A few years ago, Twenty-One Debunked had a segment called "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do" (TUDDD), to highlight some off the outrageous misbehavior that over-21 drinkers have done recently. We decided to bring it back. In the past week or two:
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into a school bus in Massachusetts, injuring many adults and children.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly and belligerently threaten other passengers and crew on an airplane, causing the flight to be diverted.
An underage drinker did NOT kill one passenger and injure several others, including the other driver, in a DUI crash in Santa Ana, CA.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly run over a pedestrian in a parking lot with a pickup truck, landing her in the hospital.
An underage drinker did NOT kill both of his passengers in a DUI crash, himself walking away unscathed, in rural Mendocino County, CA.
An underage drinker did NOT get so incredibly wasted that she literally crashed into a house, injuring a child in that house.
An underage drinker did NOT get sloshed, tried to give her 10 year old daughter and 8 year old son bourbon, had stabby thoughts, asked her daughter to get a knife so they "would all die together", then grabbed and threw her son on the bed before she (luckily) passed out before anyone was killed.
And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. But hey, at least they were over 21, right? Move along, nothing to see here folks...
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Saturday, December 1, 2018
No Increase In Stoned Driving In Canada Despite Cannabis Legalization
Cannabis has been legal in Canada for everyone over 18 (or 19, depending on the province) since October 17, 2018, and yet a month later there has still been no noticeable increase in stoned driving and related crashes according to police. While it may still be too soon to tell, that is still very encouraging news that takes much of the wind out the sails of both prohibitionists and ageists alike.
This adds to the growing body of evidence that legalization of cannabis was not a disaster after all, and that there is no good reason to set the age limit any higher than 18. Food for thought indeed.
About That Tobacco Endgame Strategy
With all the fanfare about the FDA's crackdown on vaping, and then menthol cigarettes on the horizon as well, they have also been quietly mulling over another initiative since at least July 2017 if not earlier: reducing the nicotine content of manufactured combustible cigarettes to a minimally addictive or non-addictive level. This is something that Twenty-One Debunked has long discussed, and has generally supported, since 2013. And it truly has the potential to be a game-changer.
However, Twenty-One Debunked also feels that there is a right way to do so, as well one or more wrong ways to do so. Currently, as several anti-smoking groups caught wind of the FDA's still-tentative proposal, they have been making recommendations on how to do it--mostly in the direction of the wrong ways. As for the right way, Twenty-One Debunked recommends the following:
Rather, we should think of manufactured combustible cigarettes and little cigars the same way we did with A19 incandescent lightbulbs effective 2014. Did we really end up missing those? Was there ever a black market for those? Gee, I wonder why. And now, four years later, the cost of LED bulbs has plummeted so much, to the tune of 90%, that they are now available in Dollar Tree and similar dollar stores.
Gradually and gingerly is the best way to do it. And any fears of harmful compensatory behavior (i.e. puffing harder and deeper, and/or smoking more cigarettes) during the relatively brief phasedown period can be rendered moot by simply raising the federal cigarette tax a bit again, if we must.
Food for thought indeed.
However, Twenty-One Debunked also feels that there is a right way to do so, as well one or more wrong ways to do so. Currently, as several anti-smoking groups caught wind of the FDA's still-tentative proposal, they have been making recommendations on how to do it--mostly in the direction of the wrong ways. As for the right way, Twenty-One Debunked recommends the following:
- Phase the nicotine content limit down to 0.4 mg/g gradually rather than immediately, over of a period of at least one year but no more than five years.
- If decided to implement in a single step, have a delay of at least six months to a year between finalization of the rule and the effective date.
- Allow existing non-compliant inventories to be sold, applying the nicotine limits only to products manufactured or imported after the effective date of such limits.
- Exempt large cigars, defined by size or weight of tobacco, as well as pipe tobacco (which can be defined as having an alkaline pH that is a bit harder to inhale). While still addictive and harmful, the tobacco epidemic is not driven by these products.
- And of course, exempt smokeless tobacco.
