely such a thing as too strict--particularly when it only targets drivers below a certain age (as opposed to all new drivers like in many other countries like Canada), and such a poorly designed one can actually backfire.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Saturday, August 13, 2016
What Would The Optimal Vice-Tax Policy Be?
Ever since the invention of taxation thousands of years ago, there has always been much controversy about it. One of the oldest (if not the oldest) types of tax is the excise tax, which is an indirect tax on specific goods and services. Common examples in the USA and most other countries include taxes on things like alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline/diesel fuels. Though originally intended primarily to raise revenue, and highly effective in that regard, such taxes can also have a Pigouvian logic to them: they help offset negative "externalities" related to the consumption of such goods/services, and also help to reduce such consumption and externalities as well. Of course, such reasoning only adds to the controversy surrounding the idea.
We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that such taxes are a good idea on balance, and are infinitely preferable to prohibition, including "selective prohibition" for young adults under 21. We have noted in several previous posts how such taxes are far more efficient than the blunt sledgehammer of prohibition, not to mention cost-effective as well. In most cases, the taxes already exist and it is simply a question of raising and/or tweaking them, they raise revenue rather than cost it, and they don't violate anyone's civil rights either.
After reviewing the literature and thinking very hard about it, Twenty-One Debunked has come up with the following recommendations about various vice and fuel taxes.
Alcohol
We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that such taxes are a good idea on balance, and are infinitely preferable to prohibition, including "selective prohibition" for young adults under 21. We have noted in several previous posts how such taxes are far more efficient than the blunt sledgehammer of prohibition, not to mention cost-effective as well. In most cases, the taxes already exist and it is simply a question of raising and/or tweaking them, they raise revenue rather than cost it, and they don't violate anyone's civil rights either.
After reviewing the literature and thinking very hard about it, Twenty-One Debunked has come up with the following recommendations about various vice and fuel taxes.
Alcohol
- Raise and equalize the federal taxes on beer, wine, and distilled spirits to the real (inflation-adjusted) 1991 level for spirits: $24/proof-gallon in 2016 dollars. (Note how it's proportional to alcohol content)
- Beer of 6% ABV or less should be allowed to treated as a flat 5% ABV per barrel for tax purposes.
- Microbrewers should be exempt from any such tax hikes, at least on the first two million barrels per year.
- Adjust all taxes for inflation annually from now on. Fix it, and forget it.
- States with cigarette taxes less than $1.00/pack should raise them to between $1.00-$2.00.
- States with cigarette taxes greater than $2.00/pack should cut them to between $1.00-$2.00.
- Don't raise the federal cigarette tax any further, except to keep pace with inflation.
- All taxes on tobacco products should be equalized across types of tobacco products, and collected at the producer rather than the retail level.
- Adjust all taxes for inflation annually from now on. Fix it, and forget it.
- Legalize and tax recreational cannabis at a rate of $10-50/ounce on average, adjusting it up or down proportional THC content.
- Collect such taxes at the producer level rather than the retail level.
- Medical cannabis should be exempt from such taxation.
- Raise the federal gas tax (and diesel tax) by a penny per week until it is $0.50/gallon higher than now. (Or $1.00/gallon higher than the status quo if we remain without a carbon tax-and-dividend).
- Call it "A Penny for Progress".
- Give a modest "prebate" to all licensed and registered vehicle owners over the age of 21 (or 25).
- Adjust it for inflation annually from now on. Fix it, and forget it.
- As more and more electric and alternative-fuel vehicles replace gas and diesel ones, a new source of highway infrastructure funding will be necessary.
- Pro-rate vehicle registration fees (road tax) by the number of miles traveled in the past year. Record odometer readings at each annual safety inspection, and adjust registration fees up or down accordingly.
Friday, August 5, 2016
Gas Prices Down, Traffic Deaths Up in 2015
While cheaper gas is generally good for the economy and the average person's wallet, unfortunately it also seems to come at a fairly high cost: more traffic fatalities. The latest data suggest that was the case in 2015. After stubbornly hovering between $3.50 and $4.00/gallon from 2011-2014, gas prices on average plummeted to around $2.00 from the second half of 2014 into 2015, and even dropped below $2.00 in early 2016--a seven-year low. And traffic deaths apparently rose to a seven-year high in 2015, nearly 8% higher than the previous record-low reached in 2014. Additionally, preliminary data for the first half of 2016 in several states also show that traffic deaths are likely to be the same or higher than they were in 2015.
None of this should really come as a surprise. As we have noted in a previous post in 2010, it has been known for quite some time now that there is a significant inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic crashes, including fatal ones. And the link is especially true for younger drivers. Carefully controlled studies have found this to be true, suggesting a true causal relationship. Contrary to popular opinion, the price elasticity of gasoline is not zero, or even close to zero, and it seems to rise dramatically when prices go above $3.00/gallon. Longer-term elasticities are about twice as strong, suggesting the effect builds over time.
