More Evidence That Targeting Actual Problem Drinkers Works

As South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program has been studied and exported to more and more places, both in the USA and abroad, its success is becoming increasingly evident.  A recent study further confirms the program's effectiveness very well indeed.

This program, where people convicted of (and/or out on bond for) alcohol-related offenses such as DUI, drunk violence/assault, and stuff like that are required to be tested twice daily or continuously for alcohol for a period of time, usually 120 days, is essentially a way to coerce abstinence among known problem drinkers by revoking their "license to drink".  Those who fail a test or fail to show up for the test are swiftly, certainly, and yet modestly penalized, typically with a day or two in jail and perhaps a small fine.  The results have been impressive, with significantly reduced death rates among participants.  Previous studies have also found reductions in recidivism as well as reductions in all-cause death rates among the general population and reductions in domestic violence and related deaths.  In other words, it's cheap, well-targeted to actual problem drinkers, and highly effective and beneficial in many ways.

Twenty-One Debunked supports this idea, and has for a while now.  Another promising idea, would be similar to what parts of the Northern Territory of Australia, as well as parts of Western Australia, currently have:  something called the Banned Drinker Register (BDR).  It is exactly what it sounds like, and targets actual problem drinkers individually only, with no collateral damage to non-problem drinkers.  This can also be paired with the 24/7 Sobriety Program for those convicted of drunk driving, drunk violence, drunk vandalism, or repeated disorderly conduct violations.  In addition, problem drinkers can also have themselves voluntarily added to the blacklist for a fixed period of time, much like problem gamblers are currently allowed to do. (Call it "86 Me" or something like that.)  The late Mark Kleiman would certainly have approved of that as well.  And aside from the downside of ID checking of all buyers that would be required to enforce the BDR (not radically different from the status quo), it is actually the most libertarian policy that there is.  Libertarian purists, of course, would probably only support the South Dakota style 24/7 program and the voluntary blacklist, and that would be fine with Twenty-One Debunked either way.  It's certainly more libertarian than Choose Responsibility's highly quixotic proposal.

In other words, there is no need to punish the many for the excesses of the few.  And swift and certain justice need not be excessively severe, thus resulting in less crime AND less punishment at the same time.

Additionally, we know now that, while all policy measures have their hard limits, the most time-tested, efficient, effective, and cost-effective one of all is to simply raise the price of alcohol, generally via taxation.  Wayland Ellis has pointed that out several times, and it is the one thing that he and the polar-opposite Philip N. Cook can agree upon.  The late Mark Kleiman also made a similar argument years ago.  Alcohol taxes and prices have been lagging behind inflation for decades in the USA, so therefore the lowest-hanging fruit to make headway against America's growing drinking problem is to raise such taxes.  In fact, if set high enough, practically no other alcohol regulations or restrictions are needed at all. And dovetailing with the aforementioned ideas, even this one's burden falls primarily on the heaviest drinkers, as simple math would have it.  So as long as it is not ridiculously high, it is also well-targeted.

And of course, let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18.  If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.

A Cautionary Tale

The modern day Prohibitionists, and even tobacco control advocates more generally, used to frequently laud the example of Bhutan back in 2004 and for many years after.  And yet now?  Almost nobody talks about them anymore.  So why is that?

Bhutan, the only country in the 21st century that had completely banned tobacco across the board, has failed so miserably in doing so (thanks to the black market and international smuggling, and despite very stiff penalties too) that they ended up reversing their ban in 2021, largely out of fear that rampant cross-border smuggling would.... increase the spread of Covid.  Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up!  This should really be a cautionary tale for anyone contemplating any new (old) forms of Prohibition, whether for tobacco or otherwise. 

And it's not like Bhutan is a historical anomaly either, as outright bans on tobacco products have been tried (and failed) before repeatedly for centuries in various countries, including right here in the USA at the state and local level from the late 19th century to 1927.

So much for the illusion of control. 

