Yet Another Study Finds No Link Between Cannabis Legalization And Traffic Casualties

Once again, yet another study finds that recreational cannabis legalization and retail commercialization did NOT lead to an increase in fatal or injury traffic crashes.  This study looked at Washington State, one of the first two states to legalize cannabis for recreational use, and actually found that legalization itself led to fewer fatal and injury crashes, while commercialization (retail sales) led to no statistically significant impacts on fatal or injury crashes (albeit correlated with a modest increase in non-injury crashes, likely from tourists).  These results jibe well with survey data that did not find a significant change in driving behavior while under the influence, despite a self-reported increase in cannabis use in general. 

These results dovetail rather nicely with several other studies in both the USA as well as Canada.

In other words, the fear that legalization or retail sales would cause carnage on the highways has turned out to be unfounded.  Look like yet another card in the prohibitionists' vast rolodex full of myths, lies, and half-truths needs to be retired for good.

UPDATE:  Also, a new study found that mental health treatment admissions actually go DOWN following recreational cannabis legalization.

Hey New York, Wanna Know A Secret?

Though cannabis legalization has been a positive development overall, in many places, the black market still exists to one degree or another, albeit much less so than when cannabis was illegal.  Nowhere else is this more true than in New York, whose uniquely arcane, difficult, and disastrously sluggish rollout of cannabis licenses statewide has led to a massive proliferation of unlicensed weed shops, especially in NYC where such shops outnumber licensed ones by a whopping 250 to one.  So how does one solve such a bedeviling problem?

Enter Rear Admiral Luther E. Gregory.  In the 1930s, Prohibition was repealed, and Washington State along with other states were now faced with the task of shutting down the well-established bootleggers and speakeasies that persisted even after Repeal.   Admiral Gregory was asked to head the state's Liquor Control Board, and given carte blanche to come up with a solution, one which worked surprisingly well in fact:

1. End Prohibition, first of all.
2. Give amnesty and issue licenses to anyone willing to play by the state's rules, whether former bootleggers or otherwise.
3. Set the alcohol taxes as low as possible at first, the lowest in the country in fact.
4. Punish sellers who don't play by the rules, with an iron fist--i.e. blacklisting scofflaws from ever selling liquor in the state again.
5. After holding down alcohol taxes for three years, abruptly raise taxes to the point where they're now the highest in the nation.

Problem solved.  The legal market proved to be competitive with what was left of the black market, and drinkers overwhelmingly preferred the former over the latter, driving the latter out of business.  And the black market never came back even after raising taxes dramatically.  Looking back, it should have been so obvious indeed.

Substitute "cannabis" for "alcohol", and there is literally no reason whatsoever why this strategy would not work in this day and age.  And instead of holding down taxes for three years, merely one or two years should be sufficient to get the same results, even if the hike is automatically scheduled.  Doing so would minimize the greatest risk of the strategy, namely, that the fledgling legal cannabis industry would then become so powerful that they would resist and successfully quash any attempt to raise taxes in the future.  They would not become that powerful in just a year or two, and probably not for several years, but the black market could be easily quashed in that timeframe all the same.  But most importantly, cut the ridiculous red tape and, and make cannabis licenses easier and cheaper to get, particularly for the current gray market shops.

Now over to you, New York.  Remember, the cart does NOT go before the horse.

Latest Twin Study Pours Cold Water Over Cannabis Prohibitionists

A new study looked at pairs of twins where one twin lived in a recreational cannabis legalization state and the other lived in a state where it remained illegal and found the following:

• Somewhat greater self-reported levels of cannabis use among those living in legalization states, but they were no more likely to experience negative consequences as a result of their cannabis use.
• Both groups consumed alcohol at similar rates, but those living in legalization states reported fewer negative consequences from their alcohol use.
• No significant difference in tobacco or other controlled substance use between the two groups.

This dovetails nicely with a previous study that finds that alcohol use disorders are also less likely in co-twins who live in legalization states as well (and also no increase in psychosis either).