The effects on fatalities are not limited to reduced vehicle miles traveled; while that drops too, even controlling for this we can see a decrease in deaths with higher prices. "Discretionary" driving declines the most when gas prices rise, and most fatalities occur from this type of driving. Speeding and aggressive driving also decline in an effort to save fuel and money. Thus, the price elasticity for gasoline demand actually understates the effect on fatalities. And while non-alcohol related crashes may be more affected by changes in gas prices, alcohol-related ones would be affected as well.
By that logic, it seems that one of the best ways we can reduce traffic fatalities (both alcohol and non-alcohol) would be to raise the gas tax. Of course, that would make a lot of people mad. But if it saves even one life, it's worth it, right? Isn't that what groups like MADD have said about things like the 21 drinking age? Judging by the lack of enthusiasm about raising the gas tax, it appears that the pro-21 crowd doesn't practice what they preach. Or maybe it's all about liberty for "just us," not all.
If we know higher gas prices save lives, not to mention the planet, what are we waiting for?
None of this should really come as a surprise. As we have noted in a previous post in 2010, it has been known for quite some time now that there is a significant inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic crashes, including fatal ones. And the link is especially true for younger drivers. Carefully controlled studies have found this to be true, suggesting a true causal relationship. Contrary to popular opinion, the price elasticity of gasoline is not zero, or even close to zero, and it seems to rise dramatically when prices go above $3.00/gallon. Longer-term elasticities are about twice as strong, suggesting the effect builds over time.
The effects on fatalities are not limited to reduced vehicle miles traveled; while that drops too, even controlling for this we can see a decrease in deaths with higher prices. "Discretionary" driving declines the most when gas prices rise, and most fatalities occur from this type of driving. Speeding and aggressive driving also decline in an effort to save fuel and money. Thus, the price elasticity for gasoline demand actually understates the effect on fatalities. And while non-alcohol related crashes may be more affected by changes in gas prices, alcohol-related ones would be affected as well.
By that logic, it seems that one of the best ways we can reduce traffic fatalities (both alcohol and non-alcohol) would be to raise the gas tax. Of course, that would make a lot of people mad. But if it saves even one life, it's worth it, right? Isn't that what groups like MADD have said about things like the 21 drinking age? Judging by the lack of enthusiasm about raising the gas tax, it appears that the pro-21 crowd doesn't practice what they preach. Or maybe it's all about liberty for "just us," not all.
If we know higher gas prices save lives, not to mention the planet, what are we waiting for?
Saturday, July 30, 2016
The Evidence Is Clear: Taxation Works Better Than Prohibition
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I believe that alcohol taxes should be raised significantly, and the drinking age lowered to 18. The overwhelming weight of available evidence strongly suggests that alcohol taxes are far more effective, cost-effective, and socially efficient in reducing alcohol-related problems than the 21 drinking age can ever be. And in the past few years we have even more evidence to show for it.
I have noted in the past that the landmark Miron and Tetelbaum study of 2009 has not only thoroughly debunked the idea that the 21 drinking age saves lives, but it also had a more subtle finding as well. Namely, it also quietly confirmed the long-accepted finding that raising the beer tax actually does save lives, even if modestly. And ironically, that was found when they tweaked the pro-21 Dee (1999) study that at first seemed to cast doubt on the beer tax--adding Alaska, Hawaii, and DC as well as more years to the model completely reversed Dee's original findings in that regard, as the original model apparently didn't have enough useful variation or statistical power to detect such results when state-specific trends were added to the regression.
Also, Ponicki et al. (2007) found that while there is supposedly a modest lifesaving effect of the 21 drinking age, high enough beer taxes can actually make that effect irrelevant as the two policies apparently act at cross-purposes. When one is increased, the other becomes less relevant as a result, for obvious reasons.
Fast forward to newer studies on the effects of alcohol taxation and pricing. Even pro-21 researcher Alexander Wagenaar appears to be a huge fan of raising alcohol taxes these days. In 2009 and 2010, Wagenaar did two large meta-analyses on the effects of alcohol taxation on drinking as well as alcohol-related mortality and morbidity, respectively. In both, the effects were clear: it is quite effective indeed as a public health measure. When alcohol taxes/prices go up, problems and deaths go down. More recent studies also confirm such results as well. No wonder Mark Kleiman famously said that, "Any sentence about drug policy that doesn't end with "raise alcohol taxes" is an incoherent sentence".
