About That Finland Study

This year, a new study came out in The Lancet that looked at the long-term differences in alcohol-related morbidity and mortality between birth cohorts in Finland that either were or were exposed to the lowering of their legal drinking age from 21 to 18 on January 1, 1969.  That is, based on how old they were when the drinking age was changed.  The study and its interpretation had a clear pro-21 bias. 

While the results did show that, exposed cohorts did have higher morbidity and mortality later in life relative to the unexposed cohorts, the results were ultimately inconclusive since several other changes happened at the same time. For example, the lowering of the drinking age occurred in tandem with other alcohol liberalization policies (in a previously very stringent policy regime with fairly low alcohol consumption) that greatly increased alcohol availability in general and thus consumption in a short period of time.  Urbanization also increased rapidly as well.  Culture changes (especially of the drinking culture) also inevitably occurred as well against a backdrop of increasing general alcohol consumption, and those who came of age during or right after the change would logically have been more affected than those who already came of age just before it, regardless of the legal age limit.  So teasing out the specific effects of the legal drinking age change is really practically impossible in this case.

A cursory reading of the Wikipedia article about Finnish drinking culture will tell you all you need to know about why the age limit is largely irrelevant.

Previous studies on the very long-term effects of the 21 drinking age in the USA and elsewhere have been very scarce and ultimately inconclusive at best as well.  (At least one Swedish study seems to suggest a null effect though.)  And this new Finland study, quite frankly, adds very little.  Causation can thus neither be confirmed nor ruled out, in other words.

Regardless, in any case, even if it were partly causal, using a study like this to justify the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age is mission creep at best, and grasping at straws at worst, given that the original justifications for it are either debunked, obsolete, or both.  The idea that some vague conception of "public health", especially theoretically in the distant future, somehow trumps civil rights (and selectively for only one demographic group, no less) is the very worst of utilitarianism and health fascism, and has no place in a free society.

And as long as we are on the subject of Finland, that same country has also since shown us what can be done to rapidly decrease alcohol-related mortality and morbidity at very little cost to society at large and without trampling civil rights:  raising the tax/price of alcohol.  Even the pro-21 crowd, including the authors of the aforementioned study, seem to be willing to concede that.  But apparently that doesn't satisfy the ageists' desire for power and control.  Their libido dominandi seems to know no bounds in that regard.

QED

UPDATE:  And while we are at it, lest anyone speciously claim that Lithuania's raising of the their drinking age from 18 to 20 effective January 1, 2018 somehow saved lives, keep in mind that in 2017 they also greatly raised their alcohol taxes, banned alcohol advertising, and greatly cut trading hours for alcohol sales in 2018.  So once again, we see confounding.  In fact, one study found that once such confounders were adjusted for, any supposed lifesaving effect of the drinking age hike on 18-19 year olds disappeared, implying that it was a spurious effect.

See also a recent 2025 study about Finland as well.

What Reactionaries Get Wrong About Drugs, Decriminalization, And Homelessness

Twenty-One Debunked does not take an official position on hard drugs (i.e. illicit drugs other than cannabis and some psychedelics) or the question of their legalization, but we generally lean more towards the decriminalization and harm reduction side of the spectrum as opposed to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs.  There is a lot of nuance that tends to get glossed over in debates that are, more often than not, typically dominated by hysterics.

Reactionaries have lately been giving some red-hot takes about the supposed perils of decriminalization and harm reduction, and often pointing fingers at Oregon for their decriminalization policy causing or exacerbating homelessness, crime, and overdose deaths.  However, such hot takes are typically completely devoid of nuance, and thus conflate correlation with causation.  Such nuances include the role of super-deadly fentanyl and its variation over time and geography, the role of the pandemic and lockdowns and their aftermath, the still-growing housing crisis, the inherent pitfalls of forced treatment, and so on.  Better articles about such nuances can be found here and here, for starters.

Those who have the GALL to oppose basic and increasingly necessary lifesaving harm reduction measures like making naloxone (Narcan) and fentanyl test strips readily available are, to put it mildly, murderously stupid.  Fentanyl often gets mixed into other drugs and can make the drug supply much deadlier than it would otherwise be.  While treatment and recovery are no doubt important goals, we also still need to meet people where they are as well.

Of course, the reactionaries do get one thing partially right, as a stopped clock always does twice a day.  There has been a general breakdown of law and order in most major North American cities in recent years due to a combination of general policy changes, anti-police sentiment, catch and release, political ideology, political correctness, and perhaps even deliberate chaos manufacture by various agents provocateur.  Of course, they should shut down and clear out the sprawling homeless encampments on the city streets and sidewalks and the open-air drug scenes that all too often go along with them.  End catch and release.  Re-criminalize theft.  Crack down on violence of all kinds.  Bring back "focused deterrence" policing, and take the classic "broken windows" theory literally.  All of these things are really just common sense, and none of them require ending harm reduction or reversing Oregon's decriminalization of simple possession of small amounts of illicit drugs.

In other words, simply enforce existing laws, and repeal bad or counterproductive ones.  But please, do it ethically, and don't let it be a springboard for an illiberal reactionary agenda.  If you feel the urge to show "tough love", look to Portugal or Alberta, not the current or historical drug warrior nations.

That said, we should always keep in mind that hard drugs called "hard" for a reason, as they are a different beast from alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.  They may not be quite a million miles away from the latter ones, but they clearly don't belong in the same category either.  While illiberal drug policy clearly makes them much more dangerous than they have to be, they are also pretty inherently dangerous, deadly, and highly addictive in their own right as well regardless.  This is especially true for opioids in particular, as there is really no such thing as a truly safe opioid.  And we have also long known that "speed kills" and "meth is death".  And yet, unfortunately these things are still not going anywhere either.  Policymakers need to handle these things with great care as they should with any wicked problem.  And consumers would be wise to avoid these substances like the plague, especially in the age of fentanyl. 

As for the perennial wicked problem of homelessness, the housing crisis still needs to be solved before there is any hope of ending it for good.  Artificial scarcity of housing needs to end, yesterday.  And a recent study found that some form of UBI can also play a net positive role in the solution as well.  Contrary to popular opinion, spending on "temptation goods" did not actually increase for such recipients.  But good luck convincing the reactionaries of that!

Yet Another Myth Bites The Dust

Last month, another study came out that debunks yet another cannabis prohibitionist myth.  The study found that cannabis use during off-hours does NOT result in an increased risk of workplace accidents.  Therefore, there is no good reason to test workers for cannabis any more than there is a reason to test for alcohol, and no good reason to punish employees for their off-hours cannabis use any more so than for off-hours alcohol use.  Which is to say, there is no good reason, period.  Anything else is serfdom. 