- For vape products, cap nicotine levels at current European and Israeli levels (but no lower). Note that nearly all brands, with the notable exception of JUUL, would already be compliant.
- And of course, DO NOT raise the age limit for any of these products any higher than 18. Ever. Period.
Rather, we should think of manufactured combustible cigarettes and little cigars the same way we did with A19 incandescent lightbulbs effective 2014. Did we really end up missing those? Was there ever a black market for those? Gee, I wonder why. And now, four years later, the cost of LED bulbs has plummeted so much, to the tune of 90%, that they are now available in Dollar Tree and similar dollar stores.
Gradually and gingerly is the best way to do it. And any fears of harmful compensatory behavior (i.e. puffing harder and deeper, and/or smoking more cigarettes) during the relatively brief phasedown period can be rendered moot by simply raising the federal cigarette tax a bit again, if we must.
Food for thought indeed.
Friday, November 23, 2018
Has the Tobacco 21 Movement Already Crested?
The ignoble experiment to raise the legal drinking age to 21 in the 1980s has generated much controversy despite the political and media pseudo-consensus favoring it, and we at Twenty-One Debunked have, well, debunked it time and again. Of course, the data from the 1970s and 1980s on which nearly all drinking age studies are based are now quite outdated, as the USA is almost a completely different country now. So what if there was a way to re-run this same natural experiment today?
Well, it turns out that there is, albeit with a different psychoactive substance: Tobacco 21 laws have proliferated since 2012 and especially since 2015, mostly at the local level but increasingly at the state level as well (with Massachusetts being the most recent one to do so). And what were the results? A big nothing in terms of teen smoking rates, basically. There has been essentially no hard evidence that there was any sort of correlation between a state's or locality's tobacco age limit vs. their teen smoking (or vaping) rate, period, regardless of whether it was 18 or 21 (or, less commonly, 19). Thus, raising the age limit from 18 to 21 has been an unnecessarily ageist endeavor, and one can thus easily extrapolate these results to alcohol and cannabis going forward as well.
True, from 2013 to 2017, there was a massive drop in teen and young adult smoking. But that was more likely due to the explosion of vaping during that time than any other factor, and happened in states in localities that kept their age limits at 18 all along as well as those who raised them. Which, by the way, also debunks the laughable idea that vaping is somehow a "gateway" to combustible cigarettes--if anything, raising the age limit for e-cigarettes/vapes may even steer young people back towards combustible cigarettes according to some studies.
As for Chicago's supposed success story in terms of reduced smoking rates in the first year after hiking their age limit to 21 in 2016, note that Chicago also recently hiked their cigarette tax as well, to make their cigarettes some of the most expensive in the nation. Pennsylvania also hiked their own cigarette tax while leaving their age limit at 18, and if anything Philadelphia has seen more progress in reducing teen smoking than Chicago from 2013-2017 according to the YRBSS. Thus, no causal link has been proven.
And while the Tobacco 21 movement luurrrves to gloat about their very first victory in the Boston suburb of Needham, MA, they conveniently ignore another Boston suburb, Cohasset, where teen tobacco use actually increased in the year following enactment of their own local Tobacco 21 law.
Some may dismiss the relevance of tobacco age limits to alcohol (or cannabis), of course, but keep in mind that just a few years ago, Tobacco 21 advocates actually predicted that raising the age limit for tobacco to 21 would be more effective that raising the drinking age to 21 was in the 1980s. Tobacco is far more addictive, which in economic terms means that while the short-run elasticity is lower than for alcohol (or cannabis), the long-run elasticity is higher than for these other substances. And easy access to a daily or almost daily source is thought to be far more important for tobacco as well. Thus, the failure of Tobacco 21 laws to have any meaningful impact on teen and young adult smoking rates would also apply a fortiori to alcohol and cannabis as well.
