The Smoking Gun? Not Exactly

A recent preliminary study from earlier this year by Catherine Orr et al. seems to be stirring the pot, so to speak.  Adding fuel to the already volatile tinderbox of moral panic around teen cannabis use, this study using brain scans appears to find brain changes in 14 year olds who have used cannabis only once or twice, compared with those who have never used it.  Specifically, those who had used it once or twice showed increased gray matter in various brain regions relative to those who did not, which, counterintuitively, suggests a disruption of the normal "pruning" process that occurs during adolescence (or something).  And of course, the MSM predictably just took it and ran with it.

Of course, correlation is not the same as causation, and there are still reasons to be skeptical of the findings and practical significance:

• The sample size was small:  46 people in each group.  Thus, very sensitive to potential selection bias, reporting bias, and confounding.  (Apparently from a larger brain study of over 2000 people, they could only find 47 individuals who had only tried cannabis once or twice by that age, and one had an inconclusive scan.)
• Another way that size matters is "effect size".  And while the numbers are difficult to interpret, they are also on the small side.
• Some underreporting of cannabis (and other substance) use is always very likely, and can skew results in either direction depending on what is being underreported and by whom.
• Temporality of the initial findings remains unclear (i.e. which occurred first?).
• No other study has ever found long-lasting brain changes from a single dose or two of cannabis, at least not in humans.  And no one has ever replicated these findings yet.
• Previous studies have been quite inconsistent in terms of the effects (or lack thereof) of cannabis use, even regular use, on brain structure, function, and cognition.  Some studies found increases in gray matter, others decreases, still others null.  Ditto for white matter as well.
• Given how the participants were European, it is particularly difficult to disentangle cannabis and tobacco use as the two substances are customarily mixed.  This is important because nicotine is a known neurotoxin to which the early adolescent brain appears to be exquisitely sensitive.
• The study apparently did not look at the brain effects of those who used cannabis but did not initiate until age 15 or older, so even if the effects are real, they may not necessarily be generalizable to people over 15.
• The practical significance of the findings is clear as mud right now.  Even the researchers aren't entirely sure what they mean.  Is it actually bad to have more gray matter, and compared to what exactly?  Is it disrupted brain development, or simply stimulated and enhanced neurogenesis?
• While greater gray matter in the study was correlated with differences in psychomotor performance contemporaneously for whatever reason, the only bad thing correlated with it two years later was generalized anxiety.  No other measures of psychopathology or performance were correlated at baseline or two years later.
• Come to think of it, if these 14 year olds were followed up two years later, why were their brains not scanned again a second time at 16, especially since there admittedly were many who were cannabis-naive at 14 who went on to use it two years later?
• And frankly, it really doesn't even pass the straight face test that a mere single dose or two of such a relatively mild psychoactive substance would be enough cause a long-lasting disruption to brain development, a process that occurs over several years.  To quote Paracelsus, "the dose makes the poison".  That, and Occam's Razor too.

Of course, the cliche that "more research is needed" certainly applies here, and the researchers indeed say as much.  They also plan to do a follow-up study as well in the near future.  Though if history is any indication, we should not hold our breath waiting for these results to be replicated.

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.

The prohibitionist "scientists" and their pal-reviewers really seem to be grasping at straws now.  Apparently they think if they move the goalposts enough, they will score a touchdown.  But as we all know, that is not how science really works.

Cannabis Legalization NOT Associated With Increased Teen Use

After several years of recreational cannabis legalization in several states, on the heels of up to over two decades of medical cannabis legalization in even more states, a recent study once again puts the lie to the prohibitionist claim that legalization would result in increased teen use of cannabis among other things in their supposed parade of horribles.  In fact, the study found that recreational legalization for adults was found to be correlated with a significant decrease in both overall and frequent teen use, while medical-only legalization was not significantly correlated with teen use at all either way.  Thus, the study completely lays waste to one of the prohibitionists' strongest arguments.  So consider that perennial zombie lie dead as a doornail for good.