Twenty-One Debunked has always opposed the use of drug testing for cannabis except to determine actual impairment at the time, and even then only when truly necessary.  Urine and hair testing only detect past use (days or even weeks ago), not actual impairment at the time, and thus serve no useful purpose whatsoever.  The only chemical test for cannabis (and most other substances) that could possibly serve as a "fitness for duty" test would be saliva (oral fluid) testing, which despite its flaws we grudgingly support for "safety sensitive" jobs, much like breathalyzers for alcohol.  And even better still would be non-chemical tests like the DRUID app and AlertMeter that detect any kind of impairment regardless of the cause.

The study was done in Canada where cannabis has been legal since 2018 for everyone over 18 at the federal level (18 in Alberta, 18 in Quebec until 2020 when it was raised to 21, and 19 in all other provinces and territories).  So this study also puts the lie to the tired, old canard that legalization itself will somehow make workplace accidents worse or more likely.

(Mic drop)

Remove Cannabis From The Federal Controlled Substances Act

With all the recent talk about removing cannabis from the most stringent Schedule I (the same category as heroin) of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), we at Twenty-One Debunked believe that the best thing to do is to remove it from the Controlled Substances Act entirely (that is, "deschedule" it).  Merely reducing it to a lower schedule ("rescheduling") or creating a new schedule would not have nearly the same benefits as removing it from the CSA entirely and treating it no more stringently than alcohol and tobacco are currently treated.

As Ricardo Baca of Salon so elegantly and eloquently writes:

But rescheduling cannabis under the CSA, rather than descheduling it completely, doesn't address the underlying issue: The cannabis plant shouldn't be a controlled substance under federal law. Period. Alcohol isn't a controlled substance. Tobacco isn't a controlled substance. Not even caffeine is a controlled substance. Cannabis shouldn't be a controlled substance either. 

Indeed.  And to that we would add, there is also no good or rational reason to set a federal age limit any higher than 18 either.

(Mic drop)

Cannabis Legalization Does NOT Increase Tobacco Use

A recent study pours cold water on another prohibitionist fear, namely that legalizing cannabis for recreational use will lead to more tobacco use via a "reverse gateway" effect.  Well, the study found the opposite:  a slight decrease in tobacco use as well as e-cigarette use.  While the decrease did not quite reach statistical significance, it was lagged and perhaps builds over time.  And at the very least, it certainly puts the lie to the tired old "reverse gateway" theory.

Thus, another myth bites the dust.

If The 21 Drinking Age Really Saves Lives In The Long Run, Then Explain This

Sometimes the truth is literally hiding in plain sight.  A good, bias-free way to examine the supposed lifesaving effects of a policy would be to look at excess all-cause mortality or its inverse, life expectancy.  That gives a clear picture of the "final bill" of net effects, regardless of the "why" behind it.

For example, a recent article notes how life expectancy in the USA has lagged behind that of practically every comparable country in the world, in both absolute AND relative terms.  America is clearly an outlier, and not in a good way, despite being the richest and most powerful country on Earth.  

So what gives?

Is it Covid?  The collateral damage from lockdowns?  Or the vaccines?  While things clearly deteriorated further during the pandemic, and especially after the vaccines were introduced, the diverging trend in life expectancy began well before that.  

Is it fentanyl, or the opioid crisis more generally?  That's a big part of it, and something you really don't see nearly as bad anywhere else in the world, but the trend pre-dates even that by quite a while.

Is it illicit drugs in general?  Partly, but those "epidemics" ebbed and flowed repeatedly while the divergence continued regardless.

Is it tobacco? Well, as deadly as it is, given how Americans generally smoke less than Europeans, and always have, that cannot be a significant reason for the divergence. 

Is it obesity?  Partly, but several other countries are also catching up to us in that regard, so that only explains a fraction of it.  (And why are we so fat in the first place?)

Is it poverty?  Lack of healthcare?  Inequality?  Or any other adverse effect of neoliberalism?  Very likely at least part of it. After all, the American life expectancy began diverging from peer countries in the early 1980s during the "Reagan Revolution".  Before that, it was well within the normal range of wealthy countries.  But not even the UK under Margaret Thatcher could deteriorate quite like we did.

Is it guns?  Partly, but again that only explains a fraction of the trend, and there were already plenty of guns in the USA well before the divergence.

Is it traffic deaths?  Getting even warmer.  Traffic safety has clearly lagged behind the rest of the developed world indeed, and it's not only because we have more cars either.

Or is it perhaps the pink elephant in the room?  That is, Americans drowning themselves in the bottom of the bottle?  Yes, and we are paying a heavy price for it:  alcohol is indeed one of the largest contributors, that actually kills more Americans than opioids and all illicit drugs combined.  Let that sink in. 

Along with suicide and drug overdoses, alcohol-related deaths are in fact one of the most common types of "deaths of despair" in this country.

So to those who support the 21 drinking age, riddle me this:  if your beloved policy saved so many lives on balance like you claim, why did America's life expectancy lag behind all of our peer countries that generally did NOT raise their drinking ages any higher than 18?  And why are alcohol and traffic deaths such large contributors to the divergence?

Take as long as you like with your answer.

And bonus points for those who loudly cry "think of the children!" when it comes to public policies they dislike, and are still able to somehow explain why American infant and child mortality is so much worse than peer countries as well.

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  But don't European countries supposedly have higher liver cirrhosis death rates than the USA?  Well, some do, but many countries are the same or lower.  The UK, for example, used to be higher, but by 2016 it was lower.  Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also have lower cirrhosis death rates as well.

One Silver Lining Of The Pandemic And Its Aftermath

As the rolling three-year ordeal of the pandemic and its illiberal restrictions has drawn to a close, one can observe that one particular and very platitudinous phrase seems to have vanished entirely from our lexicon.  It was a phrase that long predated the pandemic, and first became common about 40 years ago, which was used to cover any number of illiberal policies, most notably the 21 drinking age.  So what is it?

"If it saves even ONE life, it's worth it"

Those nine words have clearly been a very, very slippery slope towards totalitarianism, which really came to a head during the pandemic.  And both sides of the lockdown and mandates debate have since given that idea up for the time being recently.  Thus, we may actually have a chance temporarily to finally end other illiberal policies like the 21 drinking age and similar abominations.  Pendulum Theory can therefore be used to our advantage. 

What are we waiting for?