As for Chicago's supposed success story in terms of reduced smoking rates in the first year after hiking their age limit to 21 in 2016, note that Chicago also recently hiked their cigarette tax as well, to make their cigarettes some of the most expensive in the nation. Pennsylvania also hiked their own cigarette tax while leaving their age limit at 18, and if anything Philadelphia has seen more progress in reducing teen smoking than Chicago from 2013-2017 according to the YRBSS. Thus, no causal link has been proven.
And while the Tobacco 21 movement luurrrves to gloat about their very first victory in the Boston suburb of Needham, MA, they conveniently ignore another Boston suburb, Cohasset, where teen tobacco use actually increased in the year following enactment of their own local Tobacco 21 law.
Some may dismiss the relevance of tobacco age limits to alcohol (or cannabis), of course, but keep in mind that just a few years ago, Tobacco 21 advocates actually predicted that raising the age limit for tobacco to 21 would be more effective that raising the drinking age to 21 was in the 1980s. Tobacco is far more addictive, which in economic terms means that while the short-run elasticity is lower than for alcohol (or cannabis), the long-run elasticity is higher than for these other substances. And easy access to a daily or almost daily source is thought to be far more important for tobacco as well. Thus, the failure of Tobacco 21 laws to have any meaningful impact on teen and young adult smoking rates would also apply a fortiori to alcohol and cannabis as well.
The Tobacco 21 movement now seems to be running out of steam, as their initial euphoria pinned on irrational exuberance is fading fast. This year, only one state raised their smoking age to 21, compared with three states last year and two states in 2016, and fewer localities have changed their laws this year as well. The momentum is almost completely gone now.
And the fact that Big Tobacco has now recently jumped on the Tobacco 21 bandwagon (yes, really), after at least feigning opposition at first, shows that the movement has jumped the proverbial shark, and is now tainted as well. Strike three, yer out!
And the fact that Big Tobacco has now recently jumped on the Tobacco 21 bandwagon (yes, really), after at least feigning opposition at first, shows that the movement has jumped the proverbial shark, and is now tainted as well. Strike three, yer out!
2018 is almost over, and the current 2010s decade is also almost over as well. Let this be the time now to flush the idea of the 21 age limit (for any age-resticted product) down the toilet for good with all of the other dumb things from this despicable decade.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Americans Still Drinking Themselves To Death
With all the news about tobacco, vaping, opioids, and cannabis lately, Twenty-One Debunked had almost forgotten about the very substance that led us to our founding in the first place: alcohol. And the news about alcohol these days is hardly anything rosy: Americans are still drinking themselves to death, at an alarming and increasing rate. And yet, such very bad news (among adults) is strangely banal and often seen as not particularly newsworthy. As we like to say, it is our country's "pink elephant in the room".
Teen drinking specifically may be at or close to a record low now, as it is in many other countries as well, but the tragic truth is that Americans in general are currently drowning in the bottom of the bottle and paying a heavy price for it.
According to a recent article, there are indeed several proven strategies that can be implemented at federal, state, and local levels to help stem the tide and get a handle on America's drinking problem. We KNOW how to do it, and have known for decades now. And while they may not necessarily get at all of the deepest root causes, they are still known to work quite well in the meantime regardless:
Teen drinking specifically may be at or close to a record low now, as it is in many other countries as well, but the tragic truth is that Americans in general are currently drowning in the bottom of the bottle and paying a heavy price for it.
According to a recent article, there are indeed several proven strategies that can be implemented at federal, state, and local levels to help stem the tide and get a handle on America's drinking problem. We KNOW how to do it, and have known for decades now. And while they may not necessarily get at all of the deepest root causes, they are still known to work quite well in the meantime regardless:
- Raising alcohol taxes
- Restricting the number/density of alcohol outlets and/or the hours/days of sale
- Improving access to treatment
- Bolstering coping skills
And while the first two get the most "bang for the buck" in terms of cost-effectiveness, they are unfortunately a relatively tough sell in some places. Nevertheless, all four of these strategies should be implemented yesterday--if only our "leaders" would have the intestinal fortitude to do so.
