That is what at least some segments of the alcohol industry increasingly feel about cannabis as it becomes more and more mainstream. For decades, much of the industry has generally opposed cannabis, and legalization at first seemed to be taking a bite out of the demand for booze. But now, they are catching on and want a piece of the action now, knowing what an unstoppable juggernaut that legalized cannabis has become. And this is just the beginning.
Among Millennials, alcohol is retreating while cannabis is advancing, a trend that shows no signs of stopping anytime soon. Thus, some alcohol companies, particularly the craft brewer Lagunitas (itself owned by the Dutch multinational beer company Heineken) are now starting to market cannabis-infused beverages in California and other states where recreational cannabis is legal. Meanwhile, the more conservative segments of the alcohol industry, who are loath to associate themselves with something as controversial as cannabis, are likely going to be left behind as a result.
UPDATE: As of October 2018, it also appears that after sitting on the sidelines for years now, Big Tobacco giant Altria Group (formerly known as Philip Morris) is considering a stake in Aphria, a Canadian cannabis company. We strongly urge the cannabis industry to refrain from making such a Faustian bargain.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Friday, October 19, 2018
Latest Teen Brain and Cannabis Study More Smoke than Fire
The scary-sounding headline from a few weeks ago in USA Today reads, "Marijuana caused more damage to teens' brains than alcohol, study finds". Yes, there was a study that claimed to find such results, but there is less here than meets the eye.
In other words, there's more smoke than fire.
The actual study itself is predictably behind a paywall, and we will not dignify such questionable research by paying for it, so we couldn't find the actual numbers and thus could not quantify any effect sizes or how long the reported effects lasted, but the abstract and several news articles summarize qualitatively the main findings. The study, which involved nearly 4000 students from 7th through 10th grades in the greater Montreal area, longitudinally following them for those four years, asking questions about both alcohol and cannanis use and giving tests on memory and response inhibition. Statistically significant correlations were noted between increased cannabis use and reduced performance on such tests, while interestingly for alcohol such correlations failed to reach statistical significance.
Again, no information about the size of such reported effects, and guess what? SIZE MATTERS. And so does duration. Also, it say nothing about any such correlations beyond 10th grade, nor clearly distinguish between lighter and heavier use. (The article did note that there were many more daily users of cannabis than alcohol, despite the fact that there were many more drinkers than tokers overall the sample.) And it is very curious that the typically pro-21 mainstream scientific community are so willing to practically exonerate alcohol in such a study of teens--or perhaps they are simply alcohol supremacists. And while the sample size and longitudinal nature of this study puts it head and shoulders about most other studies on the matter, given the aforementioned concerns it should still be viewed with caution in terms of causation.
Additionally, the study seems to be silent on the real "dark horse of drugs"--tobacco/nicotine. Nicotine is a known neurotoxin, particularly during early adolescence, and is far more correlated with cannabis than alcohol use. Thus, at least some of the reported effects in the study could in fact be due to tobacco, and/or perhaps other substances as well.
Keep in mind that the infamous 2012 study that reportedly found persistently reduced IQs among adults who used cannabis before age 18, was debunked by 2014 study that found no correlation between adolescent cannabis use and IQ or exam performance (though heavy use beginning before age 15 was associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16). This latter study did control for tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other factors. So it is very likely that soon another study will come a long and refute the first study discussed in this article, or perhaps find that any such effects are limited to the heaviest users, particularly those who began before age 15 or 16. In fact, a 2018 systematic review of 69 studies of adolescent and young adult cannabis use and cognitive functioning found that reported adverse effects were much smaller in size than the prohibitionists like to claim, and generally tend to be temporary rather than permanent, even for frequent and/or heavy use. And interestingly, no correlation with age of onset, though the mean age of study participants in these 69 studies was significantly higher than in the aforementioned Montreal study.
Other studies as well cast serious doubt on the scary claims of cannabis neurotoxicity as well, and most studies find weed safer than alcohol.
So what is the best takeaway from such studies? It would seem that while occasional or moderate cannabis use is basically a non-problem, heavy and/or daily/near-daily use (unless medically necessary) should probably be avoided at any age, but particularly for people under 18 and especially under 15. And while delaying the onset of use, or at least regular use, for as long as possible is probably wise for people under 18 and especially under 15, there is no hard scientific evidence that cannabis is any more harmful at 18 than it is as 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter. Thus, there is no good reason to keep it illegal or set the age limit any higher than 18. And even for people well under 18, the criminal law is still far too harsh a tool to apply to something like this that more likely than not turns out to be a non-problem.
In other words, there's more smoke than fire.
