More Proof That Curfews Don't Really 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.

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.  Preliminary data from the first half of 2020 put the per capita homicide rate in the USA at a 15 year high (highest since 2005), and the second half of the year may turn out to be even worse still, possibly even the highest since the late 1990s. And of course, plenty of rioting as well.  Even mass shootings and hate crimes are up as well, and if the first three months of 2021 are any indication, this very ugly trend unfortunately may not subside anytime soon, and alas may very well persist well after all such restrictions are finally lifted.

Even the supposedly good news about reported rapes being down in the first half of 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.  We will ultimately see when the 2020 survey results for NCVS and NISVS are released, either later in 2021 or even as late as 2022.

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.

QED

Our Position on Parental Notification

With the recent kerfuffle in New Jersey regarding their long-overdue cannabis legalization, particularly regarding parental notification for underage possession offenders under 21, we at Twenty-One Debunked thus see a need to clarify our position on parental notification for underage possession consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.  We believe the age limit for all three should be 18 and not a day later (i.e. the Alberta Model), and regardless of the age limit we believe the following as well:

• For anyone over 18, parental notification should be prohibited, period, as 18 is the legal age of majority.  Why this is even the least bit controversial is truly mind-boggling.
• For anyone under 18, parental notification should NOT be mandatory, but rather should be discretionary, at least for first offenses of simple possession.  Even for subsequent offenses, there should still be nuance and proportionality.
• For younger teens/tweens under 15 or 16, parental notification may very well be the preferable go-to option in many cases, but for older teens it should be regarded as more of a "nuclear" option for serious or repeat offenders.
• Underage possession/consumption per se should be decriminalized.  That is, it should bypass the criminal justice system entirely, and should carry no arrest, no jail time, and no criminal record.  Rather, the penalties (if any) should include only a verbal or written warning, a modest civil fine (i.e. a parking or traffic-style ticket), a brief educational course, and/or confiscation of the contraband items.
• Any more serious penalties should be reserved solely for more serious and/or flagrant offenses that go beyond simple possession or sharing among peers, such as when impaired driving, violence, vandalism, theft, trespassing, obstructing traffic, disturbing the peace, and/or disorderly conduct is involved.  For ALL ages.  (Note that most of these are arrestable offenses.)
• No one should lose their driver's license for any non-driving related infractions.
• Rather than disproportionately targeting young people themselves, there should be a much greater focus on adults over 18 who sell or furnish such substances to people under 18, especially when there is a large age difference between the furnisher and furnishee.

None of these should be controversial at all.  If you honestly think these are extremist positions, you seriously need to have your head examined!

Clarification of Our Position on Cannabis

For years now, Twenty-One Debunked (along with its parent organization, the True Spirit of America Party or TSAP), has supported the full legalization of cannabis (marijuana, reefer, pot, herb, ganja, etc.) for all Americans over 18 years of age, period.  Our position for adult-use legalization is roughly the same as NORML's, with the differences highlighted in red from the otherwise cut-and-paste from the below:

Adult-Use

The TSAP supports the removal of all penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults over 18, including cultivation for personal use, and casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts. TSAP also advocates for the creation of a legal and regulatory framework for marijuana’s production and retail sale to adults over 18.

Core Attributes of Adult Access Regulations

Adults ought to have the legal option to cultivate personal use quantities of marijuana in private residences

The TSAP supports the right of individuals to grow their own cannabis as an alternative to purchasing it from licensed retail producers, and maintains that provisions permitting this behavior should be codified in adult use access laws. maintains that the inclusion of legislative provisions protecting the non-commercial home cultivation of cannabis serves as leverage to assure the product available at retail outlets is high quality, safe and affordable. Additionally, permitting home cultivation provides adult consumers with an immediate source of cannabis — providing an alternative to the illicit market. Such a source is necessary because it typically takes state regulators several months, or even years, following the law’s enactment to establish licensed retail operators.

At present, most adult use laws permit this behavior and there exists no compelling state interest to infringe upon it. State regulations governing the alcohol market permit adults the option to legally brew non-commercial quantities of their own alcohol, and it is consistent with this policy to similarly permit home cultivation.

