The Verdict Is In: Legalizing Weed STILL Does NOT Increase Crime Rates

Recently, the modern-day "Reefer Madness"-type alarmist yellow journalist Alex Berenson has been claiming that cannabis legalization has caused huge spikes in violent crime since 2014 in the states in which it has been legalized.  He then claims that such increases in crime are somehow causally linked to the effects of cannabis (particularly via the putative and controverisal link to psychosis), and therefore to legalization as well.   But both claims are in fact highly faulty and questionable at best:  1) plenty of states, not just legalization states, saw at least modest spikes in violent crime in 2015-2016, 2) violent crime now seems to be decreasing once again regardless of legalization, 3) 2014 is an arbitrary year to choose for the base year given the timing of legalization initiatives, 4) cannabis has never been causally and conclusively linked to violence, except perhaps inversely, and 5) and most importantly, correlation does not prove causation, as so many other variables come into play here.

In fact, the latest studies on the matter have confirmed what the TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked have kinda always known.  Legalizing weed does NOT seem to increase crime rates like the prohibitionists often claimed it would, and if anything, appears to decrease violent and property crimes a bit, as well as improve their clearance rates by police.  For example, researchers found this by comparing the border counties of Washington and Oregon, whose timing of legalization differed but were otherwise quite similar. But we could've told you that years ago, for those actually willing to listen.

The theory for how legalization of cannabis would reduce crime is fairly simple.  First, it frees up relatively scarce police and other resources that would otherwise be used to bust people for weed, and allows such resources to be put to more productive uses (i.e. targeting real crime rather than victimless crime).  Secondly, cannabis is basically a non-violent drug, and can often substitute for alcohol, which is often (rightly or wrongly) linked to violence to one degree or another.  Thirdly, there is the systemic aspect, the violence linked to the illicit drug trade itself, which would self-evidently decrease if not disappear upon legalization, at least with regard to the substance being legalized. And finally, victimless crime laws, especially widely unpopular ones like cannabis prohibition (and, of course, the 21 drinking age) erode respect for the law in general and also erode cooperation and cohesion between the police and the community.  Thus, it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how removing such illiberal and pharisaical laws from the books would tend to decrease crime in general.

What about the opposite theory?  Not the long-debunked one that cannabis per se actually causes violent and property crime (which is rather silly on its face, mind you), but the one that claims that cannabis prohibition is a useful crime-fighting tool for police?  Well, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding, and we really don't see any credible evidence of that on balance.  Any utility that such an abomination would have in that regard appears to be more than outweighed by its very real downsides, and thus we can consider that theory debunked as well.

(Cue the Law and Order DUN DUN sound effect.)

We need to legalize cannabis in all 50 states and all territories as well, yesterday, and lower the age limit to 18 as well, just like our neighbor to the north.  It is LONG overdue.  So what are we waiting for?

Reefer Madness Redux (Again) Is More Smoke Than Fire

Many years ago in 2011, the True Spirit of America Party wrote an article discussing the highly controversial and complex link between cannabis and psychosis.  Since then, many more studies have been done, and to this day the supposed link (as to whether or not it is a causal relationship) remains as clear as mud for the most part.  That, of course, does not stop the prohibitionist alarmists from harping on it as though it were certain--there is even a recent book (which can be easily debunked) titled Tell Your Children, which interestingly enough, was also the original working title for the 1936 film--wait for it--Reefer Madness.  What passes for discourse on the topic these days has come full circle, it seems.

The most recent study to date is a case in point.  The researchers examined 901 people aged 18-64 who experienced first-episode psychosis at a mental health facility, compared with a control group of 1200 people in 11 cities around the world.  While it still does not prove causation, it did find that 1) daily use of cannabis in general, 2) initiating use before age 15, and 3) use of high-potency cannabis (i.e. above 10% THC), especially when used daily, were correlated with a higher risk of having such psychotic episodes.

And while the three cities with greatest availability of high-potency weed (London, Paris, Amsterdam) had higher rates of psychosis, though this was cross-sectional and cannot establish temporality, a rather crucial criterion of causation.  And interestingly, psychosis rates were higher in London and Paris (where weed is illegal) than in Amsterdam (where it is quasi-legal), so the legal status of cannabis did not really appear to be an issue.  Moreover, it is not clear which is the proverbial chicken and which is the egg.

Paul Armentano of NORML wrote an excellent and in-depth article (with links to other studies) that does a great job debunking this latest round of Reefer Madness 2.0, and is certainly worth a read.  A shorter version can be found here as well.