The actual study itself is predictably behind a paywall, and we will not dignify such questionable research by paying for it, so we couldn't find the actual numbers and thus could not quantify any effect sizes or how long the reported effects lasted, but the abstract and several news articles summarize qualitatively the main findings. The study, which involved nearly 4000 students from 7th through 10th grades in the greater Montreal area, longitudinally following them for those four years, asking questions about both alcohol and cannanis use and giving tests on memory and response inhibition. Statistically significant correlations were noted between increased cannabis use and reduced performance on such tests, while interestingly for alcohol such correlations failed to reach statistical significance.
Again, no information about the size of such reported effects, and guess what? SIZE MATTERS. And so does duration. Also, it say nothing about any such correlations beyond 10th grade, nor clearly distinguish between lighter and heavier use. (The article did note that there were many more daily users of cannabis than alcohol, despite the fact that there were many more drinkers than tokers overall the sample.) And it is very curious that the typically pro-21 mainstream scientific community are so willing to practically exonerate alcohol in such a study of teens--or perhaps they are simply alcohol supremacists. And while the sample size and longitudinal nature of this study puts it head and shoulders about most other studies on the matter, given the aforementioned concerns it should still be viewed with caution in terms of causation.
Additionally, the study seems to be silent on the real "dark horse of drugs"--tobacco/nicotine. Nicotine is a known neurotoxin, particularly during early adolescence, and is far more correlated with cannabis than alcohol use. Thus, at least some of the reported effects in the study could in fact be due to tobacco, and/or perhaps other substances as well.
Keep in mind that the infamous 2012 study that reportedly found persistently reduced IQs among adults who used cannabis before age 18, was debunked by 2014 study that found no correlation between adolescent cannabis use and IQ or exam performance (though heavy use beginning before age 15 was associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16). This latter study did control for tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other factors. So it is very likely that soon another study will come a long and refute the first study discussed in this article, or perhaps find that any such effects are limited to the heaviest users, particularly those who began before age 15 or 16. In fact, a 2018 systematic review of 69 studies of adolescent and young adult cannabis use and cognitive functioning found that reported adverse effects were much smaller in size than the prohibitionists like to claim, and generally tend to be temporary rather than permanent, even for frequent and/or heavy use. And interestingly, no correlation with age of onset, though the mean age of study participants in these 69 studies was significantly higher than in the aforementioned Montreal study.
Other studies as well cast serious doubt on the scary claims of cannabis neurotoxicity as well, and most studies find weed safer than alcohol.
So what is the best takeaway from such studies? It would seem that while occasional or moderate cannabis use is basically a non-problem, heavy and/or daily/near-daily use (unless medically necessary) should probably be avoided at any age, but particularly for people under 18 and especially under 15. And while delaying the onset of use, or at least regular use, for as long as possible is probably wise for people under 18 and especially under 15, there is no hard scientific evidence that cannabis is any more harmful at 18 than it is as 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter. Thus, there is no good reason to keep it illegal or set the age limit any higher than 18. And even for people well under 18, the criminal law is still far too harsh a tool to apply to something like this that more likely than not turns out to be a non-problem.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
O Cannabis! Canada Fully Legalizes Weed
Well, it's official. Our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada, has now fully legalized cannabis effective today, October 17, 2018. The actual law doing so, Bill C-45, was passed a few months ago in June, but officially goes into effect today. That makes Canada the second country in the world (after Uruguay in 2014) to officially and fully legalize it nationwide.
The details vary from province to province, but cannabis is generally legal in all 13 Canadian provinces and territories now. Age limits for purchase and possession are 18 or 19 depending on the province. It will be the same as the drinking age, with the notable exception of Manitoba whose drinking age is 18 but whose toking age is 19, because reasons. Thus, Alberta and Quebec will be 18 and everywhere else will be 19. Not perfect, of course, but still WAY more progressive than the USA, in which only a fraction of the states have full legalization and all of such legalization states set the age limit at 21. You know, kinda like the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age--which really needs to be lowered to 18 yesterday (along with the toking age as well).
Other advantages of the Canadian model of legalization include the fact that the prices/taxes of legal weed will be set low enough to undercut the black market, something that the legalization states in the USA still have yet to do. This, combined with a lower age limit than the USA, would lead to the black market collapsing much sooner. And once it is gone, it will be gone forever within a few years from now, and then prices/taxes can then be raised just high enough to discourage overconsumption without resurrecting that very same black market.
We can certainly learn a lot from our friendly neighbor to the north. So what are waiting for?
