Looks Like The "Teen Vaping Epidemic" Was Just A Brief Fad All Along

Looks like the "teen vaping epidemic" of 2018-2019 was really just a brief fad all along.  Since then, per the National Youth Tobacco survey, teen vaping has plummeted by 50%, returning to its 2015 baseline by 2021, and teen smoking continues its long-term decline.  Two Tweets with infographics say it all:

And JUUL?  The brand that notoriously drove the "epidemic"?  That's not cool anymore either, apparently, as use of that particular brand was approaching nil by 2022.  And the survey results pan out, as one can even see with their own eyes a marked reduction in vape pod litter (especially JUUL pods) on streets, sidewalks, and parking lots these days compared to 2018-2019 and early 2020.

And lest anyone spuriously credit the raising of the age limit to 21 with these positive trends, keep in mind that the "epidemic" self-evidently occurred just as much in states like California and New Jersey that raised their own tobacco and vaping age limits to 21 prior to 2018 than in those states who did so later or not at all, and it had already peaked nationwide before the federal age limit of 21 was enforced.  And the secular decline in teen smoking began well before any state or major city raised their age limits to 21.

But don't expect the MSM to tell you that.

What Is The Proper Role Of Government In A Free Society?

One perennial question that every society has wrestled with is, "what is the proper role of government in a free society?".  Libertarians (or rather, right-libertarians) argue that the proper role is as minimal as possible, and akin to a night-watchman, while statists argue that the proper role is as large and comprehensive as possible, and akin to that of a micromanaging nanny.  The former protects individuals only from very narrowly-defined force or fraud, as well as foreign attack, while the latter pre-emptively protects individuals from all possible threats that exist or that one could imagine, including from themselves.  The former believes only in negative liberty at the expense of positive liberty, while the latter believes (nearly) exclusively in positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty. 

Twenty-One Debunked and the TSAP believe that both extremes are quite incorrect and often disingenuous, and that the proper role of government (at any level) is that of a macromanager.  Negative and positive liberty ought to carry (roughly) equal weight.  A welfare state, broadly defined, need not be abolished and need not be a controlling nanny state either.  And protecting individuals from themselves against their will, at least as far as consenting adults are concerned, is a fundamental overreach of the proper role of government in a free society.  And, of course, once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.

QED

Naloxone Not Associated With Moral Hazard

Good news, a new study finds that expanding access to naloxone (Narcan), an antidote that reverses opioid overdoses and saves countless lives every day, was NOT associated with increased heroin or other intravenous drug use among adolescents.  This echoes previous research that finds no such "moral hazard" occurring among adults either.  Thus conclusively ends one of the most tired, jaded, cynical, and empathy-lacking arguments against harm reduction.  

In other words, in this day and age, there is absolutely no rational reason to not make naloxone readily available, period.  Ditto for things like fentanyl test kits as well.  Those who oppose doing so are thus basing their self-righteous opposition on a selectively moralistic and ideological foundation, and certainly not a scientific or a humanitarian one.

The same goes for needle exchange programs as well, something even former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg openly came out in favor of during his time as mayor. 

The flip side of "live and let live" need not be "live and let die".  Harm reduction is NOT a zero-sum game, since dead people can't recover from addiction. 

NOTE:  Narcan nasal spray is now approved for over the counter (OTC) sale by the FDA.  It should have always been, but better late than never.  Beware that it only reverses opioid overdoses, not overdoses of other, non-opioid drugs such as alcohol, cocaine, crack, meth, Adderall, benzos, or xylazine ("tranq").

Once You Are An Adult, You Are An Adult, Period

Twenty-One Debunked has long believed that, regardless of whatever the general age of majority is set at, once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.  While there is of course plenty of room for nuance before reaching that age, any exceptions made after reaching that age absolutely must require truly extraordinary justification in any free society worthy of the name.  The onus inherently falls on the state to justify any such exceptions.  And for better for worse, in nearly all of the known world today, that age is set at 18.  The Canadian province of Alberta is a good model to follow, for example.