No increase in adverse consequences of cannabis use (check), decrease in adverse consequences of alcohol use (check), and no increase in tobacco or other drug use (check).  And no increase in psychosis either.  Both the gateway theory and Reefer Madness have thus been thoroughly debunked, at least insofar as they relate to legalization.  Ditto for any alleged associations with (non-victimless) crime as well, especially violence.  Such robust research findings slaughter so many of the sacred cows of the prohibitionists, that it's time to have a barbecue.

Zero Evidence For Zero Tolerance Pe Se Laws

At least for cannabis, that is.  Yet another study found a stunning lack of correlation between the detection of either THC or its metabolites in blood, breath, or oral fluid (saliva) and psychomotor performance, both on a driving simulator as well as on a standard field sobriety test (SFST).  While this does not mean that cannabis cannot cause impairment (it can) or that driving while high is a good idea (it's not), it does mean that the truth about cannabis and driving is far more nuanced than the prohibitionists and MADD-type zealots like to claim, and that any strict per se thresholds (let alone zero tolerance) for THC for DUI cannabis are not supported by the science.

The reason for this lack of correlation is due to the complex pharmacokinetics of cannabis, and how trace amounts of fat-soluble THC itself and especially its metabolites can linger in the body and be detected LONG after any impairment is gone.  And there is no hard and fast blood THC level threshold that can clearly (by itself) separate the actually impaired from the non-impaired, only very roughly determining how recent the last use was.  Thus unlike how it is for alcohol, chemical testing alone cannot accurately predict actual impairment for cannabis. 

That is all true whether a threshold is zero tolerance (LOD or LOQ) OR supposedly "science-based", even if the latter is slightly less ridiculous than the former.

(Even worse still are the places where driving with non-psychoactive metabolites is treated the same as THC well.  Pennsylvania, I'm looking at YOU!)

And there is still no evidence that states with strict per se laws have seen any sort of lifesaving benefits at all compared to the many states without them.

Thus, while per se laws (of any sort) make sense for alcohol, and possibly some other drugs, they make absolutely zero sense for cannabis whatsoever.  Either have an actual impairment standard alone, like many states currently do, or have that in addition to a prima facie threshold for THC (say, 5 ng/ml in blood) like Colorado currently has.  In fact, the aforementioned study found that a 2 ng/ml THC level in oral fluid did help further distinguish impairment among those who failed an SFST.  But cut out this ridiculous per se nonsense, that accomplishes literally nothing more that catching innocent sober drivers in the same dragnet along with the actually impaired.

By the way, there is actually a smartphone app called DRUID (Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs) that CAN accurately tell whether some is too messed up to drive, whether by cannabis or otherwise.  All without any sort of chemical testing whatsoever. 

It's what the late Peter McWilliams would have most likely wanted.  So what are we waiting for?

The Stupid Literally Burns Like Cigarettes

In Australia, there is quite a furor right now among the chattering classes in regards to a sharp increase in teen tobacco smoking from 2018 to 2023 after over two straight decades of decline.  And one of the things people are blaming is.....wait for it....vaping.  Because reasons.  Or something.  But there is one very glaring problem with this theory.  In Australia, vape products are technically legal, but ONLY if they do NOT contain any nicotine at all, thus kind of defeating the purpose.  That's right, nicotine vape products have never been approved for legal sales in Australia (and probably never will be any time soon), meaning anyone who wants to use them must either smuggle them in from abroad or buy them on the black market.  And interestingly enough, vaping itself also appears to be on the rise as well down under.  Thus, it truly takes a special kind of stupid to not only perversely create a situation where vaping and smoking both increase at the same time, but to then blame the increase in smoking on vaping.

Even more notable is the fact that in Australia, cigarettes have some of the highest taxes (and thus prices) in the world, plus so many other world-leading "best practices" tobacco control polices as well.  This additionally shows that while vice taxes and some other policies may work well to a point, all of these policies inherently have their limits in practice. 

