Legalization Of Cannabis Still Not A Disaster After All

One of the zombie lies that cannabis prohibitionists luuurrrve to shill is that legalization would inevitably result in mass carnage on the highways (if not also off of the highways as well) from stoned driving.  These fearmongers can be every bit as hysterical as MADD is infamous for being in regards to alcohol.  Studies to date on the matter have been mixed, but have been generally pointing in the direction of it being largely a non-problem overall, at least compared to the counterfactual of not legalizing cannabis.  While it is true that cannabis can impair driving, it typically does so less than alcohol does, and regardless it does not necessarily follow that legalization would automatically result in more traffic casualties overall that would otherwise have occurred.

Enter the latest study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) using data from 2009-2019, the largest study yet on the matter.  While it purportedly found that recreational legalization was associated with a small increase in both fatal and nonfatal injury crashes overall, there is far less here than meets the eye.  For starters, there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to which states saw increases and which ones saw decreases (yes, some states actually saw decreases post-legalization) in such casualties, even after controlling for a whole host of potential confounders and including several comparison states (five legalization states and five non-legalization states from the same general region of the country). Such extreme heterogeneity strongly suggests that at least some, if not all, of the observed effect is spurious.  More importantly, legalization of recreational cannabis use itself appeared to be responsible for nearly all of the observed effect, while legalization of retail sales (which occurred later, often a year or more later) had no significant effect (actually, a small decrease on average, go figure).  You read that right--it is exactly backwards from what the standard prohibitionist narrative would claim, also suggesting a spurious effect.  And finally, in any case the size of the effect (5.8% for injury crashes and 4.1% for fatal crashes) on average is basically too weak to conclusively prove a causal link from a single study alone, but especially from a study with the aforementioned issues like this one.  

In other words, one can see that there is barely any signal in the noise, and that supposed signal may very well turn out to have been entirely noise all along.

So once again, legalization was NOT anywhere even remotely close to disaster after all.  And most interestingly of all, the study authors note that, “the estimated effect of marijuana legalization on crash rates is only slightly lower than the estimated effects of lowering the legal drinking age in the United States from 21 to 18.”  Which, as we at Twenty-One Debunked have noted time and again, are both nowhere near as large or scary as the prohibitionists and ageists want us to believe.  And an honest interpretation of the aforementioned study would actually put it far closer to the famous Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) study than any pro-21 study.

UPDATE:  Nevertheless, we skeptics do of course need to be careful not to give into the temptation to be "pseudocritics" here.  Blithely, casually, and reflexively mocking and dismissing any paper for its apparent statistical noise or seemingly puny effect size while ignoring nuance, details, or context (often without even reading the paper in question) is intellectually lazy at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.  The above analysis, however, is NOT an example of this pitfall.  Pointing out specific concrete issues or inconsistencies that seriously weaken or vitiate the conclusions, while keeping it all in context is not an example of this fallacy.  Nor is pointing out, a fortiori in fact, the public policy implications or lack thereof (a second-order question that inherently goes beyond the science itself) that the prohibitionists so desperately wish for despite being a category error.  And those who doggedly cling to even the flimsiest cherry-picked results and tiniest effect sizes, to push a thoroughly illiberal agenda while ignoring an honest cost-benefit analysis in the name of a perverted and Hobbesian version of the precautionary principle, are guilty of a categorically far worse intellectual failing than even the silliest pseudocritics are.

When we see that cannabis legalization and non-legalization states in recent years, and MLDA 18, 19, 20, and 21 states in the 1970s and 1980s, are all more or less within error bounds of each other overall in terms of traffic casualties, at least in the long run, it makes far more sense to err on the side of liberty.

And finally, to say that small effect sizes, especially with wide confidence intervals or large heterogeneity, are weak correlations and thus should be approached with caution before jumping to conclusions is NOT the same as saying they should be automatically dismissed out of hand.  Those who argue otherwise don't seem to do nuance well, to put it mildly.

Cannabis Use Associated With DECREASED Covid Severity

Two and a half years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, our unofficial working theory was finally confirmed:  cannabis use was recently found in a new study to be associated with decreased Covid severity, contrary to what some pundits have claimed.  Remember, our own theory was that that was why states (such as Colorado, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, DC, Alaska, and the entire West Coast) and countries (Canada, Netherlands, and Uruguay) with at least de facto legalized recreational cannabis (as of January 2020) saw lower Covid-related death rates compared to places where cannabis was not yet (if ever) fully legal for recreational use by early 2020, and especially when compared to their neighbors.

Some exceptions are Michigan, Illinois, and Nevada, of course.  Those states did not do very well with Covid despite cannabis legalization in place by 2020, but the first two were latecomers with relatively delayed implementation of their legalization.  And the Netherlands, contrary to popular opinion, does not have full legalization, but rather a quasi-legalization scheme where, as the locals there would say, "the front door is legal but the back door is illegal".

But overall, it seems our theory panned out quite nicely.  Even when looking simply at cannabis use rates, rather than legalization, a similar pattern emerges overall.  Think the Southern US states vs Northern states, or Easten Europe vs Western Europe, or even Sweden vs. Denmark to some extent.

Game. Set. Match.  Any questions?

"No Safe Level" Junk Science, Again

Is there really "no safe level" of alcohol use before the arbitrary age of....40?  And do the risks always outweigh the benefits from the outset?  A new study, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, seems to claim that, just four years after the same "experts" claimed that there is no safe level for anyone of any age.  But again, as we already noted back then, the specious claim of "no safe level" is a classic red flag for manufactured junk science with a hidden or not-so-hidden agenda, dressed up in the guise of the precautionary principle.

First, the ontological criticism:  It is well-known that excessive alcohol consumption is harmful in so many ways, for all ages.  But if even (gasp!) radiation supposedly has a safe level for practical purposes, why on Earth can't that be true for alcohol as well?  Our own bodies actually produce small amounts of the stuff endogenously, after all.  (Ok, so they concede maybe a shot glass of beer (lol) per day might be safe.)

Second, there is of course reporting bias:  heavy drinkers tend to play down how much they drink in surveys, so the safe drinking thresholds may very well be higher than survey results suggest.  Who knows?  Also, they notably did not distinguish between different patterns of drinking either.  There is a world of difference between having two drinks every day, and having all 14 drinks (!) in one night per week, despite them both being the same average amount of alcohol per week.  (Not that Twenty-One Debunked actually encourages anyone to do either, by the way.)

Third, conveniently and arbitrarily walking back the original conclusions for the dominant age group in society, but not for younger folks, really smacks of special pleading and card-stacking fallacies.

Fourth, even if it were true, it does not follow that prohibition, age based or otherwise, is the solution.  I mean, since when did "give me liberty of give me death" become "give me absolute safety or else"?  Even from a strictly utilitarian perspective, people who sometimes choose pleasure over longevity to one degree or another are not necessarily irrational or even immoral.  Like it or not, the alcohol genie is out of the bottle, and banning it or unduly restricting it will only make it that much more dangerous by driving it underground, as we learned the hard way.