Twenty-One Debunked has repeatedly discussed in depth the quasi-special case of tobacco/nicotine and how highly nuanced it is.  And yes, it is far more nuanced than either side of the debate likes to admit.  Tobacco/nicotine straddles the fine line between soft and hard drugs, is both subtle and dangerous at the same time, and thus ultimately defies and transcends any simplistic solutions like "just ban it already!"

If alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis were all legal, and you had to pick ONE of those to ban, tobacco would logically have to be it, hands down.  It is, by far, the least useful and most harmful (and deadly) overall of the three.  It is the ONLY currently legal product that, when used as directed, will kill half of those who buy it.  It's thus not even a contest.  Additionally, it is NOT a truly recreational drug, and its inherent addictiveness actually tends to subtract from one's overall freedom and autonomy rather than enhance it.  And the majority of those who use it ultimately regret doing so.  That said, it still doesn't follow that a complete ban is a wise idea, in theory OR in practice. 

It is worth noting that even those who were serious about phasing out tobacco in the West have been, until very recently, gradual and gingerly about it.

Not only is this a cautionary tale regarding tobacco, but also by extension other substances and vices as well.  It is a historical truism that punishing the many for the excesses of the few has NEVER ended well at all, and ultimately does far more harm than good.  Those folks advocating new (old) forms of Prohibition need to be VERY careful what they wish for! 

It bears repeating:  vices are NOT crimes.  Any confusion of the two invites trouble. The late, great Lysander Spooner was a wise man indeed, and we ignore his timeless advice at our peril.

As President Ronald Reagan famously said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction".  And in light of the past few years alone, that quote doesn't really seem to be an exaggeration. 

UPDATE:  Apparently according to Wikipedia, Turkmenistan (since 2016) and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (since 2022) have also banned tobacco.  Though the former has not fully gone into effect yet, and the latter is not exactly a good role model.

Failing The Martian Test

The famous "Martian Test" is really quite simple:  that is, can you hypothetically explain your position to a Martian without sounding like a complete idiot?  The 21 drinking age (and smoking age, toking age, etc.) clearly fails that test, big time.

If a given substance (regardless of what it is) is allegedly so apocalyptically dangerous that legal adults age 18-20 must be categorically banned from using it, thus arbitrarily carving out a three year exception to the age of majority, because reasons, backed by the full force of the law, why the hell is it even on the market at all in the first place?  

Any answer justifying this bizarre state of affairs would thus fail the Martian Test:

If you have to literally invent new laws of nature in an attempt to explain why, that fails the Martian Test (and also fails Occam's Razor as well).

If you have to appeal to either tradition OR novelty, or indulge any other logical fallacies whatsoever to support your thesis, that fails the Martian Test.

If you speciously claim that 18-20 year olds are too fragile and/or immature to be trusted with full adult rights and bodily autonomy, but have no problem with sending them to war, executing them, trying them as adults, etc., that fails the Martian Test. 

If you have to selectively (ab)use the precautionary principle, ad hoc, that fails the Martian Test. 

If you have to cherry-pick the puny molehill of mainstream OR fringe "evidence" in favor of such restrictions while ignoring the massive mountain of evidence against such, that fails the Martian Test.

If you have to be disingenuous or intellectually dishonest in any way, including citing long-debunked fatally flawed "evidence", you fail the Martian Test. 

If you have to resort to trolling or temper tantrums when you clearly lost the argument, you fail the Martian Test.  And you are a sore loser as well.

If you have to resort to some flavor of "do as I say, not as I do", you utterly fail the Martian Test.  And you prove yourself a flaming hypocrite on top of that.

(Ditto if you point out the mote in your opponent's eye while missing the log in your own.)

If you resort to the "weaker brother principle", which easily devolves into the "tyranny of the weaker brother", especially if you do so selectively, guess what?  You still fail the Martian Test, big time.

And finally, if you appeal to "pragmatism" to justify it, you may very technically pass the Martian Test by the very skin of your teeth, but at the cost of utterly compromising one's moral principles.  Either way, it's not very flattering at all, buddy.  Checkmate.