While Twenty-One Debunked does not take any official position on anything regarding the transgender community in general, we unequivocally oppose the latest red-state Republican attempts that increasingly target young adults age 18-25.  That's right, they are attempting to deny any sort of gender-affirming care to anyone under 21 or even 26 (!) in some states.  While a decent case can be made that somewhat more gatekeeping may be be good for all ages regarding any treatments that are irreversible (surgery, obviously, but also cross-sex hormone therapy too), and perhaps even banning irreversible treatments (including puberty blockers) for youth under 18, banning gender-affirming care for young adults over 18 is a major overreach at best.  And don't think they will stop there either.  This is clearly NOT about "protecting children", as no sane person would honestly consider 18-25 year olds (who are well beyond puberty) to be literal children.  No, this is the latest battle in the decades-long culture wars, by the increasingly unhinged and reactionary right wing in this unprecedentedly divided nation.  And it is a battle that is increasingly bordering on cultural genocide. 

And before anyone brings up detransitioners who end up regretting their transitions, one of the downsides of adulthood and the bodily autonomy that goes with it is, "you break it, you own it".  It sounds harsh, but it's true.  Adults make decisions they regret all the time, unfortunately.  And we can empathize with them without revoking any civil rights or bodily autonomy from young adults.  Trying to remove all possibility of regret from life is a fool's errand and a losing battle, and completely antithetical to liberty.

Once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.  Any breach of that maxim is a major red flag.

How To Make Tobacco Less Appealing And Addictive Without Banning It Or Reducing Nicotine Below Natural Levels

Here is a "Cliffs Notes" style list on how to make cigarettes and other smokeable tobacco products less addictive and appealing WITHOUT banning it outright, raising the age limit any higher than 18, or even reducing nicotine below natural levels:

• First and foremost, BAN ADDITIVES!  No non-tobacco ingredients should be added, period.
• Adding extra nicotine deliberately should also be banned as well.
• Require the smoke pH to be 8 or higher to discourage deep inhalation of smoke, as it naturally was prior to the 20th century. 
• Phase out the pH-lowering and environmentally unsustainable practice of flue-curing tobacco. 
• Phase out cigarette "filters", which don't really filter, and merely provide a false sense of security to smokers, and inherently creates a major toxic waste littering problem to boot.

If they still want to reduce maximum nicotine levels to a non-addictive level in ready-made commercial cigarettes and little cigars, go right ahead.  But it would be best to do the other things on the list first.

Also, banning the use of radioactive (!) phosphate fertilizers to grow tobacco is really a textbook no-brainer in terms of tobacco harm reduction. 

Additionally, requiring all tobacco products to be sold only in dedicated tobacco stores, or other places where you have to be 18 or older to enter, would really not be a bad idea either.  It would certainly make it less ubiquitous, convenient, and tempting without the constant reminder in grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, pharmacies, etc.

So what are we waiting for?

A Band-Aid Solution In Search Of A Problem (Part Deux)

We previously wrote an article about the recent wrongheaded push to ban young people under the age of 16 or 18 (depending on whose idea it is) from social media entirely, or at least heavily restrict it.  Well, now the state of Utah has finally done it, and signed it into law today, effective one year from now on March 1, 2024.  This new law does not completely ban people under 18 from social media, but in some ways it is worse than that.  What it does is 1) prohibits any Utah resident under 18 from opening a social media account, or even maintaining an existing one after March 1, 2024 unless they can provide both proof of age verification as well as proof of parental consent, 2) prohibits anyone of any age from opening a social media account or even maintaining an existing one without proof of age verification, 3) requires social media companies to provide parents with a password or other means to gain full access to their teens' accounts, 4) prohibits anyone under 18 from accessing social media from 10:30 pm and 6:30 am, 5) prohibits social media companies from showing any ads to people under 18, or using any addictive features for people under 18.  

If your jaw just dropped after reading all of that, you're not alone!

This is just plain wrong on so many levels.  That the age limit is set so high is bad enough, as is the lack of privacy for people under 18, but that not nearly the worst of it.  For starters, unlike Josh Hawley's federal bill, there is NO grandfather clause for existing accounts for anyone of any age, whether you are 18 or 80, only a mere one year delay before the law goes into effect.  Worse still, the mandatory collection and storage of proof of ID (driver's license, birth certificate, passport, etc) required by this law for ALL ages comes with NO meaningful safeguards to keep such sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.  Fox, meet henhouse.  Everyone's privacy is at risk now, more then ever before.  Yet another example of adultism backfiring on adults.  It is the ultimate Trojan horse from Big Brother. 

