Smoking Tobacco May Actually Be Eradicated By 2030

Well, in the UK at least, particularly in England, according to a new report.  The British currently have the second lowest smoking rate in Europe after Sweden, and only slightly higher than the USA, and rapidly falling for the past several years.  And if current trends of the past five years continue, smoking rates will drop below 5% of the adult population (what researchers define as a "smoke-free" country) by 2030.  Given that nearly half of British adults smoked in the early 1970s, this is no small feat.

And the real kicker?  This is all happening without raising the smoking age to 21, as it is currently 18 (just like their drinking age) with no plans to hike it any further.  The Tobacco 21 fever currently sweeping the USA by storm simply hasn't caught on over on the other side of the Atlantic.  And unlike in the USA, there is no moral panic over vaping either.  If anything, Public Health England encourages current smokers to switch to vaping to help them quit.  These kinds of ageist American-style moral panics, with very few exceptions, are really quite foreign to them.

And come to think of it, after an initial boom in e-cigarettes for a few years, even vaping is now on the decline as well.   It appears that's what happens when you don't turn something like that into a media circus / moral panic / deviancy amplification spiral.

It is things like this that almost make us wish that Britain, our mother country, would just revoke America's hard-won (but subsequently squandered) independence.  (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)

Guess Who Now Openly Supports Tobacco 21 Laws? Go On, Guess...

Tobacco 21 laws, or laws that raise the age limit to buy tobacco products to 21, are unfortunately gaining popularity as a sort of "feel good" measure despite the relative dearth of evidence backing them up.  Well, now we can add a new name to the list of supporters:  Philip Morris Altria Group.  That's right, a company whose former name is literally synonymous with Big Tobacco now supports, whether grudgingly or otherwise, a smoking age of 21 (even at the federal level) despite at least feigning opposition just a few years ago followed by awkward silence on the topic.

So why the sudden turnaround?  Probably a cynical combination of public relations as well as the realization that raising the smoking age to 21 (compared to 18) in several states and localities did NOT really end up hurting their bottom lines after all.  And even more cynically, they can perhaps now leverage the arguably enhanced forbidden fruit effect to their own benefit, all while patting themselves on the back for their "corporate social responsibility".

(RALPH!)

You know, kinda like they did all along (to one degree or another) when the age limit was 18, and like the alcohol industry has done with the 21 drinking age.  Put up a public fight at first, take a dive, stay quiet for a few years, then publicly support the new laws while leveraging them (and simultaneously fighting against higher taxes or any new regulations).  Quislings.

Thus, it is safe to say that our cynicism is now fully maxed out.  And that really says something indeed.

Traffic Deaths Down So Far In 2018

There is good news on the highways lately, namely that preliminary data for the first half of 2018 show a 3.1% decrease in traffic deaths, and 2017 saw a 1.8% decrease as well following two straight years of significant increases.  This is true despite the fact that the economy is still improving and there is thus more driving going on now than a few years ago.

So what happened in 2017-2018?  Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016.  And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities.  gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes.  So that only explains part of the picture.  And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill.  So what else could it be?

The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part.  But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.

Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall.  Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.

So what are we waiting for?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

That is what at least some segments of the alcohol industry increasingly feel about cannabis as it becomes more and more mainstream.  For decades, much of the industry has generally opposed cannabis, and legalization at first seemed to be taking a bite out of the demand for booze.  But now, they are catching on and want a piece of the action now, knowing what an unstoppable juggernaut that legalized cannabis has become.  And this is just the beginning.

Among Millennials, alcohol is retreating while cannabis is advancing, a trend that shows no signs of stopping anytime soon.   Thus, some alcohol companies, particularly the craft brewer Lagunitas (itself owned by the Dutch multinational beer company Heineken) are now starting to market cannabis-infused beverages in California and other states where recreational cannabis is legal.  Meanwhile, the more conservative segments of the alcohol industry, who are loath to associate themselves with something as controversial as cannabis, are likely going to be left behind as a result.

UPDATE:  As of October 2018, it also appears that after sitting on the sidelines for years now, Big Tobacco giant Altria Group (formerly known as Philip Morris) is considering a stake in Aphria, a Canadian cannabis company.  We strongly urge the cannabis industry to refrain from making such a Faustian bargain.