If the powers that be are so concerned about the "externalities" that even light to moderate drinkers supposedly impose on society, simply tax alcohol more then. Problem solved.  Otherwise, they really need to stay in their lane and leave people alone.

And finally, consider the source.  The Gates Foundation may want to look in the mirror before pointing the finger at others, and particularly look into the contents of the vials of their favorite experimental product du jour, if you catch my drift.

Oh, and notably, they did seem to distinguish over 21 versus under 21 either, so anyone who has the gall to try to use this specious study to somehow justify the 21 drinking age is really grasping at straws.

More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do

In the past, we would chronicle countless examples of drinkers OVER 21 behaving badly, as "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do".  But we have clearly been slacking lately.  Time to do it again:

In just the past few weeks or so in America:

An underage drinker did NOT get so incredibly wasted that she crashed her car into multiple barricades and then abandoned her six month old twin babies.  (Let me guess, she "misplaced" them.)

An underage drinker did NOT get another unrelated DUI just a few short months after a drunken (and cowardly) hit-and-run crash.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash her car into a utility pole and kill her 17 year old passenger despite being largely unscathed herself.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash his truck into and kill a beloved music teacher who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly run over and kill an innocent 13 year old girl walking down the grass shoulder of the street, and then speed away and casually keep on driving to Taco Bell as if nothing had happened.  (Another cowardly hit-and-run.)

An underage drinker did NOT pound five shots of tequila in a row at a Las Vegas casino, get behind the wheel, and then drunkenly crash into an innocent family's car, tragically killing the father and seriously maiming his 3 year old son.  (Also a hit-and-run.)

An underage drinker did NOT have the chutzpah to drive himself to court drunk (!) to fight charges for his third DUI.  Literally the definition of chutzpah!

Nor did an underage drinker have the chutzpah to drunkenly drive his SUV to the car dealership with a missing tire, obvious damage, and smoke to try to SELL the very same vehicle that he had just drunkenly crashed into the median several times after downing four Four Loko cans (aka "blackout in a can") and chasing that with a can of White Claw.  His baseball star father must be so proud of him! NOT.

The recent epidemic of unruly airplane passengers, most of whom are over 21, has been greatly fueled by alcohol.  (Fortunately it seems to be declining now, since nearly two-thirds of the misbehavior was linked to the federal in-flight mask mandate that is no longer in effect now, and also thanks to the new FAA zero tolerance policy for misbehavior while flying.)

Alcohol-related deaths spiked during the pandemic, mainly among people OVER 21.  America was already drowning in the bottom of a bottle, and the pandemic and lockdowns were like gasoline on the fire.

And finally, it was just recently revealed that Rudy Giuliani, 78, the questionable advisor to Trump who advised him to prematurely and falsely declare victory over Biden in the 2020 election, and thereby promulgating the Big Lie that incited the Capitol insurrection riot on January 6, 2021, was most likely drunk when he dispensed his questionable advice.

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg....

Dishonorable mentions outside the USA:

There was a 35 year old man in India who had meant to ritually sacrifice a goat, apparently got so wasted that he ended up inadvertently doing a HUMAN sacrifice of the person holding the goat.  Oops!

UPDATE:  But wait, there's more!

An underage drinker did NOT get in such a rage from being "mad at his girl" that he broke into the Dallas Museum of Art and wantonly destroyed $5 million worth of ancient art.  Just because, grrrr, he was pissed off! (No alcohol was mentioned in this case, but come on--when what the last time you heard of anyone of any age doing something like this sober?)

There's Nothing Progressive About Raising Gun Age To 21

With the latest mass shooting, of an elementary school no less, having a barely 18 year old perpetrator who purchased his AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle legally, there is now a renewed push from "progressives" to raise the age for purchasing at least some types of long guns from 18 to 21.  But there is really nothing progressive about doing so at all.

As long as the age of majority is 18, there is really no legitimate reason to selectively infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of 18-20 year olds.  Period.  It is both over-inclusive (most 18-20 year olds are not criminals, let alone murderers) and under-inclusive (the lion's share of mass shootings are committed by people over 21).  If anything, gender is a far bigger predictor of mass shootings than age, with men committing 96-99% of them, yet no one is calling for disarming all men.  And recently, a California law setting an age limit of 21 for semiautomatic rifles was struck down as unconstitutional.  But now Congress is trying to pass a federal law raising the age for at least some types of long guns to 21 (it is already 21 to purchase handguns under federal law).

It is indeed very important to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, no argument there.  But there are far better (albeit imperfect) ways to do this:

• Require a license or permit to purchase handguns and some or all types of rifles going forward, regardless of age
• Require a psych evaluation before purchasing guns going forward, regardless of age
• Universal background checks
• Safe storage laws
• Red flag laws (truly a no-brainer)
• Waiting periods to buy guns
• "Treat bullets like Sudafed"
• Tax bullets (like Chris Rock recommended)
• Ban high-capacity magazines
• Reinstate the assault weapons ban that prevailed from 1994-2004

None of these commonsense measures actually violate the Second Amendment as written (the best part is where it says "well-regulated"), nor do they discriminate by age against young adults either.

Oh, and speaking of red flags, apparently the utterly deranged and disturbed mass murderer of Uvalde had so many red flags (including egregious ones like animal abuse, death threats, and rape threats) that he proudly waved them in front of everyone's face like a matador's cape in front of a bull.  And yet, no one did anything about it, for whatever reason, and he still got his AR-15 style rifle and lots of ammo very easily regardless.  Really makes you wonder!

Do Tobacco 21 Laws Really Work?

A recent study claims that Tobacco 21 laws work to reduce teen tobacco use.  But upon closer examination, there is less here than meets the eye.  While this new nationwide study controlled for a host of other variables and spanned from 2012-2019, it still leaves the reader with more questions than answers.  

For example, the supposed effect in survey data in grades 8, 10, and 12 was statistically significant for combustible cigarettes, particularly for grade 12, but NOT for vape products at any grade level, while for the Nielsen sales data the apparent effect was much larger for vape products than combustible cigarettes.  How exactly can this glaring contradiction be explained away?  Also, no significant effect was observed on heavy smoking, which intuitively should have had the largest effect size of all due to heavy smokers facing the greatest "hassle costs" when cigarettes become even somewhat more difficult to obtain.  And even for cigarette smoking in general, the absolute difference-in-differences was a few percentage points at most, for a substance whose popularity and prevalence was already declining among all ages long before the age limit was hiked to 21 (in contrast to vaping, which increased dramatically among young people during this period).

Furthermore, the study did not look beyond the first two years post-enactment of such laws, so any observed effects may very well be merely short-term effects (cf. Miron and Tetelbaum 2009 for the 21 drinking age and alcohol-related traffic fatalities).

Interestingly, the study authors do concede that at least some of the observed effect on people under 18 is a result of increased ID checking and increased perception of risk of of tobacco products.  Of course, we know that it is not really necessary to raise the age limit higher than 18 to achieve such effects.