Now get down off of your high horse, admit you were simply a bigot all along, apologize, and make amends.

QED

UPDATE:   One should note that arguments which favor some version of "punishing the many for the excesses of the few" technically do not always fail the Martian Test, but are still highly unethical regardless. 

A Better Way To Phase Out Tobacco

California is now seeking to emulate New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and the Philippines in phasing out tobacco products with a permanent generational ban on the sale of such to anyone born on after January 1, 2007.  Twenty-One Debunked has generally opposed such an idea on principle, as we had discussed previously.   Not only is it inherently ageist, and further promotes black markets, but it will drag it out and take decades to have the desired endgame effect.

Here's a better idea, that the FDA is already currently considering:  Reduce the maximum allowable nicotine levels in commercial cigarettes, and perhaps other combustible tobacco products, to a non-addictive or sub-addictive level.  This idea, or at least some flavor of it, has long been endorsed by many stakeholders and pundits the world over, from the American Medical Association to Robert N. Proctor to Malcolm Gladwell.  And Twenty-One Debunked has endorsed it since 2013, ideally keeping the legal age limit at 18 (which Congress and Trump unfortunately raised to 21 in late 2019, much to our chagrin).

By that, it means reducing nicotine levels by 95% or so from current levels, down to no more than 0.5 mg/g (0.05%) of tobacco.  Crucially, this would apply to nicotine content, not "delivery," as the latter can be gamed and manipulated too easily.

If done smoothly and gradually enough, and leaving noncombustible tobacco and nicotine products untouched, this will dramatically reduce smoking rates for all ages, and thus save thousands if not millions of lives without creating any more of a black market than already exists from high cigarette taxes alone.  Pairing it with a tax hike (within reason) would also increase its effectiveness as well.

Even if the new nicotine limits applied only to the sale of pre-rolled cigarettes and quasi-cigarettes like little cigars, and nothing else, it would likely still have the desired effect.  That is because those are the products that really drive the deadly tobacco epidemic.

It could be done in either one step with some lead time, or a few steps over a period of months to a year or two, for all cigarette manufacturing and importation going forward, plus an additional year to clear out excess inventory.  Doing it in a few steps would probably be better overall we think.  Either way would probably be fine though. 

Banning the use of additives, which are largely all about increasing the addictiveness of the products, would also make sense as well.  Michigan already has an excellent law on the books, that bans any "deleterious" ingredient or anything "foreign to tobacco" being added to cigarettes.  It needs enforcing.

Redesigning the cigarette to have a more alkaline smoke pH of 8 or higher, as it typically was prior to the 20th century, would make it less appealing and harder to inhale at least for new smokers.  Most cigars and pipe tobacco are already like that currently. 

And for the love of all that is good, ban the use of radioactive phosphate fertilizers yesterday!

Another good idea would be to only allow tobacco products to be sold in designated or dedicated tobacco-related stores (i.e. smoke and vape shops) and/or places that one needs to be 18+ to enter.

As for nicotine vapes, capping the maximum nicotine content at current European or Israeli levels (lower than USA levels but still generous) would reduce overall nicotine addiction rates without driving vapers back to smoking cigarettes.

Do these things and the desired endgame can be achieved in a matter of months to years, not decades.  But that would make too much sense, right?

FUN FACT:  Hemp-based, tobacco-free "blunt wraps" are now commercially available, so even the classic use of hollowed-out cheap tobacco cigars for rolling cannabis blunts is now thoroughly obsolete as well. 

UPDATE:  Apparently New Zealand will, starting in 2025, mandate that only very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC) be sold, similar to what we advocate above.  Also, in 2024 they will sharply reduce the number of tobacco retail outlets by 90-95%, and ban the sale of cigarettes at kiosks, gas stations, or supermarkets.  This will be in addition to their generational ban for anyone born after January 1, 2009.  Thus, the generational ban is completely redundant and unnecessary, given the other two components.  And also the price of a pack of smokes there, $36 NZD, is the equivalent of over $20 USD (that is, more than a dollar per cigarette!) thanks to their already high taxes, making it a very expensive habit as it is.