Latest Teen Brain and Cannabis Study More Smoke than Fire

The scary-sounding headline from a few weeks ago in USA Today reads, "Marijuana caused more damage to teens' brains than alcohol, study finds".  Yes, there was a study that claimed to find such results, but there is less here than meets the eye.

In other words, there's more smoke than fire.

The actual study itself is predictably behind a paywall, and we will not dignify such questionable research by paying for it, so we couldn't find the actual numbers and thus could not quantify any effect sizes or how long the reported effects lasted, but the abstract and several news articles summarize qualitatively the main findings.  The study, which involved nearly 4000 students from 7th through 10th grades in the greater Montreal area, longitudinally following them for those four years, asking questions about both alcohol and cannanis use and giving tests on memory and response inhibition.  Statistically significant correlations were noted between increased cannabis use and reduced performance on such tests, while interestingly for alcohol such correlations failed to reach statistical significance.

Again, no information about the size of such reported effects, and guess what?  SIZE MATTERS.  And so does duration.  Also, it say nothing about any such correlations beyond 10th grade, nor clearly distinguish between lighter and heavier use.  (The article did note that there were many more daily users of cannabis than alcohol, despite the fact that there were many more drinkers than tokers overall the sample.)  And it is very curious that the typically pro-21 mainstream scientific community are so willing to practically exonerate alcohol in such a study of teens--or perhaps they are simply alcohol supremacists.  And while the sample size and longitudinal nature of this study puts it head and shoulders about most other studies on the matter, given the aforementioned concerns it should still be viewed with caution in terms of causation.

Additionally, the study seems to be silent on the real "dark horse of drugs"--tobacco/nicotine.  Nicotine is a known neurotoxin, particularly during early adolescence, and is far more correlated with cannabis than alcohol use.  Thus, at least some of the reported effects in the study could in fact be due to tobacco, and/or perhaps other substances as well.

Keep in mind that the infamous 2012 study that reportedly found persistently reduced IQs among adults who used cannabis before age 18, was debunked by 2014 study that found no correlation between adolescent cannabis use and IQ or exam performance (though heavy use beginning before age 15 was associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16).  This latter study did control for tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other factors.  So it is very likely that soon another study will come a long and refute the first study discussed in this article, or perhaps find that any such effects are limited to the heaviest users, particularly those who began before age 15 or 16.  In fact, a 2018 systematic review of 69 studies of adolescent and young adult cannabis use and cognitive functioning found that reported adverse effects were much smaller in size than the prohibitionists like to claim, and generally tend to be temporary rather than permanent, even for frequent and/or heavy use.  And interestingly, no correlation with age of onset, though the mean age of study participants in these 69 studies was significantly higher than in the aforementioned Montreal study.

Other studies as well cast serious doubt on the scary claims of cannabis neurotoxicity as well, and most studies find weed safer than alcohol.

So what is the best takeaway from such studies?  It would seem that while occasional or moderate cannabis use is basically a non-problem, heavy and/or daily/near-daily use (unless medically necessary) should probably be avoided at any age, but particularly for people under 18 and especially under 15.  And while delaying the onset of use, or at least regular use, for as long as possible is probably wise for people under 18 and especially under 15, there is no hard scientific evidence that cannabis is any more harmful at 18 than it is as 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter.  Thus, there is no good reason to keep it illegal or set the age limit any higher than 18.  And even for people well under 18, the criminal law is still far too harsh a tool to apply to something like this that more likely than not turns out to be a non-problem.

O Cannabis! Canada Fully Legalizes Weed

Well, it's official.  Our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada, has now fully legalized cannabis effective today, October 17, 2018.  The actual law doing so, Bill C-45, was passed a few months ago in June, but officially goes into effect today.  That makes Canada the second country in the world (after Uruguay in 2014) to officially and fully legalize it nationwide.

The details vary from province to province, but cannabis is generally legal in all 13 Canadian provinces and territories now.  Age limits for purchase and possession are 18 or 19 depending on the province.  It will be the same as the drinking age, with the notable exception of Manitoba whose drinking age is 18 but whose toking age is 19, because reasons.  Thus, Alberta and Quebec will be 18 and everywhere else will be 19.  Not perfect, of course, but still WAY more progressive than the USA, in which only a fraction of the states have full legalization and all of such legalization states set the age limit at 21.  You know, kinda like the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age--which really needs to be lowered to 18 yesterday (along with the toking age as well).