Additionally, we at Twenty-One Debunked have previously reported on the emerging research suggesting that nicotine may be the real dark horse here in the etiology of psychosis and particularly schizophrenia.  And famously in Europe, particularly in those three aforementioned cities, cannabis is usually mixed with tobacco, especially when it is high-potency and users may wish to stretch it out by giving it some bulk. Though clearly a far less toxic and nicotine-free way to stretch it out is mixing with catnip or even parsley, or just do what most American tokers do:  smoke (or vape) the weed straight up without mixing, but simply take fewer hits, use bowls/bongs instead of joints, and/or seek out lower potency strains.  And in Australia, not mixing with tobacco is about as common as mixing.

And as we have noted time and again, the rates of cannabis use have increased dramatically since 1960 or so in nearly every country, while the best evidence suggests that psychosis rates have generally NOT increased since then.  Thus, any causal link with psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred would most likely be either weak, rare, or both, and thus likely limited to a very, very tiny percentage of the population who are unusually vulnerable and/or ultra-heavy users.  And while some already psychotic users may find exacerbations of their psychosis (or its effects may make a latent or subtle psychotic disorder more noticeable to themselves or others), others may use the herb to self-medicate as well, and everything in between.

Overall, this and other studies seem to be more smoke than fire, and even if causal they do not suggest that the hyperbolic "no safe level of exposure" theory is correct.  Rather, the biggest takeaway from this study is, if you do use cannabis, don't overdo it, particularly with the high-potency stuff.  In other words, moderation is the key.  And while age at first use was one of the lesser factors, delaying use until at least age 15 or older is likely prudent--not just for this reason but for other reasons as well.  And these studies do not really militate against legalization, but rather should be seen as encouraging legalization and proper regulation and taxation of cannabis based on THC and CBD levels.  Nor do these studies support setting the age limit any higher than 18 either (which of course will only encourage the black market to persist).  So we need to see the forest for the trees.

And thus we will finally have Reefer Sanity in this country for once.

UPDATE:  Be sure NOT to confuse THIS!

Latest Cannabis And Driving Study Suggests Mountain Meets Molehill, Again

A recent study in Germany on the effects of cannabis and driving should really put the fearmongers at ease for now.  This study using a driving simulator found that 1) driving impairment does not really correlate with blood THC levels, except above a threshold of >15 ng/mL in serum (roughly 7.5 ng/mL in whole blood), and 2) any impairment that does occur apparently dissipates and driving ability returns to baseline after a mere three hours following toking.

Of course, smoking very large quantities, or very high potency strains, and/or eating cannabis edibles, will undoubtedly lead to longer periods of greater impairment than observed in the study.  But as a general rule, the results of the study make sense.

Thus, zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of cannabis, as well as setting an arbitrary per se blood THC limit analogous to alcohol, appear to be unjustified.  That is not to say that a reasonable prima facie blood THC limit (i.e. above which creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt) is bad--Colorado currently sets theirs at 5 ng/mL--but setting it too low or rigidly per se would punish far too many non-impaired drivers.  And there is no evidence that zero-tolerance or per se limits for THC actually save lives.

Of course, this is not to suggest that driving stoned is a good idea or without risk.  But driving under the influence of cannabis alone is less risky than driving under the influence of alcohol, and the often hysterical fears of prohibitionists are largely unwarranted, while legalization advocates are unsurprisingly vindicated once again.

Remember:  "when in doubt, wait it out."

Community Pubs: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

It is no secret that social cohesion in the USA has declined, and loneliness and social isolation had increased, since the 1980s.  While there are likely many causes, the 21 drinking age certainly doesn't help, since it only divides people that much more.  It along with the resulting age segregation forces drinking underground for people under 21, making it more dangerous than it has to be, while artificially dividing 18-20 year olds from people over 21.

Enter a fairly new (old) idea that is currently growing on the other side of the pond in the UK, where the drinking age is 18--community pubs.  While for decades pubs have been closing across the UK, particularly in rural areas, community pubs (which are community-owned cooperatives rather than privately-owned corporations or sole proprietorships) have grown over 30% and have had a 100% survival rate in recent years.  After all pubs in Britain are more than just places to eat and drink--they are important community gathering locations often central to people's sense of place and identity.  They can potentially offer a very wide range of services to the larger community.  And such community pubs can thus help reduce loneliness and social isolation while improving social cohesion, for all ages and demographic groups.

It would be great if this trend were to spread to the USA as well.  Though it is a good idea regardless of the drinking age, for best results the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and all ages should be allowed to be present in the pub for at least the bulk if not all of its opening hours.  The less age segregation (in any sense) there is in such places, the better.