And vape products would remain unaffected. 

Twenty-One Debunked's preferred plan, in a nutshell, is basically the New Zealand plan MINUS the generational ban and keeping the age limit at 18, plus a few other things above listed above.

UPDATE 2:  Bhutan, the only country in the 21st century that had completely banned tobacco across the board, has failed so miserably in doing so (thanks to the black market and international smuggling, and despite very stiff penalties too) that they ended up reversing their ban in 2021, largely out of fear that rampant cross-border smuggling would.... increase the spread of Covid.  Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up!  This should really be a cautionary tale.

The Biggest Logical Fallacy That We Are Up Against, Debunked

Logical fallacies of various kinds perennially show up in arguments in every debate.  But there is one that seems to be the biggest one on the pro-21 or otherwise prohibitionist side.  That one is the one we call the Reverse Middle Ground Fallacy, or Appeal to Extremes.  It is basically a warmed-over form of the old slippery slope fallacy, in which the Middle Ground Fallacy or appeal to moderation is "debunked", and pretending that the opponent's entire argument is therefore "debunked" as well.  It also functions as a straw man as well as appeal to logic.

For example:

• Claiming that there is no philosophically stable ground between communism and fascism, or alternatively between anarchy and totalitarianism, so we must pick one or the other 
• Claiming there is no philosophically stable position that says that cannabis is OK but hard drugs are not, thus "confirming" the gateway theory
• Claiming that there is no philosophically stable ground between complete Luddism and complete technocracy or Transhumanism 
• Claiming that reproductive rights or birth control of any kind inevitably leads to eugenics 
• Claiming that tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality (or sexual freedom in general) inevitably leads to tolerance and acceptance of pedophilia and other horrible stuff, thus all LGBT+ folks are inherently "groomers"
• Claiming that gender equality is inherently impossible because one gender must utterly dominate and control the other, lest the latter run amuck and become too dangerous (note that this works both ways)
• Claiming that "you are either with us, or you are against us"
• Claiming that there is no philosophically stable ground between unfettered access to alcohol for all ages and complete and absolute alcohol prohibition for all ages (or for all people between some arbitrary age limit).

And yes, every single one of the above are examples of actual arguments that have been put forth by extremists of various stripes.

But simply reversing a fallacy, does NOT a valid argument make.  Claiming that there is no philosophically stable ground between two extremes, just because one says so, is a sure path to Horseshoe Theory, where the extremes become far more alike than different (far left and far right, for example).

The 21 drinking age is not only a classic example of this fallacy, it actually undermines it's own position in its logical inconsistency and arbitrary selectivity compared to complete prohibition for all ages.  Thus, the 21 drinking age, or any age limit higher than the legal age of majority, is the LEAST logically and philosophically stable position in regards to alcohol (or tobacco or cannabis or really anything else, for that matter) that could ever be conceived.

QED

UPDATE:  Other notable fallacies (and questionable propaganda techniques) on the pro-21 side include:

• Ad baculum (appeal to the stick) 
• Ad hoc (arbitrarily making it up as they go along)
• Ad hominem (of all types)
• Ad populum (appeal to the gallery)
• Alternative facts
• Ambiguity or equivocation
• Anecdotal "evidence"
• Appeal to authority (their favorite)
• Appeal to logic (the "fallacy fallacy")
• Appeal to novelty (or "progress")
• Appeal to tradition (yes, really!)
• Apples and oranges 
• Assuming bad faith
• Citation mills
• Cherry-picking (selected instances)
• Contradictory arguments / kettle logic
• Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
• False dichotomy or false choice
• False "experts"
• Genetic fallacy
• Guilt by association (however tenuous, notably with Big Alcohol or fellow travelers)
• Hasty generalization
• Immune to evidence
• Junk science
• Moving the goalposts 
• Mission creep
• Non sequitur
• Occam's Butterknife
• Oversimplification
• Poisoning the well
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• Projection
• Quote mining
• Red herring 
• Slothful induction
• Straw man
• Suppressed evidence
• Using one bad policy to justify another
• Wishful thinking