That said, Twenty-One Debunked, in living up to our name, would be remiss if we did not note that so far, all states that have legalized weed for recreational use thus far have set the age limit at 21 (in contrast to Canada, where it is 18 or 19 depending on the province, or Uruguay and the Netherlands, where it is 18) and the study only looked at the USA.  But given that 1) medical legalization laws (which were not correlated with teen use) generally set the age limit at 18 in the absence of parental consent and often have loopholes, and 2) other countries that set lower age limits have thus far not reported a significant jump in teen use in recent years, and 3) America's experience thus far with changes in the drinking and tobacco smoking ages, one can conclude that an age limit of 18 for recreational use in the USA is unlikely to increase teen use relative to either prohibition or a 21 age limit.  Thus, no good reason to set it higher than 18.

The Overton Window Has Shifted, And Not In A Good Way

With more and more states raising their smoking ages to 21 (and the federal government likely to follow very soon), along with a burgeoning movement to raise the "juvenile" injustice age to 20 or 21 (or perhaps even higher), one can conclude that the Overton window is currently shifting in the wrong direction.  That is, it is becoming increasingly politically acceptable to raise age limits higher than 18, while lowering age limits is becoming increasingly unacceptable these days.   And both corporate duopoly parties in government today seem to be equally affected/infected by this virulently ageist and illiberal trend towards higher and higher age limits.

Clearly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the odds of us successfully lowering the drinking age (and toking age) to 18 anywhere in the the USA have really never been lower than they are now.  Even the possible silver lining of a new showdown between the feds and states is exceeedingly unlikely now, since Mitch McConnell's "Tobacco-Free Youth Act" recently had that controversial section about withholding state grants removed before it got out of committee, and it looks likely to pass both houses without it.

Time and momentum are NOT on our side right now, in other words.  Slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear, and we need to turn this ship of fools around before it's too late (assuming it isn't already too late).

What's Worse Than Raising The Federal Smoking Age To 21? Forcing States To Do The Same As Well

There are a number of federal Tobacco 21 bills competing in Congress right now.  But the one that Big Tobacco and their shill Mitch McConnell both want, the Tobacco-Free Youth Act, would not only raise the federal tobacco and vape sale age from 18 to 21 (thus amending the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009), but also force states to raise their own legal sale age limit for tobacco and vaping products to 21 by changing "18" to "21" in the 1992 Synar Amendment as well.  Such coercion in the latter would revoke a portion of federal substance abuse prevention grants from states that choose to keep their age limits below 21, something that has been academic since 1993 (when all states raised their age limits to at least 18 to satisfy the Synar Amendment as written).  Sound familiar?  In 2000 the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional since back then the FDA did not have legal authority over tobacco, the FDA now does, so any new challenge would have to be one that would also attack the federal drinking age coercion in the 1980s, whether on Tenth Amendment grounds or substantive due process / equal protection under the 14th Amendment.  (Such a challenge may be the only silver lining, assuming both get overturned as a result.)

History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.  And the odd thing is, if the federal age limit is raised to 21, coercing the states to do so is redundant at best, and counterproductive (for the feds, that is) since it opens the federal government up to legal challenges, and also makes it easy for Big Tobacco to extract special favors from states by giving them an unnecessary bargaining chip to play with.  And this flaw seems very likely to be deliberate.  So in their zeal to raise the smoking age to 21, the anti-tobacco movement becomes strange bedfellows with Big Tobacco.

Seriously.   Let that sink in.  And by the way, threatening to withhold substance abuse prevention grants from states as a cudgel during the opioid crisis is every bit as base and cowardly (if not even more so) as withholding federal highway funding while our infrastructure is rapidly decaying and crumbling.

All of these Tobacco 21 bills need to be vigorously fought against, period.  If any of these happen to pass, another little piece of America as we know it will die, and 21 will become the new 18 in so many other ways as well.  And then it would be only a matter of time before it becomes 25, and so on.

UPDATE:  Looks like as of June 26th, the bill advanced out of committee, and they apparently scrapped the part about forcing states to raise their own age limits for tobacco/vaping products.  But the bill still stinks to high heaven regardless, albeit slightly less.