Contrary to what many believe, liberty and community are NOT opposites, and need not be at odds with each other at all.  That is a 19th century Big Lie that needs to be put to rest for good. 

So what are we waiting for?

New Federal Cannabis Legalization Bill Actually Has A Chance of Passing

There is a new cannabis legalization bill in Congress, sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, and it is actually numbered S.420, in a not-so-subtle nod to cannabis culture.  The bill would 1) officially remove cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances completely, thus allowing it to be sold in states where it is legal while barring its sale in the states where it is still illegal, 2) tax cannabis at the federal level like alcohol and tobacco, and 3) otherwise regulate it similarly to alcohol at the federal level.  And it actually has a significant chance of passing, in what is currently by far the most cannabis-friendly Congress in all of US history since the famously hemp-growing Founding Fathers.  And now with Jeff Sessions out of the way, with enough persuasion the Donald might even sign it, being quite the wildcard that he is.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

And unlike the ill-fated and problematic STATES Act, which effectively would have set a federal age limit of 21 for weed, S.420 is silent on the age issue, essentially leaving it up to the states.  Kinda like with alcohol, minus the infamous National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 of course.  And while S.420 is not quite as good and comprehensive as the Marijuana Justice Act would be, it is certainly a great start and seriously needs to be passed yesterday.

So what are we waiting for?  It is LONG overdue. And while we are at it, the legalization states should also lower the toking age to 18 yesterday as well.

We Already Know How To Reduce Teen Smoking and Vaping Without Raising Age To 21--So What Are We Waiting For?

A recent study in the medical journal Pediatrics only confirms what Twenty-One Debunked has been saying all along.   That is, tougher enforcement of the minimum sales age limit of 18, directed at vendors, does in fact lead to lower smoking as well as vaping rates among teens, and these lower usage rates apparently persist even after such youth reach the legal age to buy such products.

In this study, the proxy for tougher vendor enforcement was the grade (A through F) by the American Lung Association (ALA) on the strength of the local tobacco retail licensing (TRL) laws in the jurisdictions studied.  Strong TRL laws imply more frequent retail compliance checks with decoys, since such laws require licensing fees that make the program self-funding, and fines and penalties for violations such as failed compliance checks.  This in turn would lead to higher retailer compliance rates in adhering to the age limits for sales, and thus reduced access for youth below the age limit.  The study looked at various localities in California, in January-June 2014 and again in January 2015 through June 2016, while the age limit was still 18.

Unsurprisingly, jurisdictions with a grade of A (strong) for their TRL laws indeed had much lower teen smoking and vaping prevalence rates in the surveys compared to those with grades of D or F (weak).  At the same time, the ALA grades given for other local tobacco control laws (such as smoke-free laws) in place at the time did not seem to have much if any effect on youth smoking and vaping prevalence rates, and were statistically insignificant.

Thus, even though teens can still often manage to get cigarettes and such from their older friends and relatives (i.e. social sources), the net effect of restricted retail availability to people under 18 is significantly and persistently lower youth smoking and vaping rates.  Apparently generosity has its limits, and any forbidden fruit effect (reactance theory) of the age limit itself is outweighed in practice by greatly reduced access and convenience when retail compliance rates are very high, especially for younger and/or less mobile teens.  For example, if one in five retailers is willing to sell to people under 18, that is still pretty easy to get, but if only one in 20 retailers is willing to do so, that becomes very inconvenient to acquire and sustain a habit, especially in towns with only a few retail outlets.  Remember, a license to sell temptation goods like cigarettes and alcohol is practically a license to print money, and retailers would not want to jeopardize that by breaking the law when the law is strictly enforced with swift and certain sanctions for violations.

And while cigarette taxes were not studied here, since there would not have been within-state local variation in taxes, one should note that an older landmark study found that the two most important predictors of teen smoking rates over time (inversely) were 1) tax/price, and 2) retailer compliance rates.  This was particularly true for daily smoking rates.

Such results dovetail nicely with those of the famous studies of Woodridge, IL and Leominster, MA, in the 1990s that found that sustained tougher enforcement directed at vendors greatly reduces youth smoking rates without having to raise the age limit any higher than 18, and without having to involve the criminal justice system at all.  Now if only such logic would be applied to alcohol and cannabis as well.

And lest anyone claim that this would not apply to alcohol with a drinking age of 18, keep in mind that this is precisely what happened in the UK with both alcohol and tobacco upon implementing increased retail enforcement combined with higher tax rates on both substances.  So what are we waiting for?