Alberta Gets It Right

The Canadian province of Alberta is basically the only place in all of North America that gets it right across the board.  Legal age limits there are as follows:

• Alcohol:  18
• Tobacco and Vaping:  18
• Cannabis:  18
• Gambling:  18
• Guns:  18
• Voting:  18
• Run for office:  18
• General age of majority:  18
• School leaving age:  16
• Driving:  14 for learner permit, 16 for GDL, and 18 for full unrestricted license
• All other age limits:  similar to the rest of Canada and the USA overall (at or below 18)
• Curfew:  None at provincial level, only locally in a few towns here and there (usually 15)

In other words, 18 is the age of majority, and once you are an adult, you are an adult.  Period, full stop.  Some age limits can be lower than that, of course, as there is much room for nuance, but no age limit can ever be higher than that, at least not without extraordinary levels of justification.  And guess what?  The sky didn't fall in Alberta.  No seriously, it really didn't.  Alberta still has yet to get the memo about the supposedly catastrophic effects of full adult rights combined with "underdeveloped" 18-24 year old brains.

In fact, the Alberta Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits age discrimination for anyone over 18, except for senior citizen privileges for people over 55.

That is really how it should be everywhere, regardless of what exact age limit is chosen for age of majority (which is 18 in most of the world and most of the USA).  It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, as a child can easily understand it, but too many chronological "adults" seem to be unable to do so.  Anything else is a slippery slope, and such slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear.

And for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, while underage possession and consumption is illegal, for all three it is basically a mere ticket-level offense with no criminal record.  Unlike many US states have.  And parents are allowed to give their own underage children (but no one else) alcohol at home (within reason), as many but not all states currently do.

The driving thing is of course probably the most jarring one of all to the rest of the world, so allow us to explain.  The global outlier young age limit of 14, rivaled only by South Dakota and a few other rural states, applies ONLY to the learner permit, which is similar to an American style learner permit, with only supervised driving allowed among other restrictions.  To get a GDL (probationary) license, i.e. what Americans often call a "junior" license, you need to be at least 16 and also have had a permit for one year or more, and pass the basic road test which is harder than an American road test.  There are some restrictions to the GDL, such as no more passengers than there are seat belts, and a zero tolerance limit for both alcohol and cannabis, but no night restrictions.  And to graduate to the next level, the full unrestricted license, one must have had the GDL for at least two years regardless of age, be suspension-free for the final year of two years, and pass an advanced road test, the latter of which is being phased out in favor of simply making the basic road test more difficult and more like the advanced road test.  Honestly, making the American road test more difficult would probably be far more effective than any age-based restrictions ever could be.

Alberta in recent years has had one of the lowest overall traffic death rates per vehicle kilometers traveled in Canada, and lower than the USA, so they must be doing something right!

And DUI laws are quite strict there regardless of age as well.  There are swift and certain penalties of immediate but temporary administrative license suspension and vehicle impoundment for BAC as low as 0.05% (or 0.00% if GDL), in addition to any criminal penalties if above 0.08% and/or obviously impaired.  Note that the zero tolerance for GDL is regardless of age.  For DUI cannabis they are also quite strict as well, and we at Twenty-One Debunked think TOO strict since hard per se limits (let alone zero tolerance) don't really make sense for a substance with such complex pharmacokinetics and long detection times, and generally less impairing than alcohol.  At the very least, in the interest of simple justice, they really need to set the testing cutoff for positivity high enough to prevent false positives or innocent positives. 

Thus overall, Alberta is a good model for America to follow.  So what are we waiting for?