Yet Another Study Finds No Link Between Cannabis Legalization And Traffic Casualties

Once again, yet another study finds that recreational cannabis legalization and retail commercialization did NOT lead to an increase in fatal or injury traffic crashes.  This study looked at Washington State, one of the first two states to legalize cannabis for recreational use, and actually found that legalization itself led to fewer fatal and injury crashes, while commercialization (retail sales) led to no statistically significant impacts on fatal or injury crashes (albeit correlated with a modest increase in non-injury crashes, likely from tourists).  These results jibe well with survey data that did not find a significant change in driving behavior while under the influence, despite a self-reported increase in cannabis use in general. 

These results dovetail rather nicely with several other studies in both the USA as well as Canada.

In other words, the fear that legalization or retail sales would cause carnage on the highways has turned out to be unfounded.  Look like yet another card in the prohibitionists' vast rolodex full of myths, lies, and half-truths needs to be retired for good.

UPDATE:  Also, a new study found that mental health treatment admissions actually go DOWN following recreational cannabis legalization.

Hey New York, Wanna Know A Secret?

Though cannabis legalization has been a positive development overall, in many places, the black market still exists to one degree or another, albeit much less so than when cannabis was illegal.  Nowhere else is this more true than in New York, whose uniquely arcane, difficult, and disastrously sluggish rollout of cannabis licenses statewide has led to a massive proliferation of unlicensed weed shops, especially in NYC where such shops outnumber licensed ones by a whopping 250 to one.  So how does one solve such a bedeviling problem?

Enter Rear Admiral Luther E. Gregory.  In the 1930s, Prohibition was repealed, and Washington State along with other states were now faced with the task of shutting down the well-established bootleggers and speakeasies that persisted even after Repeal.   Admiral Gregory was asked to head the state's Liquor Control Board, and given carte blanche to come up with a solution, one which worked surprisingly well in fact:

1. End Prohibition, first of all.
2. Give amnesty and issue licenses to anyone willing to play by the state's rules, whether former bootleggers or otherwise.
3. Set the alcohol taxes as low as possible at first, the lowest in the country in fact.
4. Punish sellers who don't play by the rules, with an iron fist--i.e. blacklisting scofflaws from ever selling liquor in the state again.
5. After holding down alcohol taxes for three years, abruptly raise taxes to the point where they're now the highest in the nation.

Problem solved.  The legal market proved to be competitive with what was left of the black market, and drinkers overwhelmingly preferred the former over the latter, driving the latter out of business.  And the black market never came back even after raising taxes dramatically.  Looking back, it should have been so obvious indeed.

Substitute "cannabis" for "alcohol", and there is literally no reason whatsoever why this strategy would not work in this day and age.  And instead of holding down taxes for three years, merely one or two years should be sufficient to get the same results, even if the hike is automatically scheduled.  Doing so would minimize the greatest risk of the strategy, namely, that the fledgling legal cannabis industry would then become so powerful that they would resist and successfully quash any attempt to raise taxes in the future.  They would not become that powerful in just a year or two, and probably not for several years, but the black market could be easily quashed in that timeframe all the same.  But most importantly, cut the ridiculous red tape and, and make cannabis licenses easier and cheaper to get, particularly for the current gray market shops.

Now over to you, New York.  Remember, the cart does NOT go before the horse.

Latest Twin Study Pours Cold Water Over Cannabis Prohibitionists

A new study looked at pairs of twins where one twin lived in a recreational cannabis legalization state and the other lived in a state where it remained illegal and found the following:

• Somewhat greater self-reported levels of cannabis use among those living in legalization states, but they were no more likely to experience negative consequences as a result of their cannabis use.
• Both groups consumed alcohol at similar rates, but those living in legalization states reported fewer negative consequences from their alcohol use.
• No significant difference in tobacco or other controlled substance use between the two groups.

This dovetails nicely with a previous study that finds that alcohol use disorders are also less likely in co-twins who live in legalization states as well (and also no increase in psychosis either).

No increase in adverse consequences of cannabis use (check), decrease in adverse consequences of alcohol use (check), and no increase in tobacco or other drug use (check).  And no increase in psychosis either.  Both the gateway theory and Reefer Madness have thus been thoroughly debunked, at least insofar as they relate to legalization.  Ditto for any alleged associations with (non-victimless) crime as well, especially violence.  Such robust research findings slaughter so many of the sacred cows of the prohibitionists, that it's time to have a barbecue.

Zero Evidence For Zero Tolerance Pe Se Laws

At least for cannabis, that is.  Yet another study found a stunning lack of correlation between the detection of either THC or its metabolites in blood, breath, or oral fluid (saliva) and psychomotor performance, both on a driving simulator as well as on a standard field sobriety test (SFST).  While this does not mean that cannabis cannot cause impairment (it can) or that driving while high is a good idea (it's not), it does mean that the truth about cannabis and driving is far more nuanced than the prohibitionists and MADD-type zealots like to claim, and that any strict per se thresholds (let alone zero tolerance) for THC for DUI cannabis are not supported by the science.

The reason for this lack of correlation is due to the complex pharmacokinetics of cannabis, and how trace amounts of fat-soluble THC itself and especially its metabolites can linger in the body and be detected LONG after any impairment is gone.  And there is no hard and fast blood THC level threshold that can clearly (by itself) separate the actually impaired from the non-impaired, only very roughly determining how recent the last use was.  Thus unlike how it is for alcohol, chemical testing alone cannot accurately predict actual impairment for cannabis. 

That is all true whether a threshold is zero tolerance (LOD or LOQ) OR supposedly "science-based", even if the latter is slightly less ridiculous than the former.

(Even worse still are the places where driving with non-psychoactive metabolites is treated the same as THC well.  Pennsylvania, I'm looking at YOU!)

And there is still no evidence that states with strict per se laws have seen any sort of lifesaving benefits at all compared to the many states without them.

Thus, while per se laws (of any sort) make sense for alcohol, and possibly some other drugs, they make absolutely zero sense for cannabis whatsoever.  Either have an actual impairment standard alone, like many states currently do, or have that in addition to a prima facie threshold for THC (say, 5 ng/ml in blood) like Colorado currently has.  In fact, the aforementioned study found that a 2 ng/ml THC level in oral fluid did help further distinguish impairment among those who failed an SFST.  But cut out this ridiculous per se nonsense, that accomplishes literally nothing more that catching innocent sober drivers in the same dragnet along with the actually impaired.

By the way, there is actually a smartphone app called DRUID (Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs) that CAN accurately tell whether some is too messed up to drive, whether by cannabis or otherwise.  All without any sort of chemical testing whatsoever. 