Thus, raising the alcohol taxes, even doubling or tripling them, should be a no-brainer. So why aren't we doing it? Clearly, the alcohol industry opposes any attempt to raise such taxes, and they always threaten a loss of jobs if they pass. But there is really not much if any evidence that such a thing happens, and the industry consistently fails to produce any robust evidence in that regard. As for the idea that alcohol taxes are regressive and hurt poorer folks and "responsible" drinkers, that is also not really true either: the economic burden would fall mostly on heavier drinkers and wealthier folks, while moderate drinkers really wouldn't pay very much. While I do not advocate extremely high taxes like they have in the Scandinavian countries, there is really no good reason not to raise and equalize all alcohol taxes back to at least the 1991 level for distilled spirits, adjust it for alcohol content, and index it for inflation from then on. Microbrewers, on the other hand, should be exempt from any tax hikes.
It is true that Thomas Jefferson said, "No nation is drunken where wine is cheap". But that was then. Nowadays, beer, wine, and even hard liquor have apparently become too cheap for our own good. And far cheaper than back then or even a few decades ago, at least relative to most people's incomes. Yet the social costs of excessive drinking have not gone down much, so there is a problem of increasing "externalities". And unlike most policy measures, raising alcohol taxes would also raise revenue rather than cost it, and there would be no loss of individual rights either. Clearly, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone except the heaviest drinkers and the merchants of death that profit from them (along with funeral directors, of course).
For once, MADD is correct about something: if it saves even one life, it's worth it. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I have noted in the past that the landmark Miron and Tetelbaum study of 2009 has not only thoroughly debunked the idea that the 21 drinking age saves lives, but it also had a more subtle finding as well. Namely, it also quietly confirmed the long-accepted finding that raising the beer tax actually does save lives, even if modestly. And ironically, that was found when they tweaked the pro-21 Dee (1999) study that at first seemed to cast doubt on the beer tax--adding Alaska, Hawaii, and DC as well as more years to the model completely reversed Dee's original findings in that regard, as the original model apparently didn't have enough useful variation or statistical power to detect such results when state-specific trends were added to the regression.
Also, Ponicki et al. (2007) found that while there is supposedly a modest lifesaving effect of the 21 drinking age, high enough beer taxes can actually make that effect irrelevant as the two policies apparently act at cross-purposes. When one is increased, the other becomes less relevant as a result, for obvious reasons.
Fast forward to newer studies on the effects of alcohol taxation and pricing. Even pro-21 researcher Alexander Wagenaar appears to be a huge fan of raising alcohol taxes these days. In 2009 and 2010, Wagenaar did two large meta-analyses on the effects of alcohol taxation on drinking as well as alcohol-related mortality and morbidity, respectively. In both, the effects were clear: it is quite effective indeed as a public health measure. When alcohol taxes/prices go up, problems and deaths go down. More recent studies also confirm such results as well. No wonder Mark Kleiman famously said that, "Any sentence about drug policy that doesn't end with "raise alcohol taxes" is an incoherent sentence".
Thus, raising the alcohol taxes, even doubling or tripling them, should be a no-brainer. So why aren't we doing it? Clearly, the alcohol industry opposes any attempt to raise such taxes, and they always threaten a loss of jobs if they pass. But there is really not much if any evidence that such a thing happens, and the industry consistently fails to produce any robust evidence in that regard. As for the idea that alcohol taxes are regressive and hurt poorer folks and "responsible" drinkers, that is also not really true either: the economic burden would fall mostly on heavier drinkers and wealthier folks, while moderate drinkers really wouldn't pay very much. While I do not advocate extremely high taxes like they have in the Scandinavian countries, there is really no good reason not to raise and equalize all alcohol taxes back to at least the 1991 level for distilled spirits, adjust it for alcohol content, and index it for inflation from then on. Microbrewers, on the other hand, should be exempt from any tax hikes.
It is true that Thomas Jefferson said, "No nation is drunken where wine is cheap". But that was then. Nowadays, beer, wine, and even hard liquor have apparently become too cheap for our own good. And far cheaper than back then or even a few decades ago, at least relative to most people's incomes. Yet the social costs of excessive drinking have not gone down much, so there is a problem of increasing "externalities". And unlike most policy measures, raising alcohol taxes would also raise revenue rather than cost it, and there would be no loss of individual rights either. Clearly, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone except the heaviest drinkers and the merchants of death that profit from them (along with funeral directors, of course).
For once, MADD is correct about something: if it saves even one life, it's worth it. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Violence Has No Place In Our Movement
At a time in history where various social justice movements are gaining rapid momentum, the question of the use of violence inevitably arises. That is, under what circumstances, if any, is violence of any kind acceptable as a protest tactic? While I am not a full-blown pacifist (for example, I believe in the use of physical force in cases of absolute and immediate self-defense, and no "duty to retreat" when one is truly cornered), and I will leave it an open question as to how "self-defense" is defined and whether or not violence has a place other social justice movements, I will say that I do NOT believe that violence as a protest tactic has any place in the movement to lower the drinking age or the broader youth-rights movement in general. Period.