Taxes imposed on either the commercial production or retail sales of cannabis must not be excessive

The commercial production and retail sale of recreational cannabis in legal jurisdictions is presently subject to both excise taxes and sales taxes, similar to many other commercial goods. The taxation of these goods remains popular with elected officials as well with the general public — particularly among those who do not personally use cannabis, but view the plant’s legalization positively as an alternative source of state revenue. The imposition of fair and reasonable taxes on these commercial activities generates support from members of the public who may otherwise show little interest in cannabis law reform. Revenue from retail marijuana taxes is currently being used to fundschool construction and other popular programs in various states, as well as to offset administrative and regulatory costs associated with adult use regulatory programs.

Such taxation ought not to apply to non-commercial activities involving cannabis, such as home cultivation or cannabis gifting. Most importantly, taxation on commercial activities should not be so excessive that it incentivizes consumers to obtain cannabis from the illicit or grey market. Studies show that most consumers are comfortable paying a premium price for cannabis available legally at retail stores (up to approximately $14 per gram), but warn that excessive pricing due to heavy taxation induces consumers to return to the illegal market.

Regulators should not inadvertently create undue barriers of entry for those seeking to participate in the legal adult use marketplace

African Americans and other minorities have historically been disproportionately targeted and adversely impacted by cannabis criminalization. This lack of equity must not persist in an environment where adult use cannabis production and sales are legally regulated.

In order to provide for inclusiveness within the legal industry, regulators should strive to impose nominal to low application fees in order to encourage participation from formerly disenfranchised populations. Further, regulations must not prohibit those with prior criminal records for past violations from seeking to activity participate in the legal marketplace.

NOTE:  Excessive licensing fees are far worse than excessive taxes.  Not only are they more harmful to such businesses, but they can actually paradoxically encourage the few businesses that do get ahead to push their products even harder on the masses to recoup their losses, as has been found with alcohol license fees going back to the 19th century.  At least taxes, when properly structured per unit, reduce excessive consumption on balance.

The enactment of adult use access regulations ought not to amend or override existing medical use access laws

Laws and regulations governing medical cannabis access to qualified patients exist in a majority of US states. TSAP acknowledges that the medical cannabis market and the recreational cannabis market are not necessarily one and the same, and that individual consumers of these markets may possess needs that differ from one another.

For instance, patients may require access to a wider array of products, as well as to products of higher cannabinoid potency (e.g., concentrates), than do those consuming cannabis for recreational purposes. Further, many patients require a consistent supply of cannabis to mitigate chronic conditions, and therefore they should not necessarily be subject to the same sort of taxes, fees, or possession limits that are imposed upon those accessing the adult use market.

Cannabis products sold at retail must be subject to third-party testing in order to assure product quality

Cannabis flower sold at retail must be subject to third-party testing in order to assure that the product is free from unwanted contaminants, such as molds or pesticides. Testing of cannabis and/or cannabis infused products must further identify the precise presence of individual cannabinoids (such as THC and CBD) and terpene content, and such information must be prominently displayed on the products’ label. Such testing and labeling ensures that adult consumers have consistent access to a standardized product and have the information necessary to make an informed decision prior to purchase.

Adult use laws ought to include provisions facilitating the automatic review of past criminal records and for the expungement of those records in instances where the past behavior is no longer classified as a criminal offense

Millions of Americans, a disproportionate percentage of whom are young people and minorities, have been subject to a marijuana-related arrests and criminal conviction.

Branding these individuals, many of whom are at an age when they are just beginning their professional careers, as lifelong criminals results in a litany of lost opportunities including the potential loss of employment, housing, voting rights, professional licensing, and student aid and serves no legitimate societal purpose. The imposition of such lifelong penalties is even more punitive in instances where the criminal conviction is related to behavior or activities that have since been legalized and regulated.

In the interest of justice and fairness, TSAP maintains that adult use legalization policies must include legislative provisions to facilitate an automatic review of prior criminal records and also include a mechanism to allow for the expungement of such records in instances where the activity is no longer defined as criminal under state law. Some states, like California, already provide for this type of relief, and national polling finds that a supermajority of registered voters support the imposition of policies of sealing and/or expunging the criminal records of those formerly convicted of marijuana-related offenses in now-legal states.