The details vary from province to province, but cannabis is generally legal in all 13 Canadian provinces and territories now. Age limits for purchase and possession are 18 or 19 depending on the province. It will be the same as the drinking age, with the notable exception of Manitoba whose drinking age is 18 but whose toking age is 19, because reasons. Thus, Alberta and Quebec will be 18 and everywhere else will be 19. Not perfect, of course, but still WAY more progressive than the USA, in which only a fraction of the states have full legalization and all of such legalization states set the age limit at 21. You know, kinda like the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age--which really needs to be lowered to 18 yesterday (along with the toking age as well).
Other advantages of the Canadian model of legalization include the fact that the prices/taxes of legal weed will be set low enough to undercut the black market, something that the legalization states in the USA still have yet to do. This, combined with a lower age limit than the USA, would lead to the black market collapsing much sooner. And once it is gone, it will be gone forever within a few years from now, and then prices/taxes can then be raised just high enough to discourage overconsumption without resurrecting that very same black market.
We can certainly learn a lot from our friendly neighbor to the north. So what are waiting for?
Friday, October 5, 2018
How Iceland Can Save Their Tourism Sector
A decade after their legendary financial crisis and its aftermath, it seems that Iceland is in trouble again despite their miraculous recovery. This time around, it is their tourism sector (which in fact was key to their recovery) that seems to be suffering now, cooling fast following a decade of explosive growth. Banks, of course, seem to have learned their lesson after the banksters that caused the crisis were jailed rather than bailed out like in the USA.
The reasons for the decline in tourism are not entirely clear, but since tourism is such a large chunk of Iceland's economy, a large and sustained decline has the potential to be a serious problem in the long run. So it would really behoove them to face this problem head-on before things deteriorate any further.
Two things immediately come to mind as potential solutions to reverse or at least slow the decline in tourism: 1) lower the drinking age to 18 (it is currently 20), and 2) abolish their youth curfew law, or at least stop enforcing it. And 3) legalize weed as well for everyone over 18. Problem solved. Next.
As for their alcohol tax, since they have the most expensive alcohol in the world (at least double the price it is in the USA), they might want to cut it a bit for on-premise sales while perhaps hiking it for off-premise sales, as they are way on the "wrong" side of the Laffer curve, and are very prone to "pregaming" before going out to the bar. Of course, cutting the alcohol tax too much would lead to adverse effects from an increase in excessive drinking (just look at the USA, for example), but there does seem to be such a thing as too high--and they are already there now.
Skal!
The reasons for the decline in tourism are not entirely clear, but since tourism is such a large chunk of Iceland's economy, a large and sustained decline has the potential to be a serious problem in the long run. So it would really behoove them to face this problem head-on before things deteriorate any further.
Two things immediately come to mind as potential solutions to reverse or at least slow the decline in tourism: 1) lower the drinking age to 18 (it is currently 20), and 2) abolish their youth curfew law, or at least stop enforcing it. And 3) legalize weed as well for everyone over 18. Problem solved. Next.
As for their alcohol tax, since they have the most expensive alcohol in the world (at least double the price it is in the USA), they might want to cut it a bit for on-premise sales while perhaps hiking it for off-premise sales, as they are way on the "wrong" side of the Laffer curve, and are very prone to "pregaming" before going out to the bar. Of course, cutting the alcohol tax too much would lead to adverse effects from an increase in excessive drinking (just look at the USA, for example), but there does seem to be such a thing as too high--and they are already there now.
Skal!
Friday, September 28, 2018
Teen Drinking Plummets Worldwide, Regardless of the Drinking Age
That is the biggest takeaway from the latest World Health Organization (WHO) study. Since 2002, teen drinking has indeed plummeted worldwide, including the USA. And lest the pro-21 crowd try to take any credit for this trend, keep in mind that this secular trend also occurred in other countries with drinking ages of 18 or even lower still. The UK, for example, despite their legendary binge drinking culture and relatively loosely enforced (albeit more so than in the past) drinking age of 18, saw their rate of weekly teen drinking among boys decline from 50.3% to 10% by 2014, a relative drop of over 80% and one of the largest declines of any nation. And British teen girls also saw a drop almost as large as well.
Both among teens and adults alike, gender gaps on drinking are also clearly narrowing. The difference is that among teens, the convergence is primarily due to drinking more rapidly decreasing among males (while still dropping for both primary genders), whereas among adults, it is primarily due to an increase in drinking among females in many countries. Let that sink in for a moment.