How About We NOT "Raise The Age" For Juvenile Injustice Beyond 18?

For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT support any attempt raise the age for the juvenile injustice system any higher than 18.  Period.

Until recently, no one really took seriously the idea of raising the juvenile injustice age any higher than 18.  In fact, we would often half-jokingly use this idea as an intellectual checkmate against the 21 drinking age and similar illiberal and ageist laws.  But the idea is apparently now really catching on since last year.  Make no mistake, this will NOT make young adults (or anyone) any better off, but it is a Trojan horse that will later be used as an excuse to revoke ALL civil rights from 18-24 year olds, just like people under 18 today.  After all, "you can't have adult rights without adult responsibilities", they say, without even the slightest hint of nuance (or irony), of course.

I mean, we can kinda understand raising the age for the "juvenile" injustice system to 18, only because it is unfair that as long as the age of majority remains 18 and the juvenile age limit is lower than 18, people under that age are hypocritically treated as children when they are good and adults when they are bad.  A few states currently still set the age limit at 16 or 17 to this day, and they should probably raise it to 18 given what we know now about youth development.  But any higher than that is really asking for trouble, and will do far more harm than good.  If they honestly want to make the adult criminal injustice system more rehabilitative and restorative for all ages, fine.  But they really don't, and raising the age limit is both over and under inclusive, and highly counterproductive to both justice and youth rights.

As for the idea of having separate young-adult prisons for 18-24 or 18-25 year olds while still trying and sentencing them as adults, we have no problem with that.  The UK has done that for a while, and now Connecticut is experimenting with this idea as well.  It does make sense to not put those who are young enough still have a chance (however slim) to be rehabilitated in the same facility with older, more hardened criminals who will be a very bad influence on them.  Believe it or not, us youth rights activists actually are capable of nuance.  But trying and sentencing them as anything less than the adults that they are is really taking things too far in that regard.

Indeed, slopes are a LOT slipperier than they appear.  One of the very first things to do to fight this trend is to jettison the term "emerging adult" from our vocabulary, at least in regards to 18-24 year olds.  "Young adult" is the longstanding and preferred term for that age range as well as also 25-34 year olds, and there is no need for neologisms that further divide the youth or young adult demographics.  Language is very powerful, and recategorizing people with neologisms is the first step towards second-class citizenship (i.e. not REAL adults, because REASONS, or something).

And of course, we must recognize and expose the junk neuroscience behind this latest Trojan horse for what it is, as it is literally the same junk neuroscience used to justify abridging the civil rights of 18-24 year olds (to say nothing of those under 18 as well, a fortiori.)

So let's NOT give the ageists any more ammunition by taking the bait here.  Seriously, not even in jest.

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

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

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

And as always, arrive alive, don't drink and drive.  It's just not worth it, period.  And it's very simple to prevent.   If you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive.  It's not rocket science.

Who Are The Real Radicals?

The word radical generally refers to a person or group that wants to make drastic and fundamental (that is, radical) changes to society.  Derived from the Latin word for "root", in this way it illustrates just how fundamental such change is called for.  Classic examples that you oldsters reading this may recall from back in the day include Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.  But is Twenty-One Debunked really such a radical group like some may think?

Is it really radical to want all legal adults above the age of majority (18) to have the same rights that people over 21 currently enjoy, including (but not limited to) the right to use, possess, share, and purchase otherwise-legal psychoactive substances?

Is it really radical to believe that alcohol should be legal for all adults, period, like it is in nearly every single non-Muslim country in the world (and even some moderate Muslim countries too)?

Is it really radical to believe that cannabis, which is objectively safer overall than alcohol and tobacco and less addictive than coffee, should be re-legalized (it was not always illegal, only for a tiny fraction of history) for both recreational and medical use, fairly taxed, and regulated no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco (and legally sold and/or used in many if not most of the same places as well)?

Is it really radical to believe that, when it is legalized, the age limit for cannabis should not be any higher than the legal age of majority (18), nor any higher than for the more dangerous and addictive already-legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?