The public use of marijuana in non-designated areas ought to be a violation

The use of cannabis products in public, non-designated spaces (e.g., parks, city streets) ought to be discouraged and penalized via the imposition of civil fines. In addition, regulators should take steps to provide a framework for the allowance of designated social use spaces (e.g., licensed social clubs) whereby adults would have the option to legally consume cannabis outside of their home. Such private spaces would be ideal for visiting tourists and others (such as those tenants who rent in buildings where cannabis use is not permitted), and ideally would reduce the likelihood of adults consuming cannabis in non-designated public spaces.

Some jurisdictions may choose to allow cannabis to be smoked anywhere tobacco is allowed to be smoked, with some exceptions either way, and we would be fine with that as well.  Ideally, such rules would be determined at the local (or even hyper-local) level.

Adult use laws ought to include provisions prohibiting employers from discriminating against workers in the practices of either hiring or firing solely because their off-the-job cannabis use

Contrary to the fears of critics, changes in the legal status of cannabis have not been associated with any significant adverse effects on workplace safety and, overall, off-the-job marijuana use has not been statistically associated with increased occupational accidents or injuries – as per the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and others. While cannabis use either prior to or while at work ought not to be accommodated by employers, TSAP advocates that policies which impose sanctions for those who are legally engaged in the use of cannabis off-the-job away from work are discriminatory and ought to be discouraged. As long as one’s off-the-job cannabis use does not impede one’s on-the-job performance, such behavior should be of no concern to employers.

Adult use laws should not contain any provisions amending existing traffic safety laws in a manner that impose arbitrary and non-scientific per se thresholds for the presence of either THC or its metabolite in a driver’s blood or urine

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance is defined as illegal behavior in all 50 states. Amending the illicit status of cannabis under state law does not change this fact. It remains just as illicit to drive under the influence of cannabis post-legalization as it is before legalization.

Most states prosecute drugged driving using an ‘effect based’ standard. This means that in order to gain a drugged driving conviction, law enforcement officials and prosecutors must establish 1) that a motorist recently ingested a controlled substance and 2) that his or her driving behavior was impaired by this substance.

The TSAP ideally supports the enforcement of ‘effect-based’ standards, and has opined for additional tools and resources – such as the use of modified Field Sobriety Testing and the training of additional Drug Recognition Evaluators – to assure that such laws are sufficiently enforced.

By contrast, lawmakers ought to oppose the imposition of proposed per se thresholds, which make it a criminal violation to operate a vehicle with the trace presence of either THC or its inactive metabolite above an arbitrary level in one’s blood or urine. These latter policies are not evidence based and are opposed by the majority of experts in the scientific and traffic safety community, including the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the American Automobile Association. This is because, unlike the case with alcohol, maximal levels of either THC or carboxy-THC are not consistently associated with the impairment of psychomotor performance. In addition, residual levels of THC and its metabolite may be detectable for weeks or even months following past consumption – well beyond any reasonable expectation of driver impairment. Consequently, the enforcement of these strict liability standards risks inappropriately convicting unimpaired subjects of traffic safety violations, including those persons who are consuming cannabis legally in accordance with state statutes.

As additional states consider amending their marijuana possession laws, lawmakers would be advised to consider legislative and regulatory approaches to address concerns over DUI cannabis behavior that do not rely on solely on the presence of THC or its metabolites in blood or urine as determinants of guilt in a court of law. Otherwise, the imposition of traffic safety laws may inadvertently become a criminal mechanism for law enforcement and prosecutors to punish those who have engage in legally protected behavior and who have not posed any actionable traffic safety threat.

The TSAP does, however, support the use of prima facie thresholds (e.g. 5 ng/mL) for THC as an alternative to per se thresholds.  Colorado's law is a current example.

We also do support rational, science based per se thresholds (when possible) for psychoactive substances other than cannabis or alcohol, as well as enhanced penalties for driving under the combined influence of alcohol and cannabis, alcohol and other drugs, and/or cannabis plus other drugs.

Those under the age of 21 18 who possess personal use amounts of cannabis ought to be subject to civil sanctions rather than a criminal arrest

Studies from legal states have determined that marijuana-related arrests fall significantly for adults over 21 post-legalization, but that many under 21 (including 18-20 year old young adults) continue to face criminal arrest for marijuana-related activities despite no significant increase in marijuana use by teenagers. These arrests of young people can potentially result in a lifelong criminal record, as well as the stigmatization and loss opportunities that accompany it (such as the loss of student financial aid and issues finding gainful employment). TSAP believes that youth marijuana use and access ought to be discouraged, but also believes that the harms of a criminal arrest carry significant adverse consequences. Therefore, TSAP supports lowering the age limit to 18 as well as provisions decriminalizing low-level marijuana possession offenses by certain youth offenders under 18.  In such cases, violators would at most face modest civil fines or have the option of other non-criminal sanctions (e.g., participation in a drug education class at no cost to the offender), but would be spared from a criminal arrest and criminal record.  (Some states/localities already do/did this with tobacco, so there is a model to follow.)