And as Twenty-One Debunked has noted before, another such notable example of this is Germany, whose drinking age is still 16 for beer and wine, and 18 for distilled spirits. In fact, one can even drink at 14 in public when accompanied by a parent or guardian, and there is no age limit for drinking in private residences. Such laws have essentially been in effect for as long as anyone can remember (with perhaps the notable exception of the Nazi era), so what were the results of maintaining them in recent decades? From 1979 to 2016, the percentage of 12-17 year old Germans who drink at least weekly dropped from 25.4% to 10.0%, a relative drop of more than 60%. For 18-25 year olds, the percentage dropped by nearly half during the same timeframe, and from 1973-2016 dropped from from two out of three (67.1%) to less than one out of three (30.7%). These trends are comparable to if not faster than the corresponding figures for American youth.
In other words, consider this the final nail in the coffin for the specious claim that the 21 drinking age had anything more than a minor impact on overall teen or young adult drinking. Prost!
Both among teens and adults alike, gender gaps on drinking are also clearly narrowing. The difference is that among teens, the convergence is primarily due to drinking more rapidly decreasing among males (while still dropping for both primary genders), whereas among adults, it is primarily due to an increase in drinking among females in many countries. Let that sink in for a moment.
And as Twenty-One Debunked has noted before, another such notable example of this is Germany, whose drinking age is still 16 for beer and wine, and 18 for distilled spirits. In fact, one can even drink at 14 in public when accompanied by a parent or guardian, and there is no age limit for drinking in private residences. Such laws have essentially been in effect for as long as anyone can remember (with perhaps the notable exception of the Nazi era), so what were the results of maintaining them in recent decades? From 1979 to 2016, the percentage of 12-17 year old Germans who drink at least weekly dropped from 25.4% to 10.0%, a relative drop of more than 60%. For 18-25 year olds, the percentage dropped by nearly half during the same timeframe, and from 1973-2016 dropped from from two out of three (67.1%) to less than one out of three (30.7%). These trends are comparable to if not faster than the corresponding figures for American youth.
In other words, consider this the final nail in the coffin for the specious claim that the 21 drinking age had anything more than a minor impact on overall teen or young adult drinking. Prost!
Sunday, September 23, 2018
The Banality of Evil
Why is it that, despite all of those who fight against raising the latest age limits, after losing the battle, most of them suddenly go quiet? I mean, the silence is truly deafening, as we saw after they raised the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s as well as the smoking age to 21 in recent years in some states and localities.
The answer is the "banality of evil", that is, it becomes normalized. Just like every other form of tyranny and oppression, most people simply adapt to it. And that is very dangerous, as history has so painfully shown time and time again. History may not exactly repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
All the more reason to redouble our efforts, yesterday. So what are we waiting for?
The answer is the "banality of evil", that is, it becomes normalized. Just like every other form of tyranny and oppression, most people simply adapt to it. And that is very dangerous, as history has so painfully shown time and time again. History may not exactly repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
All the more reason to redouble our efforts, yesterday. So what are we waiting for?
Saturday, September 22, 2018
OK, Ageists, Here's A Modest Proposal Just For You (Part Deux)
In a previous post, we discussed the issue of age of consent for sex and the hypocrisy of ageists who tend to set it lower than the age of other "adult" rights and responsibilities. We thought we should clarify our position a bit on this issue, noting that we do not really want to raise any such age limit higher than 18 in any case. Rather all of the higher age limits than 18, such as the drinking age, should be lowered.
Yesterday.
Yesterday.
For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not take a firm position on what the exact age of consent for sex should be, as the issue is far too fraught, nuanced, and beyond the scope of our organization. But we do not think it should be abolished or drastically lowered from current levels (in the 16-18 range) as that would do far more harm than good overall. Nor do we really think it should be raised any higher than 18. But we do think there needs to be a close-in-age exemption (when one OR both partners is below the age limit) of four or even five years, and there is really no problem with reasonable age of consent laws that cannot be solved by such exemptions to these laws.
For example, consider the following actual law:
This is an example of a reasonable age of consent law, and we really ought to question the motives of anyone over 20 who thinks that such a law is too strict. Same goes for New Hampshire's more nuanced law, which also has an age of consent of 16, a four-year close-in-age exemption, and a hard minimum age of 13.
Think about it.
As for those who believe the age of consent should be raised to (or remain) 18 in a given state, one could simply adopt the same aforementioned law as written above, and add to it the following section or something similar:
(3) The person, being eighteen (18) years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than eighteen (18) years old and who is at least five years younger than the defendant, and is not married to the defendant.
And that would resolve essentially all of the problems associated with current age-of-consent laws even if as high as 18. Unfortunately, not every state even has close-in-age exemptions at all, and some of those laws, such as California, effectively criminalize both parties if they are both under 18. Such a thing is an absolute travesty, in dire need of reform. Ditto for any other laws that are written too broadly or vaguely or that give judges way too much discretion as well.