And of course, the even greater loss of privacy specifically for teens should not be trivialized either, as that will put the most vulnerable young people in even greater danger still, not least from abusive and/or bigoted parents or guardians.

And the ban on addictive features, such as via those notorious algorithms, curiously only applies to people under 18 for some reason.  And it would hold the social media companies liable for that and any damages that result.  That, along with perhaps some other enhanced safety features, is probably the ONLY marginally good part of the new law, which of course they had to nerf it by age-gating it rather than simply applying it to all ages across the board.

(Why don't we simply make it illegal for any manufacturer, vendor, or company to deliberately engineer a product or service to be more addictive or habit-forming than it would otherwise be in the name of profit, for all ages, across the board, period?  Big Tech, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Food, et al., I'm looking at YOU.  That would not completely cure the problem of "limbic capitalism" in practice, of course, but it sure would greatly decrease the frequency and flagrancy of such machinations and manipulations.)

And what else does the law NOT do, but should do for all ages?  No data privacy rules, no enhanced safety features, no common carrier rules, or anything like that.  Nope, just more of the usual ageist bigotry and control under the guise of concern and protection.

If the new Utah law ever does become the national standard, then this is truly the end of an era, and the beginning of a new and even more dystopian one.  And it would also mark at least the beginning of the end of the free and open internet as we knew it.

And by extension, one more cut in the long-running, subtle "death by a thousand cuts" of the First Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

One thing is for sure.  The Overton window has clearly shifted in a VERY questionable direction!

UPDATE:  Looks like the 10:30 pm social media curfew would simply be set as the default feature, which parents would be able to adjust at will.  (Thank God for small mercies, I guess.)

And there are ways of verifying age that don't compromise privacy or security, but somehow we doubt that those will be used.  In any case, teens will always find a way to game the system and get around the restrictions regardless of the method.

But with the general anonymity of social media effectively a thing of the past for all ages, thanks to the new ID verification system, the chilling effect on free speech will remain unless this law gets struck down before it goes into effect.  The clock is ticking.

UPDATE 2:  Looks like the evidence on which this law is based is less than meets the eye.  Far from a mountain of evidence, it is more like a molehill, and a shaky one at that.  Not that Big Tech is completely benign (they are not) or doesn't have a dark side (they clearly do), but we need to deal with them proportionately, and not from a place of moral panic.

And look into the other potential causes of mental health declines in young people as well.

UPDATE 3:  None of our objections apply at all to TikTok specifically, and we actually support federally banning that particular platform for all ages on pure national security grounds alone.  Or alternatively, perhaps "quarantining" it temporarily, and then buying and fully nationalizing it.  It is effectively a CCP spying app masquerading as a social media platform, and any mental health concerns are an afterthought in comparison to that.  And plenty of alternative platforms already exist now, and if those alternatives are somehow not good enough, it's really not that hard to create new ones that are.

UPDATE 4:  While research evidence is quite mixed at best, it is probably safe to conclude that, yes, Virginia, there really is a "there", there.  But it still does NOT follow that bans or undue age discrimination are the solution, as this problem calls for a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.  The Law of Unintended Consequences (aka Murphy's Law) is all too real.

Instead, things that require social media to be safer by design, like the California Kids' Code that goes into effect in 2024, would be a better idea.  The next logical step after that would be the COPPA 2.0 bill.  Ditto for many other ways to design it to be safer and less addictive as well, such as adding a bit more "friction".  Think harm reduction, not prohibition. 

See the youth-led advocacy movement Design It For Us, for more information in that regard.

Also note how The Netherlands appears to have dodged the supposedly global teen mental health crisis thus far.  Could it be that is at least in part because they are the overall most "permissive" society in the world for children and young people IRL?

UPDATE 5:  And don't forget to read Mike Males' famous rebuttals to Jon Haidt as well.  To wit, the real mental health crisis is the massive epidemic of toxic, dysfunctional adults, whose toxicity/dysfunction then inevitably rubs off on the young people in their lives.  Not to say that social media is not a potential causal factor in such toxicity overall, but clearly silencing the skeptics is another mistake to never make again.