Notice also that there was no mention of the 21 drinking age in the article. And that is probably because after maintaining such ridiculous and ageist laws in all 50 states and DC for at least three decades now, the supposed benefits of such laws are ringing more hollow than ever. And if anything, it is becoming increasingly crystal clear now that the 21 drinking age is doing more harm than good by merely forcing young adult drinking underground and kicking the proverbial can down the road.
Friday, November 16, 2018
We Know Who To Thank For The "Epidemic" In Teen Vaping (Fearmongers, We're Looking At YOU!)
The FDA found that, according to new 2018 survey data, vaping is up nearly 80% (78%) from 2017 among high school students and up nearly 50% (48%) among middle school students. Previously, teen vaping had increased 900% from 2011-2015 (while also displacing combustible cigarette smoking which is now at a record low, mind you), dropped slightly in 2016, and held steady in 2017 before this much more recent increase in 2018 that is believed to be driven by flavored vapes, particularly the JUUL brand which didn't really catch on until late 2017.
The recently announced FDA restrictions, in which flavored vapes (other than mint, menthol, and tobacco) will no longer be sold in stores unless those stores prohibit the entrance of people under 18, are largely a reaction to such data. But let's look at the sequence of events here: despite JUUL being founded in 2015, it is unlikely that many people had ever even heard of JUUL until the fearmongering mainstream media's moral panic began in 2017, providing the very best (and free!) advertising that JUUL could ever possibly dream of. Thus, we all know who to thank for that--fearmongers, we're looking at YOU!
If they really want to reverse this media-induced deviancy amplification spiral, the best thing for the media and the FDA is to simply STFU now that the new regulations are a foregone conclusion. Also, reducing the maximum nicotine content of vape products (JUUL is apparently unusually high) down to European and Israeli levels would also make it less likely that young experimenters would get hooked. But of course, that would make too much sense.
Saturday, November 10, 2018
FDA and New York Take Aim at Flavored Vapes
After much saber-rattling with JUUL and other leading vape manufacturers, the FDA now plans to ban the sale of most flavored vape products (except mint and menthol) in retail stores and gas stations to reduce availability to young people. Flavored vapes would only be allowed to be sold in vape shops and tobacco shops, and online sites with strict age verification measures. New York State plans to go even further, banning the sale of flavored vapes entirely, much like San Francisco has already done.
Oh, and the FDA also apparently wants to ban menthol combustible cigarettes as well, because they are believed to be harder to quit than non-menthols (though that is probably due to their generally higher nicotine content, the harsher taste of which is masked by the menthol). All other flavors have already been banned as of 2009. This particular ban, however, will likely take much longer to finalize and longer still before it is actually enforced.
Twenty-One Debunked has mixed feelings about these bans. On the one hand, they are in some ways still better than hiking the age limit to 21, and there is some truth to the idea that fruity flavors may make nicotine-containing vapes seem more benign than they actually are, increasing the likelihood of accidental addiction among young people. On the other hand, these bans, though modest, can also be a slippery slope and even perhaps a boon to Big Tobacco. So while we do not oppose these bans, we are still a bit wary about them nonetheless.
What would probably have the largest effect in terms of reducing the number of young people getting hooked on vaping is capping the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels. Over there, JUUL reduced their nicotine content so they can be sold in those markets, and such products remain effective smoking cessation devices with a somewhat lower likelihood of accidental addiction happening quickly among young experimenters. Meanwhile, in the USA, there is a joke that the unusually high-nicotine JUUL products sold here are kinda like the horror film The Ring: you will get hooked in seven days. Not really far off the mark.
The best thing to stop the "epidemic" of teen vaping, of course, is to stop fanning the flames of moral panic. After such modest bans like the ones discussed above are in place, hopefully the mainstream media will finally STFU about this supposed "epidemic".
UPDATE: On November 13, 2018, JUUL announced that they will no longer restock any orders to retailers for any flavored vape pods other than tobacco or menthol, and will only continue selling them online to people 21 and older, and will also end all social media promotions as well. So it looks like 18-20 year old vapers who prefer such flavors will need to stock up very fast at their local stores before they run out.