To Governor Cuomo: Do NOT Raise Smoking Age to 21!

Dear Governor Cuomo,

First, we at Twenty-One Debunked, and I personally as a New Yorker, would like to thank you for supporting cannabis legalization, albeit with some nuance.  We also would like to thank you for standing up to Trump whenever possible thus far.

That said, we at Twenty-One Debunked simply cannot get behind your recent proposal to raise the age limit for tobacco and vaping devices from 18 to 21.  We believe it is an unnecessarily ageist policy to set the age limit any higher than the current age of majority, which is 18 in New York.  Thus, first and foremost, we oppose such a policy on principle--just as we feel the same way about the drinking age and the soon to be legal toking age as well.

And while there are already several counties, including NYC and its entire "backyard", such as Westchester County where I live, that have raised the smoking and vaping age to 21, there is really no hard evidence that it reduces youth smoking rates compared to keeping it 18.  The same goes for other states and localities that have raised their age limits in recent years.  In fact, to the extent that it makes vaping devices harder for 18-20 year olds to get, it could easily steer current vapers back to smoking, which would clearly not be good for public health.

So what can be done instead to further reduce already low and falling smoking rates for both youth and adults?

• Tobacco taxes can of course be hiked further, though in New York they are already the highest in the nation, and even higher still in NYC.  And there is already quite a black market for contraband cigarettes now.  
• The current age limit of 18 can of course be more vigorously enforced, as there is still room for improvement in terms of retailer compliance rates.
• Limit and reduce the number and density of outlets that sell tobacco products (for example, your plan to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies).
• Build on NYC's already successful smoking cessation program, with free nicotine patches and gum available for all smokers who wish to quit.
• Advertising restrictions to the greatest extent that the US Constitution will allow.
• Counter-advertising, such as the Truth campaign, has been shown to work wonders in other states like Florida and California.
• Consider phasing down the maximum allowable nicotine content of cigarettes to a non-addictive level.
• For e-cigarettes, cap the nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels (JUUL, we're looking at YOU).

Thus, we ask that you please reconsider your support for the 21 age limit for tobacco and vaping, and we hope you will realize that keeping it 18 is the right thing to do.

Sincerely,
Ajax the Great, Twenty-One Debunked

Cannabis Legalization Taking Major Bite Out Of Drug Cartels

With more and more states legalizing cannabis each year, it sure seems to be taking a major bite out of drug cartels and other criminal elements that once had such a massive grip on the illicit cannabis trade.  A recent study found that seizures of weed at the US-Mexico border have plummeted by a whopping 78% from FY 2013 through FY 2018, showing that legalization is far more effective than any border wall could ever be in stemming the flow of drug smuggling across the border.  (By the way, they build tunnels under the walls/fences that already exist).

Now if only all 50 states would do the same and legalize cannabis yesterday, along with the federal government as well.

What's New For 2019?

The dreadful year of 2018 has come and gone.  The drinking age remains 21 in all 50 states and DC, the toking age remains 21 in the increasing number of states that legalized cannabis, and Tobacco 21 laws have continued to spread further (though it seems like their spread is decelerating a bit).  Thus, our "18 in '18" campaign failed miserably.  So what will become of 2019?

It remains to be seen what 2019 will be like, but we must redouble our efforts this year and never give up.  Remember, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.

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.  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 don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.  Seriously.  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 Kids Are (Mostly) Alright in 2018

According to the latest Monitoring the Future results for 2018, it was mostly good news.  The use of most substances is down or unchanged compared with 2017 among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, including alcohol and combustible tobacco which are currently at record lows.  The opioid epidemic still does not seem to be engulfing teens the way it has for their elders--opioids are also down among teens.   And most notably, cannabis use did NOT increase in spite of increasingly widespread legalization, decriminalization, and medicalization in more and more states--and paired with the recent sharp decline in teen drinking, one could even argue that cannabis may be displacing alcohol a bit.

The bad news?  The second wave of the teen vaping surge from late 2017 through 2018 (after dropping from its previous peak in 2015 to a lower level in 2017) does in fact seem to be real.  And there was no similar increase in adult vaping at that time, in contrast to previous years.  But for that, we can thank the mainstream media and the FDA for fanning the flames of moral panic over teen vaping, which was probably the best (and free!) advertising that JUUL could ever possibly dream of.  And, of course, JUUL's unusually high nicotine content as well.  And, we repeat, teen smoking has continued to drop to a new record low.  As for the increase in vaping cannabis, that does not seem to have led to an overall increase in cannabis use, but rather a displacement of smoking weed to vaping it instead, much like was the case with tobacco from 2011-2017.

