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.
Oh, and about Chicago's supposed success, keep in mind that raising their age limit to 21 in 2016 was not the only new tobacco control law passed around that time in the Windy City. And the cigarette taxes there also went up significantly shortly before the age limit hike to 21 as well. Thus, there were too many variables to really tease out the effect of the Tobacco 21 law on teen and young adult smoking rates.
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...
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Thursday, April 4, 2019
We Hereby Excommunicate JUUL Labs
(Editor's Note: Twenty-One Debunked has never been affiliated in any way, shape or form with JUUL Labs or any other vaping, tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis company. And we never will be, either.)
Dear JUUL Labs,
Since you were founded in 2015 as a spinoff from Pax Labs, you have always presented yourselves, at least publicly, as the underdog saving the world in the fight against the evil Big Tobacco. Little did America know that you were about to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and make fools, and then cynics, of us all.
Why do we hate thee, JUUL? Let us count the ways:
Thus, in light of the above grievances, we hereby excommunicate you. Here is your bell, book, and candle, you cowardly quislings. Now go take your crack nicotine and shove it!
Dear JUUL Labs,
Since you were founded in 2015 as a spinoff from Pax Labs, you have always presented yourselves, at least publicly, as the underdog saving the world in the fight against the evil Big Tobacco. Little did America know that you were about to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and make fools, and then cynics, of us all.
Why do we hate thee, JUUL? Let us count the ways:
- You loudly proclaimed yourselves as the enemy of Big Tobacco, but you began to copy their playbook awfully quickly in terms of advertising to young people and cynically attempting to implement your own "anti-vaping" progams in schools. (You claimed that was just an oversight.)
- You chose a much higher nicotine level for your products than other vape brands, by far. That was most likely to try to edge out the competition, and it worked--at the expense of a new generation of nicotine addicts, that is.
- You lowered your nicotine content when selling in the European Union and Israel (who by law set the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products much lower than the American version of your products), but curiously still do not offer such reduced-nicotine products in the USA, or any nicotine-free products.
- Until very recently, you failed to adequately warn users that your products contain nicotine and are addictive. Many young people did not even know that all JUULs contain nicotine, let alone such a high level of it.
- When the FDA finally blew the whistle on you, you responded in the most cowardly way possible. You decided to throw young adults under the bus by calling for the age limit for vaping products to be raised from 18 to 21, and you banned 18-20 year olds from your website. And you still made no significant changes to your highly-addictive products, save for the removal of a few flavors.
- And worst of all, you literally SOLD OUT to Altria Group (aka Philip Morris), whose name is literally synonymous with Big Tobacco. You know, the evil industry you once claimed to be fighting against? Your deal with the devil may have made you richer and bought you some temporary protection, but everything comes with a price, and your day will come very soon.
Thus, in light of the above grievances, we hereby excommunicate you. Here is your bell, book, and candle, you cowardly quislings. Now go take your crack nicotine and shove it!
Monday, April 1, 2019
Say It Ain't So, Governor Cuomo! New York State To Raise Smoking/Vaping Age To 21
No, this is NOT an April Fool's Day joke. New York State is now set to become the eighth (or ninth?) state to raise the age limit for tobacco and vaping products to 21. The legislature passed it, and Governor Cuomo is expected to sign it. If (really, when) he does, it will take effect in 120 days. Which is very, very soon.
Many counties and cities in the state, including NYC and most of its "backyard", already set the age limit at 21. That of course includes my home county of Westchester, which raised it from 18 to 21 last year.
The only silver lining is that the new age limit of 21, like the old age limit of 18, will only apply to vendors, as it will still not be illegal for "underage" people to possess or consume tobacco or vaping products. But that still does NOT mean we should support it one bit!