Overall, this nationwide Tobacco 21 study (the second of its kind) was rather less impressive that an earlier nationwide study by different authors, for reasons that are not entirely clear.  But it is very likely a repeat of what we like to call "The Incredible Shrinking Effect Size", a phenomenon that we have seen before with studies of the 21 drinking age over time.  Which means that it was most likely a statistical mirage all along, at least in the long run.

Regardless of what sort of effects, or lack thereof, that Tobacco 21 laws supposedly had, we at Twenty-One Debunked nonetheless oppose such laws on principle 100%, just like we oppose the 21 drinking age and toking age as well.  Let America be America Again!

UPDATE:  A recent pro-21 article made a Freudian slip about what happened since Texas raised their smoking age to 21 in 2019:

"Since then, the use of tobacco by teens decreased from 21.8% in 2019 to 19.1% in 2021, according to the CDC and the American Lung Association."

That is NOT a particularly large difference in teen tobacco use (which includes both smoking and vaping), especially since teen vaping had already peaked by 2019 and teen smoking had already been plummeting for decades.  Technically, the latter data were from the 2020 Texas School Survey, not 2021, and the 2019 data were from the CDC YRBS, as each survey is done only every other year.  But either way, the point still stands.  In fact, when compared to the 2018 TSS data, the 2020 TSS data are almost identical.

2023 UPDATE:  The study in question has been recently revised, but not in a way that materially alters any of the above conclusions or criticisms.  In fact, reading between the lines, not only does the results look even less consistent and statistically significant than before, but now the effect size on survey results seems to be much larger for vaping than for smoking at all grade levels, implying that some vapers have likely switched to smoking.  That makes the Tobacco 21 policy a net public health loser.

2024 UPDATE:  A 2021 study of California, one of the first two states to implement a statewide Tobacco 21 law in 2016, showed weak and unimpressive numbers in a difference-in-differences analysis.  Womp womp.

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

This coming Monday, May 30, 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, past and present.  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.   Designate a sober driver, call a cab or rideshare, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.

Legalization Of Cannabis For Adults, Even With Age Limit Of 18, Does NOT Significantly Increase Teen Use

Lest anyone think that the feared massive post-legalization surge in teen cannabis use somehow NOT materializing in the USA (in legalization states) was somehow due to the age limit being set at 21, a recent study found that Canada also did not see a post-legalization surge in teen use either, and their age limit was 18 in Alberta and Quebec and 19 in other provinces at the time of the study (Quebec has unfortunately since raised it to 21 as of January 1, 2020, but the study ended with the 2018-2019 school year while it was still 18).  There was no statistically significant difference between cohorts of students before and after legalization in Canada.  And while Alberta had the highest reported rate of high school cannabis use of the handful of provinces studied, both before and after national legalization in October 2018, Quebec interestingly had the lowest.  And the other two provinces studied (Ontario and British Columbia) were somewhere in between.  

Note that modest short-term increases in occasional or experimental use, by perhaps a few percentage points, are actually to be expected, if only because they will likely be more honest in surveys now.

As for the specious claim that Uruguay (age limit 18) saw an increase in teen cannabis use after legalization in 2013, that claim was based on cherry-picking two arbitrary years:  2003 and 2014, without considering more recent trends.  And even in the Netherlands, there was no increase in teen cannabis use that could be unambiguously linked to their policy of quasi-legalization for adults over 18 since 1976 (note that it was originally 16, just like the drinking and tobacco smoking age once was, in most of the country until 1996).

Point is, just like with alcohol or tobacco, teens who are inclined to use cannabis will do so whether or not it is legal or not for them (or their slightly older near-peers) to do so.  And like alcohol (but unlike tobacco), most of those who experiment with it will not become regular users, let alone problem users or addicts.  And prohibition of either for adults, including young adults, clearly does NOT stop teens from using.

Thus, there is no good reason to set the age limit any higher than 18.  Period.

UPDATE:  Looks like Uruguay actually saw a decrease in cannabis use among youth under 18 following legalization.  For 18-21 year olds, there was a modest short-term increase in 2014, followed by a decrease.  Note that Uruguay set their cannabis age limit at 18.

And back in the States, guess what?  Contrary to the doomsayers, legalization still did not cause an increase in teen cannabis use as of 2023.

Vices Are Not Crimes

One of the most important timeless lessons learned, then forgotten, then learned again, then forgotten again, and so on, is Lysander Spooner's famous maxim that "vices are not crimes".  And to forget this crucial distinction, is to ultimately lead to numerous evils, from 1) amoralism and nihilism on the one hand, and 2) the most egregiously tyrannical abuses and overreach of government power (from things like Prohibition, the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs, MLDA 21, etc. all the way to slavery, eugenics, and sometimes even full-blown genocide) on the other, typically disguised as either protecting the nation's "moral fiber", and/or "progressive" social engineering for the "greater good".  In truth, it is anything but moral or progressive.  Thus, individual rights must be inalienable, and the government should never stray from its original mission of protecting life, liberty, and property.  Once the natural right to self-ownership becomes usurped by the state, the very foundation for individual rights ceases to exist, and of course that invites all kinds of trouble, as history has so painfully shown time and again.

To quote Spooner, from his Vices Are Not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875):

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another…In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting." 

"Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be…no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property." 

"If these questions…are not to be left free and open for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to…ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice…If this great right is not to be left free and open to all, then each man’s whole right, as a reasoning human being, to 'liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' is denied him." 

"What man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, 'We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it…not only for ourselves, but for all…And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion?'" 

"[A] government, formed by voluntary association, would never have been thought of, if the object proposed had been the punishment of all vices…nobody…would voluntarily submit to it. But a government, formed by voluntary association, for the punishment of all crimes is a reasonable matter; because everybody wants protection for himself against all crimes by others." 

"It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess." 

"Nobody but a fool or an impostor pretends that he, as an individual, has a right to punish other men for their vices. But…everybody has a natural right…to defend his own person and property against aggressors…And government has no rightful existence, except in so far as it embodies, and is limited by, this natural right of individuals...It is only those who claim that government has some rightful power, which no individual or individuals ever did, or could, delegate to it, that claim that government has any rightful power to punish vices." 

"To punish men for their vices…is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed…because it would be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness." 

"Everybody wishes to be protected, in his person and property, against the aggressions of other men. But nobody wishes to be protected… against himself…He only wishes to promote his own happiness, and to be his own judge as to what will promote, and does promote, his own happiness." 

"The object aimed at in the punishment of crimes is to secure, to each and every man alike, the fullest liberty he possibly can have—consistently with the equal rights of others—to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property…the object aimed at in the punishment of vices is to deprive every man of his natural right and liberty to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property."

"[People]…must be permitted to control themselves and their property… each man’s life is his own."

We ignore such sound advice at our own peril.

The Right Way, And Wrong Way, To Phase Out Tobacco

We are now officially in, or at least quickly approaching, the "endgame" of tobacco control, as they say.  In chess, the endgame is said to begin when queens begin to disappear, and thus checkmate is increasingly within reach.  In tobacco control, it roughly begins when 1) smoking prevalence drops low enough, 2) the best "cards" of existing tobacco policy measures have already been played enough, and 3) the Overton window has shifted far enough against smoking, that it is now becoming increasingly realistic to openly consider phasing out at least some types of combustible tobacco products (especially cigarettes) at some point in the future.

