It's Not Just JUUL: The (Un-)American Vaping Association (And Trump) Also Throws Young Adults Under The Bus

As Trump announced the other day that his administration is looking at, among other things, raising the federal age limit for vaping products from 18 to 21 (which would require an act of Congress), the president of the American Vaping Association, Gregory Conley announced that he (and by extension, his trade group) openly supported the move as an alternative to prohibition.  Such a stance of regulatory appeasement by throwing 18-20 year old young adults under the bus to protect the vaping industry is cowardly at best, and will ultimately backfire as well.

And it is also all the more nonsensical given how the mysterious vaping lung illness that is sweeping the nation is driven primarily by black-market or counterfeit THC cartridges, not legal and legitimate nicotine vapes, and literally on the same day it was announced that they found further confirmatory evidence that the additive Vitamin E Acetate in the rogue THC cartridges is most likely the main culprit in causing this illness.  It is basically a thick, greasy oil that was NEVER meant to be inhaled, and can cause lipoid pneumonia when one does so.  Though likely other additives or contaminants could be causing it as well, such as cadmium fumes from the jankier vape devices themselves, since not all cases are consistent with lipoid pneumonia, and may be cadmium pneumonitis or metal fume fever instead.  And the Trump trade war with China may have led companies to shift to the use of cheaper and lower-quality devices and cartridges from 2018 onwards, ironically.

Thus, we at Twenty-One Debunked hereby excommunicate the American Vaping Association, just as we already did with the quislings at JUUL Labs.  And we can also add Trump 45 to the list as well now.  May their names and memory be forever blotted out.

The Needham, Massachusetts "Miracle", Debunked

Remember when Needham, Massachusetts made history in 2005 by being the first place in the USA to raise the age limit for tobacco to 21 in modern times?  And how the propoents of Tobacco 21 laws used them as an example of how successful such laws supposedly are at reducing teen smoking?  Well, a new article came out that thoroughly debunks that claim.  Scratch that, it debones, slices, dices, and juliennes it, and lays waste to its remains for good.

From 2006 to 2010 (the original study curiously did not include data before 2006), Needham did indeed see a faster drop in smoking rates among high school students compared to surrounding communities which kept the age limit at 18.  But from 2010 to 2012, the reverse was true: surrounding communities that kept it at 18 began to see faster declines in teen smoking rates than Needham.  This inconvenient fact was acknowledged buried in the original study (that went up to 2012) used to sing the praises of Tobacco 21, so it was not simply an oversight by the authors.  And according to the publicly available data that can be gleaned from schools in the surrounding communities, by 2014 the pattern reversed entirely, with the neighboring towns seeing larger net declines in teen smoking (59 to 77% drop) than Needham (40% drop) since 2006.  Hardly miraculous.  And by 2016, we see that some of these other towns raised the tobacco age limit to 21, but without seeing any further decrease in teen smoking (in fact, they saw a slight increase from 2014 to 2016).  If that's "success", we'd really hate to see what failure looks like.

So what explains the short-term success in the first few years in Needham?  Well, it could simply be have been a real but short-lived (and hollow) effect of the policy, just as Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) saw with the 21 drinking age versus traffic fatalities in the 1980s, with the effect being fairly small, dissipating after the first year or two before rebounding later, and further limited to the early-adopting states only (while in the later-adopting, coerced states, it actually had a perverse effect, or at best no effect).  But Needham also increased their enforcement on vendors dramatically, and also had at least some other tobacco laws that surrounding communities lacked.  And the percentage of smokers under 18 who bought their own cigarettes from stores also declined in Needham but not in the other neighboring towns.

Thus, it is very likely that the early decline in teen smoking would have been just as large if not larger had they simply kept the age limit at 18 but stepped up enforcement all the same, ceteris paribus.

Indeed, one should note that Woodridge, Illinois saw a similarly large drop in teen smoking in an even shorter timeframe (just two years) from 1989 to 1991 while keeping the smoking age at 18.  Leominster, MA also saw a drop almost as large from 1989 to 1991 as well.  And NYC, who raised their age limit from 18 to 21 (with no grandfather clause) in 2014, did NOT see teen smoking rates drop any faster than in the nation as a whole from 2013 to 2015.  Thus, the most parsimonious explanation is that Needham's (short) success story was primarily (if not entirely) due to increased vendor enforcement interacting with secular trends, and not the raising of the age limit itself.  In any case, it turned out to be a promise built on sand all along, if not a total statistical mirage.

Tobacco 21 laws, just like the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age, clearly belong on the trash heap of history.  And this is the final nail in the coffin.

One Year Later, Canada's Black Market For Cannabis Still Won't Die Quickly

One year after Canada's cannabis legalization went into effect on October 17, 2018, the black market still seems to be alive and well.  This is despite rather modest taxation of legal weed, and the fact that the age limit is 18 or 19 depending on the province, as opposed to 21 in the US states that have full legalization.  So what gives?

Apparently, there are chronic shortages of the herb throughout Canada that persist to this day, with the legal stores often selling out too quickly, and the black market dealers seem to have no difficulty filling the gap, and cheaper.  Why is this happening?  Well, it is clearly not due to any real scarcity, but the artificial scarcity of overregulation.  Most provinces only allow it at government-run stores which are few and far between, while the few privately-run ones are also few and far between due to a limited number of licenses.  The rollout of legal weed has been painfully and deliberately slow so as not to offend the public-health crowd too much, and they did not even sell edibles, beverages, or hashish yet (until this month, October 2019, a whole year after phase-one of legalization began).  So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this would create shortages for illicit dealers to fill, as per the basic iron laws of supply and demand.

Thus, Canada's black market is due to somewhat different reasons (i.e. excessive federal and provincial overregulation causing chronic shortages) than the USA's black market (excessively high age limits and taxes, and a state-by-state patchwork quilt approach in the absence of federal legalization).  Either way, lessons should be learned from both countries.

Best thing for Canada to do?  Accelerate phase-two of legalization yesterday, as it is long overdue.  Consider a tax holiday for a few months, like Oregon did when legalization began there.  Ease up a bit on licensing regulations (and fees) for both producers and retailers.  Allow at least all liquor stores to sell weed alongside their booze, and further consider allowing any store that sells cigarettes to also sell weed as well.  And those provinces that set the age limit at 19 (including Manitoba, despite their drinking and tobacco smoking age being 18) should lower their age limits to 18.  Encourage current black market dealers to "go legit".  And once these things are done, then crack down on the black market.  Problem solved.

Of course, once the black market is dead and gone, then by all means, tax away.  But now is not the time for overtaxation or overregulation.

Remember, there is really no good reason why cannabis needs to be regulated any more stringently than alcohol or tobacco.  After all, while it is not completely harmless for everyone, the fact remains that by just about any objective, rational, scientific measure, cannabis is safer than alcohol, tobacco, most prescription drugs, aspirin, and even Tylenol, while it is less addictive than coffee.   Thus our laws and regulations need to align accurately with reality, since facts > feelings, even in a "post-truth" society.

On the plus side, after a year of legalization the fears of increased carnage on the highways from stoned drivers and stuff like that apparently did not materialize in Canada.  Or any other dire problem for that matter.  But we could have told you that long ago.