I'm sure some of us, young and old alike, may fantasize at times about using violence against police and judges who enforce the vile and ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age and its ancillary laws that prop it up. And you know what? You are perfectly justified in your fantasies, and your grievances are absolutely NOT trivial. I am the last person who would try to gaslight you in that regard. But when one decides to act out those fantasies in the misguided hopes of redressing those very real grievances, that becomes a serious problem for our movement. Most of us in the movement are non-violent, and any violence committed in the name our movement only gives ammunition to the other side, confirming ageist stereotypes and hardly makes us look like we are mature enough to drink at 18 or any other age for that matter. Thus, adding violent tactics to our movement is far more likely to backfire than it would in other movements.
I am not against the use of non-violent civil disobedience, by the way. But when it comes to aggressive, offensive physical force against law enforcement, judges, politicians, or even MADD for that matter, I will say this to any potential "lone wolves" considering such "propaganda by deed": NOT IN OUR NAME!
As Gandhi would say, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". And as I like to say, when you fight fire with fire, we all get burned in the end. Keep that in mind when protesting or debating.
I'm sure some of us, young and old alike, may fantasize at times about using violence against police and judges who enforce the vile and ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age and its ancillary laws that prop it up. And you know what? You are perfectly justified in your fantasies, and your grievances are absolutely NOT trivial. I am the last person who would try to gaslight you in that regard. But when one decides to act out those fantasies in the misguided hopes of redressing those very real grievances, that becomes a serious problem for our movement. Most of us in the movement are non-violent, and any violence committed in the name our movement only gives ammunition to the other side, confirming ageist stereotypes and hardly makes us look like we are mature enough to drink at 18 or any other age for that matter. Thus, adding violent tactics to our movement is far more likely to backfire than it would in other movements.
I am not against the use of non-violent civil disobedience, by the way. But when it comes to aggressive, offensive physical force against law enforcement, judges, politicians, or even MADD for that matter, I will say this to any potential "lone wolves" considering such "propaganda by deed": NOT IN OUR NAME!
As Gandhi would say, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". And as I like to say, when you fight fire with fire, we all get burned in the end. Keep that in mind when protesting or debating.
Friday, May 6, 2016
Vote Green, Not Brown!
We at Twenty-One Debunked just seriously lost some respect for California, a state that we, until fairly recently, regarded as one of the least-worst states in the country (though the bar is set rather low to begin with) in terms of social policy in general. Looks like the Golden State just joined Hawaii, NYC, San Francisco, and a growing number of localities in this country in raising the purchase age for tobacco to 21, with Governor Jerry Brown (remember him?) signing it into law on May 4, 2016. The law change takes effect on June 9, 2016, just a few weeks later, when the age limit will rise from 18 to 21 overnight without even so much as a grandfather clause. Brown also signed other bills on the same day restricting e-cigarette use (i.e. "vaping") in public and expanding the coverage of various no-smoking zones, among other things, but the one that really stood out the most (and rankles the most with us) is the 21 smoking age. The one exception: active-duty military members age 18-20 can still buy cigarettes and other tobacco products. But this exception is a rather hollow way of addressing the fundamental injustice of being old enough to die for one's country but being too young to smoke (or drink for that matter), and doesn't make things much better. So even with this exception, Twenty-One Debunked still opposes this new law regardless.
Hopefully, there will be a ballot measure in November that will undo the hike in the smoking age. Until then, though, we might just want to boycott all things from California whenever possible. That includes major Hollywood movies (which still feature omnipresent product placement from Big Tobacco) and fruits/vegetables grown with fracking wastewater thanks to the very same Governor Jerry Brown. VOTE GREEN, NOT BROWN!!!
Hopefully, there will be a ballot measure in November that will undo the hike in the smoking age. Until then, though, we might just want to boycott all things from California whenever possible. That includes major Hollywood movies (which still feature omnipresent product placement from Big Tobacco) and fruits/vegetables grown with fracking wastewater thanks to the very same Governor Jerry Brown. VOTE GREEN, NOT BROWN!!!
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Tobacco, The Ulitmate Dark Horse of Drugs
Almost immediately after posting a recent article about the roundly debunked "gateway drug theory", we at Twenty-One Debunked felt we should post another separate article about the particular case of tobacco, especially in the form of commercial cigarettes. While our organization does not generally view tobacco as a particularly high-priority issue, perhaps it is something we should be revisiting given both recent evidence as well as recent efforts to raise the smoking age to 21.