With the "bookend" states of California and New York now down, plus several other populous and not-so-populous states, not to mention hundreds of localities across the country, and even our nation's capital, is our movement lost for good? We sure hope not. It looked like the Tobacco 21 movement had stagnated last year, but now with New York, Utah, and possibly Washington State next to jump on the bandwagon, perhaps we got too complacent last year. It certainly does NOT bode well for any near-future attempt to lower the drinking and toking ages to 18!
Hindsight is 2020, both the year and the vision.
Many counties and cities in the state, including NYC and most of its "backyard", already set the age limit at 21. That of course includes my home county of Westchester, which raised it from 18 to 21 last year.
The only silver lining is that the new age limit of 21, like the old age limit of 18, will only apply to vendors, as it will still not be illegal for "underage" people to possess or consume tobacco or vaping products. But that still does NOT mean we should support it one bit!
With the "bookend" states of California and New York now down, plus several other populous and not-so-populous states, not to mention hundreds of localities across the country, and even our nation's capital, is our movement lost for good? We sure hope not. It looked like the Tobacco 21 movement had stagnated last year, but now with New York, Utah, and possibly Washington State next to jump on the bandwagon, perhaps we got too complacent last year. It certainly does NOT bode well for any near-future attempt to lower the drinking and toking ages to 18!
Hindsight is 2020, both the year and the vision.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
What's The Best Way To Reduce Teen Vaping? Teens Already Know The Answer
As bewildered chronological adults wring their hands and scratch their heads on how to best fight the teen vaping "epidemic", a recent article came out in Utah that actually asked teens themselves how to do it. The answer was simple: tax the hell out of it to make it more expensive. Gee, who woulda thunk it?
Notice they did not say anything about raising the age limit, by the way. America's experience with combustible cigarettes has shown that raising the price, via taxes or otherwise, seems to be the most effective and cost-effective way to do it. And while it works for all ages, the effect size is larger for young people since they are more price-sensitive overall.
Of course, if vape taxes are raised, care must be taken to also raise combustible tobacco taxes so as not to inadvertently steer young people back to smoking. And as long as vaping remains an available alternative, cigarette taxes can go much higher than they are now (except New York) without creating too much of a black market. Thus vape taxes should go up, and cigarette taxes should be even higher still. And only nicotine-containing vape juices and pods should be taxed significantly, ideally proportional to nicotine content. (Hardware devices themselves should only be taxed modestly, if at all.)
Other effective measures we have noted include capping and reducing the nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels (JUUL, we're looking at YOU), strictly enforcing the 18 age limit on vendors for all tobacco and nicotine products, and perhaps also removing kid-friendly fruity flavors of nicotine-containing vapes from the market. But raising the age limit any higher than 18 should quite frankly not even be considered. Too bad Utah is now the latest state to NOT heed that last bit of advice.
Notice they did not say anything about raising the age limit, by the way. America's experience with combustible cigarettes has shown that raising the price, via taxes or otherwise, seems to be the most effective and cost-effective way to do it. And while it works for all ages, the effect size is larger for young people since they are more price-sensitive overall.
Of course, if vape taxes are raised, care must be taken to also raise combustible tobacco taxes so as not to inadvertently steer young people back to smoking. And as long as vaping remains an available alternative, cigarette taxes can go much higher than they are now (except New York) without creating too much of a black market. Thus vape taxes should go up, and cigarette taxes should be even higher still. And only nicotine-containing vape juices and pods should be taxed significantly, ideally proportional to nicotine content. (Hardware devices themselves should only be taxed modestly, if at all.)