Other advantages of the Canadian model of legalization include the fact that the prices/taxes of legal weed will be set low enough to undercut the black market, something that the legalization states in the USA still have yet to do.  This, combined with a lower age limit than the USA, would lead to the black market collapsing much sooner.  And once it is gone, it will be gone forever within a few years from now, and then prices/taxes can then be raised just high enough to discourage overconsumption without resurrecting that very same black market.

We can certainly learn a lot from our friendly neighbor to the north.  So what are waiting for?

How Iceland Can Save Their Tourism Sector

A decade after their legendary financial crisis and its aftermath, it seems that Iceland is in trouble again despite their miraculous recovery.  This time around, it is their tourism sector (which in fact was key to their recovery) that seems to be suffering now, cooling fast following a decade of explosive growth.  Banks, of course, seem to have learned their lesson after the banksters that caused the crisis were jailed rather than bailed out like in the USA.

The reasons for the decline in tourism are not entirely clear, but since tourism is such a large chunk of Iceland's economy, a large and sustained decline has the potential to be a serious problem in the long run.  So it would really behoove them to face this problem head-on before things deteriorate any further.

Two things immediately come to mind as potential solutions to reverse or at least slow the decline in tourism:  1) lower the drinking age to 18 (it is currently 20), and 2) abolish their youth curfew law, or at least stop enforcing it.  And 3) legalize weed as well for everyone over 18.  Problem solved.  Next.

As for their alcohol tax, since they have the most expensive alcohol in the world (at least double the price it is in the USA), they might want to cut it a bit for on-premise sales while perhaps hiking it for off-premise sales, as they are way on the "wrong" side of the Laffer curve, and are very prone to "pregaming" before going out to the bar.  Of course, cutting the alcohol tax too much would lead to adverse effects from an increase in excessive drinking (just look at the USA, for example), but there does seem to be such a thing as too high--and they are already there now.

Skal!

Teen Drinking Plummets Worldwide, Regardless of the Drinking Age

That is the biggest takeaway from the latest World Health Organization (WHO) study.   Since 2002, teen drinking has indeed plummeted worldwide, including the USA.  And lest the pro-21 crowd try to take any credit for this trend, keep in mind that this secular trend also occurred in other countries with drinking ages of 18 or even lower still.  The UK, for example, despite their legendary binge drinking culture and relatively loosely enforced (albeit more so than in the past) drinking age of 18, saw their rate of weekly teen drinking among boys decline from 50.3% to 10% by 2014, a relative drop of over 80% and one of the largest declines of any nation.  And British teen girls also saw a drop almost as large as well.

Both among teens and adults alike, gender gaps on drinking are also clearly narrowing.  The difference is that among teens, the convergence is primarily due to drinking more rapidly decreasing among males (while still dropping for both primary genders), whereas among adults, it is primarily due to an increase in drinking among females in many countries.  Let that sink in for a moment.

And as Twenty-One Debunked has noted before, another such notable example of this is Germany, whose drinking age is still 16 for beer and wine, and 18 for distilled spirits.  In fact, one can even drink at 14 in public when accompanied by a parent or guardian, and there is no age limit for drinking in private residences.  Such laws have essentially been in effect for as long as anyone can remember (with perhaps the notable exception of the Nazi era), so what were the results of maintaining them in recent decades?  From 1979 to 2016, the percentage of 12-17 year old Germans who drink at least weekly dropped from 25.4% to 10.0%, a relative drop of more than 60%.  For 18-25 year olds, the percentage dropped by nearly half during the same timeframe, and from 1973-2016 dropped from from two out of three (67.1%) to less than one out of three (30.7%).  These trends are comparable to if not faster than the corresponding figures for American youth.

In other words, consider this the final nail in the coffin for the specious claim that the 21 drinking age had anything more than a minor impact on overall teen or young adult drinking.  Prost!