Is it really radical to believe that, for as long as tobacco remains legal and readily available, those over the age of majority (18) should retain the right to decide for themselves whether or not to choose pleasure over longevity and indulge in this (albeit dangerous and deadly) substance?

Is it really radical to not want to punish the many (such as an entire demographic group) for the actions of the few?  And to prefer to hold individuals fully and solely accountable for their own misbehavior?

Is it really radical to believe that drinking establishments, and especially social hosts at private residences, should NOT be held vicariously liable for what their adult guests or customers do after leaving the premises following participation in voluntary intoxication on the premises?  And that personal responsibility for individuals should still be a thing?

Is it really radical to believe that, as John Stuart Mill believed, that individuals are fully sovereign over their own bodies and minds, at least as far as consenting adults are concerned?

Is it really radical to believe that our own bodies are NOT property of the state or any other entity besides ourselves, regardless of what the state or entity may claim or choose to provide us with?

Is it really radical to believe that adults should NOT have to be baby-sat?

Is it really radical to believe that if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar?

Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government does NOT get to force or coerce states to raise their own legal age limits for alcohol (or any other legal substance) higher than their own ages of majority?

Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government should have far LESS (if any) latitude in terms of micro-managing authority over We the People than the state and local governments do, and when in doubt should really stay in their own lane?

Because if you think that these ideas are somehow radical, we've got news for you:  they are actually quite conservative and in line with both international and historical norms, even in our very own country before 1984 if you can believe that.  This shows just how far the Overton window has shifted both rightward and in the authoritarian direction, and just how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.

As Five Finger Death Punch would say, it's stranger than fiction, how we've decayed...

Still No Increase In Stoned Driving Post-Legalization In Canada

Cannabis has been legal in Canada for everyone over 18 (or 19, depending on the province) since October 17, 2018, and yet six months later there has still been no noticeable increase in stoned driving and related crashes overall 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. 

What Does Big Tobacco Really Hate? Hint: It's NOT Tobacco 21 Laws

Clearly, Big Tobacco (including the quisling JUUL Labs who sold out to them) does NOT oppose raising the age limit for tobacco and vaping products to 21.  In fact, they now openly support Tobacco 21 laws, including the latest attempt at the federal level.  It appears to be a cowardly, treacherous Trojan horse to scuttle and pre-empt any laws that they oppose.

But what laws and regulations DO they really, really vehemently oppose these days?  That is the real question here and the answer is:

• Higher tobacco taxes of any kind, especially on cigarettes but also on other tobacco and vaping products as well.
• Flavor bans of any kind, whether menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, or fruity and candy flavors for vape products.

And it is very telling indeed that they oppose those laws so vehemently.  Additionally, as far as age limits go, they also historically have preferred purchase-use-possession (PUP) laws over sales-to-underage (STU) laws, since the former put the onus on young smokers/vapers themselves while the latter put the onus on vendors, and Big Tobacco really HATES the latter even if they pay lip service to it. This has been true with an age limit of 18, and probably will still be their quasi-official stance under an age limit of 21.

Given what we know about what Big Tobacco likes and dislikes, it should be pretty obvious how to combat them effectively.  Don't take the Tobacco 21 bait, Congress!  Keep it 18, and enforce it better by strengthening the Synar Program for retailer compliance checks, ban kid-friendly vape flavors, consider banning menthol cigarettes, cap nicotine levels of vape products down to European and Israeli levels, phase down nicotine levels in cigarettes to a non-addictive level, and raise the taxes on tobacco products (and add a more modest vape tax too).

To sum up Big Tobacco's thought process:

• Raise cigarette or other tobacco or vape taxes?  HELL NO!
• Flavor bans?  HELL NO!
• Restrictions on nicotine content?  HELL NO! 
• Raise the age limit for tobacco and vaping products to 21?  HELL YEAH!