Other effective measures we have noted include capping and reducing the nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels (JUUL, we're looking at YOU), strictly enforcing the 18 age limit on vendors for all tobacco and nicotine products, and perhaps also removing kid-friendly fruity flavors of nicotine-containing vapes from the market. But raising the age limit any higher than 18 should quite frankly not even be considered. Too bad Utah is now the latest state to NOT heed that last bit of advice.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
The Verdict Is In: Legalizing Weed STILL Does NOT Increase Crime Rates
Recently, the modern-day "Reefer Madness"-type alarmist yellow journalist Alex Berenson has been claiming that cannabis legalization has caused huge spikes in violent crime since 2014 in the states in which it has been legalized. He then claims that such increases in crime are somehow causally linked to the effects of cannabis (particularly via the putative and controverisal link to psychosis), and therefore to legalization as well. But both claims are in fact highly faulty and questionable at best: 1) plenty of states, not just legalization states, saw at least modest spikes in violent crime in 2015-2016, 2) violent crime now seems to be decreasing once again regardless of legalization, 3) 2014 is an arbitrary year to choose for the base year given the timing of legalization initiatives, 4) cannabis has never been causally and conclusively linked to violence, except perhaps inversely, and 5) and most importantly, correlation does not prove causation, as so many other variables come into play here.
In fact, the latest studies on the matter have confirmed what the TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked have kinda always known. Legalizing weed does NOT seem to increase crime rates like the prohibitionists often claimed it would, and if anything, appears to decrease violent and property crimes a bit, as well as improve their clearance rates by police. For example, researchers found this by comparing the border counties of Washington and Oregon, whose timing of legalization differed but were otherwise quite similar. But we could've told you that years ago, for those actually willing to listen.
The theory for how legalization of cannabis would reduce crime is fairly simple. First, it frees up relatively scarce police and other resources that would otherwise be used to bust people for weed, and allows such resources to be put to more productive uses (i.e. targeting real crime rather than victimless crime). Secondly, cannabis is basically a non-violent drug, and can often substitute for alcohol, which is often (rightly or wrongly) linked to violence to one degree or another. Thirdly, there is the systemic aspect, the violence linked to the illicit drug trade itself, which would self-evidently decrease if not disappear upon legalization, at least with regard to the substance being legalized. And finally, victimless crime laws, especially widely unpopular ones like cannabis prohibition (and, of course, the 21 drinking age) erode respect for the law in general and also erode cooperation and cohesion between the police and the community. Thus, it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how removing such illiberal and pharisaical laws from the books would tend to decrease crime in general.
What about the opposite theory? Not the long-debunked one that cannabis per se actually causes violent and property crime (which is rather silly on its face, mind you), but the one that claims that cannabis prohibition is a useful crime-fighting tool for police? Well, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding, and we really don't see any credible evidence of that on balance. Any utility that such an abomination would have in that regard appears to be more than outweighed by its very real downsides, and thus we can consider that theory debunked as well.
(Cue the Law and Order DUN DUN sound effect.)
We need to legalize cannabis in all 50 states and all territories as well, yesterday, and lower the age limit to 18 as well, just like our neighbor to the north. It is LONG overdue. So what are we waiting for?
In fact, the latest studies on the matter have confirmed what the TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked have kinda always known. Legalizing weed does NOT seem to increase crime rates like the prohibitionists often claimed it would, and if anything, appears to decrease violent and property crimes a bit, as well as improve their clearance rates by police. For example, researchers found this by comparing the border counties of Washington and Oregon, whose timing of legalization differed but were otherwise quite similar. But we could've told you that years ago, for those actually willing to listen.
The theory for how legalization of cannabis would reduce crime is fairly simple. First, it frees up relatively scarce police and other resources that would otherwise be used to bust people for weed, and allows such resources to be put to more productive uses (i.e. targeting real crime rather than victimless crime). Secondly, cannabis is basically a non-violent drug, and can often substitute for alcohol, which is often (rightly or wrongly) linked to violence to one degree or another. Thirdly, there is the systemic aspect, the violence linked to the illicit drug trade itself, which would self-evidently decrease if not disappear upon legalization, at least with regard to the substance being legalized. And finally, victimless crime laws, especially widely unpopular ones like cannabis prohibition (and, of course, the 21 drinking age) erode respect for the law in general and also erode cooperation and cohesion between the police and the community. Thus, it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how removing such illiberal and pharisaical laws from the books would tend to decrease crime in general.