Various targets for reducing overall smoking prevalence have been floated by various experts, such as a goal of no more than 5% by 2025 or 2030, no more than 2% by 2050 or 2060, and so on.  And beyond simple aggregate numbers, another related goal is to reduce the massive (and often widening) inequalities by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, etc. within those numbers in various countries. 

Twenty-One Debunked acknowledges that there are some very good arguments for such a phaseout that even many libertarians can grudgingly concede, given how 1) cigarettes are the only legal product which, when used as directed, kill at least half of those who use it, making them defective by design, 2) most smokers admittedly dislike their habit and want to quit, but often have great difficulty doing so, 3) cigarettes rob people of their autonomy, 4) alternatives currently exist.  And that is before one even delves into the negative "externalities" that these products impose on others and the environment.

That said, there are right ways to further such a goal, and there are wrong ways.

A number of endgame strategies have been discussed, some of which have been implemented recently.  These include, 1) banning the sale of cigarettes, and possibly other combustible tobacco products, in a given jurisdiction completely from some future date onwards, after a reasonably long delay, 2) putting a gradually "sinking lid" on the number of tobacco retail outlet licenses, until the number of licenses drops to zero, 3) phasing down the maximum allowable nicotine content of cigarettes, and possibly other combustible tobacco products, to a non-addictive level, 4) hiking the excise tax by 10% every year, and 5) an age-based (or "generational") strategy that permanently bans the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after a specific year (say, 2000 or 2010), while still allowing it for those born before that year.

It is this last one that Twenty-One Debunked takes the most umbrage at of all.  We denounce this arbitrary discrimination by age for the same reasons that we denounce the Tobacco 21 laws.  We believe it is wrong on principle as it flies directly in the face of any idea of equal protection of the law, by denying individual rights to some group of legal adults relative to others.  And not only that, but it is a truly lousy endgame strategy that drags things out that much longer compared to, say, the first strategy on the aforementioned list (i.e. banning it for everyone).

Twenty-One Debunked prefers the third strategy on the list, namely phasing down the maximum allowable nicotine levels in cigarettes to a non-addictive level, and only for cigarettes and little cigars/cigarillos, and possibly roll-your-own cigarette tobacco.  Leave all other tobacco products alone, and keep vaping products on the market, albeit with the maximum allowable nicotine levels reduced to European or Israeli levels (which is still plenty strong).  We have preferred that strategy since 2013, in fact.  We do NOT prefer the first two strategies, but would still much rather have those than the last.  Even the tax hike strategy (which increasingly robs from the poor and gives to the rich) is head-and-shoulders better than that!

Another thing we would find at least somewhat acceptable would be to limit the types of stores that can sell tobacco products.  For example, they could only allow tobacco to be sold at dedicated tobacco/vape shops, or stores that one must be 18 or older to enter.  That would thus eliminate the most visual temptations for children and teens, and triggers for relapse that former smokers have to face every day, at convenience stores, grocery stores, etc.  Or at the very least, stop selling them at pharmacies.

One should note that commercial, pre-rolled cigarettes, more so than any other existing tobacco product, are by far the very biggest drivers of the tobacco epidemic of the past century, so even if those (plus little cigars) were the only targeted item for a tobacco endgame strategy, any switching to alternatives would not even come close to sustaining such an epidemic for long on the scale that it has been thus far.  All of the other combustibles (medium to large cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah/shisha) and smokeless tobacco (chew, dip, snuff, snus, lozenges, etc.) have always been basically niche products.  So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater now.

But whatever strategy one follows, we must be sure to allow enough lead time for a just transition and to minimize the creation of black markets, and we must not criminalize possession or consumption of tobacco.  Any endgame strategy worth following must concentrate on the supply side, while also tackling demand by making quitting easier.  Vilification of smokers does not further that goal in the long run.

UPDATE:  The FDA is now moving to join Canada, the UK, and EU in banning menthol cigarettes (and perhaps flavored cigars too).  Twenty-One Debunked is kinda on the fence about that, but at this point we will not oppose it.  The reason why Big Tobacco adds menthol is because it masks the harsh taste of nicotine, making it easier to get hooked and harder to quit, particularly for young people.  And while the much-noted racial overtones and undertones of menthol cigarettes are practically unique to the USA, due to decades of aggressively race-targeted marketing by Big Tobacco, the sheer deadliness and addictiveness of these products makes them a net detriment to the Black community on balance.

Japan Lowers Age Of Majority From 20 To 18, But There's A Catch

Japan has decided, for the first time since the Meiji Restoration, to finally lower the legal age of majority (adulthood) to 18, effective April 1, 2022.  But before anyone starts celebrating, note that the drinking age, smoking age, and gambling age will all still remain at 20, because reasons.  Really.  Despite the fact that the age limit will now be 18 for literally ALL other adult rights and responsibilities, including, but not limited to, being tried and punished as an adult.

So for 18-19 year old young adults, this feels like a cruel April Fool's Day joke at best.

Long Past Time To Lower The Drinking Age To 18

It's 2022 now, and this year may be a golden opportunity to finally lower the legal drinking age to 18 after so many decades of it being 21.  As the ignominious Covid regime continues to unravel and collapse faster than formerly healthy young athletes on the field after being injected with you-know-what, more and more people are questioning not only that, but the whole entire concepts of statism, safetyism, paternalism, and authoritarianism in general.  And with all the many parallels that can be drawn between the illiberal lockdown restrictions and mask and vaccine mandates and passports on the one hand, and the illiberal and ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age, one can easily draw a straight line between these illiberal policies.

The Overton window has finally been cracked open.  Let's get the drinking age lowered to 18 before it slams shut once again.  What better time than now?

Also, be sure to check out some great videos from the legendary Allistair Cooke as well as Leon Louw in regards to arguments against the drinking age.

Have A Safe And Happy Holiday Season

(This is a public service announcement)

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

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

Fewer Young People In A Hurry To Drive

In the USA today, people still seem to get their driver's licenses earlier than Europeans, as we have more of a car culture over here.  But that gap is closing, since apparently fewer and fewer young Americans are gung-ho about driving or learning to drive these days, our rather persistent car culture and very limited public transportation notwithstanding.

Canada is probably the same way, despite also being a car culture with limited public transportation as well.  And their drinking ages are 18 or 19 depending on the province.  Meanwhile, their traffic fatality rates, both alcohol-related and otherwise, are in fact lower than those in the USA, in every age group in fact.

One can also say the same about Australia as well, whose drinking age is 18, is a car culture, and has even lower traffic fatality rates as well for all ages, both alcohol-related and otherwise.