(Where it originally read "NORML" it has been replaced by TSAP.)

Fair Use Notice:  The above excerpt constitutes "fair use" as commonly understood, and is intended to criticize and comment on the work being referenced.

Our positions on medical cannabis and industrial hemp are practically identical to NORML's as well.

Operation Rovin' Eyes

It has been a while since Twenty-One Debunked has explored in-depth solutions to the perennial and persistent scourge of drunk driving.  Today we build on what we have learned and what we have advocated since our founding in 2009.

Enter "Operation Rovin' Eyes", an idea that combines roving patrols (saturation police patrols against DUI), citizen ride-alongs, and reality TV.  Decades of research shows that roving patrols work very well at both deterring and catching impaired drivers, with or without sobriety checkpoints.  We believe that combining them with ride-alongs will further enhance the effectiveness.  Be sure to check the back roads too, and areas that are known for lots of parties and such.  And if televised, it would also make a great reality TV show as well, even better than COPS.

(The song "Roving Gangster" by Kid Rock would be a good theme song for such a show.)

Another thing that can be added to this is "Operation Fish in a Barrel", in which a police car is parked outside a bar or club, and the officer(s) watch for signs of intoxication, and waits for the drunk patrons to get to their cars.  Then there are two possible tactics.  One is to intercept the would-be drunk driver before they put the keys in the ignition, and give them a verbal warning and a free ride home.  The other is to wait until after they put the keys in the ignition, and then proceed to bust them for DUI.  Either way, they are getting these ticking time bombs off the road for the time being, before they get on the road.  And that would of course save countless lives.

(NOTE to non-American readers:  in some countries outside the USA, such as Canada, you can still get a DUI even if you have the keys in your pocket and you are within a certain distance from the vehicle.)

And of course, this would be an excellent complement to lowering the drinking age to 18.

So what are we waiting for?

21 in '21, Alas

Not only did "18 in '18" (i.e. lowering the drinking age to 18 in 2018) NOT become a reality, but worse, the federal smoking age is now 21 in 2021 (and in fact in 2020 too).  And not only did Trump turn out to be unfriendly to our movement, but our new President Biden has also had a history of opposing lowering the drinking age to 18 and also supporting the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs as well.  So we really have our work cut out for us, with our battle being more uphill than anytime since the 1980s.

And while cannabis legalization fortunately looks like it is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and will most likely increase further going forward, unfortunately here too the age limit is unlikely to drop below 21 anytime soon either in the USA.

While these may seem like low-priority issues in the time of COVID-19, they are nonetheless the essence of our movement.  No one is truly free when others are oppressed, and indeed the stage was set long ago for today's oppressive lockdowns and restrictions by earlier illiberal policies including, but not limited to, the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.

So what are we waiting for?  Let's roll!

A Long Overdue Idea Whose Time Has Come: Vitamin-Enriched Alcohol

With the pathophysiology of the dreaded COVID-19 (including Long COVID) now looking increasingly linked to nutritional deficiencies, including but not limited to thiamine (Vitamin B1), all while America is drowning in the bottom of a bottle, it underscores a fortiori the urgency of adding vitamins to alcoholic beverages.  Various foods are fortified with thiamine and other nutrients, but not alcohol despite it being one of the lowest-hanging fruit ways to prevent such a deficiency resulting in beriberi, "wet brain" (Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome), and likely a good chunk of what is being labeled as COVID-19 today.

(Of note, thiamine is, along with intravenous Vitamin C and a corticosteroid, in fact a key component of the time-tested MATH+ protocol for hospitalized patients from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.  That combination was most likely inspired by a much older, pre-COVID protocol known as HAT therapy, often used for sepsis and septic shock.)