What about the opposite theory? Not the long-debunked one that cannabis per se actually causes violent and property crime (which is rather silly on its face, mind you), but the one that claims that cannabis prohibition is a useful crime-fighting tool for police? Well, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding, and we really don't see any credible evidence of that on balance. Any utility that such an abomination would have in that regard appears to be more than outweighed by its very real downsides, and thus we can consider that theory debunked as well.
(Cue the Law and Order DUN DUN sound effect.)
We need to legalize cannabis in all 50 states and all territories as well, yesterday, and lower the age limit to 18 as well, just like our neighbor to the north. It is LONG overdue. So what are we waiting for?
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Reefer Madness Redux (Again) Is More Smoke Than Fire
Many years ago in 2011, the True Spirit of America Party wrote an article discussing the highly controversial and complex link between cannabis and psychosis. Since then, many more studies have been done, and to this day the supposed link (as to whether or not it is a causal relationship) remains as clear as mud for the most part. That, of course, does not stop the prohibitionist alarmists from harping on it as though it were certain--there is even a recent book (which can be easily debunked) titled Tell Your Children, which interestingly enough, was also the original working title for the 1936 film--wait for it--Reefer Madness. What passes for discourse on the topic these days has come full circle, it seems.
The most recent study to date is a case in point. The researchers examined 901 people aged 18-64 who experienced first-episode psychosis at a mental health facility, compared with a control group of 1200 people in 11 cities around the world. While it still does not prove causation, it did find that 1) daily use of cannabis in general, 2) initiating use before age 15, and 3) use of high-potency cannabis (i.e. above 10% THC), especially when used daily, were correlated with a higher risk of having such psychotic episodes.
And while the three cities with greatest availability of high-potency weed (London, Paris, Amsterdam) had higher rates of psychosis, though this was cross-sectional and cannot establish temporality, a rather crucial criterion of causation. And interestingly, psychosis rates were higher in London and Paris (where weed is illegal) than in Amsterdam (where it is quasi-legal), so the legal status of cannabis did not really appear to be an issue. Moreover, it is not clear which is the proverbial chicken and which is the egg.
Paul Armentano of NORML wrote an excellent and in-depth article (with links to other studies) that does a great job debunking this latest round of Reefer Madness 2.0, and is certainly worth a read. A shorter version can be found here as well.
Additionally, we at Twenty-One Debunked have previously reported on the emerging research suggesting that nicotine may be the real dark horse here in the etiology of psychosis and particularly schizophrenia. And famously in Europe, particularly in those three aforementioned cities, cannabis is usually mixed with tobacco, especially when it is high-potency and users may wish to stretch it out by giving it some bulk. Though clearly a far less toxic and nicotine-free way to stretch it out is mixing with catnip or even parsley, or just do what most American tokers do: smoke (or vape) the weed straight up without mixing, but simply take fewer hits, use bowls/bongs instead of joints, and/or seek out lower potency strains. And in Australia, not mixing with tobacco is about as common as mixing.
And as we have noted time and again, the rates of cannabis use have increased dramatically since 1960 or so in nearly every country, while the best evidence suggests that psychosis rates have generally NOT increased since then. Thus, any causal link with psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred would most likely be either weak, rare, or both, and thus likely limited to a very, very tiny percentage of the population who are unusually vulnerable and/or ultra-heavy users. And while some already psychotic users may find exacerbations of their psychosis (or its effects may make a latent or subtle psychotic disorder more noticeable to themselves or others), others may use the herb to self-medicate as well, and everything in between.
Overall, this and other studies seem to be more smoke than fire, and even if causal they do not suggest that the hyperbolic "no safe level of exposure" theory is correct. Rather, the biggest takeaway from this study is, if you do use cannabis, don't overdo it, particularly with the high-potency stuff. In other words, moderation is the key. And while age at first use was one of the lesser factors, delaying use until at least age 15 or older is likely prudent--not just for this reason but for other reasons as well. And these studies do not really militate against legalization, but rather should be seen as encouraging legalization and proper regulation and taxation of cannabis based on THC and CBD levels. Nor do these studies support setting the age limit any higher than 18 either (which of course will only encourage the black market to persist). So we need to see the forest for the trees.