There's No Benefit To The 21 Drinking Age

We need to tell the truth and see the forest for the trees.  There is literally NO overarching net benefit to society in setting the drinking age so ridiculously high at 21.  Zip, zilch, nada.  At least compared with a properly enforced drinking age of 18.

The 21 drinking age has been the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, and that is no exaggeration.  As the the famous Miron and Tetelbaum study has shown, the specious notion that the 21 drinking age saves lives was really just a mirage all along, and that was not the only study to reach this conclusion either.  This ageist abomination also appears to have only a minor impact on teen drinking, small enough to be accounted for by increased underreporting in surveys, while forcing alcohol underground only makes it far more dangerous than it has to be.

And plenty of other countries have seen massive decreases in both teen drinking as well as traffic fatalities without raising the drinking age to 21.  That includes our neighbor to the north, despite being a car culture like the USA.  Ditto for the UK, which had historically been even more of a drink-to-get-drunk culture than the USA.  Ditto for Australia, also historically a car culture and drink-to-get-drunk culture.  Even Germany, with a drinking age of 16 for beer and wine and 18 for distilled spirits, has seen such progress.  Now that really says something.

So what actually does work to reduce alcohol-related harms for all ages?   We have known the answer for decades now, and it's really not rocket science:

• Increasing alcohol taxes, or otherwise increasing the price of alcoholic beverages
• Restricting alcohol outlet density and/or trading hours (albeit with some nuance)
• Cracking down on drunk driving, drunk violence, and drunk and disorderly conduct
• Improving educational intiatives
• Improving access to treatment

All of these are far more effective, and in many cases cost-effective, than the 21 drinking age and other dubious measures.  As for young people specifically, there is nothing that the 21 drinking age can accomplish that cannot also be replicated with a drinking age or purchase age of 18 that is strictly enforced on vendors.  The British experience with both alcohol and tobacco, as well as the American experience with tobacco, illustrates that very well.  Ditto for Puerto Rico.  This is especially true when paired with an alcohol tax hike, particularly on beer.

"But America is different", you say.  "Americans can't handle a lower drinking age", you say, even if the rest of the world can.  Hey, would you like to be a bit more specific as to exactly why Americans are somehow inferior to our European, British, Canadian, Australian, etc. counterparts that would justify such a ridiculously high drinking age?  Thought so.  And by the way, the logical conclusion to such a specious argument would be to bring back Prohibition for ALL ages, not just people under 21.  Think about it.

Thus, there is no good reason to keep the drinking age any higher than the age of majority.  And in most states, that age is 18.  If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.

Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do

A few years ago, Twenty-One Debunked had a segment called "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do" (TUDDD), to highlight some off the outrageous misbehavior that over-21 drinkers have done recently.  We decided to bring it back.  In the past week or two:

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into a school bus in Massachusetts, injuring many adults and children.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly and belligerently threaten other passengers and crew on an airplane, causing the flight to be diverted.

An underage drinker did NOT kill one passenger and injure several others, including the other driver, in a DUI crash in Santa Ana, CA.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly run over a pedestrian in a parking lot with a pickup truck, landing her in the hospital.

An underage drinker did NOT kill both of his passengers in a DUI crash, himself walking away unscathed, in rural Mendocino County, CA.

An underage drinker did NOT get so incredibly wasted that she literally crashed into a house, injuring a child in that house.

An underage drinker did NOT get sloshed, tried to give her 10 year old daughter and 8 year old son bourbon, had stabby thoughts, asked her daughter to get a knife so they "would all die together", then grabbed and threw her son on the bed before she (luckily) passed out before anyone was killed.

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg.  But hey, at least they were over 21, right?  Move along, nothing to see here folks...

No Increase In Stoned Driving In Canada Despite Cannabis Legalization

Cannabis has been legal in Canada for everyone over 18 (or 19, depending on the province) since October 17, 2018, and yet a month later there has still been no noticeable increase in stoned driving and related crashes according to police.  While it may still be too soon to tell, that is still very encouraging news that takes much of the wind out the sails of both prohibitionists and ageists alike.

This adds to the growing body of evidence that legalization of cannabis was not a disaster after all, and that there is no good reason to set the age limit any higher than 18.  Food for thought indeed. 

About That Tobacco Endgame Strategy

With all the fanfare about the FDA's crackdown on vaping, and then menthol cigarettes on the horizon as well, they have also been quietly mulling over another initiative since at least July 2017 if not earlier:  reducing the nicotine content of manufactured combustible cigarettes to a minimally addictive or non-addictive level.  This is something that Twenty-One Debunked has long discussed, and has generally supported, since 2013.  And it truly has the potential to be a game-changer.