The Banality of Evil

Why is it that, despite all of those who fight against raising the latest age limits, after losing the battle, most of them suddenly go quiet?  I mean, the silence is truly deafening, as we saw after they raised the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s as well as the smoking age to 21 in recent years in some states and localities.

The answer is the "banality of evil", that is, it becomes normalized.   Just like every other form of tyranny and oppression, most people simply adapt to it.  And that is very dangerous, as history has so painfully shown time and time again. History may not exactly repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

All the more reason to redouble our efforts, yesterday.  So what are we waiting for?

OK, Ageists, Here's A Modest Proposal Just For You (Part Deux)

In a previous post, we discussed the issue of age of consent for sex and the hypocrisy of ageists who tend to set it lower than the age of other "adult" rights and responsibilities.  We thought we should clarify our position a bit on this issue, noting that we do not really want to raise any such age limit higher than 18 in any case.  Rather all of the higher age limits than 18, such as the drinking age, should be lowered.

Yesterday.

For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not take a firm position on what the exact age of consent for sex should be, as the issue is far too fraught, nuanced, and beyond the scope of our organization.  But we do not think it should be abolished or drastically lowered from current levels (in the 16-18 range) as that would do far more harm than good overall.  Nor do we really think it should be raised any higher than 18.  But we do think there needs to be a close-in-age exemption (when one OR both partners is below the age limit) of four or even five years, and there is really no problem with reasonable age of consent laws that cannot be solved by such exemptions to these laws.

For example, consider the following actual law:

§ 61-8B-5. Sexual assault in the third degree.

(a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when:

(2) The person, being sixteen years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than sixteen years old and who is at least four years younger than the defendant....

Those are the exact, albeit abbreviated, words of West Virginia's law relating to age of consent, as noted on Wikipedia, and with the rather bizarre marriage exemption removed.  Thus, the age of consent in WV is 16, with a close-in-age exemption of four years.  And note that only people above the age of consent can be punished for violating this law.  Another section of this same law also prohibits a person over 14 from engaging in such sexual activity with a person under 12, thus setting a hard limit at 12 without punishing anyone under 14.

This is an example of a reasonable age of consent law, and we really ought to question the motives of anyone over 20 who thinks that such a law is too strict. Same goes for New Hampshire's more nuanced law, which also has an age of consent of 16, a four-year close-in-age exemption, and a hard minimum age of 13.

Think about it.

As for those who believe the age of consent should be raised to (or remain) 18 in a given state, one could simply adopt the same aforementioned law as written above, and add to it the following section or something similar:

(3) The person, being eighteen (18) years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than eighteen (18) years old and who is at least five years younger than the defendant, and is not married to the defendant.

And that would resolve essentially all of the problems associated with current age-of-consent laws even if as high as 18.  Unfortunately, not every state even has close-in-age exemptions at all, and some of those laws, such as California, effectively criminalize both parties if they are both under 18.  Such a thing is an absolute travesty, in dire need of reform.  Ditto for any other laws that are written too broadly or vaguely or that give judges way too much discretion as well.

And come to think of it, any marriage exemptions to such laws should also be removed, since that implies marriage below the age of consent is permissible.  And in many states it is, provided there is parental and/or judicial consent.  But what it really is in practice is a loophole to cover up abuse and coercion.  That said, existing marriages involving 16-17 year olds could be "grandfathered" as "valid but voidable" while the new laws only apply going forward.

As for commerical sex work, "survival sex", and cases where the older person is in a direct position of authority over the younger person, an addtional section can (and should) be added that sets the age limit higher than it would otherwise be (i.e. 18 rather than 16) and zero tolerance in regards to age gaps.  But these examples are the exceptions, and no reason for the general age of consent to be affected by such exceptions.  And we can also have graduated and enhanced penalties for very large age gaps (i.e. over 21 and under 14, over 18 and under 13, etc.) as well.

One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes.  As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct.  Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary.  At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.

Oh, and another thing.  The idea that a 17 year old sending a nude photo of him or herself to another 17 year old can be charged with "child pornography" under federal law and given a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in adult prison is absolutely unconsionable.  Let that sink in. And such a travesty is a sign that our country has gone completely insane.

Meanwhile, the real rapists and child molesters are out there flying under the radar, and are often hiding in plain sight right now as we speak.  Seriously.

Food for thought.