And so while not completely irrelevant yet in that sense, the tired old drunk driving argument against lowering the drinking age to 18 is indeed far less relevant compared with the way it was one 1980s and 1990s.  But honestly, the drunk driving argument never made sense to us.  DUI is already illegal, and even more illegal now than it was in the 1980s. And doing so is dangerous at any age, not just under 21. And of course, it is perfectly possible to not mix alcohol and driving.  Punishing all drinkers under some arbitrary age limit by depriving them of liberty on the mere supposition that they *might* get behind the wheel after driving (and thus in turn *might* harm innocent people) goes against everything a free society stands for, and is 100% un-American.  And just like "flattening the curve", the best it does is kick the can down the road without actually solving anything.  Studies by Dirscherl (2011), Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Dee (2001), as well as Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), et al., bear this fact out quite nicely.

Let America be America Again, and lower the drinking age to 18.  If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.

QED

Legalization Of Cannabis Did NOT Cause Carnage On The Highways

The latest Canadian study confirms yet again that legalization of cannabis did NOT actually cause carnage on the highways like the fearmongers had predicted.  And that is for a country that legalized the herb for everyone over 18 at the federal level, while individual provinces could set it higher (currently 18 in Alberta, 18 in Quebec until it was raised to 21 in early 2020, and 19 for all other provinces).  Despite the generally lower age limits in Canada, these results dovetail nicely with those of most studies of the several US states that legalized it for people over 21.

And yes, the most recent study looked at Alberta (18) along with Ontario (19), both provinces whose legal toking ages are equivalent to their drinking and smoking ages.  Neither province showed significant increases in traffic-related ER visits post-legalization, whether for young people or otherwise.  Really.

In other words, regardless of the age limit chosen, cannabis legalization was NOT a disaster after all.   So what are we waiting for?  Let's do the Alberta model (legal at 18 for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, period) in all US states and territories.  Yesterday. 

Stop Scapegoating Kids And Teens For Adult Problems!

 The following Tweet basically says it all:

As renowned sociologist and youth rights activist Mike Males has repeated noted, it seems to be a great American pastime to scapegoat kids and teens for adult problems.  Alas, COVID seems to be no different in that regard.  One thing European countries generally haven't done is force kids under age 12 or so to wear face masks, even in countries where adults are required to.  Whereas while American adults generally have more freedom than their European counterparts now (aside from Sweden and a few other countries), there are many places in the USA (even some parts of Florida where school administrators are openly defying their governor) where kids as young as TWO are forced to wear masks AND (anti)socially distance in school and sometimes even in daycare too.  The USA is one of vanishingly few countries who currently does so, and also one of vanishingly few countries that is in such a hurry to vaccinate kids under 18, let alone kids under 12.  Even 18 months into the pandemic. schools and even colleges are becoming increasingly prison-like these days--and yes, even for those who got "baptized" with the magic vaccine.

That is of course very reminiscent of how alcohol is treated:  the USA has a drinking age of 21 and strictly enforced (with the young drinkers themselves targeted disproportionately for punishment), low alcohol taxes, and relatively lax DUI laws for adults by international standards (even if stricter than in the past).  And alcohol is routinely used as an excuse for otherwise unacceptable behavior.  Meanwhile, most European countries set their drinking ages at 18 or less (and often not even enforced), while alcohol taxes are higher and DUI laws are a lot stricter on average for all ages.  And alcohol is far less likely to be accepted as an excuse for otherwise unacceptable behavior.

And in both cases, defenders of the status quo smugly claim that "Europeans may be able to handle more freedom, but Americans can't."  Because reasons.  All without seeing the irony in literally implying that Americans are inferior to Europeans!  

We at Twenty-One Debunked of course support lowering the drinking age to 18, while also raising alcohol taxes and toughening DUI laws for all ages.  And when it comes to COVID, we believe it is long past time to end all restrictions for all ages, period, regardless of vaccination status.  These restrictions were originally supposed to be short-term measures to "flatten the curve", that is, to merely delay infections a few weeks to avoid catastrophically overwhelming hospitals and buy more time. That's it, that's all these measures are capable of doing.  Beyond that, they are all pain and no gain.  Then the powers that be decided to move the goalposts repeatedly, and as they say, the rest is history...

Imagine the counterfactual where young people were the ones in charge.  By March 2020, or perhaps even February, imagine if young people decided to "ground" their parents and grandparents just for a few weeks to protect them from the virus, while young people were free to live life as normal, partying and all.  Raves, keggers, and even cruises would continue at least for everyone under 30 or 35.  Schools and colleges would be as wide open as the rest of the economy and society.  And instead of discharging contagious COVID patients back into nursing homes, we actually got serious about protecting their vulnerable residents.  And instead of putting all "nonessential" workers of all ages on the public dole for 18 months, imagine if they took that money and instead used it to pay for a voluntary three to six month sabbatical for any workers who were over the age of 60 and/or immunocompromised or with otherwise serious underlying conditions.  And we made any and all promising early treatments and prophylaxis readily available to all from the start.  And we otherwise let the virus rip, which the virus kinda did anyway under lockdown albeit slower and more painfully.  How many lives could have been saved that way?  I think we already know the answer by now.  And herd immunity would have been reached well before the vaccines were launched.

This disgusting perversion of American Exceptionalism needs to end.  Yesterday.  Seriously ageists, KNOCK IT OFF!  The song "Another Brick in the Wall" by Pink Floyd comes to mind.

Is There Really Any Link Between Vaping And COVID?

Is there really any link between vaping and COVID?  Most likely not, according the results of the largest study on the matter to date.  That study, done by the Mayo Clinic, found literally no correlation between vaping and being diagnosed with COVID.  And of course, the MSM was predictably crickets about that.

Not only that, they found that current combustible cigarette smokers were at a lower risk of contracting the virus.  That latter finding is rather puzzling until you consider something a bit esoteric that is frequently pointed out by Dr. Dmitry Kats:  some of the nicotine in tobacco, upon combustion (and also in the liver to a degree), turns into nicotinic acid, better known as Niacin (Vitamin B3) which he notes seems to really work wonders in curing and preventing COVID.  To achieve this same benefit without putting one's lungs in jeopardy, it would be better to simply take niacin directly, at least 500 mg at a time, along with cofactors Vitamin C (which gets depleted by smoking), Vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, thiamine (which also gets blocked by nicotine), B-12, magnesium, selenium, melatonin, and the amino acid lysine.  

So why did a previous smaller study seem to find that (younger) vapers were more likely to get COVID than non-vapers?  Well, smaller sample size can magnify any biases and confounders in a study, and one obvious bias is that younger vapers often share devices, which can clearly spread the virus.  They may also be more likely to attend parties that can turn into superspreader events.  But the act of vaping itself, while not exactly the healthiest habit in the world, does not appear to be directly causally linked to an increased risk of contracting the disease. 

Interestingly, even that previous smaller study of teens and young adults only found a correlation with "ever used" vape products, but NO correlation with recent use.  That is a rather strange finding for a study that purports to show a causal link to vaping.