It's what the late Peter McWilliams would have most likely wanted.  So what are we waiting for?

The Stupid Literally Burns Like Cigarettes

In Australia, there is quite a furor right now among the chattering classes in regards to a sharp increase in teen tobacco smoking from 2018 to 2023 after over two straight decades of decline.  And one of the things people are blaming is.....wait for it....vaping.  Because reasons.  Or something.  But there is one very glaring problem with this theory.  In Australia, vape products are technically legal, but ONLY if they do NOT contain any nicotine at all, thus kind of defeating the purpose.  That's right, nicotine vape products have never been approved for legal sales in Australia (and probably never will be any time soon), meaning anyone who wants to use them must either smuggle them in from abroad or buy them on the black market.  And interestingly enough, vaping itself also appears to be on the rise as well down under.  Thus, it truly takes a special kind of stupid to not only perversely create a situation where vaping and smoking both increase at the same time, but to then blame the increase in smoking on vaping.

Even more notable is the fact that in Australia, cigarettes have some of the highest taxes (and thus prices) in the world, plus so many other world-leading "best practices" tobacco control polices as well.  This additionally shows that while vice taxes and some other policies may work well to a point, all of these policies inherently have their limits in practice. 

Our working theory:  it is actually the banning of nicotine vaping, combined with the harmful effects of one of the strictest lockdown and Zero Covid regimes in the world, that ultimately snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the long fight against tobacco smoking, particularly for youth.  And we must stress that while nicotine in any form is far from benign and definitely NOT for kids, banning or unduly restricting vaping (which is still significantly safer than the known deadly habit of smoking that it often displaces) is therefore a net public health loser of a policy.  And a policy like Australia's that perversely increases "dual use" of both is even that much worse still.

One could even argue that their truly massive cigarette black market created by their insanely high taxes, especially combined with their vaping black market from their nicotine ban, actually increased underage (under 18) use of both products since black market sellers typically don't ask buyers for ID.

Note also how the increase did not begin until 2020 (implicating the lockdowns as a contributing cause), and occurred for 14-17 year olds but interestingly NOT 18-24 year olds (putting the lie to the idea that their age limit of 18, as opposed to 21, was in any way related).  Also note that in England, where the age limit is still 18 and vaping is literally promoted by public health authorities, teen smoking continued its long decline through at least 2021.  New Zealand, where the age limit was still 18 (until very, very recently), smoking rates among 15-24 year olds nosedived as soon as nicotine vaping was officially legalized in 2020, despite an even stricter lockdown there.  Thus it seems to be the combination of 1) black markets, 2) vaping bans, and 3) lockdowns that is the cause of the jump in teen smoking in Australia.

But good luck trying to convince the nanny-state zealots to use even a little bit of common sense!

QED

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

This coming Monday, May 29, 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.

Legalizing Cannabis In Canada NOT Linked To More Traffic Crashes

A new Toronto, Canada study found that neither legalization of cannabis nor the number of cannabis retail stores was associated with an increase in traffic crashes.  This dovetails with other recent studies which came to similar conclusions about legalization across Canada, as well many US studies.

In other words, the predicted "parade of horribles" never happened.  Not with liberalization, not with legalization, and not even with commercialization of cannabis. Fearmongers, prepare to eat crow.

Note that the legal age limit for cannabis is 18 in Alberta and 19 in all other provinces except Quebec, who originally set it at 18 but unfortunately raised it to 21 in 2020.  (For comparison, the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec, and 19 elsewhere.)  Thus, a lower age limit in Canada does not seem to increase traffic crash risk either, relative to the USA where it is 21 in all legalization states.  Not even in Alberta specifically either, whether for all ages OR for Albertan youth specifically. 

Oh, and cannabis legalization does NOT seem to be crazy-making in Canada either.  Again, nt even in the province with the most liberal cannabis policies, Alberta.  Nor does legalization seem to have increased problematic cannabis use among youth or young adults in either Canada or the USA.  Thus, another tired, old myth bites the dust.

Raise Voting Age To 25? HELL To The NO!

Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy apparently want to raise the voting age to 25, the Constitution be damned.  Even his own staffers rightly oppose this utterly ageist, anti-democratic, and simultaneously radical and reactionary Horseshoe Theory idea.

Granted, his idea comes with exceptions for 18-24 year olds who either 1) join the military, 2) become first responders, or 3) pass a civics test.  While that is of course marginally better than a "hard" 25 age limit, it is still an ageist abomination that blatantly violates the Constitution all the same.  As for the idea of requiring a test to vote, well, anyone who stayed awake in history class (or even bothers to do a few seconds of Googling) would know that that such an idea has a rather checkered history in this country, right up there with poll taxes, grandfather clauses, sitting at the back of the bus, and stuff like that.

We at Twenty-One Debunked oppose this idea 100%, and in fact support lowering the voting age to 16.  Honestly, if Trump can vote, the Kardashians can vote, alcoholics can vote, drug addicts can vote, psychotics can vote, severely developmentally disabled folks can vote, and so on, there is no good reason to deny 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote due to age.  And plenty of countries like Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Malta, Nicaragua, Scotland, and Wales currently set the voting age at 16 without the sky falling or any parade of horribles occurring.  And Switzerland, the worlds largest and oldest functioning direct democracy, also currently sets the voting age at 16 for cantonal (state) and local elections, though for national elections it is still 18.

In short, raising the voting age is not only bad policy, for it to even be up for debate also shifts the Overton window in a very questionable direction at best.  Especially with the idea coming from a fairly young 37 year old Millennial like himself who apparently can't wait to pull up the drawbridge and shut the proverbial kingdom in future generations' faces.  Hey Vivek, remember you were 18 once too, buddy.

Or maybe it is all a cynical and cowardly Republican ploy to stop Gen Z from voting for their rivals, the Democrats.  Either way, it's not a good look at all.

Are THC Potency Caps Really Necessary?

Concerns about high-potency cannabis products have prompted calls for increased regulation, particularly potency caps for THC. Common suggestions include a cap of 15% THC for flower and 25-30% for concentrates.  For example, Uruguay currently sets it a 9%, which is similar to the weed that Gen X and older Millennials may remember from the 1990s, so 15% is still pretty generous.  Twenty-One Debunked does NOT oppose such efforts, and would much rather that than other types of restrictions.  But the real question is, are such caps really necessary?

A new British study casts doubt on that seemingly commonsense assertion.  Among young adults in their late teens and early 20s, the researchers failed to find any correlation between cannabis potency and dependence, depression, or psychosis-like symptoms, after adjusting for confounders.  Yes, really.