While the primary dangers of smoking tobacco (i.e. cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema, birth defects, etc.) have been well-known for decades, what has been much less appreciated is the neurotoxic properties of cigarettes. The thing is, nicotine is a known neurotoxin, and it is likely that at least some of the thousands of other chemicals in cigarette smoke are also toxic to the brain as well. One reported effect of nicotine is that it can "prime" the brain's reward system for addiction in general, including to other substances. This seems to be particularly true for the early adolescent brain. While these findings are based primarily on rodent studies, human studies seem to dovetail with this idea far more for tobacco than for cannabis or even alcohol. Thus, the psychopharmacological aspect of the gateway hypothesis seems to hold true indeed for tobacco, and if there were such a thing as an actual gateway drug (which is a very big "if", if you ask us), tobacco would have to be it, hands down.
Additionally, tobacco is also emerging as a potential "dark horse" in the etiology of psychosis and schizophrenia as well. This has been informally hypothesized for many years now while being overlooked by most researchers, and is only very recently beginning to be taken seriously by mainstream science. Perhaps cannabis (which is often mixed with tobacco in many countries, and whose use is often predicted by prior and concurrent tobacco use in general) has been taking a major bum rap in that regard as well? All while Big Tobacco has subtly and sedulously promoted tobacco smoking as "self-medication" for decades, of course.
That said, Twenty-One Debunked strongly opposes any attempts to raise the smoking age any higher than 18. Instead, we (along with the TSAP) believe that we should deal with cigarettes the way we would deal with any other defective product such as the historical examples of the Ford Pinto, lawn darts (Jarts), leaded gasoline and paint, DDT, incandescent light bulbs, and old-style refrigerators. Either 1) require the defects to be sufficiently fixed, or 2) failing that, remove such products from the market. And yes, commercial cigarettes as they exist today are indeed defective by design in that they addict, enslave, and kill far more people than they have to. Worldwide, they kill about 6 million people per year, hence the name of Robert N. Proctor's bombshell of a book, Golden Holocaust.
Since 2013, the endgame strategy that the TSAP (and Twenty-One Debunked) currently supports has been to let tobacco phase itself out by gradually reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to a (relatively) non-addictive level. Since 2009, the FDA now has the authority to set a legal limit on the nicotine content of tobacco products, as long as the limit is not zero. Much research indicates that there is a threshold level of nicotine required to create and sustain addiction, and if all cigarettes were to fall below this threshold, smoking rates would plummet precipitously. In fact, one tobacco executive was quoted as saying, "‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week." This idea was originally proposed by Henningfield and Benowitz in 1994, and has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and several other experts including Proctor himself. Malcolm Gladwell also discussed it in his aptly-titled 2000 book The Tipping Point. Thus, the TSAP recommends reducing the maximum nicotine content (not delivery) of cigarettes from the current level of 1-2% to less than 0.1% within 5 years, and doing the same for quasi-cigarettes (i.e. little cigars) and perhaps roll-your-own tobacco (but no other products). That alone would reduce smoking prevalence by as much as 80% within a fairly short timeframe, with further reductions possible in the more distant future. Alternatively (or in addition), the FDA could require the pH of such products to be raised to 8 or higher to discourage deep inhalation, as is naturally the case for most typical cigars and pipe tobacco currently.
The TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked also recommend that the following measures be taken as well:
The tobacco industry has basically dug its own grave. Time to push them in there, yesterday.
While the primary dangers of smoking tobacco (i.e. cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema, birth defects, etc.) have been well-known for decades, what has been much less appreciated is the neurotoxic properties of cigarettes. The thing is, nicotine is a known neurotoxin, and it is likely that at least some of the thousands of other chemicals in cigarette smoke are also toxic to the brain as well. One reported effect of nicotine is that it can "prime" the brain's reward system for addiction in general, including to other substances. This seems to be particularly true for the early adolescent brain. While these findings are based primarily on rodent studies, human studies seem to dovetail with this idea far more for tobacco than for cannabis or even alcohol. Thus, the psychopharmacological aspect of the gateway hypothesis seems to hold true indeed for tobacco, and if there were such a thing as an actual gateway drug (which is a very big "if", if you ask us), tobacco would have to be it, hands down.
Additionally, tobacco is also emerging as a potential "dark horse" in the etiology of psychosis and schizophrenia as well. This has been informally hypothesized for many years now while being overlooked by most researchers, and is only very recently beginning to be taken seriously by mainstream science. Perhaps cannabis (which is often mixed with tobacco in many countries, and whose use is often predicted by prior and concurrent tobacco use in general) has been taking a major bum rap in that regard as well? All while Big Tobacco has subtly and sedulously promoted tobacco smoking as "self-medication" for decades, of course.
That said, Twenty-One Debunked strongly opposes any attempts to raise the smoking age any higher than 18. Instead, we (along with the TSAP) believe that we should deal with cigarettes the way we would deal with any other defective product such as the historical examples of the Ford Pinto, lawn darts (Jarts), leaded gasoline and paint, DDT, incandescent light bulbs, and old-style refrigerators. Either 1) require the defects to be sufficiently fixed, or 2) failing that, remove such products from the market. And yes, commercial cigarettes as they exist today are indeed defective by design in that they addict, enslave, and kill far more people than they have to. Worldwide, they kill about 6 million people per year, hence the name of Robert N. Proctor's bombshell of a book, Golden Holocaust.