And come to think of it, any marriage exemptions to such laws should also be removed, since that implies marriage below the age of consent is permissible. And in many states it is, provided there is parental and/or judicial consent. But what it really is in practice is a loophole to cover up abuse and coercion. That said, existing marriages involving 16-17 year olds could be "grandfathered" as "valid but voidable" while the new laws only apply going forward.
As for commerical sex work, "survival sex", and cases where the older person is in a direct position of authority over the younger person, an addtional section can (and should) be added that sets the age limit higher than it would otherwise be (i.e. 18 rather than 16) and zero tolerance in regards to age gaps. But these examples are the exceptions, and no reason for the general age of consent to be affected by such exceptions. And we can also have graduated and enhanced penalties for very large age gaps (i.e. over 21 and under 14, over 18 and under 13, etc.) as well.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Oh, and another thing. The idea that a 17 year old sending a nude photo of him or herself to another 17 year old can be charged with "child pornography" under federal law and given a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in adult prison is absolutely unconsionable. Let that sink in. And such a travesty is a sign that our country has gone completely insane.
Meanwhile, the real rapists and child molesters are out there flying under the radar, and are often hiding in plain sight right now as we speak. Seriously.
Food for thought.
For example, consider the following actual law:
§ 61-8B-5. Sexual assault in the third degree.
(a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when:
(2) The person, being sixteen years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than sixteen years old and who is at least four years younger than the defendant....
Those are the exact, albeit abbreviated, words of West Virginia's law relating to age of consent, as noted on Wikipedia, and with the rather bizarre marriage exemption removed. Thus, the age of consent in WV is 16, with a close-in-age exemption of four years. And note that only people above the age of consent can be punished for violating this law. Another section of this same law also prohibits a person over 14 from engaging in such sexual activity with a person under 12, thus setting a hard limit at 12 without punishing anyone under 14.This is an example of a reasonable age of consent law, and we really ought to question the motives of anyone over 20 who thinks that such a law is too strict. Same goes for New Hampshire's more nuanced law, which also has an age of consent of 16, a four-year close-in-age exemption, and a hard minimum age of 13.
Think about it.
As for those who believe the age of consent should be raised to (or remain) 18 in a given state, one could simply adopt the same aforementioned law as written above, and add to it the following section or something similar:
(3) The person, being eighteen (18) years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than eighteen (18) years old and who is at least five years younger than the defendant, and is not married to the defendant.
And that would resolve essentially all of the problems associated with current age-of-consent laws even if as high as 18. Unfortunately, not every state even has close-in-age exemptions at all, and some of those laws, such as California, effectively criminalize both parties if they are both under 18. Such a thing is an absolute travesty, in dire need of reform. Ditto for any other laws that are written too broadly or vaguely or that give judges way too much discretion as well.
And come to think of it, any marriage exemptions to such laws should also be removed, since that implies marriage below the age of consent is permissible. And in many states it is, provided there is parental and/or judicial consent. But what it really is in practice is a loophole to cover up abuse and coercion. That said, existing marriages involving 16-17 year olds could be "grandfathered" as "valid but voidable" while the new laws only apply going forward.
As for commerical sex work, "survival sex", and cases where the older person is in a direct position of authority over the younger person, an addtional section can (and should) be added that sets the age limit higher than it would otherwise be (i.e. 18 rather than 16) and zero tolerance in regards to age gaps. But these examples are the exceptions, and no reason for the general age of consent to be affected by such exceptions. And we can also have graduated and enhanced penalties for very large age gaps (i.e. over 21 and under 14, over 18 and under 13, etc.) as well.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Oh, and another thing. The idea that a 17 year old sending a nude photo of him or herself to another 17 year old can be charged with "child pornography" under federal law and given a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in adult prison is absolutely unconsionable. Let that sink in. And such a travesty is a sign that our country has gone completely insane.
Meanwhile, the real rapists and child molesters are out there flying under the radar, and are often hiding in plain sight right now as we speak. Seriously.
Food for thought.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Is Teen Cannabis Use Really on the Rise?
The same FDA chief that has been freaking out over a supposed teen vaping "epidemic" (that is far more molehill than mountain, by the way), Scott Gottlieb, is now also freaking out about teen cannabis use and how it relates to legalization. In fact, he says he is now more worried about weed than vaping, which really says something. But is there any truth to his fears, particularly the idea that teen cannabis use is on the rise as a result of both medical and recreational legalization in more and more states?