Remember, anything that Mitch "Awkward Turtle" McConnell (and Big Tobacco) supports has to have some sort of sinister ulterior motives.  Twenty-One Debunked opposes raising the age limit any higher than 18 on principle, regardless of why they want to do it.  But now add in this sinister Big Tobacco dimension and it only becomes all the more repugnant overall.  It truly must be opposed.

California's--And America's--Black Market Cannabis Problem

Looks like the black market for cannabis is unfortunately alive and well in states that have legalized cannabis. This includes California after over a year of legal retail sales, and in other legalization states even after several years of legal retail sales.  So what gives?

The two biggest reasons appear to be high taxes/prices and a limited number of legal dispensaries/outlets.  The black market can easily undercut such high prices and fill in the gaps left by not enough legal retail stores, and do not have to deal with the rather onerous licensing and other regulations that legal businesses must adhere to.  When there is an artificial shortage of legal cannabis, the black market easily picks up the slack, and where there is an oversupply that makes it less profitable, some of it gets diverted to the black market to sell illegally to other, non-legalization states as well.

And then there is that 21 age limit as well, which is currently the case in all legalization states.  That also encourages illicit sales as lower-hanging fruit compared to legal dispensaries with strict enforcement. Can we get a resounding, "DUH"?

So what to do?  Cut the taxes on cannabis, yesterday, for at least a year or two before raising them again.  Consider a complete 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, including grocery and convenience stores.  Lower the age limit to 18, yesterday.  Encourage current black market dealers to "go legit".  And once these things are done, then crack down hard on the black market, particularly the illegal commercial growers and higher-ups in the illegal businesses and organized crime syndicates.

Problem solved.

And of course, fully legalize cannabis at the federal level as well.  Period.

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.

So what should the tax on cannabis be?  To start with, we at Twenty-One Debunked believe it should be no higher that $10/ounce for bud and $2.50/ounce for trim at the production/cultivation level, with no other taxes aside from regular sales tax.  Consider a three-month tax holiday as well, like Oregon did in 2015.  Then, after the first year or two, the tax should be no higher than $50/ounce for bud and $15/ounce for trim, much like it is in Alaska today.  As for concentrates and edibles, those are best to tax based on THC content, e.g. 1 cent/milligram of THC.

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.

Awkward Turtle! Mitch McConnell Wants To Raise Federal Tobacco And Vaping Age To 21

In 2019, there seems to be one thing that Big Tobacco, JUUL Labs (which sold out to Big Tobacco), most anti-tobacco groups, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch "Awkward Turtle" McConnell (R-KY) can all agree on.  And that thing is a federal Tobacco 21 law that raises the sale age limit for all tobacco and vaping products to 21 nationwide.  Politics certainly does make some very strange bedfellows indeed!

This would require an act of Congress, of course, as the FDA is explictly denied (as they should be!) the authority to raise the federal age limit any higher than 18.  And unlike the drinking age where the feds had to make an end-run around the Constitution to coerce states to raise their drinking ages to 21, this time they will not have to do so and can simply set a federal age limit of 21.  They already set a federal age limit of 18 as of 2009, so that law can very easily be amended.  Crucially, this law  only applies to the age limit for sales, and only sellers are targeted and penalized (unlike the drinking age in which public possession by young people is an offense), so this is still within Congress’s authority.  

Except, of course, for the substantive due process and equal protection argument invoking the 14th Amendment, since the age limit would be higher than the age of majority, but that is a separate issue from state's rights and the 10th Amendment.  And that can potentially be challenged in court, albeit as a VERY uphill battle.

Thus, this bill is likely to pass, unfortunately.  Write your Congresscritters and convince them to oppose it.  And point out all of the other things they can do instead:

• Raise the federal cigarette tax, apply it to the producer level, and set a national price floor to discourage interstate smuggling.
• Create a federal vape products tax on all nicotine-containing vape juices and pods, ideally proportional to nicotine content.
• Ban fruity and candy flavors in any nicotine-containing product.
• Cap the nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels.
• Give out free nicotine patches, gums, inhalers, etc. to any smokers who want to quit (NYC already does this.)
• Consider gradually phasing down the maximum allowable nicotine content of combustible cigarettes to a non-addictive level.
• Consider gradually phasing out menthol cigarettes like Canada did and the EU is in the process of doing.
• And last but but not least, enforce existing laws better in terms of the current 18 age limit for tobacco and vaping products.  In fact, amend the Synar Amendment and Program to raise the passing grade for retailer compliance checks from the currently low bar of 80% to 90% and then 95%, and include vape products.  