And thus we will finally have Reefer Sanity in this country for once.
The most recent study to date is a case in point. The researchers examined 901 people aged 18-64 who experienced first-episode psychosis at a mental health facility, compared with a control group of 1200 people in 11 cities around the world. While it still does not prove causation, it did find that 1) daily use of cannabis in general, 2) initiating use before age 15, and 3) use of high-potency cannabis (i.e. above 10% THC), especially when used daily, were correlated with a higher risk of having such psychotic episodes.
And while the three cities with greatest availability of high-potency weed (London, Paris, Amsterdam) had higher rates of psychosis, though this was cross-sectional and cannot establish temporality, a rather crucial criterion of causation. And interestingly, psychosis rates were higher in London and Paris (where weed is illegal) than in Amsterdam (where it is quasi-legal), so the legal status of cannabis did not really appear to be an issue. Moreover, it is not clear which is the proverbial chicken and which is the egg.
Paul Armentano of NORML wrote an excellent and in-depth article (with links to other studies) that does a great job debunking this latest round of Reefer Madness 2.0, and is certainly worth a read. A shorter version can be found here as well.
Additionally, we at Twenty-One Debunked have previously reported on the emerging research suggesting that nicotine may be the real dark horse here in the etiology of psychosis and particularly schizophrenia. And famously in Europe, particularly in those three aforementioned cities, cannabis is usually mixed with tobacco, especially when it is high-potency and users may wish to stretch it out by giving it some bulk. Though clearly a far less toxic and nicotine-free way to stretch it out is mixing with catnip or even parsley, or just do what most American tokers do: smoke (or vape) the weed straight up without mixing, but simply take fewer hits, use bowls/bongs instead of joints, and/or seek out lower potency strains. And in Australia, not mixing with tobacco is about as common as mixing.
And as we have noted time and again, the rates of cannabis use have increased dramatically since 1960 or so in nearly every country, while the best evidence suggests that psychosis rates have generally NOT increased since then. Thus, any causal link with psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred would most likely be either weak, rare, or both, and thus likely limited to a very, very tiny percentage of the population who are unusually vulnerable and/or ultra-heavy users. And while some already psychotic users may find exacerbations of their psychosis (or its effects may make a latent or subtle psychotic disorder more noticeable to themselves or others), others may use the herb to self-medicate as well, and everything in between.
Overall, this and other studies seem to be more smoke than fire, and even if causal they do not suggest that the hyperbolic "no safe level of exposure" theory is correct. Rather, the biggest takeaway from this study is, if you do use cannabis, don't overdo it, particularly with the high-potency stuff. In other words, moderation is the key. And while age at first use was one of the lesser factors, delaying use until at least age 15 or older is likely prudent--not just for this reason but for other reasons as well. And these studies do not really militate against legalization, but rather should be seen as encouraging legalization and proper regulation and taxation of cannabis based on THC and CBD levels. Nor do these studies support setting the age limit any higher than 18 either (which of course will only encourage the black market to persist). So we need to see the forest for the trees.
And thus we will finally have Reefer Sanity in this country for once.
UPDATE: Be sure NOT to confuse THIS!
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Latest Cannabis And Driving Study Suggests Mountain Meets Molehill, Again
A recent study in Germany on the effects of cannabis and driving should really put the fearmongers at ease for now. This study using a driving simulator found that 1) driving impairment does not really correlate with blood THC levels, except above a threshold of >15 ng/mL in serum (roughly 7.5 ng/mL in whole blood), and 2) any impairment that does occur apparently dissipates and driving ability returns to baseline after a mere three hours following toking.