Americans seem to think that thiamine deficiency was eradicated long ago, but the truth is that it still exists to this very day, and not trivially either.  The average American in fact eats and drinks lots of thiamine blockers/depletors or anti-nutrients, such as sugar, refined carbohydrates, coffee, tea, some OTC and prescription drugs, and, of course, alcohol.  Especially now during the pandemic under varying degrees of panic, quarantine, isolation, and lockdown, with all the stress, anxiety, boredom, and gnawing loneliness they create.  Lack of sunlight exposure from staying indoors also adds Vitamin D deficiency to this mix.  And this ubiquitous "anxiety/isolation/vitamin deprivation syndrome", as vitamin guru Bill Sardi would call it, only worsens actual viral infections and can even in the absence of the virus cause "pseudo-infections" with rather similar symptoms as COVID, that can fool even the very best of physicians.

This is not the first time that beriberi, "the great masquerader", was confused with a viral infection, and certainly is not the first time it (and other nutritional deficiencies) increased susceptibility to and exacerbated an actual one either.  But if we really wanted to, we could ensure that it will be the last.

And the saddest thing about this situation is that (unlike a wild virus which is largely out of our control, despite illusions to the contrary) such vitamin deficiency is easily 100% preventable, yet it is still occurring due to politics and lack of empathy.

Thus, one of the lowest-hanging fruit measures to improve public health is to fortify alcoholic beverages with thiamine (Vitamin B1) and perhaps other vitamins known to be depleted by alcohol such as niacin (B3) and folate (B9).  This can be done very easily through targeted tax incentives for alcohol manufacturers to add such vitamins to their products.  Anti-alcohol advocates of course may not be the biggest fans of such an idea, since they lobbied against it back in the late 1970s when the idea was first floated.  (They tend to reflexively dislike and oppose anything that makes alcohol look even remotely good or healthy.)  But since they were strange bedfellows with the alcohol industry on this issue, it follows that using tax incentives to sweeten the deal for the industry, combined with some good old-fashioned ridicule for the opposition, would effectively triangulate the dry lobby's silly and paternalistic opposition to such a promising (and rather libertarian) public health measure.

Fortifying coffee, tea, and soft drinks with such B vitamins should also be next, and also joining Canada and the Nordic countries by fortifying various staple foods like flour and bread with Vitamin D as well. 

So what are we waiting for?  Let's dust off and put this 40+ year old idea to good use, yesterday!

ADDENDUM: TB or not TB? That is the question, since a good chunk of what is being labeled as COVID may actually be tuberculosis, and that was in fact suspected back in March if not earlier.  A highly contagious, airborne, nasty, and deadly bacterial lung infection, TB can quite easily be confused with an influenza or coronavirus infection, and millions of Americans are thought to have latent (dormant) TB right now (and before the pandemic), just waiting to be reactivated by nutritional deficiencies and the stress/isolation of lockdown.  Interestingly, the BCG vaccine against TB also seems to work well against COVID as well.  And the good news is that Vitamin D, along with Vitamin C, thiamine, and niacin, can apparently block that disease as well.

Have A Safe And Happy Holiday Season

(This is a public service announcement)

It is that time of year again when the holidays are upon us, and many of us Americans (and around the world) will be celebrating with alcohol and/or other substances, even if they are doing it rather differently this year for obvious reasons.  We at Twenty-One Debunked would like to remind everyone to be safe and celebrate responsibly.  There is absolutely no excuse for drunk driving at any age, period.  We cannot stress this enough.  It's very simple--if you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive.  It's really not rocket science, folks.  And there are numerous ways to avoid mixing the two.  Designate a sober driver, take a cab, use public transportation, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or stay home and celebrate there.  Or simply don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.  Seriously, don't be stupid about it!  And the same goes for other psychoactive substances as well, and a fortiori when combined with alcohol.

ARRIVE ALIVE, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!!   If you plan to drink, don't forget to think!  The life you save may very well be your own.

The Logical Conclusion Of Social Host Liability Laws

We at Twenty-One Debunked have a long history of opposing the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age and all of its ancillary laws, especially social host liability laws where hosts are liable for any harm that guests cause after leaving the premises after consuming alcohol, DUI or otherwise.  We have always considered such laws to be an affront to personal liberty and especially its flip side, personal responsibility, and also believe that such laws have a chilling effect on social interactions and community in general.  Even if these laws briefly had some merit at one time, that train has long since left the station.