Oh, and they also have the best and largest shopping mall in the entire western hemisphere, the West Edmonton Mall.  It makes the even the vaunted Mall of America look a bit "meh" by comparison. 

Case Closed: Curfews Don't Reduce Crime

Curfews, especially youth curfews for people under an arbitrary age limit, have long been a solution in search of a problem.  They have been touted as a panacea for all sorts of social ills, most notably street crime.  And the evidence for that has been very weak at best, with plenty of evidence against it in fact.

In fact, a 2016 literature review of 7000 studies finds that "juvenile curfews do not reduce crime or victimization".  Proponents of such illiberal policies can cherry-pick all they want, but the hard data are pretty damning against the idea of curfews.  As Ronald Reagan said, "facts are stubborn things".

But now we have the strongest "natural experiment" with the extreme, unprecedented, all-ages COVID lockdowns, curfews, and other restrictions in 2020 that did not exist in 2019 and prior years.  If curfews and similar policies actually reduced crime, we would have seen a sharp decrease in crime in 2020 relative to the average of previous years.  So what were the results of this yearlong natural experiment?

Well, you might wanna sit down before reading this.  Turns out, crime actually went way up in 2020 compared to the past few years, particularly homicides.  Data from the 2020 put the per capita homicide rate in the USA at a 23 year high (highest since 1997).  And of course, plenty of rioting as well.  Even mass shootings and hate crimes are up as well, and have persisted through both 2021 and 2022, well after such restrictions were finally lifted.

Even the supposedly good news about reported rapes being down in 2020 needs to be qualified.  Given how the vast majority of rapes occur behind closed doors and go unreported even in a normal year, the apparent decrease in 2020 may simply be an artifact of an increase in underreporting due to lockdown, especially since domestic violence and child abuse both appear to have increased significantly during lockdown.  The NCVS also shows a decrease in 2020 and 2021 as well, but given the secular downward trend since 1993, and the fact that survey data gathering may have been disrupted during the lockdowns, that needs to be qualified as well.

Reversion to the mean after the #MeToo movement crested and faded probably also played a role in the 2018 spike in self-reporting followed by an even larger crash.  The downward trend continued well after the lockdowns were over as well, so it is unlikely that the lockdowns actually reduced rape.

Back in April 2020, anecdotal evidence of course suggested that crime was down in some areas.  But clearly that decrease was short-lived, and then the opposite occurred.  Whether it is due to pent-up rage, restlessness, boredom, unemployment, fewer "eyes on the street", destruction of community, or all of the above, these sorts of authoritarian and illiberal policies clearly do more harm than good on balance.

So let this be the final nail in the coffin for lockdowns, curfews, and similar restrictions.  If curfews are to ever be used to fight crime and/or civil disorder, they need to be very limited, local, nuanced, and short-term--if they are to even be used at all.  And they certainly should NEVER be used to fight an airborne respiratory virus, as that is a major category error.

QED

P.S.  None of the above criticism of course precludes getting tough on REAL crime.  That is, any crimes that objectively harm the person or property of nonconsenting others.  That should really go without saying, but we will say it anyway.  "Catch and release" is every bit as dumb when it comes to real criminals as it is for fish, completely defeating the purpose.  Ditto for the equally boneheaded idea of "defund the police" as well.  Baby, meet bathwater.  Focused deterrence actually does work when done properly. 

A Band-Aid Solution In Search Of A Problem

We at Twenty-One Debunked already noted in a previous article how we oppose the proposed Texas social media ban for people under 18.  Now, there is a Republican bill in Congress that would effectively ban social media companies from allowing anyone under 16 from joining their platforms, opening them up to civil lawsuits from both states AND parents if they do so.  And the FTC would also be allowed to levy fines against them as well, in addition to the "privatized enforcement" resulting from the threat of lawsuits.

So much for the party of "small government".