Of course, smoking very large quantities, or very high potency strains, and/or eating cannabis edibles, will undoubtedly lead to longer periods of greater impairment than observed in the study. But as a general rule, the results of the study make sense.
Thus, zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of cannabis, as well as setting an arbitrary per se blood THC limit analogous to alcohol, appear to be unjustified. That is not to say that a reasonable prima facie blood THC limit (i.e. above which creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt) is bad--Colorado currently sets theirs at 5 ng/mL--but setting it too low or rigidly per se would punish far too many non-impaired drivers. And there is no evidence that zero-tolerance or per se limits for THC actually save lives.
Of course, this is not to suggest that driving stoned is a good idea or without risk. But driving under the influence of cannabis alone is less risky than driving under the influence of alcohol, and the often hysterical fears of prohibitionists are largely unwarranted, while legalization advocates are unsurprisingly vindicated once again.
Remember: "when in doubt, wait it out."
Of course, smoking very large quantities, or very high potency strains, and/or eating cannabis edibles, will undoubtedly lead to longer periods of greater impairment than observed in the study. But as a general rule, the results of the study make sense.
Thus, zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of cannabis, as well as setting an arbitrary per se blood THC limit analogous to alcohol, appear to be unjustified. That is not to say that a reasonable prima facie blood THC limit (i.e. above which creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt) is bad--Colorado currently sets theirs at 5 ng/mL--but setting it too low or rigidly per se would punish far too many non-impaired drivers. And there is no evidence that zero-tolerance or per se limits for THC actually save lives.
Of course, this is not to suggest that driving stoned is a good idea or without risk. But driving under the influence of cannabis alone is less risky than driving under the influence of alcohol, and the often hysterical fears of prohibitionists are largely unwarranted, while legalization advocates are unsurprisingly vindicated once again.
Remember: "when in doubt, wait it out."
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Community Pubs: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
It is no secret that social cohesion in the USA has declined, and loneliness and social isolation had increased, since the 1980s. While there are likely many causes, the 21 drinking age certainly doesn't help, since it only divides people that much more. It along with the resulting age segregation forces drinking underground for people under 21, making it more dangerous than it has to be, while artificially dividing 18-20 year olds from people over 21.
Enter a fairly new (old) idea that is currently growing on the other side of the pond in the UK, where the drinking age is 18--community pubs. While for decades pubs have been closing across the UK, particularly in rural areas, community pubs (which are community-owned cooperatives rather than privately-owned corporations or sole proprietorships) have grown over 30% and have had a 100% survival rate in recent years. After all pubs in Britain are more than just places to eat and drink--they are important community gathering locations often central to people's sense of place and identity. They can potentially offer a very wide range of services to the larger community. And such community pubs can thus help reduce loneliness and social isolation while improving social cohesion, for all ages and demographic groups.
It would be great if this trend were to spread to the USA as well. Though it is a good idea regardless of the drinking age, for best results the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and all ages should be allowed to be present in the pub for at least the bulk if not all of its opening hours. The less age segregation (in any sense) there is in such places, the better.
Contrary to what many believe, liberty and community are NOT opposites, and need not be at odds with each other at all. That is a 19th century Big Lie that needs to be put to rest for good.
So what are we waiting for?
Enter a fairly new (old) idea that is currently growing on the other side of the pond in the UK, where the drinking age is 18--community pubs. While for decades pubs have been closing across the UK, particularly in rural areas, community pubs (which are community-owned cooperatives rather than privately-owned corporations or sole proprietorships) have grown over 30% and have had a 100% survival rate in recent years. After all pubs in Britain are more than just places to eat and drink--they are important community gathering locations often central to people's sense of place and identity. They can potentially offer a very wide range of services to the larger community. And such community pubs can thus help reduce loneliness and social isolation while improving social cohesion, for all ages and demographic groups.