And now, just like we predicted but did not say out loud for fear of giving the authoritarians any ideas, some mainstream news outlets are claiming that, in Canada of all places, the same logic can be applied to hosts whose guests inadvertently contract COVID on their premises.  Of course, the legal basis for this assertion is flimsy at best, never been tested, and it is practically impossible to prove who gave such a widespread virus to whom.  But alas the Overton window has a way of shifting unexpectedly, as we have learned repeatedly, and new precedents can be conjured out of thin air at least for a time.  

And clearly the authors of this idea seem to be inspired by social host liability for alcohol, as they mention such laws almost in the same breath as well.  They should really be careful what they wish for!  Especially in our notoriously overly litigious society, much more than Canada.  What next, how about if the guest goes on to infect someone who infects someone who infects someone who dies and/or (in the USA) gets a six or seven figure hospital bill?  How many degrees of separation before the host is no longer liable?  What about the flu or other infections?  Slopes are indeed much slipperier than they appear.

Such nascent precedents must absolutely be rejected and nipped in the bud before they begin, lest there be a permanent chilling effect on social interaction well beyond the end of the pandemic, with massive collateral damage.  The end of socialization portends the end of civilization, after all.  And any judge who enforces them needs to be removed from the bench at once, forever.  (At the very, very least!)

Interestingly, even for alcohol, the only two countries that have social host liability are the USA and Canada.  Even countries that have more of a "brother's keeper" and communitarian ethic simply do not have such laws or precedents.  One could argue that the USA in particular needs such laws to keep our hyper-individualism in check, but that is a circular argument and begging the question.  Kinda like, you know, the 21 drinking age itself.

The Cruise Ship Solution For Herd Immunity

Or, "How To Turn Super-Spreaders into Super-Resistors"

It's a bit late in the game, but as they say, hindsight is 2020, pun intended.  

What if way back in March 2020, instead of imposing destructive and counterproductive lockdowns and mass quarantines, and grounding all cruise ships, we instead eschewed lockdowns, kept everything open, and actually offered totally FREE cruises (food and alcohol included) to anyone between the ages of 18-24 and perhaps even 25-34 year olds as well (but no one else) with no serious underlying conditions?  And if we also had the drinking age (and smoking/toking ages) on those cruises be set at 18 instead of 21?

Those are, of course, the age groups who are among the least likely to suffer severe illness or die from COVID-19, yet due to their high level of social connectedness (and of course partying) they are the most likely to spread it to others.  Giving them the chance to voluntarily take themselves "out of circulation" at sea for just a few months from the general population and far away from older and more vulnerable people (who are up to hundreds of times more likely to die from the virus) would speed up the inevitable transition to "herd immunity" while simultaneously protecting the vulnerable.

And for the love of all that is good, we should certainly NOT have closed colleges and kicked out the students, sending them home to go infect their parents and grandparents!  Maybe very briefly cancelling in-person classes, and isolating those students who were actually sick, but that's about it.  Otherwise, treat it like a flu or norovirus outbreak.

Net result is a much shorter pandemic and far fewer deaths, for a fraction of the cost of what we have been doing since March.  And without the massive collateral damage of lockdowns either.  Especially if we also recommended and provided everyone with the best treatment and prophylaxis (see here) that we know now would have worked wonders.

Again, hindsight is 2020.

What Do Lockdowns And The 21 Drinking Age Have In Common? (Part Deux)

Turns out, quite a lot in fact.

Both COVID-19 lockdowns and the 21 drinking age  were first implemented in a moment of panic during a deadly crisis--coronavirus in the first case, drunk driving in the second.  While neither were sold as miracles at first, they were indeed sold as ways to mitigate, or in the lingua franca of 2020, "flatten the curve" by at least slowing down the crises and hopefully save lives in the process.   Delay the peak of coronavirus cases and protect the hospitals from collapse, we were told.  Delay legal access to drinking alcohol until 21 and protect young people and those they share the road with until they are a bit more mature, we were told.  And of course in both cases, the more zealous of the enthusiasts sold it as a suppression strategy or even an eradication strategy rather than merely mitigation--if only they could make up their minds.  The message was we could either give up some of our rights temporarily or all of our rights permanently, or at least that we had a moral duty to give up some of our rights lest we have unacceptably high death rates in both cases.  And we had to act NOW, or else.  No time to think it through, our brains must go into neutral for the time being.  After all, the models can't be wrong, can they?