The answer is apparently, not really. California is practically ground-zero for both medical and recreational legalization, and their survey actually shows a decrease in teen cannabis use, particularly in the younger grades, from 2013-2015 to 2015-2017 despite medical legalization in 1996, expanded decriminalization in 2011, and recreational legalization via Prop 64 in November 2016. And while the national Monitoring the Future survey showed a slight increase in teen use in 2017 compared with 2016, it had been previously dropping from 2011 to 2016 despite more and more states liberalizing their pot laws during that time. Some epidemic, huh? NOT.
In other words, there is no increase in teen cannabis use that can be unambiguously linked to legalization. And teen use is still far below its 1978-1979 and 1997 peaks, with no indication that it will even come close. Thus, another myth bites the dust. Plus, alcohol, tobacco, and most other substances are at or close to record lows among middle and high schoolers, while the opioid epidemic rages among American adults along with the "pink elephant in the room". So stop freaking out already, and see the forest for the trees.
UPDATE: In terms of problematic use of cannabis, a new study finds that the legal status of cannabis is essentially irrelevant. While that particular study focused on adults, it dovetails rather nicely with another study from last year finding no increase on problematic cannabis use among 12-17 year olds following the passage of legalization. Thus, it looks like the legalization advocates were indeed correct all along, that legalization would result in modest increases in adult use, and negligible increases (or even decreases) in teen use or abuse at any age. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
The answer is apparently, not really. California is practically ground-zero for both medical and recreational legalization, and their survey actually shows a decrease in teen cannabis use, particularly in the younger grades, from 2013-2015 to 2015-2017 despite medical legalization in 1996, expanded decriminalization in 2011, and recreational legalization via Prop 64 in November 2016. And while the national Monitoring the Future survey showed a slight increase in teen use in 2017 compared with 2016, it had been previously dropping from 2011 to 2016 despite more and more states liberalizing their pot laws during that time. Some epidemic, huh? NOT.
In other words, there is no increase in teen cannabis use that can be unambiguously linked to legalization. And teen use is still far below its 1978-1979 and 1997 peaks, with no indication that it will even come close. Thus, another myth bites the dust. Plus, alcohol, tobacco, and most other substances are at or close to record lows among middle and high schoolers, while the opioid epidemic rages among American adults along with the "pink elephant in the room". So stop freaking out already, and see the forest for the trees.
UPDATE: In terms of problematic use of cannabis, a new study finds that the legal status of cannabis is essentially irrelevant. While that particular study focused on adults, it dovetails rather nicely with another study from last year finding no increase on problematic cannabis use among 12-17 year olds following the passage of legalization. Thus, it looks like the legalization advocates were indeed correct all along, that legalization would result in modest increases in adult use, and negligible increases (or even decreases) in teen use or abuse at any age. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Latest Regression Discontinuity Study Only Confirms Powder Keg Theory (Again)
As we have noted before back in 2016, the latest type of drinking age studies, i.e. "regression discontinuity" (RD) studies, superficially appear to support the 21 drinking age, but upon closer examination actually kind of imply the opposite, namely 1) there is really nothing magical about 21, and 2) delaying legal access to alcohol to 21 compared with 18 only creates an even larger ticking time-bomb and powder keg that goes off at 21, with no real net benefit.
In 2016, pro-21 researchers Kitt Carpenter and Carlos Dobkin were at it once again. As you may recall, we at Twenty-One Debunked have critiqued much of their previous work, particularly their use of the "regression discontinuity" approach. The researchers found a significant jump in statistical death rates, arrests, and stuff like that immediately after young people turn 21 compared with before. And their latest study seems to be more of the same, this time looking at non-fatal injuries as measured by both ER visits and inpatient hospital admissions.
Oddly, these researchers actually (and without even a hint of irony) claim that these studies show that the 21 drinking age is effective in saving lives and reducing alcohol-related harm! But we at Twenty-One Debunked see it rather differently--if anything, it shows that there is nothing at all magical about turning 21 that makes one invulnerable to the deleterious effects of excessive alcohol consumption. And setting the drinking age at such an arbitrarily high age only sets a powder keg (pun intended) that goes off when young people reach that age. The higher the drinking age, the larger the powder keg, it seems. And it also shows that the Law of Eristic Escalation (i.e. imposition of order leads to escalation of chaos) is correct, as well as Fenderson's Amendment (the tighter the order is maintained, the longer it takes for the chaos to escalate, but the more it does when it does). Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 21 drinking age!