But do NOT raise the age limit any higher than 18.

Have A Safe And Happy 4/20

We at Twenty-One Debunked would like to wish every cannabis user a safe and happy 4/20.  For those who don't know, 4/20 (April 20) is the unofficial National Marijuana Day, based on the number 420 being code for cannabis dating back to the 1970s.

Please keep in mind that while driving under the influence of cannabis alone is not as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol, it is NOT really safe or wise to do so, particularly with higher doses.  So avoid doing so, and if you do toke up, try to wait as long as you can (i.e. a few hours) before getting behind the wheel, as that can make all the difference.  Also, coffee and sleep will not sober you up--only time can--but they can take the edge off of any residual fatigue.  And certainly do NOT drive twisted (high and drunk at the same time) under any circumstances, period, as that is worse than either subtance alone.  Even fairly small amounts of alcohol when combined with weed can make driving all the more dangerous in combination, albeit with the silver lining that the impairment from such small amounts wears off fairly quickly compared to larger amounts.

The two most important rules for life in general, according to the ancient Greeks, are as follows:  "Know thyself", and "Nothing to excess".  These certainly apply here.  And we will add another one:

"When in doubt, wait it out".

Canada's Black Market For Cannabis Won't Die Quickly

Six months 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 don't even sell edibles, beverages, or hashish yet (until 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.

Best thing for Canada to do?  Implement 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.

Does The Latest Brain Study Vindicate The 21 Drinking Age? Well, Not Exactly.

There is a new brain study making the headlines these days.  This study examined postmortem brains of three groups of people:  1) 11 people with alcohol use disorders (AUD) who began drinking consistently before age 21, 2) 11 people with AUD who began drinking consistently after age 21, and 3) 22 people who did not have any AUD at all, though many of them drank at least somewhat.  And among the three groups, only for the early-onset AUD group were epigenetic changes related to the expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) found, particularly in the amygdala, which is responsible for regulating emotions.  These changes are thought to lead to difficulty regulating emotions, problems with anxiety, and even be part of the pathophysiology of alcoholism itself.

So what does this really mean, exactly?  First of all, the researchers seem to have arbitrarily picked 21 as the dividing line between early-onset and late-onset AUD drinkers, and made no further distinction within the early-onset group (i.e., before 15, before 18, first drink, first drunkenness, first regular drinking, etc.).  Secondly, the study looked at a small sample size of people with alcohol-use disorders (think alcohol abuse/dependence, alcoholism, truly heavy, heavy drinking for many years or decades), who at the time of death averaged well over 10 standard drinks per day and over 100 drinks per week, over 30+ years.  Males were also overrepresented (in fact there were zero women in the early-onset AUD group), and the early-onset group drank significantly heavier then the late-onset group.  It is probably safe to say that these drinkers are NOT representative of the vast majority of those who drink before 21, and given how early the onset of early-onset AUD drinkers tends to be, it would also be safe to say that this early-onset AUD group largely began drinking well before 18, if not before 15.  And even among the late-onset AUD group, the relative lack of epigenetic changes certainly did NOT stop them from becoming alcoholics in any case.

Furthermore, there is no temporality to this non-longitudinal study, so we don't know whether or not these epigenetic changes were due to pre-existing vulnerability or perhaps the early use of other substances such as that now-infamous neurotoxin, nicotine. (Most of the study subjects were smokers, apparently, and about 90% of adult regular smokers typically begin smoking before age 18).

Thus, this study tells us NOTHING about the difference between people in general who begin drinking at 18 versus 21.  NOTHING.  Nor does it vindicate the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  And anyone who claims otherwise is being, shall we say, "economical with the truth".