As for the theory that people who got that mysterious vaping illness EVALI in 2019 and early 2020 were at greater risk of COVID later on, that may very well be true.  But we know now that it was primarily the result of black market THC (i.e. cannabis) vape products adulterated with questionable additives, most notably Vitamin E acetate.  And it is very telling that states where cannabis was legal for recreational sale in 2019 saw not only fewer per capita cases of EVALI than states where it was not, but also fewer COVID deaths as well.  Ditto for countries where cannabis was and still is fully legal (Canada, Uruguay) as well as where it is de facto legal (Netherlands) compared to their neighbors where it was not.  Thus, the lingering subtle lung damage from using tainted vapes several months prior may very well increase one's susceptibility to severe and fatal COVID, meaning that the cannabis prohibitionists whose policies created these black markets may have even way more blood on their hands than we thought.

But legal and untainted vape products, whether nicotine, cannabis, or otherwise?  The evidence that they significantly increase the risk of COVID simply isn't there, period.  Another myth bites the dust.

The No-Brainer Solution To The College Question (2021 Edition)

Last August, Twenty-One Debunked had argued that colleges and universities should reopen with minimal restrictions for the most part.  And guess what, we still do, with even fewer restrictions still.  

This time around, that means:

No vaccine mandates or "passports" for anyone 

No mask mandates for anyone 

No testing mandates, except perhaps a rapid test for students upon initial arrival on campus and before and after long holiday breaks, as well as perhaps for certain employees 

No quarantines for anyone unless testing positive and/or showing symptoms 

No prison-like rules or conditions 

No six-foot antisocial distancing rules (at least not outside the classroom)

No public or private gathering bans (ok, maybe a Rule of 500 if you really wanna be anal about it)

No closures or class cancellations lasting more than a few days, if even that

No kicking students out of dorms en masse to be sent home to infect their parents/grandparents 

All classes in-person full-time (unless students choose otherwise)

100% capacity 

PERIOD

And, of course, lower the drinking age to 18, along with the smoking and toking age too.  Or at the very least, treat it as such de facto if not officially.

Let America Be America Again!

'Nuff said

UPDATE 1:  The Tweet below is precisely what we do NOT want to see.  EVER AGAIN.

Ironically, their neighbor "Zoo Mass" sounds like LESS of a zoo in comparison.  As for K-12 schools, once again Sweden still has the right idea overall:

I mean, Team Reality has only been saying exactly this for the past 18 months, right?

UPDATE 2:  As of the end of September, it looks like many if not most colleges in the USA, from state schools all the way to Ivy League schools are NOT heeding our advice one bit.  Even ones with a 100% vaccination rate (!) due to mandates seem to have the craziest rules that would make Orwell himself blush!  These overpriced gilded cage wannabe prisons need to be boycotted at once, as that is the only way to get them to stop this insanity for good.  Honestly, if you can't find a college that offers even a near-normal college experience after 18 months of this madness, perhaps you should take a gap year (or two or three as the case may be) until you can find one.

Another New Study Confirms: Legalizing Cannabis Not A Disaster After All

Yet another study confirms what we have known all along:  legalization of recreational cannabis was NOT a disaster after all.  The study found that legalization at the state level was NOT associated with any increases in drug treatment admissions, violent crime, or overdose deaths, and in some cases even appeared to have the opposite effect.  These findings dovetail with other recent studies as well, and we are really not surprised.  So much for the gateway drug theory, Reefer Madness, and other tired, old perennial Chicken Little predictions from the prohibitionists.

Additionally, just days earlier, another tired, old myth bit the dust as well.  Another new study finds no link between cannabis use and the stereotypical "amotivational syndrome" after controlling for confounders.  This particular study followed 14-17 year olds for a period of two years and did not find such a correlation, which is notable since numerous previous studies of the matter have generally failed to find such effects in adults but occasionally succeeded when looking specifically at adolescents.  So the fact that they could not detect such effects in that age group implies that such effects, if they do occur, are relatively rare and most likely confined to the small minority of very-heavy and ultra-heavy users and/or those who began using cannabis even earlier in life still.  And it thoroughly puts the lie to the fearmongers' claim that legalization would supposedly result in a nation of "orange-lipped couch-potato" zombies whose only semblance of motivation is the acquisition of their next hit.

And yet another myth debunked as well:  cannabis use does NOT appear to be independently linked to increased risk of stroke in young adults after adjusting for confounders such as tobacco use, according to another new study.  While previous studies on the matter have yielded inconsistent results, the prohibitionists of course luuurrrrved to spin such studies to their advantage.

Thus, no good reason not to fully legalize cannabis for everyone over 18 nationwide yesterday, and treat it no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco.  Period.

To anyone reading this who still opposes legalization, because reasons, we have a question for you: How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?  Because we wouldn't know anything about that.

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

This coming Monday, May 31, 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, past and present.  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.   Designate a sober driver, call a cab or rideshare, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.

"No Safe Level" Is A Red Flag For Junk Science

According to a wise man named Paracelsus (essentially the Western world's first toxicologist) long ago, it is the dose that makes the poison.  Anything (even water) can be poisonous in a high enough quantity, and conversely there is, practically speaking, a safe level for everything.  It is all a matter of degree.  So why, when it comes to things like alcohol, do the "experts" seem to lose all common sense?

Take the latest study of alcohol and the brain at Oxford, for example.  This one claims that there is no safe level of alcohol for the brain, that is, any amount will cause damage.  The observational study, which notably has not even been peer-reviewed yet, finds a negative linear correlation between alcohol drinking volume and the volume of gray matter (as well as white matter) in brain scans, even after controlling for every confounder they could think of.  While it is known that excessive drinking can damage the brain, the shocker here seems to have more to do with much lower levels of drinking previously thought to be safe.

I bet the reader can quickly spot the problem here.  If not, here it goes.  A closer look at the data shows that, given how small the overall effect size is, with alcohol explaining only 0.8% of the variance in gray matter, combined with the tendency of people (especially heavier drinkers) to undercount their drinks, the apparent harmful effects of light to moderate drinking may very well be spurious at the lower end of the curve even if likely genuine towards the higher end.  That, and the lack of peer review of course.

They also found an additive effect of "binge" drinking over and above the effect of drinking volume alone, particularly for daily "binging", which was fairly strong and consistently statistically significant.  But given the rather wide confidence intervals, for less than daily "binge" drinking, it was not always statistically significant.  Given the typically fairly low definitions used for "binge" drinking, it would not be surprising that the confidence intervals are so wide.

It also appears from this study that people with hypertension (high blood pressure) and/or a high BMI are significantly more sensitive to the apparent adverse effects of alcohol than the average person for whatever reasons as well.  The interaction was not just additive, but multiplicative.  That will certainly require further study going forward. 

We are not in any way encouraging anyone to drink alcoholic beverages. But specious inferences should not cloud the issue either.

There is a safe level everything, even arsenic apparently.  So why would that not be true for alcohol?  Especially since our own bodies can actually produce a bit of it as a byproduct, believe it or not?

On the bright side, at least the study looked largely at older adults (age 40+) and did not indulge in the usual youth drinking panic routines.  Even if the observed effects are 100% true, that would of course mean that young people are not uniquely vulnerable to the adverse effects of alcohol on the brain.

