Canada's Black Market For Cannabis Won't Die Quickly

Six months after Canada's cannabis legalization went into effect on October 17, 2018, the black market still seems to be alive and well.  This is despite rather modest taxation of legal weed, and the fact that the age limit is 18 or 19 depending on the province, as opposed to 21 in the US states that have full legalization.  So what gives?

Apparently, there are chronic shortages of the herb throughout Canada that persist to this day, with the legal stores often selling out too quickly, and the black market dealers seem to have no difficulty filling the gap, and cheaper.  Why is this happening?  Well, it is clearly not due to any real scarcity, but the artificial scarcity of overregulation.  Most provinces only allow it at government-run stores which are few and far between, while the few privately-run ones are also few and far between due to a limited number of licenses.  The rollout of legal weed has been painfully and deliberately slow so as not to offend the public-health crowd too much, and they don't even sell edibles, beverages, or hashish yet (until October 2019, a whole year after phase-one of legalization began).  So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this would create shortages for illicit dealers to fill.

Best thing for Canada to do?  Implement phase-two of legalization yesterday, as it is long overdue.  Consider a tax holiday for a few months, like Oregon did when legalization began there.  Ease up a bit on licensing regulations (and fees) for both producers and retailers.  Allow at least all liquor stores to sell weed alongside their booze, and further consider allowing any store that sells cigarettes to also sell weed as well.  And those provinces that set the age limit at 19 (including Manitoba, despite their drinking and tobacco smoking age being 18) should lower their age limits to 18.  Encourage current black market dealers to "go legit".  And once these things are done, then crack down on the black market.  Problem solved.

Of course, once the black market is dead and gone, then by all means, tax away.  But now is not the time for overtaxation or overregulation.

Remember, there is really no good reason why cannabis needs to be regulated any more stringently than alcohol or tobacco.  After all, while it is not completely harmless for everyone, the fact remains that by just about any objective, rational, scientific measure, cannabis is safer than alcohol, tobacco, most prescription drugs, aspirin, and even Tylenol, while it is less addictive than coffee.   Thus our laws and regulations need to align accurately with reality, since facts > feelings, even in a "post-truth" society.

Does The Latest Brain Study Vindicate The 21 Drinking Age? Well, Not Exactly.

There is a new brain study making the headlines these days.  This study examined postmortem brains of three groups of people:  1) 11 people with alcohol use disorders (AUD) who began drinking consistently before age 21, 2) 11 people with AUD who began drinking consistently after age 21, and 3) 22 people who did not have any AUD at all, though many of them drank at least somewhat.  And among the three groups, only for the early-onset AUD group were epigenetic changes related to the expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) found, particularly in the amygdala, which is responsible for regulating emotions.  These changes are thought to lead to difficulty regulating emotions, problems with anxiety, and even be part of the pathophysiology of alcoholism itself.

So what does this really mean, exactly?  First of all, the researchers seem to have arbitrarily picked 21 as the dividing line between early-onset and late-onset AUD drinkers, and made no further distinction within the early-onset group (i.e., before 15, before 18, first drink, first drunkenness, first regular drinking, etc.).  Secondly, the study looked at a small sample size of people with alcohol-use disorders (think alcohol abuse/dependence, alcoholism, truly heavy, heavy drinking for many years or decades), who at the time of death averaged well over 10 standard drinks per day and over 100 drinks per week, over 30+ years.  Males were also overrepresented (in fact there were zero women in the early-onset AUD group), and the early-onset group drank significantly heavier then the late-onset group.  It is probably safe to say that these drinkers are NOT representative of the vast majority of those who drink before 21, and given how early the onset of early-onset AUD drinkers tends to be, it would also be safe to say that this early-onset AUD group largely began drinking well before 18, if not before 15.  And even among the late-onset AUD group, the relative lack of epigenetic changes certainly did NOT stop them from becoming alcoholics in any case.

Furthermore, there is no temporality to this non-longitudinal study, so we don't know whether or not these epigenetic changes were due to pre-existing vulnerability or perhaps the early use of other substances such as that now-infamous neurotoxin, nicotine. (Most of the study subjects were smokers, apparently, and about 90% of adult regular smokers typically begin smoking before age 18).

Thus, this study tells us NOTHING about the difference between people in general who begin drinking at 18 versus 21.  NOTHING.  Nor does it vindicate the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  And anyone who claims otherwise is being, shall we say, "economical with the truth".

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.

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...

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:

• 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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

UPDATE:  Be sure NOT to confuse THIS!

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."

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?