It Bears Repeating: Vices Are NOT Crimes

One of the most important timeless lessons learned, then forgotten, then learned again, then forgotten again, and so on, is Lysander Spooner's famous maxim that "vices are not crimes".  And to forget this crucial distinction, is to ultimately lead to numerous evils, from 1) amoralism and nihilism on the one hand, and 2) the most egregiously tyrannical abuses and overreach of government power (from things like Prohibition, the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs, the 21 drinking age, tobacco bans, media censorship, restrictions on sexual activities between consenting adults, etc. all the way to slavery, eugenics, and sometimes even full-blown genocide) on the other, typically disguised as either protecting the nation's "moral fiber", and/or "progressive" social engineering for the "greater good".  In truth, it is anything but moral or progressive.  Thus, individual rights must be inalienable, and the government should never stray from its original mission of protecting life, liberty, and property.  Once the natural right to self-ownership becomes usurped by the state, the very foundation for individual rights ceases to exist, and of course that invites all kinds of trouble, as history has so painfully shown time and again.

To quote Spooner, from his Vices Are Not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875):

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another…In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting." 

"Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be…no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property." 

"If these questions…are not to be left free and open for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to…ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice…If this great right is not to be left free and open to all, then each man’s whole right, as a reasoning human being, to 'liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' is denied him." 

"What man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, 'We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it…not only for ourselves, but for all…And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion?'" 

"[A] government, formed by voluntary association, would never have been thought of, if the object proposed had been the punishment of all vices…nobody…would voluntarily submit to it. But a government, formed by voluntary association, for the punishment of all crimes is a reasonable matter; because everybody wants protection for himself against all crimes by others." 

"It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess." 

"Nobody but a fool or an impostor pretends that he, as an individual, has a right to punish other men for their vices. But…everybody has a natural right…to defend his own person and property against aggressors…And government has no rightful existence, except in so far as it embodies, and is limited by, this natural right of individuals...It is only those who claim that government has some rightful power, which no individual or individuals ever did, or could, delegate to it, that claim that government has any rightful power to punish vices." 

"To punish men for their vices…is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed…because it would be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness." 

"Everybody wishes to be protected, in his person and property, against the aggressions of other men. But nobody wishes to be protected… against himself…He only wishes to promote his own happiness, and to be his own judge as to what will promote, and does promote, his own happiness." 

"The object aimed at in the punishment of crimes is to secure, to each and every man alike, the fullest liberty he possibly can have—consistently with the equal rights of others—to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property…the object aimed at in the punishment of vices is to deprive every man of his natural right and liberty to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property."

"[People]…must be permitted to control themselves and their property… each man’s life is his own."

We ignore such sound advice at our own peril.

And we know that the late Peter McWilliams, author of Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do:  The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society (1996), would certainly agree with Spooner 100%.

And to avoid any weaseling, dilution, or vitiation, via subjectivism, relativism, and/or denial of agency, of Spooner's (and McWilliams') basic maxim, we should clarify that only acts that objectively harm the person or property of nonconsenting others should be considered crimes in a free society. 

UPDATE:  People will undoubtedly ask, so what about children, or young persons below the legal age of majority?  Well, as John Stuart Mill had famously noted, such a maxim would not apply directly to them, at least insofar as consent is concerned.  But even then, to impose criminal penalties on the children or young people themselves (as opposed to the adults involved) for acts that are otherwise legal for adults while simultaneously denying them any agency to consent to such acts is the very height of hypocrisy.  And regardless, whatever age we set as the age of majority, for anyone above that age the maxim would apply completely, full stop.  In other words, in a free society, once you are an adult, you are an adult.  That is something most of the world understands.

Also, as Emile Durkheim famously said, "When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary. When mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable".  From another angle, that is a good argument against the other side's specious claim that our society is currently somehow too immoral, weak, fractured, spoiled, undisciplined, individualistic, heterogeneous, or whatever to trust people with personal liberty and bodily autonomy.

And finally, there is that classic Pigouvian argument from externalities.  The best response to that is that it is literally impossible for humans to exist at all without imposing both positive and negative externalities on others to one degree or another.  So arbitrarily designating select vices as crimes is both over- and under-inclusive.  And externalities are generally better dealt with via education, persuasion, and mutual consent, or failing that, via targeted taxes and subsidies.  Prohibition is far too blunt an instrument to deal with most externalities, and typically does far more harm than good in practice. 

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.