25, You Say? Let's Nip That In The Bud

A handful of psychiatrists in Minnestota, where cannabis has not yet been legalized for recreational use (but is currently being considered), is calling for the age limit to be 25 when it is legalized.  They cite anecdotal evidence of young patients with psychosis that they claim is caused by today's high-potency weed.  And here is why they are, in a word, wrong:

1. First of all, these psychoses that they cite are occurring despite recreational cannabis remaining illegal in Minnesota for all ages.  Legalizing it with an utterly unrealistic age limit of 25 will only preserve and entrench the current black market while worsening criminal justice inequities, both age and racial disparities.
2. The brain continues developing well into the 30s and 40s, and the risk period for schizophrenia continues until about 30, so 25 is arbitrary.
3. While excessive cannabis use can be harmful at any age, and starting use before age 18 and especially before 15 is likely more harmful than starting at 18 or older, there is really no clear and convincing evidence that using it at 18-20 is any worse than using at 21-24 or 25+, especially for light or moderate use.  To claim otherwise is unscientific, disingenuous, and really pushes the limits of the precautionary principle.
4. As we have noted many times before, the relationship between cannabis and psychosis is quite complex, and far more nuanced than Reefer Madness.  Though there is likely a tiny, exquisitely vulnerable sliver of the population that should really avoid weed like the plague at any age, that is no reason for blanket bans or restrictions (by age or otherwise) for legal adults.  That would be unscientific and unjust.
5. And finally, if today's high-potency weed is in fact the culprit in an alleged (and far from certain) recent increase in psychosis among young people, the solution is NOT to raise the age limit and force it deeper underground, but to put a cap (say, 10% or 15%) on the potency of THC on legal weed (and perhaps also setting a minimum level of CBD, which counteracts many of the adverse effects of too much THC), and/or taxing it based on THC/CBD levels.  And also warn people who are at increased risk of psychosis as well via honest public education messaging without sensational fearmongering.

There it is.  Problem solved.  No good reason to set the age limit any higher than 18, let alone 25.  Let's nip this ageist idea in the bud, pun intended of course.

UPDATE:  Twenty-One Debunked believes that proper labeling and tax incentives alone will likely be enough to encourage lower THC and higher CBD levels even in the absence of hard THC/CBD limits.  Taxing cannabis at a higher rate base on THC levels (whether proportionally, or perhaps disproportionally when exceeding a specific threshold or for specific product categories) and applying an offsetting tax discount based on CBD levels would do the trick, as the market would adjust accordingly.

Also, getting back to the subject of psychosis in young people, don't forget to take your fish oil.  Yes, you read that right.  Apparently a new study found that there is an inverse correlation between omega-3 fatty acid levels during adolescence and psychosis in young adulthood.  This dovetails nicely with a study from 2010 that found that just 12 weeks of giving fish oil supplements to teens at ultra-high risk of psychosis greatly reduced their risk of developing psychosis a year later compared with those given placebo.

Latest California Smoking Age Study More Smoke Than Fire

Last month, a new study looking at the results of California's smoking age hike from 18 to 21 in 2016 turns out to be less than meets the eye.  The study, looking at BRFSS survey data for 18-20 year olds pre versus post implementation, found that, compared to 21-23 year olds in California and to 18-20 year olds in the eight comparison states, 18-20 year olds did not see any significant change in the rate of decline of current or ever smoking, but did see significantly faster declines in the rates of daily smoking in the three years after the age limit was hiked to 21 versus before implementation.  Interestingly, vaping was not examined at all due to apparent data gaps at the time, so this study says absolutely nothing about vaping.

While the part about daily smoking sounds impressive on the surface, one should keep in mind that cigarette taxes were hiked by $2.00/pack in 2016 (effective April 2017), and generally the younger a person is, the more price-sensitive they are since they tend to have less disposable income, and furthermore the earlier they are in the course of their tobacco habits.  So it would stand to reason that the tax hike alone, which makes regular and especially daily smoking that much more of an expensive burden on the smoker, would have had a larger impact on 18-20 year olds than 21-23 year olds in California.  That would also explain why current or ever smoking (which were essentially not affected at all) would be much less affected than daily smoking as well.  

Of note, Pennsylvania had also raised their cigarette tax in 2016 yet still kept their age limit at 18 (until July 2020, that is), yet interestingly that state was NOT one of the eight comparison states.  The results of this study would thus likely have been very different if Pennsylvania was one of the comparison states.

Alternatively, some of the progression to daily smoking may simply have been delayed by a few years by the age limit hike, yielding no real long-run benefits, kinda like some studies have strongly suggested about drunk driving deaths when the drinking age was raised to 21.  Indeed, by 2019 the daily smoking rate among 21-23 year olds was actually a bit higher than it was in 2016.

And as we have previously noted, in NYC and elsewhere, raising the smoking age to 21 does not seem to actually reduce high school smoking rates compared with keeping it 18, so the "trickle-down" theory that is often used as a specious justification for Tobacco 21 laws is very unlikely to be the case in California (or anywhere else) either.

Thus, this study is more smoke than fire.  And regardless, we at Twenty-One Debunked would still oppose the 21 smoking age on principle regardless of its effects.  Young adults who are old enough to go to war, be tried as adults, etc. should NOT have the state dictating what otherwise legal substances they choose to put into their own bodies at all, period.  Seriously.

And that is a hill we will die on.

Et Tu, DeSantis?

Florida's controversial Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has been a bit of a mixed bag overall.  The True Spirit of America Party (TSAP) is, to put it mildly, not exactly a fan of Republicans in general and Trump supporters in particular, but has nonetheless generally agreed with his light-touch, focused protection handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has actually yielded a lower cumulative per capita death rate than the national average (and much lower than several lockdown states) despite Florida's significantly older and fatter population.  And in terms of excess all-cause mortality, wide-open Florida even did better than the overall strictest state of all, California.  There are some bad things about DeSantis of course, such as his latest Georgia-style voter suppression efforts and his heavy-handed and poorly-written anti-rioting law that arguably throws out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, but generally he is not too terrible by current low-bar Republican standards.

And of course, Twenty-One Debunked in particular has supported the fact that he was one of the most prominent holdouts in keeping the legal smoking age at 18 despite the trend towards raising it to 21 at the local, state, and eventually federal levels.  After all, he has previously opposed and vetoed every single attempt to raise Florida's smoking age any higher than 18.  Well, until now, that is.  Like most other governors, as of today, DeSantis has officially SOLD OUT and signed into law a bill that raises Florida's smoking and vaping age to 21, effective October 1, 2021.  True, this new law does have an exemption for military service members aged 18-20, making it a shade less bad than some other states, but we still oppose this law on principle like we oppose all inherently ageist Tobacco 21 laws, period.

One could argue that any state law that sets the age limit below 21 is effectively void since the federal smoking age has been 21 since December 2019, but that is beside the point.  A state that chooses to remain 18 in spite of the federal Tobacco 21 law is a principled state with integrity, and is at the very least NOT helping the federal government enforce such an ageist abomination.  Today, Florida lost that status.

DeSantis is now the 34th governor to raise the age limit for tobacco and vaping to 21, bringing it to now more than two out of three states who set it at 21.  With "allies" like him (and Trump, who raised the federal age limit to 21), who really needs enemies?