(Other recent studies on both sides of both major oceans find that the "Reefer Madness 2.0" fears in general are largely if not entirely unfounded as well.)

That said, there is also a good case for "bringing back mids" as well.  We know that too-potent weed (over 20% THC, up to even 40% sometimes), and especially concentrates (up to 90% THC), may be too much for inexperienced and/or very occasional users to handle.  Usually most users can easily self-titrate their dose when smoking or vaping (but not eating!) cannabis so they don't get too stoned, but when it is extremely potent it becomes that much more difficult.

So what is best to do then?  Simply tax cannabis based on potency, that is, by milligram of THC, and perhaps a discount for the amount of CBD it contains as well.  Current high taxes based on gross weight alone not only notoriously incentivize the persistence of black markets, but they also perversely incentivize very high potency products as well, almost to the exclusion of lower potency products.  That is especially true when leaf/trim is overtaxed as well, as that incentivizes the extraction of concentrates from such material rather than simply selling it as-is.  Untaxing leaf/trim (or trivially taxing it) would go a long way toward rebalancing the cannabis market. And overregulation that makes licenses to legally sell cannabis so ridiculously hard to get (New York, I'm looking at YOU!) needs to be fixed as well.

Remember, all of this is for a plant that is literally about as easy to grow as BASIL. Look at the prices per weight of dried basil at the store or Google it.  Then compare the prices by weight of even the cheapest weed before legalization, and also the prices for the cheapest weed right after and then years after legalization.  Notice the stark disequilibrium here?  And the headfake?  Free markets (which don't currently exist for cannabis anywhere) are clearly excellent at solving such disequilibria.  Just saying. 

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  A good op-ed debunking the "Reefer Madness 2.0" mass hysteria can be found here.

The Law of Eristic Escalation Revisited

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986) illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.

The Trouble With Mandatory Age Verification Online

(See our previous articles about this topic.)

A new bipartisan (aka the very worst kind of tyranny) bill in Congress seeks to 1) ban anyone under 13 from social media platforms entirely, 2) require parental consent for anyone over 13 but under 18 to join such platforms, 3) require mandatory age verification (and verification of parental status) to enforce the above.  This is very similar to Utah's new law, which is the strictest one passed to date.

(Arkansas recently passed a similar law as well, but theirs exempts so many social media platforms as to render it largely toothless in practice.  I'm sure the fact that the same state that recently relaxed child labor laws for youth under 16 also conveniently exempted LinkedIn is entirely a coincidence, right?)

The bill as currently written would apply the age verification requirement to all new accounts opened after enactment, and would have a two year grace period (why not simply exempt entirely, like in Josh Hawley's bill?) for existing accounts after which unverified accounts would be suspended.  Fortunately, unlike Hawley's bill, it does not specifically require government-issued ID (yet).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pitfalls of such a sledgehammer approach to a problem that really calls for a scalpel.  Not only does it arguably infringe on the First Amendment rights of people under 18, but it also backfires on adults over 18 almost as badly as well.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wrote an excellent article as to the very real perils and pitfalls that come with mandatory age verification, not least of which include the undermining of what is left of any semblance of privacy and anonymity online for all ages.  It is not much of a leap from that to further censorship and surveillance, digital ID, and ultimately social credit scoring to effectively lock "undesirable" people out of the public square for the purpose of power and control--a budding totalitarian's dream come true (and a nightmare for everyone else).  As a best case scenario, it will sound the death knell for what's still left of the free and open internet as we knew it.

Kafka, meet trap.  Pandora, meet box.  Albatross, meet neck.  Baby, meet bathwater.  Camel's nose, meet tent.  Horse, meet barn.  Trojan, meet horse.

Make no mistake, this is a Trojan horse!

The ONE possibly good thing in this bill is that it prohibits the use of algorithmic recommendation systems for people under 18 (why not all ages?), but otherwise it throws out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, and likely does more harm than good.  While it simultaneously lets Big Tech largely off the hook in terms of design safety.  That makes the bill both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.

Thus, Twenty-One Debunked categorically opposes this bill or any other that contains mandatory age verification for social media and/or the internet in general.  But in the event that mandatory age verification does become a foregone conclusion, we demand that the following safeguards be included:

• It must be as narrowly tailored as humanly possible.  Think scalpel, not sledgehammer. 
• The age limit should be no higher than 16 for social media or any other sites (except 18 for stuff like porn, gambling, and dating sites).
• All existing social media accounts (that were opened prior to the law's enactment date) must be "grandfathered" and thus fully exempt from mandatory age verification, period.
• A varied "menu" of options for age verification must be available for all.  Government-issued ID should be only one of many options. 
• All data collected for the purpose of age verification must be deleted immediately after verification, and not retained for any purpose whatsoever. 
• Age verification must be "one and done" when opening a new account.
• At most, only people who look and/or claim to be under 25 should be subject to age verification, similar to how it is done for requiring ID for buying tobacco products offline at the store.
• And there must be full liability for any misuse or abuse of data collected for the purpose of age verification. 

Then, and only then, would the slippery slope become less slippery.  Otherwise, slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear!

Until then, we will vehemently oppose any bill that is stricter than the competing bills COPPA 2.0, KOSA in its newest version, and the Kids PRIVCY Act.  And we support the current "Age Appropriate Design Codes" already in places like California and the UK as well, which put the onus on Big Tech to make their platforms safer.  Make those the national standard in the USA.  Also, make social media safer for ALL ages as well.  But any further is a bridge too far for us.

(TL;DR version:  Just make "California standards" (both CCPA and CAADCA) the national standard, and also better data privacy laws for all ages.)

Oh, and by the way:  DON'T think it will stop at 18, or stop at social media, either.  Once this inherently illiberal bill passes, it will inevitably shift the Overton window further in the dystopian direction, making further encroachments of civil liberties that much easier going forward.  Just look at history. 

Three years ago, we effectively saw just how very quickly the unthinkable and the unquestionable can completely switch places given enough of a panic.  Let's NOT make the same mistake again!

UPDATE:  Already there are some people on Twitter who believe this bill doesn't go far enough as far as age limits, with some calling for the hard age limit to be raised to 21 or even higher.  You may laugh, but once this bill passes, that is really not much of a leap.  And how long before Big Tech, who currently opposes any hard age restrictions, will flip flop and openly come out in favor of raising the hard age limit, first to 18 and then 21, in return for less regulation overall, much like Big Alcohol, Big Tobacco, and Big Vape did?  Clearly 2023 smells a LOT like 1983 in that regard.

In other words, we have seen this movie before.  And it really doesn't end well.