Since 2013, the endgame strategy that the TSAP (and Twenty-One Debunked) currently supports has been to let tobacco phase itself out by gradually reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to a (relatively) non-addictive level. Since 2009, the FDA now has the authority to set a legal limit on the nicotine content of tobacco products, as long as the limit is not zero. Much research indicates that there is a threshold level of nicotine required to create and sustain addiction, and if all cigarettes were to fall below this threshold, smoking rates would plummet precipitously. In fact, one tobacco executive was quoted as saying, "‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week." This idea was originally proposed by Henningfield and Benowitz in 1994, and has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and several other experts including Proctor himself. Malcolm Gladwell also discussed it in his aptly-titled 2000 book The Tipping Point. Thus, the TSAP recommends reducing the maximum nicotine content (not delivery) of cigarettes from the current level of 1-2% to less than 0.1% within 5 years, and doing the same for quasi-cigarettes (i.e. little cigars) and perhaps roll-your-own tobacco (but no other products). That alone would reduce smoking prevalence by as much as 80% within a fairly short timeframe, with further reductions possible in the more distant future. Alternatively (or in addition), the FDA could require the pH of such products to be raised to 8 or higher to discourage deep inhalation, as is naturally the case for most typical cigars and pipe tobacco currently.
The TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked also recommend that the following measures be taken as well:
- Ban the use of additives in cigarettes, especially those that are harmful or increase the addictiveness of tobacco.
- Ban the use of any radioactive fertilizers or harmful pesticides for growing tobacco.
- Phase-out the practice of flue-curing tobacco, which is a major resource hog and bad for the environment.
- Improve the quality control standards for tobacco products (and electronic cigarettes) to be at least as high as for food.
- End all government subsidies for tobacco farming and production.
- Divest completely from Big Tobacco at all levels of government.
- Vigorously enforce the current age limit of 18 for tobacco and e-cigarette sales to achieve 100% retailer compliance.
- Continue to allow widespread availability of reduced-harm tobacco and nicotine products (i.e. snus, e-cigarettes, etc.) so that smokers can easily switch to less dangerous alternatives.
- Improve education and smoking cessation programs, funded by tobacco tax revenues.
- Give out free nicotine patches, gum, etc. to any smokers who want to quit. NYC already does this.
The tobacco industry has basically dug its own grave. Time to push them in there, yesterday.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
DARE Quietly Removes Cannabis From List of Gateway Drugs
Yes, you read that headline correctly. The well-known drug and alcohol prevention program for kids, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), has quietly removed cannabis from its list of "gateway" drugs. And they apparently have also stopped lying to kids about the purported dangers of cannabis in general as well. That is probably because the recent evidence that debunked their previous propaganda has been overwhelming. And that is a sign that "reefer sanity" is slowly starting to return to America.
DARE's current list of "gateway" drugs can be found on this page of their website. Note that only two substances remain on that list: 1) tobacco, and 2) alcohol, in that order. And even the part about alcohol, with warnings against the dangers of "underage" drinking, interestingly enough makes no specific mention of what the legal drinking age is or should be, as the actual words "twenty-one" and "21" are literally nowhere to be found in the text. It does, however, note that 90% of young people will experiment with alcohol by age 18, and that only a small number abstain completely while an even smaller number become addicted and need help. And the page encourages parents to, among other things, be good role models as far as alcohol and tobacco are concerned (which is important as that addresses the real pink elephant in the room). Overall, DARE has really come a long way it seems, and we hope their recent progress continues.
We at Twenty-One Debunked should note, however, that we believe that the whole "gateway theory" (which should really be called the "gateway hypothesis") has been grossly overstated at best, even as far as alcohol and tobacco are concerned. A few years ago, we wrote an in-depth article about this phenomenon, which the best evidence strongly suggests is really nothing more than a socially-constructed narrative. Constructed by prohibition laws, disingenuous propaganda, and ageism/adultism, that is.
DARE's current list of "gateway" drugs can be found on this page of their website. Note that only two substances remain on that list: 1) tobacco, and 2) alcohol, in that order. And even the part about alcohol, with warnings against the dangers of "underage" drinking, interestingly enough makes no specific mention of what the legal drinking age is or should be, as the actual words "twenty-one" and "21" are literally nowhere to be found in the text. It does, however, note that 90% of young people will experiment with alcohol by age 18, and that only a small number abstain completely while an even smaller number become addicted and need help. And the page encourages parents to, among other things, be good role models as far as alcohol and tobacco are concerned (which is important as that addresses the real pink elephant in the room). Overall, DARE has really come a long way it seems, and we hope their recent progress continues.