And as of November 15, the FDA will go ahead and pursue the aforementioned regulations. The new regulations may not be fully implemented for months in the case of flavored vapes, and years in the case of menthol combustible cigarettes, but are essentially a foregone conclusion now. Flavored vapes, except for mint, menthol, and tobacco, will only be sold in stores that do not allow people under 18 to enter or have separate sections that disallow people under 18.
Thus, in their zeal to pre-empt regulators, it looks like JUUL is being unnecessarily ageist towards 18-20 year olds. And why can't JUUL just offer a nicotine-free option for pods, and reduce their sky-high nicotine content in their current ones to European levels?
Oh, and the FDA also apparently wants to ban menthol combustible cigarettes as well, because they are believed to be harder to quit than non-menthols (though that is probably due to their generally higher nicotine content, the harsher taste of which is masked by the menthol). All other flavors have already been banned as of 2009. This particular ban, however, will likely take much longer to finalize and longer still before it is actually enforced.
Twenty-One Debunked has mixed feelings about these bans. On the one hand, they are in some ways still better than hiking the age limit to 21, and there is some truth to the idea that fruity flavors may make nicotine-containing vapes seem more benign than they actually are, increasing the likelihood of accidental addiction among young people. On the other hand, these bans, though modest, can also be a slippery slope and even perhaps a boon to Big Tobacco. So while we do not oppose these bans, we are still a bit wary about them nonetheless.
What would probably have the largest effect in terms of reducing the number of young people getting hooked on vaping is capping the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels. Over there, JUUL reduced their nicotine content so they can be sold in those markets, and such products remain effective smoking cessation devices with a somewhat lower likelihood of accidental addiction happening quickly among young experimenters. Meanwhile, in the USA, there is a joke that the unusually high-nicotine JUUL products sold here are kinda like the horror film The Ring: you will get hooked in seven days. Not really far off the mark.
The best thing to stop the "epidemic" of teen vaping, of course, is to stop fanning the flames of moral panic. After such modest bans like the ones discussed above are in place, hopefully the mainstream media will finally STFU about this supposed "epidemic".
UPDATE: On November 13, 2018, JUUL announced that they will no longer restock any orders to retailers for any flavored vape pods other than tobacco or menthol, and will only continue selling them online to people 21 and older, and will also end all social media promotions as well. So it looks like 18-20 year old vapers who prefer such flavors will need to stock up very fast at their local stores before they run out.
And as of November 15, the FDA will go ahead and pursue the aforementioned regulations. The new regulations may not be fully implemented for months in the case of flavored vapes, and years in the case of menthol combustible cigarettes, but are essentially a foregone conclusion now. Flavored vapes, except for mint, menthol, and tobacco, will only be sold in stores that do not allow people under 18 to enter or have separate sections that disallow people under 18.
Thus, in their zeal to pre-empt regulators, it looks like JUUL is being unnecessarily ageist towards 18-20 year olds. And why can't JUUL just offer a nicotine-free option for pods, and reduce their sky-high nicotine content in their current ones to European levels?
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Smoking Tobacco May Actually Be Eradicated By 2030
Well, in the UK at least, particularly in England, according to a new report. The British currently have the second lowest smoking rate in Europe after Sweden, and only slightly higher than the USA, and rapidly falling for the past several years. And if current trends of the past five years continue, smoking rates will drop below 5% of the adult population (what researchers define as a "smoke-free" country) by 2030. Given that nearly half of British adults smoked in the early 1970s, this is no small feat.
And the real kicker? This is all happening without raising the smoking age to 21, as it is currently 18 (just like their drinking age) with no plans to hike it any further. The Tobacco 21 fever currently sweeping the USA by storm simply hasn't caught on over on the other side of the Atlantic. And unlike in the USA, there is no moral panic over vaping either. If anything, Public Health England encourages current smokers to switch to vaping to help them quit. These kinds of ageist American-style moral panics, with very few exceptions, are really quite foreign to them.