However, Twenty-One Debunked also feels that there is a right way to do so, as well one or more wrong ways to do so.  Currently, as several anti-smoking groups caught wind of the FDA's still-tentative proposal, they have been making recommendations on how to do it--mostly in the direction of the wrong ways.  As for the right way, Twenty-One Debunked recommends the following:

• Phase the nicotine content limit down to 0.4 mg/g gradually rather than immediately, over of a period of at least one year but no more than five years.
• If decided to implement in a single step, have a delay of at least six months to a year between finalization of the rule and the effective date.
• Allow existing non-compliant inventories to be sold, applying the nicotine limits only to products manufactured or imported after the effective date of such limits.
• Exempt large cigars, defined by size or weight of tobacco, as well as pipe tobacco (which can be defined as having an alkaline pH that is a bit harder to inhale).  While still addictive and harmful, the tobacco epidemic is not driven by these products.
• And of course, exempt smokeless tobacco.
• For vape products, cap nicotine levels at current European and Israeli levels (but no lower).  Note that nearly all brands, with the notable exception of JUUL, would already be compliant.
• And of course, DO NOT raise the age limit for any of these products any higher than 18.  Ever.  Period. 

Why?  Because any quicker or stricter than the above would be practically begging for a black market and its attendant externalities, and can backfire royally.  And we really need that like a hole in the head.

Rather, we should think of manufactured combustible cigarettes and little cigars the same way we did with A19 incandescent lightbulbs effective 2014.  Did we really end up missing those?  Was there ever a black market for those?  Gee, I wonder why.   And now, four years later, the cost of LED bulbs has plummeted so much, to the tune of 90%, that they are now available in Dollar Tree and similar dollar stores.

Gradually and gingerly is the best way to do it.  And any fears of harmful compensatory behavior (i.e. puffing harder and deeper, and/or smoking more cigarettes) during the relatively brief phasedown period can be rendered moot by simply raising the federal cigarette tax a bit again, if we must.

Food for thought indeed.

Has the Tobacco 21 Movement Already Crested?

The ignoble experiment to raise the legal drinking age to 21 in the 1980s has generated much controversy despite the political and media pseudo-consensus favoring it, and we at Twenty-One Debunked have, well, debunked it time and again.  Of course, the data from the 1970s and 1980s on which nearly all drinking age studies are based are now quite outdated, as the USA is almost a completely different country now.  So what if there was a way to re-run this same natural experiment today?

Well, it turns out that there is, albeit with a different psychoactive substance:  Tobacco 21 laws have proliferated since 2012 and especially since 2015, mostly at the local level but increasingly at the state level as well (with Massachusetts being the most recent one to do so).  And what were the results?  A big nothing in terms of teen smoking rates, basically.  There has been essentially no hard evidence that there was any sort of correlation between a state's or locality's tobacco age limit vs. their teen smoking (or vaping) rate, period, regardless of whether it was 18 or 21 (or, less commonly, 19).  Thus, raising the age limit from 18 to 21 has been an unnecessarily ageist endeavor, and one can thus easily extrapolate these results to alcohol and cannabis going forward as well.

True, from 2013 to 2017, there was a massive drop in teen and young adult smoking.  But that was more likely due to the explosion of vaping during that time than any other factor, and happened in states in localities that kept their age limits at 18 all along as well as those who raised them.  Which, by the way, also debunks the laughable idea that vaping is somehow a "gateway" to combustible cigarettes--if anything, raising the age limit for e-cigarettes/vapes may even steer young people back towards combustible cigarettes according to some studies.

As for Chicago's supposed success story in terms of reduced smoking rates in the first year after hiking their age limit to 21 in 2016, note that Chicago also recently hiked their cigarette tax as well, to make their cigarettes some of the most expensive in the nation.  Pennsylvania also hiked their own cigarette tax while leaving their age limit at 18, and if anything Philadelphia has seen more progress in reducing teen smoking than Chicago from 2013-2017 according to the YRBSS.  Thus, no causal link has been proven.

And while the Tobacco 21 movement luurrrves to gloat about their very first victory in the Boston suburb of Needham, MA, they conveniently ignore another Boston suburb, Cohasset, where teen tobacco use actually increased in the year following enactment of their own local Tobacco 21 law.