UPDATE 2:  The leading competing bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), has recently been resurrected with amendments that fixed some of its more glaring flaws for now.  That said, while we would MUCH rather KOSA pass compared to the much worse mandatory age verification bill discussed above, KOSA unfortunately still remains significantly problematic in its new version as well, and thus we cannot fully support it as currently written.  It can still be a potential Trojan horse.  That said, COPPA 2.0 and the Kids PRIVCY Act are good enough as written.  It is notable that the Center for Humane Technology doesn't include KOSA on their list of proposed policies.

Why there is still no serious attempt at any general comprehensive privacy legislation for all ages, and one that is content-neutral, currently remains a mystery (not).  The powers that be don't want it.

UPDATE 3:  Looks like reasonable doubt still remains about the more fanciful claims regarding the supposed causal link between social media, smartphones, and the teen mental health crisis when you zoom out and look at enough non-Anglo countries.  And yes, contrary to Jon Haidt, that IS an appropriate bar to clear before abruptly making truly radical (and likely unconstitutional) changes to society, especially from a place of moral panic.

UPDATE 4:  We should also note that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is often a frequent target for reform, if not outright repeal.  It effectively provides civil liability protection for online platforms who host user-generated content, with very few exceptions, and it is thus the sine qua non of the free and open internet as we know it.  While we can debate the merits of some degree of reform perhaps, repealing it in its entirety would throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and have a chilling effect on free speech.  Section 230 repeal would be even worse than mandatory age verification. 

UPDATE 5:  Is Big Tech the new Big Tobacco? Honestly a better analogy is that Big Tech is new Big Oil.  And while there most likely is a "there", there, in terms of teen mental health issues, the specious idea of there being absolutely no safe level of social media use before some arbitrarily high age and they should be banned completely from it is a gross exaggeration. 

See also the EFF's other excellent article.

UPDATE 6:  See another great rebuttal here.

UPDATE 7:  KOSA is even worse than we thought, and thus we vehemently oppose it.  It is literally a textbook example of a Trojan horse that will effectively censor the internet and have a chilling effect on free speech, and also act as a likely gateway to the very same (de facto) mandatory age verification discussed above.  It needs a fundamental overhaul before it can even be considered at all.  As a wise man said, "no amount of lipstick can save this pig".

UPDATE 8:  See this other new study.

FINAL THOUGHT:  If we really want to throw the proverbial One Ring into Mount Doom for good in regards to Big Tech's highly toxic business model, we need to ban surveillance advertising, ban data brokers, and implement strong, comprehensive digital privacy legislation for ALL ages, period.  And go antitrust on the adtech duopoly as well.  In other words, platforms need to put users first, period.  And call their bluff whenever Big Tech falsely claims that a parade of horribles of some sort would result from doing so.  Ask them, "is that a threat, or a promise?"  

(Mic drop)

The Trouble With "Competency Testing"

One idea often floated by some libertarians, paleoconservatives, and youth rights activists alike is the idea that most if not all age restrictions can and should be replaced with a competency test of some sort.  Dr. Robert Epstein (not to be confused with that other Epstein!) famously advocates this in his book Teen 2.0.  The arguments for this may seem appealing at first glance, but upon closer examination they largely fall apart as quixotic at best, and perhaps even worse than the current abominable status quo.

First of all, like most other glib and specious technocratic and ivory tower solutions in search of a problem (see Epstein's other idea from 2020 about instantly ending the Covid pandemic with mass testing of the entire population and isolating the positives, then ask Slovakia how well that idea worked out), it is unrealistic and impractical.  For example, Epstein literally uses the DMV (!) of all things as a model, without seeing the irony of it all.  Who exactly decides what the tests consist of, who administers and evaluates each one, and what adult rights, responsibilities, and privileges even need any tests or age restrictions at all?  Who validates whether these new tests even have any predictive value at all, as opposed to merely being gatekeeping of privilege?  And who watches the watchers?  Epstein leaves the hopeful but bewildered readers with far more questions than answers.  Strike one.

Secondly, there is the problem of scalability.  Traditionally, any formal coming-of-age ritual "tests", to the extent that they even existed at all, were done at the local or tribal level, and administered by familiar elders, not by large faceless bureaucracies governing millions of people.  Strike two.

Finally, and more importantly, all competency tests of any kind are, by their very definition and nature, inherently ableist. True, one can argue that Mother Nature is also ableist, but while that is technically true, that does NOT justify being any MORE ableist than Mother Nature already is, only that anti-ableism is unfortunately an imperfect duty rather than a perfect one.  And ableism, just like ageism/adultism, is both bad enough on its own as well as a major "gateway" and "underpin" to the rest of the kyriarchy (patriarchy, sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and all the other intersectional -isms out there).

For example, can you imagine if everyone had to take a test to be allowed to vote regardless of age?   There was a precedent for that in the Southern states prior to the civil rights movement, and it wasn't a good thing at all.  Having a test only for people under 18 (or under 16) to vote could be defensible perhaps, but if applied to the entire population regardless of age it opens the door to not only ableism, but also racism, classism, elitism, and perhaps other -isms as well.  It is far too easy to rig such tests, as history has shown.

Strike three, you're OUT!

Thus, after giving it much thought, Twenty-One Debunked keeps coming back to the same answer.  And that answer is, competency tests have their place as an alternative to age limits for some but not all things, and regardless, there needs to be a default age of majority above which one is automatically given the benefit of the doubt and presumed to be an adult (unless an individual is formally declared incompetent by the state), and thus exempt from such tests for all general adult rights, responsibilities, and privileges.  And after that, once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.  That would take most of the ableism out of the equation, albeit with an unavoidable tradeoff between ableism and ageism/adultism for people below that age.  And for that reason, some current age limits for specific things simply should be lowered or abolished rather than replaced with all-new competency testing.

And Twenty-One Debunked believes that default age should be no higher than 18.  Before that age, there is plenty of room for nuance, of course.  But NOT after.

(Mic drop)

Looks Like The "Teen Vaping Epidemic" Was Just A Brief Fad All Along

Looks like the "teen vaping epidemic" of 2018-2019 was really just a brief fad all along.  Since then, per the National Youth Tobacco survey, teen vaping has plummeted by 50%, returning to its 2015 baseline by 2021, and teen smoking continues its long-term decline.  Two Tweets with infographics say it all:

And JUUL?  The brand that notoriously drove the "epidemic"?  That's not cool anymore either, apparently, as use of that particular brand was approaching nil by 2022.  And the survey results pan out, as one can even see with their own eyes a marked reduction in vape pod litter (especially JUUL pods) on streets, sidewalks, and parking lots these days compared to 2018-2019 and early 2020.