And then once these measures were firmly in place for a while, relatively speaking, their enthusiasts seamlessly moved the goalposts.  Now it was no longer about preventing hospitals from collapsing (which generally didn't happen anywhere outside of Lombardy, Italy regardless of whether a country did a lockdown or not) or keeping a massive excess of blood off of the Demolition Derby-style highways, but rather about "saving lives at any cost" (as long as someone else pays it, of course) and with the 21 drinking age more recently about protecting "developing brains from damage" and other social-engineering goals.  And then there is the "blood borders" phenomenon both with the virus as well as DUI.  Thus the enthusiasts of both now wanted to extend these measures indefinitely, with the fear of all hell breaking loose if these restrictions are ever relaxed before a vaccine (for the virus) or better public transit and self-driving cars (for DUI)--but in the latter case they still have the pseudo-neuroscience argument to fall back on as well.  By design, there is no exit strategy.  And many people have been reluctant to support ending such policies since they fear blood on their hands if they do, making these policies politically a LOT harder to get out of than to get into.

The supposed effectiveness of lockdowns (compared to far less extreme restrictions) in terms of slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus has been called into serious question lately by more recent studies.
Such studies have found there is at best no correlation, and perhaps a perverse effect between the two defining features of hard lockdowns (stay-home orders and closures of all non-essential businesses) and COVID-19 cases and deaths per capita after other factors such as less-extreme policies are accounted for.  The benefits are thus nothing more than a statistical mirage that does not stand up to scrutiny--much like the supposed benefits of the 21 drinking age vis-a-vis DUI deaths in the long run.

So what happened?  Turns out that in the case of both, the early adopters did fare better overall, at least at first, though many non-adopters did at least as good if not better in terms of reducing death rates by using far more moderate measures.  But for the belated and/or coerced adopters, both lockdowns and MLDA 21 turned out to be worse than useless, essentially pouring gasoline on the fire after the train has already left the station, and with plenty of collateral damage.  And while the book has not yet been completely written on the coronavirus pandemic saga, for the 21 drinking age we see even for the early adopters, the benefits were short-lived, and really ended up just delaying deaths by a few years, both from one cohort to the one one behind it, as well shifting deaths from the 18-20 group to the 21-24 group, possibly even resulting in a net increase in deaths in the long run.  Much like how for lockdowns, at best they delay some deaths by a few weeks compared to more moderate measures even when done early, at great cost to the economy and society.

Meanwhile, the collateral damage of lockdowns (economic depression, unemployment, inequality, poverty, alcohol and other drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, loneliness, poor mental health, delayed medical treatment, etc.), which also kills people too by the way, continues to mount with each passing week of lockdown, making an utter mockery of practically all progressive and even basic humanitarian priorities.  For the 21 drinking age, this collateral damage has resulted in forcing alcohol use underground and making it far more dangerous than it has to be, and people being reluctant to call 911 in the event of alcohol overdoses and injuries, and that maims and kills people too.  And for both, that's to say nothing of the damage to civil rights and liberties, culture, and community cohesion, that progressives would generally support.

As for protecting the most vulnerable members of society, we have seen this movie enough times to know how it ends, and it doesn't end well.  Both measures are far too crude to do actually protect them, and sadly but unsurprisingly, both have failed miserably in that regard.  Which is usually the case with such "blunt" policy instruments in general.  We know who the highest-risk groups are.  Thus, a more "focused protection" strategy in both instances is thus called for, provided that it still respects human rights.

And now in November 2020, eight months later, we are now seeing that the countries in Europe that locked down the hardest in the spring are now seeing the largest second waves in the fall, while Sweden and Belarus are barely even seeing any second wave at all, at least in terms of deaths and hospitalizations.  Thus, even more rapidly-mounting evidence that lockdowns at best merely postpone the inevitable, and at worst pour gasoline on the fire.

In other words, even when done early and enthusiastically, there is no short or long term benefit that cannot be had by more moderate measures done early and enthusiastically.  And in the long run, especially when done after the proverbial horse has bolted, the "cure" quickly becomes far worse than the disease.  And when we look at the control group--that is, those jurisdictions who did not take such measures at all--the case for both collapses.

Let America be America Again.  And end both bad policies yesterday, as both have by now long outlived their usefulness.  What are we waiting for?