It would be great if this trend were to spread to the USA as well. Though it is a good idea regardless of the drinking age, for best results the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and all ages should be allowed to be present in the pub for at least the bulk if not all of its opening hours. The less age segregation (in any sense) there is in such places, the better.
Contrary to what many believe, liberty and community are NOT opposites, and need not be at odds with each other at all. That is a 19th century Big Lie that needs to be put to rest for good.
So what are we waiting for?
Saturday, February 9, 2019
New Federal Cannabis Legalization Bill Actually Has A Chance of Passing
There is a new cannabis legalization bill in Congress, sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, and it is actually numbered S.420, in a not-so-subtle nod to cannabis culture. The bill would 1) officially remove cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances completely, thus allowing it to be sold in states where it is legal while barring its sale in the states where it is still illegal, 2) tax cannabis at the federal level like alcohol and tobacco, and 3) otherwise regulate it similarly to alcohol at the federal level. And it actually has a significant chance of passing, in what is currently by far the most cannabis-friendly Congress in all of US history since the famously hemp-growing Founding Fathers. And now with Jeff Sessions out of the way, with enough persuasion the Donald might even sign it, being quite the wildcard that he is.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
And unlike the ill-fated and problematic STATES Act, which effectively would have set a federal age limit of 21 for weed, S.420 is silent on the age issue, essentially leaving it up to the states. Kinda like with alcohol, minus the infamous National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 of course. And while S.420 is not quite as good and comprehensive as the Marijuana Justice Act would be, it is certainly a great start and seriously needs to be passed yesterday.
So what are we waiting for? It is LONG overdue. And while we are at it, the legalization states should also lower the toking age to 18 yesterday as well.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
And unlike the ill-fated and problematic STATES Act, which effectively would have set a federal age limit of 21 for weed, S.420 is silent on the age issue, essentially leaving it up to the states. Kinda like with alcohol, minus the infamous National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 of course. And while S.420 is not quite as good and comprehensive as the Marijuana Justice Act would be, it is certainly a great start and seriously needs to be passed yesterday.
So what are we waiting for? It is LONG overdue. And while we are at it, the legalization states should also lower the toking age to 18 yesterday as well.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
We Already Know How To Reduce Teen Smoking and Vaping Without Raising Age To 21--So What Are We Waiting For?
A recent study in the medical journal Pediatrics only confirms what Twenty-One Debunked has been saying all along. That is, tougher enforcement of the minimum sales age limit of 18, directed at vendors, does in fact lead to lower smoking as well as vaping rates among teens, and these lower usage rates apparently persist even after such youth reach the legal age to buy such products.
In this study, the proxy for tougher vendor enforcement was the grade (A through F) by the American Lung Association (ALA) on the strength of the local tobacco retail licensing (TRL) laws in the jurisdictions studied. Strong TRL laws imply more frequent retail compliance checks with decoys, since such laws require licensing fees that make the program self-funding, and fines and penalties for violations such as failed compliance checks. This in turn would lead to higher retailer compliance rates in adhering to the age limits for sales, and thus reduced access for youth below the age limit. The study looked at various localities in California, in January-June 2014 and again in January 2015 through June 2016, while the age limit was still 18.
Unsurprisingly, jurisdictions with a grade of A (strong) for their TRL laws indeed had much lower teen smoking and vaping prevalence rates in the surveys compared to those with grades of D or F (weak). At the same time, the ALA grades given for other local tobacco control laws (such as smoke-free laws) in place at the time did not seem to have much if any effect on youth smoking and vaping prevalence rates, and were statistically insignificant.