And lest anyone spuriously credit the raising of the age limit to 21 with these positive trends, keep in mind that the "epidemic" self-evidently occurred just as much in states like California and New Jersey that raised their own tobacco and vaping age limits to 21 prior to 2018 than in those states who did so later or not at all, and it had already peaked nationwide before the federal age limit of 21 was enforced.  And the secular decline in teen smoking began well before any state or major city raised their age limits to 21.

But don't expect the MSM to tell you that.

What Is The Proper Role Of Government In A Free Society?

One perennial question that every society has wrestled with is, "what is the proper role of government in a free society?".  Libertarians (or rather, right-libertarians) argue that the proper role is as minimal as possible, and akin to a night-watchman, while statists argue that the proper role is as large and comprehensive as possible, and akin to that of a micromanaging nanny.  The former protects individuals only from very narrowly-defined force or fraud, as well as foreign attack, while the latter pre-emptively protects individuals from all possible threats that exist or that one could imagine, including from themselves.  The former believes only in negative liberty at the expense of positive liberty, while the latter believes (nearly) exclusively in positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty. 

Twenty-One Debunked and the TSAP believe that both extremes are quite incorrect and often disingenuous, and that the proper role of government (at any level) is that of a macromanager.  Negative and positive liberty ought to carry (roughly) equal weight.  A welfare state, broadly defined, need not be abolished and need not be a controlling nanny state either.  And protecting individuals from themselves against their will, at least as far as consenting adults are concerned, is a fundamental overreach of the proper role of government in a free society.  And, of course, once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.

QED

Naloxone Not Associated With Moral Hazard

Good news, a new study finds that expanding access to naloxone (Narcan), an antidote that reverses opioid overdoses and saves countless lives every day, was NOT associated with increased heroin or other intravenous drug use among adolescents.  This echoes previous research that finds no such "moral hazard" occurring among adults either.  Thus conclusively ends one of the most tired, jaded, cynical, and empathy-lacking arguments against harm reduction.  

In other words, in this day and age, there is absolutely no rational reason to not make naloxone readily available, period.  Ditto for things like fentanyl test kits as well.  Those who oppose doing so are thus basing their self-righteous opposition on a selectively moralistic and ideological foundation, and certainly not a scientific or a humanitarian one.

The same goes for needle exchange programs as well, something even former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg openly came out in favor of during his time as mayor. 

The flip side of "live and let live" need not be "live and let die".  Harm reduction is NOT a zero-sum game, since dead people can't recover from addiction. 

NOTE:  Narcan nasal spray is now approved for over the counter (OTC) sale by the FDA.  It should have always been, but better late than never.  Beware that it only reverses opioid overdoses, not overdoses of other, non-opioid drugs such as alcohol, cocaine, crack, meth, Adderall, benzos, or xylazine ("tranq").

Once You Are An Adult, You Are An Adult, Period

Twenty-One Debunked has long believed that, regardless of whatever the general age of majority is set at, once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.  While there is of course plenty of room for nuance before reaching that age, any exceptions made after reaching that age absolutely must require truly extraordinary justification in any free society worthy of the name.  The onus inherently falls on the state to justify any such exceptions.  And for better for worse, in nearly all of the known world today, that age is set at 18.  The Canadian province of Alberta is a good model to follow, for example.

While Twenty-One Debunked does not take any official position on anything regarding the transgender community in general, we unequivocally oppose the latest red-state Republican attempts that increasingly target young adults age 18-25.  That's right, they are attempting to deny any sort of gender-affirming care to anyone under 21 or even 26 (!) in some states.  While a decent case can be made that somewhat more gatekeeping may be be good for all ages regarding any treatments that are irreversible (surgery, obviously, but also cross-sex hormone therapy too), and perhaps even banning irreversible treatments (including puberty blockers) for youth under 18, banning gender-affirming care for young adults over 18 is a major overreach at best.  And don't think they will stop there either.  This is clearly NOT about "protecting children", as no sane person would honestly consider 18-25 year olds (who are well beyond puberty) to be literal children.  No, this is the latest battle in the decades-long culture wars, by the increasingly unhinged and reactionary right wing in this unprecedentedly divided nation.  And it is a battle that is increasingly bordering on cultural genocide. 

And before anyone brings up detransitioners who end up regretting their transitions, one of the downsides of adulthood and the bodily autonomy that goes with it is, "you break it, you own it".  It sounds harsh, but it's true.  Adults make decisions they regret all the time, unfortunately.  And we can empathize with them without revoking any civil rights or bodily autonomy from young adults.  Trying to remove all possibility of regret from life is a fool's errand and a losing battle, and completely antithetical to liberty.

Once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.  Any breach of that maxim is a major red flag.

How To Make Tobacco Less Appealing And Addictive Without Banning It Or Reducing Nicotine Below Natural Levels

Here is a "Cliffs Notes" style list on how to make cigarettes and other smokeable tobacco products less addictive and appealing WITHOUT banning it outright, raising the age limit any higher than 18, or even reducing nicotine below natural levels:

• First and foremost, BAN ADDITIVES!  No non-tobacco ingredients should be added, period.
• Adding extra nicotine deliberately should also be banned as well.
• Require the smoke pH to be 8 or higher to discourage deep inhalation of smoke, as it naturally was prior to the 20th century. 
• Phase out the pH-lowering and environmentally unsustainable practice of flue-curing tobacco. 
• Phase out cigarette "filters", which don't really filter, and merely provide a false sense of security to smokers, and inherently creates a major toxic waste littering problem to boot.

If they still want to reduce maximum nicotine levels to a non-addictive level in ready-made commercial cigarettes and little cigars, go right ahead.  But it would be best to do the other things on the list first.

Also, banning the use of radioactive (!) phosphate fertilizers to grow tobacco is really a textbook no-brainer in terms of tobacco harm reduction. 

Additionally, requiring all tobacco products to be sold only in dedicated tobacco stores, or other places where you have to be 18 or older to enter, would really not be a bad idea either.  It would certainly make it less ubiquitous, convenient, and tempting without the constant reminder in grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, pharmacies, etc.

So what are we waiting for?