Of course, Carpenter and Dobkin also find evidence of a jump in both drinking and alcohol-related deaths among Canadians upon reaching their MLDA (18 or 19, depending on the province), particularly among males, and the increase in mortality seems to be due to a sudden jump in "extreme" binge drinking. It seems there is always a risk of increased alcohol-related harm in the short-run after suddenly turning legal, regardless of age. But as much other research shows, there is good reason to believe that such an effect is worse and longer-lasting when the the legal drinking age is higher rather than lower. And furthermore, a recent study in Australia (where the drinking age is 18 and DUI laws are tougher) found essentially no link between being able to drink legally and motor vehicle accidents of any type in the state of New South Wales. Food for thought indeed.
On the plus side, one should also note that another recent study using a regression-discontinuity approach found that being able to drink legally reduced the consumption and initiation of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) among young people, with no effect on tobacco use. And still another RD study finds that when alcohol retreats, cannabis advances (and vice-versa). These findings blow yet another big hole in the junk science that is the roundly-debunked "gateway" theory of drugs.
Fast forward to 2018, when another researcher, UW-Madison Professor Jason Fletcher, conducted yet another regression discontinuity study in the USA, this time looking at previously unexplored risk behaviors and consequences relating to drinking. In addition to replicating the results of the aforementioned previous studies, these novel measures included self-reports of drunk driving, boozy and risky sex, interpersonal troubles, violence, and of course, hangovers. And not surprisingly, these effects also jumped at 21 as well, with larger effects on males than females. And again, this is simply further confirmation of the powder keg theory.
So what do we call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
In 2016, pro-21 researchers Kitt Carpenter and Carlos Dobkin were at it once again. As you may recall, we at Twenty-One Debunked have critiqued much of their previous work, particularly their use of the "regression discontinuity" approach. The researchers found a significant jump in statistical death rates, arrests, and stuff like that immediately after young people turn 21 compared with before. And their latest study seems to be more of the same, this time looking at non-fatal injuries as measured by both ER visits and inpatient hospital admissions.
Oddly, these researchers actually (and without even a hint of irony) claim that these studies show that the 21 drinking age is effective in saving lives and reducing alcohol-related harm! But we at Twenty-One Debunked see it rather differently--if anything, it shows that there is nothing at all magical about turning 21 that makes one invulnerable to the deleterious effects of excessive alcohol consumption. And setting the drinking age at such an arbitrarily high age only sets a powder keg (pun intended) that goes off when young people reach that age. The higher the drinking age, the larger the powder keg, it seems. And it also shows that the Law of Eristic Escalation (i.e. imposition of order leads to escalation of chaos) is correct, as well as Fenderson's Amendment (the tighter the order is maintained, the longer it takes for the chaos to escalate, but the more it does when it does). Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 21 drinking age!
Of course, Carpenter and Dobkin also find evidence of a jump in both drinking and alcohol-related deaths among Canadians upon reaching their MLDA (18 or 19, depending on the province), particularly among males, and the increase in mortality seems to be due to a sudden jump in "extreme" binge drinking. It seems there is always a risk of increased alcohol-related harm in the short-run after suddenly turning legal, regardless of age. But as much other research shows, there is good reason to believe that such an effect is worse and longer-lasting when the the legal drinking age is higher rather than lower. And furthermore, a recent study in Australia (where the drinking age is 18 and DUI laws are tougher) found essentially no link between being able to drink legally and motor vehicle accidents of any type in the state of New South Wales. Food for thought indeed.
On the plus side, one should also note that another recent study using a regression-discontinuity approach found that being able to drink legally reduced the consumption and initiation of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) among young people, with no effect on tobacco use. And still another RD study finds that when alcohol retreats, cannabis advances (and vice-versa). These findings blow yet another big hole in the junk science that is the roundly-debunked "gateway" theory of drugs.
Fast forward to 2018, when another researcher, UW-Madison Professor Jason Fletcher, conducted yet another regression discontinuity study in the USA, this time looking at previously unexplored risk behaviors and consequences relating to drinking. In addition to replicating the results of the aforementioned previous studies, these novel measures included self-reports of drunk driving, boozy and risky sex, interpersonal troubles, violence, and of course, hangovers. And not surprisingly, these effects also jumped at 21 as well, with larger effects on males than females. And again, this is simply further confirmation of the powder keg theory.
So what do we call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
UPDATE: A later study in Austria, where the drinking age is 16, also dovetails with this same theory as well.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Do Tobacco 21 Laws Really Work?
One preliminary study seems to think so about California's law that raised the age limit to buy tobacco and e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 as of June 9, 2016. But the devil is really in the details. The study did not, I repeat, did NOT, look at actual teen smoking rates, only the degree of retailer compliance as measured by decoys, which did in fact improve since then in terms of sales to people under 18.