Some may dismiss the relevance of tobacco age limits to alcohol (or cannabis), of course, but keep in mind that just a few years ago, Tobacco 21 advocates actually predicted that raising the age limit for tobacco to 21 would be more effective that raising the drinking age to 21 was in the 1980s.  Tobacco is far more addictive, which in economic terms means that while the short-run elasticity is lower than for alcohol (or cannabis), the long-run elasticity is higher than for these other substances.  And easy access to a daily or almost daily source is thought to be far more important for tobacco as well.  Thus, the failure of Tobacco 21 laws to have any meaningful impact on teen and young adult smoking rates would also apply a fortiori to alcohol and cannabis as well.

The Tobacco 21 movement now seems to be running out of steam, as their initial euphoria pinned on irrational exuberance is fading fast.  This year, only one state raised their smoking age to 21, compared with three states last year and two states in 2016, and fewer localities have changed their laws this year as well.  The momentum is almost completely gone now.

And the fact that Big Tobacco has now recently jumped on the Tobacco 21 bandwagon (yes, really), after at least feigning opposition at first, shows that the movement has jumped the proverbial shark, and is now tainted as well.  Strike three, yer out!

2018 is almost over, and the current 2010s decade is also almost over as well.  Let this be the time now to flush the idea of the 21 age limit (for any age-resticted product) down the toilet for good with all of the other dumb things from this despicable decade.

Americans Still Drinking Themselves To Death

With all the news about tobacco, vaping, opioids, and cannabis lately, Twenty-One Debunked had almost forgotten about the very substance that led us to our founding in the first place: alcohol.  And the news about alcohol these days is hardly anything rosy:  Americans are still drinking themselves to death, at an alarming and increasing rate.  And yet, such very bad news (among adults) is strangely banal and often seen as not particularly newsworthy.  As we like to say, it is our country's "pink elephant in the room".

Teen drinking specifically may be at or close to a record low now, as it is in many other countries as well, but the tragic truth is that Americans in general are currently drowning in the bottom of the bottle and paying a heavy price for it.

According to a recent article, there are indeed several proven strategies that can be implemented at federal, state, and local levels to help stem the tide and get a handle on America's drinking problem.  We KNOW how to do it, and have known for decades now.  And while they may not necessarily get at all of the deepest root causes, they are still known to work quite well in the meantime regardless:

• Raising alcohol taxes
• Restricting the number/density of alcohol outlets and/or the hours/days of sale
• Improving access to treatment
• Bolstering coping skills

And while the first two get the most "bang for the buck" in terms of cost-effectiveness, they are unfortunately a relatively tough sell in some places.  Nevertheless, all four of these strategies should be implemented yesterday--if only our "leaders" would have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Notice also that there was no mention of the 21 drinking age in the article.  And that is probably because after maintaining such ridiculous and ageist laws in all 50 states and DC for at least three decades now, the supposed benefits of such laws are ringing more hollow than ever.  And if anything, it is becoming increasingly crystal clear now that the 21 drinking age is doing more harm than good by merely forcing young adult drinking underground and kicking the proverbial can down the road.

We Know Who To Thank For The "Epidemic" In Teen Vaping (Fearmongers, We're Looking At YOU!)

The FDA found that, according to new 2018 survey data, vaping is up nearly 80% (78%) from 2017 among high school students and up nearly 50% (48%) among middle school students.  Previously, teen vaping had increased 900% from 2011-2015 (while also displacing combustible cigarette smoking which is now at a record low, mind you), dropped slightly in 2016, and held steady in 2017 before this much more recent increase in 2018 that is believed to be driven by flavored vapes, particularly the JUUL brand which didn't really catch on until late 2017.

The recently announced FDA restrictions, in which flavored vapes (other than mint, menthol, and tobacco) will no longer be sold in stores unless those stores prohibit the entrance of people under 18, are largely a reaction to such data.   But let's look at the sequence of events here:  despite JUUL being founded in 2015, it is unlikely that many people had ever even heard of JUUL until the fearmongering mainstream  media's moral panic began in 2017, providing the very best (and free!) advertising that JUUL could ever possibly dream of.  Thus, we all know who to thank for that--fearmongers, we're looking at YOU!

If they really want to reverse this media-induced deviancy amplification spiral, the best thing for the media and the FDA is to simply STFU now that the new regulations are a foregone conclusion.  Also, reducing the maximum nicotine content of vape products (JUUL is apparently unusually high) down to European and Israeli levels would also make it less likely that young experimenters would get hooked.  But of course, that would make too much sense.