Do Tobacco 21 Laws Really Work?

One preliminary study seems to think so about California's law that raised the age limit to buy tobacco and e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 as of June 9, 2016.  But the devil is really in the details.  The study did not, I repeat, did NOT, look at actual teen smoking rates, only the degree of retailer compliance as measured by decoys, which did in fact improve since then in terms of sales to people under 18.

The two problems with this logic are 1) it is not necessary to raise the age limit to 21 to discourage retailers from selling to people under 18, as simply better enforcement against scofflaw vendors would do the trick, and 2) survey data do not really show any decrease in teen smoking that can be unambiguously linked to the policy change, whether in California or elsewhere with a Tobacco 21 law.  Teen smoking dropped nationwide from 2015 to 2017, and while it dropped somewhat faster in California, keep in mind that California also raised their cigarette tax significantly during that time, by $2.00/pack, and Pennsylvania saw an even larger drop in teen smoking despite keeping the age limit 18 and a cigarette tax hike of $1.00/pack, only half as large.

As we have noted before based on survey data for the past few years, there is really no robust correlation between a state or local smoking age (whether 18, 19, or 21) and the teen (or adult) smoking rate.  The strongest predictors of both teen and adult smoking are the tax/price of cigarettes and the prevailing social attitudes towards smoking, and in fact prices seem to have a larger effect on young people than adults.  It is practically axiomatic.  Retailer compliance is also inversely correlated with smoking by people under 18, but again it has proven to be entirely possible achieve nearly 100% compliance without raising the smoking age any higher than 18, as long as there is the political will for it.  And it doesn't even require the criminal justice system at all, since the best tobacco-control success stories involved only administrative penalties (i.e. fines and/or tobacco license suspensions) against rogue vendors.  Nor does it require criminalizing young people themselves.

If anything, if NYC is any indication, retailer compliance actually deteriorated following their age limit hike from 18 to 21 in 2014.  This was in spite of heavy crackdowns against contraband tobacco during that time.  In any case, while teen smoking rates declined in NYC following the law change, they did not drop any faster than the rest of the state or the nation as a whole, in fact they declined at a slower rate in NYC compared with the control locations, and teen vaping actually increased despite the fact that the law applied equally to e-cigarettes as well as combustible cigarettes.  If that's "success", we would really hate to see what failure looks like.

Oh, and about Chicago's supposed success, keep in mind that raising their age limit to 21 in 2016 was not the only new tobacco control law passed around that time in the Windy City.  And the cigarette taxes there also went up significantly shortly before the age limit hike to 21 as well.  Thus, there were too many variables to really tease out the effect of the Tobacco 21 law on teen and young adult smoking rates.

And in fact, this also once again calls into question how effective the 21 drinking age (and now toking age in some states) is as well.  Spoiler alert:  not very.  Thus, if there is a silver lining to the recent hike in the smoking age to 21 in some states and localities, it is that re-running this same failed social experiment with a different age-restricted psychoactive substance only to see it fail yet again in more modern times, a fortiori, is probably the strongest evidence against the very concept of such ridiculously high age limits in general.  If you give the pro-21 crowd enough rope...

We Hereby Excommunicate JUUL Labs

(Editor's Note:  Twenty-One Debunked has never been affiliated in any way, shape or form with JUUL Labs or any other vaping, tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis company.  And we never will be, either.)

Dear JUUL Labs,

Since you were founded in 2015 as a spinoff from Pax Labs, you have always presented yourselves, at least publicly, as the underdog saving the world in the fight against the evil Big Tobacco.  Little did America know that you were about to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and make fools, and then cynics, of us all.