The two problems with this logic are 1) it is not necessary to raise the age limit to 21 to discourage retailers from selling to people under 18, as simply better enforcement against scofflaw vendors would do the trick, and 2) survey data do not really show any decrease in teen smoking that can be unambiguously linked to the policy change, whether in California or elsewhere with a Tobacco 21 law. Teen smoking dropped nationwide from 2015 to 2017, and while it dropped somewhat faster in California, keep in mind that California also raised their cigarette tax significantly during that time, by $2.00/pack, and Pennsylvania saw an even larger drop in teen smoking despite keeping the age limit 18 and a cigarette tax hike of $1.00/pack, only half as large.
As we have noted before based on survey data for the past few years, there is really no robust correlation between a state or local smoking age (whether 18, 19, or 21) and the teen (or adult) smoking rate. The strongest predictors of both teen and adult smoking are the tax/price of cigarettes and the prevailing social attitudes towards smoking, and in fact prices seem to have a larger effect on young people than adults. It is practically axiomatic. Retailer compliance is also inversely correlated with smoking by people under 18, but again it has proven to be entirely possible achieve nearly 100% compliance without raising the smoking age any higher than 18, as long as there is the political will for it. And it doesn't even require the criminal justice system at all, since the best tobacco-control success stories involved only administrative penalties (i.e. fines and/or tobacco license suspensions) against rogue vendors. Nor does it require criminalizing young people themselves.
If anything, if NYC is any indication, retailer compliance actually deteriorated following their age limit hike from 18 to 21 in 2014. This was in spite of heavy crackdowns against contraband tobacco during that time. In any case, while teen smoking rates declined in NYC following the law change, they did not drop any faster than the rest of the state or the nation as a whole, in fact they declined at a slower rate in NYC compared with the control locations, and teen vaping actually increased despite the fact that the law applied equally to e-cigarettes as well as combustible cigarettes. If that's "success", we would really hate to see what failure looks like.
And in fact, this also once again calls into question how effective the 21 drinking age (and now toking age in some states) is as well. Spoiler alert: not very. Thus, if there is a silver lining to the recent hike in the smoking age to 21 in some states and localities, it is that re-running this same failed social experiment with a different age-restricted psychoactive substance only to see it fail yet again in more modern times, a fortiori, is probably the strongest evidence against the very concept of such ridiculously high age limits in general. If you give the pro-21 crowd enough rope...
The two problems with this logic are 1) it is not necessary to raise the age limit to 21 to discourage retailers from selling to people under 18, as simply better enforcement against scofflaw vendors would do the trick, and 2) survey data do not really show any decrease in teen smoking that can be unambiguously linked to the policy change, whether in California or elsewhere with a Tobacco 21 law. Teen smoking dropped nationwide from 2015 to 2017, and while it dropped somewhat faster in California, keep in mind that California also raised their cigarette tax significantly during that time, by $2.00/pack, and Pennsylvania saw an even larger drop in teen smoking despite keeping the age limit 18 and a cigarette tax hike of $1.00/pack, only half as large.
As we have noted before based on survey data for the past few years, there is really no robust correlation between a state or local smoking age (whether 18, 19, or 21) and the teen (or adult) smoking rate. The strongest predictors of both teen and adult smoking are the tax/price of cigarettes and the prevailing social attitudes towards smoking, and in fact prices seem to have a larger effect on young people than adults. It is practically axiomatic. Retailer compliance is also inversely correlated with smoking by people under 18, but again it has proven to be entirely possible achieve nearly 100% compliance without raising the smoking age any higher than 18, as long as there is the political will for it. And it doesn't even require the criminal justice system at all, since the best tobacco-control success stories involved only administrative penalties (i.e. fines and/or tobacco license suspensions) against rogue vendors. Nor does it require criminalizing young people themselves.
If anything, if NYC is any indication, retailer compliance actually deteriorated following their age limit hike from 18 to 21 in 2014. This was in spite of heavy crackdowns against contraband tobacco during that time. In any case, while teen smoking rates declined in NYC following the law change, they did not drop any faster than the rest of the state or the nation as a whole, in fact they declined at a slower rate in NYC compared with the control locations, and teen vaping actually increased despite the fact that the law applied equally to e-cigarettes as well as combustible cigarettes. If that's "success", we would really hate to see what failure looks like.
And in fact, this also once again calls into question how effective the 21 drinking age (and now toking age in some states) is as well. Spoiler alert: not very. Thus, if there is a silver lining to the recent hike in the smoking age to 21 in some states and localities, it is that re-running this same failed social experiment with a different age-restricted psychoactive substance only to see it fail yet again in more modern times, a fortiori, is probably the strongest evidence against the very concept of such ridiculously high age limits in general. If you give the pro-21 crowd enough rope...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