FDA and New York Take Aim at Flavored Vapes

After much saber-rattling with JUUL and other leading vape manufacturers, the FDA now plans to ban the sale of most flavored vape products (except mint and menthol) in retail stores and gas stations to reduce availability to young people.   Flavored vapes would only be allowed to be sold in vape shops and tobacco shops, and online sites with strict age verification measures.  New York State plans to go even further, banning the sale of flavored vapes entirely, much like San Francisco has already done.

Oh, and the FDA also apparently wants to ban menthol combustible cigarettes as well, because they are believed to be harder to quit than non-menthols (though that is probably due to their generally higher nicotine content, the harsher taste of which is masked by the menthol).  All other flavors have already been banned as of 2009.  This particular ban, however, will likely take much longer to finalize and longer still before it is actually enforced.

Twenty-One Debunked has mixed feelings about these bans.  On the one hand, they are in some ways still better than hiking the age limit to 21, and there is some truth to the idea that fruity flavors may make nicotine-containing vapes seem more benign than they actually are, increasing the likelihood of accidental addiction among young people.  On the other hand, these bans, though modest, can also be a slippery slope and even perhaps a boon to Big Tobacco.  So while we do not oppose these bans, we are still a bit wary about them nonetheless.

What would probably have the largest effect in terms of reducing the number of young people getting hooked on vaping is capping the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels.  Over there, JUUL reduced their nicotine content so they can be sold in those markets, and such products remain effective smoking cessation devices with a somewhat lower likelihood of accidental addiction happening quickly  among young experimenters.  Meanwhile, in the USA, there is a joke that the unusually high-nicotine JUUL products sold here are kinda like the horror film The Ring: you will get hooked in seven days.  Not really far off the mark.

The best thing to stop the "epidemic" of teen vaping, of course, is to stop fanning the flames of moral panic.  After such modest bans like the ones discussed above are in place, hopefully the mainstream media will finally STFU about this supposed "epidemic".

UPDATE:  On November 13, 2018, JUUL announced that they will no longer restock any orders to retailers for any flavored vape pods other than tobacco or menthol, and will only continue selling them online to people 21 and older, and will also end all social media promotions as well.  So it looks like 18-20 year old vapers who prefer such flavors will need to stock up very fast at their local stores before they run out.

And as of November 15, the FDA will go ahead and pursue the aforementioned regulations.  The new regulations may not be fully implemented for months in the case of flavored vapes, and years in the case of menthol combustible cigarettes, but are essentially a foregone conclusion now.  Flavored vapes, except for mint, menthol, and tobacco, will only be sold in stores that do not allow people under 18 to enter or have separate sections that disallow people under 18. 

Thus, in their zeal to pre-empt regulators, it looks like JUUL is being unnecessarily ageist towards 18-20 year olds.  And why can't JUUL just offer a nicotine-free option for pods, and reduce their sky-high nicotine content in their current ones to European levels?

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.

Is Teen Cannabis Use Really on the Rise?

The same FDA chief that has been freaking out over a supposed teen vaping "epidemic" (that is far more molehill than mountain, by the way), Scott Gottlieb, is now also freaking out about teen cannabis use and how it relates to legalization.   In fact, he says he is now more worried about weed than vaping, which really says something.  But is there any truth to his fears, particularly the idea that teen cannabis use is on the rise as a result of both medical and recreational legalization in more and more states?

The answer is apparently, not really.  California is practically ground-zero for both medical and recreational legalization, and their survey actually shows a decrease in teen cannabis use, particularly in the younger grades, from 2013-2015 to 2015-2017 despite medical legalization in 1996, expanded decriminalization in 2011, and recreational legalization via Prop 64 in November 2016.  And while the national Monitoring the Future survey showed a slight increase in teen use in 2017 compared with 2016, it had been previously dropping from 2011 to 2016 despite more and more states liberalizing their pot laws during that time.  Some epidemic, huh?  NOT.

In other words, there is no increase in teen cannabis use that can be unambiguously linked to legalization.  And teen use is still far below its 1978-1979 and 1997 peaks, with no indication that it will even come close.  Thus, another myth bites the dust.  Plus, alcohol, tobacco, and most other substances are at or close to record lows among middle and high schoolers, while the opioid epidemic rages among American adults along with the "pink elephant in the room".  So stop freaking out already, and see the forest for the trees.

UPDATE:  In terms of problematic use of cannabis, a new study finds that the legal status of cannabis is essentially irrelevant.  While that particular study focused on adults, it dovetails rather nicely with another study from last year finding no increase on problematic cannabis use among 12-17 year olds following the passage of legalization.  Thus, it looks like the legalization advocates were indeed correct all along, that legalization would result in modest increases in adult use, and negligible increases (or even decreases) in teen use or abuse at any age.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it!