Our working theory:  it is actually the banning of nicotine vaping, combined with the harmful effects of one of the strictest lockdown and Zero Covid regimes in the world, that ultimately snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the long fight against tobacco smoking, particularly for youth.  And we must stress that while nicotine in any form is far from benign and definitely NOT for kids, banning or unduly restricting vaping (which is still significantly safer than the known deadly habit of smoking that it often displaces) is therefore a net public health loser of a policy.  And a policy like Australia's that perversely increases "dual use" of both is even that much worse still.

One could even argue that their truly massive cigarette black market created by their insanely high taxes, especially combined with their vaping black market from their nicotine ban, actually increased underage (under 18) use of both products since black market sellers typically don't ask buyers for ID.

Note also how the increase did not begin until 2020 (implicating the lockdowns as a contributing cause), and occurred for 14-17 year olds but interestingly NOT 18-24 year olds (putting the lie to the idea that their age limit of 18, as opposed to 21, was in any way related).  Also note that in England, where the age limit is still 18 and vaping is literally promoted by public health authorities, teen smoking continued its long decline through at least 2021.  New Zealand, where the age limit was still 18 (until very, very recently), smoking rates among 15-24 year olds nosedived as soon as nicotine vaping was officially legalized in 2020, despite an even stricter lockdown there.  Thus it seems to be the combination of 1) black markets, 2) vaping bans, and 3) lockdowns that is the cause of the jump in teen smoking in Australia.

But good luck trying to convince the nanny-state zealots to use even a little bit of common sense!

QED

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

This coming Monday, May 29, is Memorial Day, often known as the unofficial first day of summer and National BBQ Day.  But let's remember what it really is--a day to honor all of the men and women of our armed forces who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, past and present.  And that of course includes all of those who died serving our country before they were legally old enough to drink.  Let us all take a moment of silence to honor them.

As for Candy Lightner, the ageist turncoat founder of MADD who had the chutzpah and hubris to go on national TV in 2008 and publicly insult our troops, may her name and memory be forever blotted out. 

And as always, arrive alive, don't drink and drive.  It's just not worth it, period.  And it's very simple to prevent.  If you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive.  It's not rocket science.   Designate a sober driver, call a cab or rideshare, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.

Legalizing Cannabis In Canada NOT Linked To More Traffic Crashes

A new Toronto, Canada study found that neither legalization of cannabis nor the number of cannabis retail stores was associated with an increase in traffic crashes.  This dovetails with other recent studies which came to similar conclusions about legalization across Canada, as well many US studies.

In other words, the predicted "parade of horribles" never happened.  Not with liberalization, not with legalization, and not even with commercialization of cannabis. Fearmongers, prepare to eat crow.

Note that the legal age limit for cannabis is 18 in Alberta and 19 in all other provinces except Quebec, who originally set it at 18 but unfortunately raised it to 21 in 2020.  (For comparison, the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec, and 19 elsewhere.)  Thus, a lower age limit in Canada does not seem to increase traffic crash risk either, relative to the USA where it is 21 in all legalization states.  Not even in Alberta specifically either, whether for all ages OR for Albertan youth specifically. 

Oh, and cannabis legalization does NOT seem to be crazy-making in Canada either.  Again, nt even in the province with the most liberal cannabis policies, Alberta.  Nor does legalization seem to have increased problematic cannabis use among youth or young adults in either Canada or the USA.  Thus, another tired, old myth bites the dust.

Raise Voting Age To 25? HELL To The NO!

Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy apparently want to raise the voting age to 25, the Constitution be damned.  Even his own staffers rightly oppose this utterly ageist, anti-democratic, and simultaneously radical and reactionary Horseshoe Theory idea.