We at Twenty-One Debunked should note, however, that we believe that the whole "gateway theory" (which should really be called the "gateway hypothesis") has been grossly overstated at best, even as far as alcohol and tobacco are concerned. A few years ago, we wrote an in-depth article about this phenomenon, which the best evidence strongly suggests is really nothing more than a socially-constructed narrative. Constructed by prohibition laws, disingenuous propaganda, and ageism/adultism, that is.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Why 18?
We at Twenty-One Debunked realize that, over the past several years, we have spent so much time and energy trying to convince people why the drinking age should NOT be 21, that we left ourselves wide open for criticism from the other end of the spectrum. To wit, some have asked, either honestly or disingenuously, why 18? Why not 16, or 13, or abolish it altogether? Until recently, we have been ignoring such questions, but we now feel that such questions must be fielded properly after having debated exactly those questions in youth-rights forums and elsewhere. If we keep ignoring such questions, we could perhaps alienate many in the youth-rights movement, while also ironically and inadvertently giving ammunition to the pro-21 side.
For a good set of arguments as to why the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18, and not be any higher than 18, please take a look at our intro page, as this post will only deal with the other side of the question (i.e. why not less than 18?) for the most part. We have already established that the drinking age should never be any higher than the age of majority in a free society. So what are our arguments for not pushing for lowering it any further than 18, exactly?
First and foremost, there is the issue of pragmatism, as there is truly a snowball's chance in hell of getting the drinking age lowered any further than 18 (which is hard enough as it is). America is truly not ready for such a massive change, as one poll found that no more than 5% of American adults support lowering it to 16 (the same poll found 30% favored 18), and the last time any state had a drinking age below 18 was in the 1930s (Ohio was briefly 16 and Colorado had no age limit for a few years). So aiming for a drinking age of less than 18 is basically a political non-starter, and will remain so until many, many years after lowering it to 18 (which itself is no small feat). And pursuing such a goal, at least doing so openly, would alienate a huge chunk of potential supporters.
Secondly, even if it was politically feasible to lower the drinking age to 16 or abolish it altogether, such a move could foreseeably have unintended consequences if done too quickly and too soon. The best studies such as Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) find that the "parade of horrors" that would supposedly occur if 18-20 year olds were allowed to drink legally would most likely not occur--but unfortunately the same can't be said about abolishing the drinking age or lowering it further. There is simply not enough evidence to reassure anyone that such problems won't happen--and if they did, even if only in the short-term, that would backfire and set our movement way, way back to where it was in the late 1980s.
Third, as the pro-21 crowd is so fond of pointing out ad nauseam, "America is not Europe". Culturally and otherwise, that is certainly true. America is indeed a largely Anglo-style drinking culture in many ways, as well as a car culture. The closest comparison country would be Canada, with a drinking age of 18 or 19 depending on the province. So that should be our model for the time being, not Europe. And the next closest ones would be Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, all 18. In fact, nowadays most of the world sets the drinking age, or at least the purchase age, at 18, not 16. Note as well that several European countries are also 18, and even Spain and France have recently raised their drinking ages from 16 to 18 (despite the fact that such laws are largely unenforced).
Fourth, recent advances in neuroscience have uncovered some rather unpleasant-to-acknowledge truths about the effects of alcohol on teenage brains, as the pro-21 crowd just luuuurrrrves to point out. Granted, such findings would apply primarily to truly heavy drinkers under 18 (and especially under 15) rather than 18-20 year olds, and not all of the evidence is 100% conclusive either, but to blithely ignore such findings regarding early to middle adolescents only gives ammunition to the pro-21 crowd. And even if you believe that banning people under 18 from drinking for that reason is patronizing and paternalistic, you still need to see the pragmatism in acknowledging that it is not solely a civil rights issue but also a public health issue as well.
Finally, we at Twenty-One Debunked already support decriminalizing drinking for people under 18, with the penalty for the young drinkers (if any) being no more than a civil fine with no criminal record. And we also support allowing parents to legally give alcohol to their own children (within reason) at home or other private property as well, which is already legal in many states now. Those things, along with lowering the legal drinking age to 18, should take away most of the objections to not lowering the age further or abolishing it. Purists in the youth-rights movement may very well disagree with us, of course, but please remember that compromise is, as the saying goes, "the art of the possible".
Keep in mind, Twenty-One Debunked is not categorically opposed to a drinking age lower than 18 at some point in the (albeit most likely very distant) future. But we no longer consider such a goal to be worthwhile for the foreseeable future, and are thus sticking with 18 as our goal.
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.
For a good set of arguments as to why the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18, and not be any higher than 18, please take a look at our intro page, as this post will only deal with the other side of the question (i.e. why not less than 18?) for the most part. We have already established that the drinking age should never be any higher than the age of majority in a free society. So what are our arguments for not pushing for lowering it any further than 18, exactly?