NEWS FLASH: Vaping Black Market Concoctions Is Bad For Your Lungs

That is what the conclusion should have been from the latest vaping study finding that cannabis vaping is more harmful to the lungs than nicotine vaping, cannabis smoking, and tobacco smoking.  But that does not appear to be the way the mainstream media is presenting the study, without any sort of nuance or detail.  The study did not distinguish between black market, gray market, and legitimate market products, nor did it bother to examine or even mention the old-fashioned way of vaping weed (namely heating regular and pure whole bud in a loose-leaf vaporizer).

Have we really forgotten the primary culprit in the EVALI (vaping illness) epidemic in 2019, namely questionable additives and diluents such as Vitamin E acetate (et al.) that were almost entirely found in black and gray market cannabis vape oil concoctions?  Especially since EVALI was significantly less common in states where cannabis is fully legal compared to states where it is not, as there are by definition much safer alternatives to the black market in legal states (though a significant black market still remains in highly taxed and tightly regulated states like California as well, or at least did in 2019-2020).

The solution is really quite simple:  legalize cannabis 18+, ban any additives that have not been proven safe for human consumption via inhalation, implement strict quality control standards, don't overtax it, charge excessive licensing fees, or otherwise have excessive barriers to entry into the legitimate market, and crack down on any remaining illicit markets.

And for users, as we have said before, DO NOT vape, juul, or dab anything you find on the black market!

Problem solved.  We ignore these facts at our peril.

What About Tobacco, Again?

The Biden administration is currently considering two new sweeping FDA rules affecting combustible tobacco cigarettes:  1) banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, and 2) reducing nicotine levels, presumably to a non-addictive level.  Where we stand on these two potential changes is as follows:

The first one, Twenty-One Debunked is on the fence about that, as we can see both sides of that issue, noting that Canada has already banned menthols and the EU has phased them out, while also noting the inconvenient truth of racism and how it intersects with this issue as well.   The flavored cigars we generally lean against banning, while for menthol cigarettes we believe that if they must do it for whatever reason, they should phase them out more gradually and allow existing stocks to be sold well after the designated "quit date" for selling newly manufactured menthols.  Also, possession and consumption of menthols should NOT be banned or punished, and police should NOT go out of their way to target the sale of menthols or "loosies" in underprivileged neighborhoods with people of color.

(For what it's worth, quit rates in Canada have improved significantly since their menthol ban, particularly among formerly menthol-preferring smokers.  That lends credence to the idea that menthol enhances the overall addictiveness of tobacco by making the high nicotine levels less harsh on the throat, which also makes it easier for young experimenters to pick up the habit in the first place.)

The second one, reducing nicotine levels, Twenty-One Debunked has cautiously supported since 2014, and we still do, provided that all of the following are true:

• The phasedown of nicotine to a non-addictive level is done gradually and stepwise over a period of at least a year, in at least three stages.
• The sale of existing domestic stocks of cigarettes above the nicotine cap can continue at least six months after the "quit date" for manufacturing and importing cigarettes above that cap (at each step of the phasedown).  
• The possession/consumption of cigarettes with nicotine levels above the cap is NOT banned or punished.
• The only other tobacco products subject to the same cap shall be little cigars (below a certain size), perhaps all cigars with a smoke pH below 8, and possibly loose roll-your-own cigarette tobacco and/or pipe tobacco with a pH below 8.  Nothing else, period.  We would be fine with, and would actually prefer, if only pre-rolled commercial cigarettes and little cigars (the size of cigarettes) were subject to the nicotine cap.  
• The addition of any harmful or addictive additives to all newly manufactured tobacco products is banned effective immediately as well.  All additives must meet the same standards as for additives to food.  Radioactive fertilizers for growing tobacco must also be banned as well.

While the effectiveness of the flavor ban is a bit questionable at best, the nicotine cap and phasedown would likely greatly reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking and associated disease and death, simply by making this conveniently deadly product by design far less addictive.  More people would quit fairly quickly, and fewer people would take up the habit in the first place.  And people who miss the old high-nicotine smokes of yore would still be free to use alternative tobacco and nicotine products.

And doing it gradually enough will make it so there is no more of a black market for higher-nicotine cigarettes than there is for incandescent light bulbs.

As for vaping, Twenty-One Debunked does not support such a massive reduction in nicotine levels to that proposed for combustible cigarettes, but rather we support reducing the nicotine content in vape products to the maximum levels permitted in the EU, UK, and Israel.  That would nix the super-addictive ones that notoriously get young people hooked within seven days (JUUL, we're looking at you!) while still allowing plenty of nicotine for adult vapers who are trying to quit smoking.  (Twenty-One Debunked does NOT recommend anyone take up vaping, except as a last-ditch effort for truly hardened and refractory adult smokers who cannot quit any other way.)

Of course, we also think the smoking age should be lowered back to 18, just like we feel about the drinking age and toking age.  We are not called Twenty-One Debunked for nothing, after all.  Raising the age limit to 21 was at best useless, and is an ageist abomination.  In the meantime, though, the above is our nuanced and well-thought-out stance on the latest tobacco-related measures being proposed. 

FINAL THOUGHT:  By the way, the fact that they use the "think of the children!" argument to justify the banning of menthols and flavored cigars, is really just a tacit admission that raising the smoking age to 21 was essentially useless in keeping cigarettes and cigars from "trickling down" to people under 18.

More Proof That Curfews Don't Really Reduce Crime

Curfews, especially youth curfews for people under an arbitrary age limit, have long been a solution in search of a problem.  They have been touted as a panacea for all sorts of social ills, most notably street crime.  And the evidence for that has been very weak at best, with plenty of evidence against it in fact.

But now we have the strongest "natural experiment" with the extreme, unprecedented, all-ages COVID lockdowns, curfews, and other restrictions in 2020 that did not exist in 2019 and prior years.  If curfews and similar policies actually reduced crime, we would have seen a sharp decrease in crime in 2020 relative to the average of previous years.  So what were the results of this yearlong natural experiment?

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

Even the supposedly good news about reported rapes being down in the first half of 2020 needs to be qualified.  Given how the vast majority of rapes occur behind closed doors and go unreported even in a normal year, the apparent decrease in 2020 may simply be an artifact of an increase in underreporting due to lockdown, especially since domestic violence and child abuse both appear to have increased significantly during lockdown.  We will ultimately see when the 2020 survey results for NCVS and NISVS are released, either later in 2021 or even as late as 2022.

Back in April 2020, anecdotal evidence of course suggested that crime was down in some areas.  But clearly that decrease was short-lived, and then the opposite occurred.  Whether it is due to pent-up rage, restlessness, boredom, unemployment, fewer "eyes on the street", destruction of community, or all of the above, these sorts of authoritarian and illiberal policies clearly do more harm than good on balance.

So let this be the final nail in the coffin for lockdowns, curfews, and similar restrictions.  If curfews are to ever be used to fight crime and/or civil disorder, they need to be very limited, local, nuanced, and short-term--if they are to even be used at all.

QED

Our Position on Parental Notification

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

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

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