Why do we hate thee, JUUL?  Let us count the ways:

• You loudly proclaimed yourselves as the enemy of Big Tobacco, but you began to copy their playbook awfully quickly in terms of advertising to young people and cynically attempting to implement your own "anti-vaping" progams in schools. (You claimed that was just an oversight.)
• You chose a much higher nicotine level for your products than other vape brands, by far.  That was most likely to try to edge out the competition, and it worked--at the expense of a new generation of nicotine addicts, that is.
• You lowered your nicotine content when selling in the European Union and Israel (who by law set the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products much lower than the American version of your products), but curiously still do not offer such reduced-nicotine products in the USA, or any nicotine-free products.
• Until very recently, you failed to adequately warn users that your products contain nicotine and are addictive.  Many young people did not even know that all JUULs contain nicotine, let alone such a high level of it.
• When the FDA finally blew the whistle on you, you responded in the most cowardly way possible.  You decided to throw young adults under the bus by calling for the age limit for vaping products to be raised from 18 to 21, and you banned 18-20 year olds from your website.  And you still made no significant changes to your highly-addictive products, save for the removal of a few flavors.
• And worst of all, you literally SOLD OUT to Altria Group (aka Philip Morris), whose name is literally synonymous with Big Tobacco.  You know, the evil industry you once claimed to be fighting against?  Your deal with the devil may have made you richer and bought you some temporary protection, but everything comes with a price, and your day will come very soon.

Thus, in light of the above grievances, we hereby excommunicate you.  Here is your bell, book, and candle, you cowardly quislings.  Now go take your crack nicotine and shove it!

Say It Ain't So, Governor Cuomo! New York State To Raise Smoking/Vaping Age To 21

No, this is NOT an April Fool's Day joke.  New York State is now set to become the eighth (or ninth?) state to raise the age limit for tobacco and vaping products to 21.  The legislature passed it, and Governor Cuomo is expected to sign it.  If (really, when) he does, it will take effect in 120 days.  Which is very, very soon.

Many counties and cities in the state, including NYC and most of its "backyard", already set the age limit at 21.  That of course includes my home county of Westchester, which raised it from 18 to 21 last year.

The only silver lining is that the new age limit of 21, like the old age limit of 18, will only apply to vendors, as it will still not be illegal for "underage" people to possess or consume tobacco or vaping products.   But that still does NOT mean we should support it one bit!

With the "bookend" states of California and New York now down, plus several other populous and not-so-populous states, not to mention hundreds of localities across the country, and even our nation's capital, is our movement lost for good?  We sure hope not.  It looked like the Tobacco 21 movement had stagnated last year, but now with New York, Utah, and possibly Washington State next to jump on the bandwagon, perhaps we got too complacent last year.  It certainly does NOT bode well for any near-future attempt to lower the drinking and toking ages to 18!

Hindsight is 2020, both the year and the vision.

What's The Best Way To Reduce Teen Vaping? Teens Already Know The Answer

As bewildered chronological adults wring their hands and scratch their heads on how to best fight the teen vaping "epidemic", a recent article came out in Utah that actually asked teens themselves how to do it.  The answer was simple:  tax the hell out of it to make it more expensive.  Gee, who woulda thunk it?

Notice they did not say anything about raising the age limit, by the way.   America's experience with combustible cigarettes has shown that raising the price, via taxes or otherwise, seems to be the most effective and cost-effective way to do it.  And while it works for all ages, the effect size is larger for young people since they are more price-sensitive overall.

Of course, if vape taxes are raised, care must be taken to also raise combustible tobacco taxes so as not to inadvertently steer young people back to smoking.   And as long as vaping remains an available alternative, cigarette taxes can go much higher than they are now (except New York) without creating too much of a black market.   Thus vape taxes should go up, and cigarette taxes should be even higher still.  And only nicotine-containing vape juices and pods should be taxed significantly, ideally proportional to nicotine content.  (Hardware devices themselves should only be taxed modestly, if at all.)

Other effective measures we have noted include capping and reducing the nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels (JUUL, we're looking at YOU), strictly enforcing the 18 age limit on vendors for all tobacco and nicotine products, and perhaps also removing kid-friendly fruity flavors of nicotine-containing vapes from the market.  But raising the age limit any higher than 18 should quite frankly not even be considered.   Too bad Utah is now the latest state to NOT heed that last bit of advice.

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.