While that is a marginally better idea than the Texas bill, if largely because the age limit is lower (though even the sponsors note the exact age limit will be negotiable to get bipartisan support, natch), and it effectively puts the heat entirely on the tech companies rather than young people themselves, it is still essentially a band-aid "solution" in search of a problem, like the Staples "Easy" button.  It is both over- and under-inclusive.  It both exaggerates the problems facing a particular age group while also minimizing the problems facing ALL ages.  The real root of the problem is the toxic algorithms that Big Tech designs to be as addictive as possible.  And TikTok is basically the CCP's digital equivalent of their biggest WMD of all, fentanyl, in that regard.

(And speaking of fentanyl, some social media apps such as Snapchat are currently being used by dealers to sell actual fentanyl to both kids and adults, typically disguised as counterfeit drugs such as pills.)

So what should we do instead?  Well, we could adopt the data privacy laws that the European Union currently has.  We could tax the "attention economy" by taxing the advertising that serves as the business model of Big Tech.  We could put regulations on the algorithms that Big Tech uses to manipulate its users of all ages and keep them hooked.  We could investigate Big Tech for antitrust violations. We could, you know, actually educate young people on social media literacy, ideally starting long before they go on such sites.  We could do a smartphone buyback (similar to gun buybacks) for all ages.  And we could also, you know, enforce existing age limits (typically 13) that are clearly NOT being followed in any meaningful sense, honored far more in the breach.

We need not violate the First Amendment in doing so either.  We can treat social media platforms as "common carriers", while regulating the real root of the problem, the toxic and addictive algorithms that can hardly be considered "protected speech," anymore than nuclear weapons could be considered protected by the Second Amendment. 

Or perhaps if Congresscritters and their talking heads are so concerned, they should mean what they say.  Declare a state of emergency, on the grounds that Big Tech and their social media is an existential threat to civilization itself. Impose a "quarantine" on them for "just two weeks" (right!) wherein all social media are frozen and archived during that time, so they cannot be used, and everyone is logged out simultaneously and cannot log back in during that time. During that time, We the People can then re-evaluate our often unexamined and unquestioned relationship to Big Tech, and in conjunction with our elected representatives in government, decide what the next steps (if any) will be.

I guarantee you, that would have saved FAR more lives than the Covid lockdowns ever would have, as the latter saved statistically zilch in the long run in terms of all-cause excess deaths.

Another idea:  Nationalize as public utilities all tech companies larger than a certain size, while banning any ones that are already nationalized (in theory or in practice) by hostile nations (TikTok and the CCP, I'm looking at you!).  Just like we should do with the "too big to fail (or jail)" banks.  Something to think about.

We could do all that and more.  But that would make too much sense, right?  I mean, why let mere facts and logic get in the way of a good moral panic?

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  Republican Senator Josh Hawley's bill, with the aptly-Orwellian title "MATURE Act", would require social media users of all ages to submit 1) their full legal name, 2) date of birth, and 3) a scan/photo/copy of official government-issued IDs (driver license, birth certificate, etc.) for age verification to prove they are over 16 in order to set up a new account.  (Existing accounts would be grandfathered and not subject to this requirement, thank God for small mercies!)  That is, people of all ages would have to submit sensitive information to Big Tech, who we all know would NEVER use it for anything nefarious, right?  Let that sink in for a moment.  What could possibly go wrong?

Another bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), stops short of banning kids under 16 from social media, but rather seeks to make it safer for them.  And while the bill still has significant flaws that need addressing, we at Twenty-One Debunked would still much rather support that bill than the MATURE Act any day.  In fact, it may actually be enough to pre-empt the latter.

Even one of Hawley's previous bills would be better.

Ditto for the new California law, which goes into effect in 2024, which may very well become the national standard at some point.

FINAL THOUGHT:  Lest we forget, as Reason Magazine points out, social media, for all of its warts and flaws, was the only real lifeline that young people had during the pandemic lockdowns when they were not allowed to see their friends in person.  They make some great arguments as to how flawed this bill is.