First and foremost, there is the issue of pragmatism, as there is truly a snowball's chance in hell of getting the drinking age lowered any further than 18 (which is hard enough as it is). America is truly not ready for such a massive change, as one poll found that no more than 5% of American adults support lowering it to 16 (the same poll found 30% favored 18), and the last time any state had a drinking age below 18 was in the 1930s (Ohio was briefly 16 and Colorado had no age limit for a few years). So aiming for a drinking age of less than 18 is basically a political non-starter, and will remain so until many, many years after lowering it to 18 (which itself is no small feat). And pursuing such a goal, at least doing so openly, would alienate a huge chunk of potential supporters.
Secondly, even if it was politically feasible to lower the drinking age to 16 or abolish it altogether, such a move could foreseeably have unintended consequences if done too quickly and too soon. The best studies such as Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) find that the "parade of horrors" that would supposedly occur if 18-20 year olds were allowed to drink legally would most likely not occur--but unfortunately the same can't be said about abolishing the drinking age or lowering it further. There is simply not enough evidence to reassure anyone that such problems won't happen--and if they did, even if only in the short-term, that would backfire and set our movement way, way back to where it was in the late 1980s.
Third, as the pro-21 crowd is so fond of pointing out ad nauseam, "America is not Europe". Culturally and otherwise, that is certainly true. America is indeed a largely Anglo-style drinking culture in many ways, as well as a car culture. The closest comparison country would be Canada, with a drinking age of 18 or 19 depending on the province. So that should be our model for the time being, not Europe. And the next closest ones would be Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, all 18. In fact, nowadays most of the world sets the drinking age, or at least the purchase age, at 18, not 16. Note as well that several European countries are also 18, and even Spain and France have recently raised their drinking ages from 16 to 18 (despite the fact that such laws are largely unenforced).
Fourth, recent advances in neuroscience have uncovered some rather unpleasant-to-acknowledge truths about the effects of alcohol on teenage brains, as the pro-21 crowd just luuuurrrrves to point out. Granted, such findings would apply primarily to truly heavy drinkers under 18 (and especially under 15) rather than 18-20 year olds, and not all of the evidence is 100% conclusive either, but to blithely ignore such findings regarding early to middle adolescents only gives ammunition to the pro-21 crowd. And even if you believe that banning people under 18 from drinking for that reason is patronizing and paternalistic, you still need to see the pragmatism in acknowledging that it is not solely a civil rights issue but also a public health issue as well.
Finally, we at Twenty-One Debunked already support decriminalizing drinking for people under 18, with the penalty for the young drinkers (if any) being no more than a civil fine with no criminal record. And we also support allowing parents to legally give alcohol to their own children (within reason) at home or other private property as well, which is already legal in many states now. Those things, along with lowering the legal drinking age to 18, should take away most of the objections to not lowering the age further or abolishing it. Purists in the youth-rights movement may very well disagree with us, of course, but please remember that compromise is, as the saying goes, "the art of the possible".
Keep in mind, Twenty-One Debunked is not categorically opposed to a drinking age lower than 18 at some point in the (albeit most likely very distant) future. But we no longer consider such a goal to be worthwhile for the foreseeable future, and are thus sticking with 18 as our goal.
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.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Just Say NO to the Tobacco to 21 Act!
If some US Senators get their way, the entire nation will join Hawaii, NYC, and several other municipalites with a smoking age of 21 for tobacco. Not only is the effectiveness of such an idea rather dubious, but just like the vile abomination that is the 21 drinking age it is ageist/adultist and tyrannical and has no place in a free society. The age of majority is 18 in nearly every state, and in a free society no age limit for any civil right or privilege should ever be any higher than the age of majority except for senior citizen stuff and perhaps certain specific professions (i.e. President of a nuclear superpower) in which adulthood alone may not be fully sufficient.
We are especially disappointed in Senator Elizabeth Warren, an erstwhile favorite of the True Spirit of America Party. She is one of the leading co-sponsors of the Tobacco 21 Act. It's too bad since we at the TSAP love just about everything else about her. Seriously. If you are reading this, Sen. Warren, we strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this ageist and illiberal mockery of the age of majority.
Let America be America again. Old enough to fight and vote = old enough to drink and smoke. 'Nuff said.
We are especially disappointed in Senator Elizabeth Warren, an erstwhile favorite of the True Spirit of America Party. She is one of the leading co-sponsors of the Tobacco 21 Act. It's too bad since we at the TSAP love just about everything else about her. Seriously. If you are reading this, Sen. Warren, we strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this ageist and illiberal mockery of the age of majority.
Let America be America again. Old enough to fight and vote = old enough to drink and smoke. 'Nuff said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