Thus, even though teens can still often manage to get cigarettes and such from their older friends and relatives (i.e. social sources), the net effect of restricted retail availability to people under 18 is significantly and persistently lower youth smoking and vaping rates. Apparently generosity has its limits, and any forbidden fruit effect (reactance theory) of the age limit itself is outweighed in practice by greatly reduced access and convenience when retail compliance rates are very high, especially for younger and/or less mobile teens. For example, if one in five retailers is willing to sell to people under 18, that is still pretty easy to get, but if only one in 20 retailers is willing to do so, that becomes very inconvenient to acquire and sustain a habit, especially in towns with only a few retail outlets. Remember, a license to sell temptation goods like cigarettes and alcohol is practically a license to print money, and retailers would not want to jeopardize that by breaking the law when the law is strictly enforced with swift and certain sanctions for violations.
And while cigarette taxes were not studied here, since there would not have been within-state local variation in taxes, one should note that an older landmark study found that the two most important predictors of teen smoking rates over time (inversely) were 1) tax/price, and 2) retailer compliance rates. This was particularly true for daily smoking rates.
Such results dovetail nicely with those of the famous studies of Woodridge, IL and Leominster, MA, in the 1990s that found that sustained tougher enforcement directed at vendors greatly reduces youth smoking rates without having to raise the age limit any higher than 18, and without having to involve the criminal justice system at all. Now if only such logic would be applied to alcohol and cannabis as well.
And lest anyone claim that this would not apply to alcohol with a drinking age of 18, keep in mind that this is precisely what happened in the UK with both alcohol and tobacco upon implementing increased retail enforcement combined with higher tax rates on both substances. So what are we waiting for?
In this study, the proxy for tougher vendor enforcement was the grade (A through F) by the American Lung Association (ALA) on the strength of the local tobacco retail licensing (TRL) laws in the jurisdictions studied. Strong TRL laws imply more frequent retail compliance checks with decoys, since such laws require licensing fees that make the program self-funding, and fines and penalties for violations such as failed compliance checks. This in turn would lead to higher retailer compliance rates in adhering to the age limits for sales, and thus reduced access for youth below the age limit. The study looked at various localities in California, in January-June 2014 and again in January 2015 through June 2016, while the age limit was still 18.
Unsurprisingly, jurisdictions with a grade of A (strong) for their TRL laws indeed had much lower teen smoking and vaping prevalence rates in the surveys compared to those with grades of D or F (weak). At the same time, the ALA grades given for other local tobacco control laws (such as smoke-free laws) in place at the time did not seem to have much if any effect on youth smoking and vaping prevalence rates, and were statistically insignificant.
Thus, even though teens can still often manage to get cigarettes and such from their older friends and relatives (i.e. social sources), the net effect of restricted retail availability to people under 18 is significantly and persistently lower youth smoking and vaping rates. Apparently generosity has its limits, and any forbidden fruit effect (reactance theory) of the age limit itself is outweighed in practice by greatly reduced access and convenience when retail compliance rates are very high, especially for younger and/or less mobile teens. For example, if one in five retailers is willing to sell to people under 18, that is still pretty easy to get, but if only one in 20 retailers is willing to do so, that becomes very inconvenient to acquire and sustain a habit, especially in towns with only a few retail outlets. Remember, a license to sell temptation goods like cigarettes and alcohol is practically a license to print money, and retailers would not want to jeopardize that by breaking the law when the law is strictly enforced with swift and certain sanctions for violations.
And while cigarette taxes were not studied here, since there would not have been within-state local variation in taxes, one should note that an older landmark study found that the two most important predictors of teen smoking rates over time (inversely) were 1) tax/price, and 2) retailer compliance rates. This was particularly true for daily smoking rates.
Such results dovetail nicely with those of the famous studies of Woodridge, IL and Leominster, MA, in the 1990s that found that sustained tougher enforcement directed at vendors greatly reduces youth smoking rates without having to raise the age limit any higher than 18, and without having to involve the criminal justice system at all. Now if only such logic would be applied to alcohol and cannabis as well.
And lest anyone claim that this would not apply to alcohol with a drinking age of 18, keep in mind that this is precisely what happened in the UK with both alcohol and tobacco upon implementing increased retail enforcement combined with higher tax rates on both substances. So what are we waiting for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