Cannabis Legalization NOT Crazy-Making After All

Good news, it looks like cannabis legalization did NOT lead to a statistically significant increase in psychosis as the Chicken Little prohibitionists liked to claim.  And this new study was not done by hippy-dippy stoners, but by serious researchers at Stanford University, who published it in the esteemed Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Not even recreational retail store sales (i.e. cannabis commercialization) seemed to significantly move the needle in that regard, despite the obvious net increase in cannabis availabilty, convenience, and potency relative to not having such legal retail store sales, and the (eventual) net decrease in price per unit of THC.

And furthermore, when results were broken down by age, the results were totally in the "wrong" direction than the age-restrictionists would have predicted.

OOPS!

Looks like Alex Berenson was wrong about that, yet again.  And looks like Reefer Madness 2.0 was ultimately a flop once again.  Womp womp.

UPDATE:  See also here and here as well for further studies that pour cold water on the Reefer Madness 2.0 fearmongering. 

Who Are The Real Radicals?

The word radical generally refers to a person or group that wants to make drastic and fundamental (that is, radical) changes to society.  Derived from the Latin word for "root", in this way it illustrates just how fundamental such change is called for.  Classic examples that you oldsters reading this may recall from back in the day include Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.  But is Twenty-One Debunked really such a radical group like some may think it is?

Is it really radical to want all legal adults above the age of majority (18) to have the same rights that people over 21 currently enjoy, including (but not limited to) the right to use, possess, share, and purchase otherwise-legal psychoactive substances?

Is it really radical to believe that alcohol should be legal for all adults, period, like it is in nearly every single non-Muslim country in the world (and even some moderate Muslim countries too)?

Is it really radical to believe that cannabis, which is objectively safer overall than alcohol and tobacco and less addictive than coffee, should be re-legalized (it was not always illegal, only for a tiny fraction of history) for both recreational and medical use, fairly taxed, and regulated no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco (and legally sold and/or used in many if not most of the same places as well)?

Is it really radical to believe that, when it is legalized, the legal age limit for cannabis should not be any higher than the legal age of majority (18), nor any higher than for the more dangerous and addictive already-legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?

Is it really radical to believe that, for as long as tobacco remains legal and readily available, those over the age of majority (18) should retain the right to decide for themselves whether or not to choose pleasure over longevity and indulge in this (albeit dangerous and deadly) substance?

Is it really radical to not want to punish the many (such as an entire demographic group) for the actions of the few?  And to prefer to hold individuals fully and solely accountable for their own misbehavior?

Is it really radical to believe that drinking establishments, and especially "social hosts" at private residences, should NOT be held vicariously liable for what their adult guests or customers do after leaving the premises following participation in voluntary intoxication on the premises?  And that personal responsibility for individuals should still be a thing?

Is it really radical to believe that, as John Stuart Mill believed, that individuals are fully sovereign over their own bodies and minds, at least as far as consenting adults are concerned?

Is it really radical to believe that our own bodies are NOT property of the state or any other entity besides ourselves, regardless of what the state or entity may claim or choose to provide us with?

Is it really radical to believe that adults should NOT have to be baby-sat?

Is it really radical to believe that if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar?

Is it really radical to believe in logical consistency and common sense rather than arbitrary legality?

Is it really radical to favor personal autonomy rather than paternalism?

Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government does NOT get to force or coerce states to raise their own legal age limits for alcohol (or any other legal substance) higher than their own legal ages of majority?

Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government should have far LESS (if any) latitude in terms of micro-managing authority over We the People than the state and local governments do, and when in doubt should really stay in their own lane?

Is it really radical to still believe in the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land?

Is it really radical to believe in liberty and justice for all?

Because if you think that these ideas are somehow radical, well, we've got news for you:  they are actually quite conservative and in line with both international and historical norms, even in our very own country before 1984 if you can believe that.  This shows just how far the Overton window has shifted both rightward and in the authoritarian direction, and just how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.

As Five Finger Death Punch would say, it's stranger than fiction, how we've decayed...