And come to think of it, after an initial boom in e-cigarettes for a few years, even vaping is now on the decline as well. It appears that's what happens when you don't turn something like that into a media circus / moral panic / deviancy amplification spiral.
It is things like this that almost make us wish that Britain, our mother country, would just revoke America's hard-won (but subsequently squandered) independence. (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)
And the real kicker? This is all happening without raising the smoking age to 21, as it is currently 18 (just like their drinking age) with no plans to hike it any further. The Tobacco 21 fever currently sweeping the USA by storm simply hasn't caught on over on the other side of the Atlantic. And unlike in the USA, there is no moral panic over vaping either. If anything, Public Health England encourages current smokers to switch to vaping to help them quit. These kinds of ageist American-style moral panics, with very few exceptions, are really quite foreign to them.
And come to think of it, after an initial boom in e-cigarettes for a few years, even vaping is now on the decline as well. It appears that's what happens when you don't turn something like that into a media circus / moral panic / deviancy amplification spiral.
It is things like this that almost make us wish that Britain, our mother country, would just revoke America's hard-won (but subsequently squandered) independence. (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Guess Who Now Openly Supports Tobacco 21 Laws? Go On, Guess...
Tobacco 21 laws, or laws that raise the age limit to buy tobacco products to 21, are unfortunately gaining popularity as a sort of "feel good" measure despite the relative dearth of evidence backing them up. Well, now we can add a new name to the list of supporters: Philip Morris Altria Group. That's right, a company whose former name is literally synonymous with Big Tobacco now supports, whether grudgingly or otherwise, a smoking age of 21 (even at the federal level) despite at least feigning opposition just a few years ago followed by awkward silence on the topic.
So why the sudden turnaround? Probably a cynical combination of public relations as well as the realization that raising the smoking age to 21 (compared to 18) in several states and localities did NOT really end up hurting their bottom lines after all. And even more cynically, they can perhaps now leverage the arguably enhanced forbidden fruit effect to their own benefit, all while patting themselves on the back for their "corporate social responsibility".
(RALPH!)
You know, kinda like they did all along (to one degree or another) when the age limit was 18, and like the alcohol industry has done with the 21 drinking age. Put up a public fight at first, take a dive, stay quiet for a few years, then publicly support the new laws while leveraging them (and simultaneously fighting against higher taxes or any new regulations). Quislings.
Thus, it is safe to say that our cynicism is now fully maxed out. And that really says something indeed.
So why the sudden turnaround? Probably a cynical combination of public relations as well as the realization that raising the smoking age to 21 (compared to 18) in several states and localities did NOT really end up hurting their bottom lines after all. And even more cynically, they can perhaps now leverage the arguably enhanced forbidden fruit effect to their own benefit, all while patting themselves on the back for their "corporate social responsibility".
(RALPH!)
You know, kinda like they did all along (to one degree or another) when the age limit was 18, and like the alcohol industry has done with the 21 drinking age. Put up a public fight at first, take a dive, stay quiet for a few years, then publicly support the new laws while leveraging them (and simultaneously fighting against higher taxes or any new regulations). Quislings.
Thus, it is safe to say that our cynicism is now fully maxed out. And that really says something indeed.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Traffic Deaths Down So Far In 2018
There is good news on the highways lately, namely that preliminary data for the first half of 2018 show a 3.1% decrease in traffic deaths, and 2017 saw a 1.8% decrease as well following two straight years of significant increases. This is true despite the fact that the economy is still improving and there is thus more driving going on now than a few years ago.
So what happened in 2017-2018? Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016. And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities. gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes. So that only explains part of the picture. And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill. So what else could it be?
The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part. But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.
Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall. Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.
So what are we waiting for?
So what happened in 2017-2018? Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016. And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities. gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes. So that only explains part of the picture. And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill. So what else could it be?
The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part. But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.
Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall. Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.
So what are we waiting for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