Granted, his idea comes with exceptions for 18-24 year olds who either 1) join the military, 2) become first responders, or 3) pass a civics test.  While that is of course marginally better than a "hard" 25 age limit, it is still an ageist abomination that blatantly violates the Constitution all the same.  As for the idea of requiring a test to vote, well, anyone who stayed awake in history class (or even bothers to do a few seconds of Googling) would know that that such an idea has a rather checkered history in this country, right up there with poll taxes, grandfather clauses, sitting at the back of the bus, and stuff like that.

We at Twenty-One Debunked oppose this idea 100%, and in fact support lowering the voting age to 16.  Honestly, if Trump can vote, the Kardashians can vote, alcoholics can vote, drug addicts can vote, psychotics can vote, severely developmentally disabled folks can vote, and so on, there is no good reason to deny 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote due to age.  And plenty of countries like Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Malta, Nicaragua, Scotland, and Wales currently set the voting age at 16 without the sky falling or any parade of horribles occurring.  And Switzerland, the worlds largest and oldest functioning direct democracy, also currently sets the voting age at 16 for cantonal (state) and local elections, though for national elections it is still 18.

In short, raising the voting age is not only bad policy, for it to even be up for debate also shifts the Overton window in a very questionable direction at best.  Especially with the idea coming from a fairly young 37 year old Millennial like himself who apparently can't wait to pull up the drawbridge and shut the proverbial kingdom in future generations' faces.  Hey Vivek, remember you were 18 once too, buddy.

Or maybe it is all a cynical and cowardly Republican ploy to stop Gen Z from voting for their rivals, the Democrats.  Either way, it's not a good look at all.

Are THC Potency Caps Really Necessary?

Concerns about high-potency cannabis products have prompted calls for increased regulation, particularly potency caps for THC. Common suggestions include a cap of 15% THC for flower and 25-30% for concentrates.  For example, Uruguay currently sets it a 9%, which is similar to the weed that Gen X and older Millennials may remember from the 1990s, so 15% is still pretty generous.  Twenty-One Debunked does NOT oppose such efforts, and would much rather that than other types of restrictions.  But the real question is, are such caps really necessary?

A new British study casts doubt on that seemingly commonsense assertion.  Among young adults in their late teens and early 20s, the researchers failed to find any correlation between cannabis potency and dependence, depression, or psychosis-like symptoms, after adjusting for confounders.  Yes, really.

(Other recent studies on both sides of both major oceans find that the "Reefer Madness 2.0" fears in general are largely if not entirely unfounded as well.)

That said, there is also a good case for "bringing back mids" as well.  We know that too-potent weed (over 20% THC, up to even 40% sometimes), and especially concentrates (up to 90% THC), may be too much for inexperienced and/or very occasional users to handle.  Usually most users can easily self-titrate their dose when smoking or vaping (but not eating!) cannabis so they don't get too stoned, but when it is extremely potent it becomes that much more difficult.

So what is best to do then?  Simply tax cannabis based on potency, that is, by milligram of THC, and perhaps a discount for the amount of CBD it contains as well.  Current high taxes based on gross weight alone not only notoriously incentivize the persistence of black markets, but they also perversely incentivize very high potency products as well, almost to the exclusion of lower potency products.  That is especially true when leaf/trim is overtaxed as well, as that incentivizes the extraction of concentrates from such material rather than simply selling it as-is.  Untaxing leaf/trim (or trivially taxing it) would go a long way toward rebalancing the cannabis market. And overregulation that makes licenses to legally sell cannabis so ridiculously hard to get (New York, I'm looking at YOU!) needs to be fixed as well.

Remember, all of this is for a plant that is literally about as easy to grow as BASIL. Look at the prices per weight of dried basil at the store or Google it.  Then compare the prices by weight of even the cheapest weed before legalization, and also the prices for the cheapest weed right after and then years after legalization.  Notice the stark disequilibrium here?  And the headfake?  Free markets (which don't currently exist for cannabis anywhere) are clearly excellent at solving such disequilibria.  Just saying. 

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  A good op-ed debunking the "Reefer Madness 2.0" mass hysteria can be found here.

The Law of Eristic Escalation Revisited

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986) illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.