A Band-Aid Solution In Search Of A Problem (Part Deux)

We previously wrote an article about the recent wrongheaded push to ban young people under the age of 16 or 18 (depending on whose idea it is) from social media entirely, or at least heavily restrict it.  Well, now the state of Utah has finally done it, and signed it into law today, effective one year from now on March 1, 2024.  This new law does not completely ban people under 18 from social media, but in some ways it is worse than that.  What it does is 1) prohibits any Utah resident under 18 from opening a social media account, or even maintaining an existing one after March 1, 2024 unless they can provide both proof of age verification as well as proof of parental consent, 2) prohibits anyone of any age from opening a social media account or even maintaining an existing one without proof of age verification, 3) requires social media companies to provide parents with a password or other means to gain full access to their teens' accounts, 4) prohibits anyone under 18 from accessing social media from 10:30 pm and 6:30 am, 5) prohibits social media companies from showing any ads to people under 18, or using any addictive features for people under 18.  

If your jaw just dropped after reading all of that, you're not alone!

This is just plain wrong on so many levels.  That the age limit is set so high is bad enough, as is the lack of privacy for people under 18, but that not nearly the worst of it.  For starters, unlike Josh Hawley's federal bill, there is NO grandfather clause for existing accounts for anyone of any age, whether you are 18 or 80, only a mere one year delay before the law goes into effect.  Worse still, the mandatory collection and storage of proof of ID (driver's license, birth certificate, passport, etc) required by this law for ALL ages comes with NO meaningful safeguards to keep such sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.  Fox, meet henhouse.  Everyone's privacy is at risk now, more then ever before.  Yet another example of adultism backfiring on adults.  It is the ultimate Trojan horse from Big Brother. 

And of course, the even greater loss of privacy specifically for teens should not be trivialized either, as that will put the most vulnerable young people in even greater danger still, not least from abusive and/or bigoted parents or guardians.

And the ban on addictive features, such as via those notorious algorithms, curiously only applies to people under 18 for some reason.  And it would hold the social media companies liable for that and any damages that result.  That, along with perhaps some other enhanced safety features, is probably the ONLY marginally good part of the new law, which of course they had to nerf it by age-gating it rather than simply applying it to all ages across the board.

(Why don't we simply make it illegal for any manufacturer, vendor, or company to deliberately engineer a product or service to be more addictive or habit-forming than it would otherwise be in the name of profit, for all ages, across the board, period?  Big Tech, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Food, et al., I'm looking at YOU.  That would not completely cure the problem of "limbic capitalism" in practice, of course, but it sure would greatly decrease the frequency and flagrancy of such machinations and manipulations.)

And what else does the law NOT do, but should do for all ages?  No data privacy rules, no enhanced safety features, no common carrier rules, or anything like that.  Nope, just more of the usual ageist bigotry and control under the guise of concern and protection.

If the new Utah law ever does become the national standard, then this is truly the end of an era, and the beginning of a new and even more dystopian one.  And it would also mark at least the beginning of the end of the free and open internet as we knew it.

And by extension, one more cut in the long-running, subtle "death by a thousand cuts" of the First Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

One thing is for sure.  The Overton window has clearly shifted in a VERY questionable direction!

UPDATE:  Looks like the 10:30 pm social media curfew would simply be set as the default feature, which parents would be able to adjust at will.  (Thank God for small mercies, I guess.)

And there are ways of verifying age that don't compromise privacy or security, but somehow we doubt that those will be used.  In any case, teens will always find a way to game the system and get around the restrictions regardless of the method.

But with the general anonymity of social media effectively a thing of the past for all ages, thanks to the new ID verification system, the chilling effect on free speech will remain unless this law gets struck down before it goes into effect.  The clock is ticking.

UPDATE 2:  Looks like the evidence on which this law is based is less than meets the eye.  Far from a mountain of evidence, it is more like a molehill, and a shaky one at that.  Not that Big Tech is completely benign (they are not) or doesn't have a dark side (they clearly do), but we need to deal with them proportionately, and not from a place of moral panic.

And look into the other potential causes of mental health declines in young people as well.

UPDATE 3:  None of our objections apply at all to TikTok specifically, and we actually support federally banning that particular platform for all ages on pure national security grounds alone.  Or alternatively, perhaps "quarantining" it temporarily, and then buying and fully nationalizing it.  It is effectively a CCP spying app masquerading as a social media platform, and any mental health concerns are an afterthought in comparison to that.  And plenty of alternative platforms already exist now, and if those alternatives are somehow not good enough, it's really not that hard to create new ones that are.

UPDATE 4:  While research evidence is quite mixed at best, it is probably safe to conclude that, yes, Virginia, there really is a "there", there.  But it still does NOT follow that bans or undue age discrimination are the solution, as this problem calls for a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.  The Law of Unintended Consequences (aka Murphy's Law) is all too real.

Instead, things that require social media to be safer by design, like the California Kids' Code that goes into effect in 2024, would be a better idea.  The next logical step after that would be the COPPA 2.0 bill.  Ditto for many other ways to design it to be safer and less addictive as well, such as adding a bit more "friction".  Think harm reduction, not prohibition. 

See the youth-led advocacy movement Design It For Us, for more information in that regard.

Also note how The Netherlands appears to have dodged the supposedly global teen mental health crisis thus far.  Could it be that is at least in part because they are the overall most "permissive" society in the world for children and young people IRL?

UPDATE 5:  And don't forget to read Mike Males' famous rebuttals to Jon Haidt as well.  To wit, the real mental health crisis is the massive epidemic of toxic, dysfunctional adults, whose toxicity/dysfunction then inevitably rubs off on the young people in their lives.  Not to say that social media is not a potential causal factor in such toxicity overall, but clearly silencing the skeptics is another mistake to never make again.

It Bears Repeating: 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, the 21 drinking age, tobacco bans, media censorship, restrictions on sexual activities between consenting adults, 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.

And we know that the late Peter McWilliams, author of Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do:  The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society (1996), would certainly agree with Spooner 100%.

And to avoid any weaseling, dilution, or vitiation, via subjectivism, relativism, and/or denial of agency, of Spooner's (and McWilliams') basic maxim, we should clarify that only acts that objectively harm the person or property of nonconsenting others should be considered crimes in a free society. 

UPDATE:  People will undoubtedly ask, so what about children, or young persons below the legal age of majority?  Well, as John Stuart Mill had famously noted, such a maxim would not apply directly to them, at least insofar as consent is concerned.  But even then, to impose criminal penalties on the children or young people themselves (as opposed to the adults involved) for acts that are otherwise legal for adults while simultaneously denying them any agency to consent to such acts is the very height of hypocrisy.  And regardless, whatever age we set as the age of majority, for anyone above that age the maxim would apply completely, full stop.  In other words, in a free society, once you are an adult, you are an adult.  That is something most of the world understands.

Also, as Emile Durkheim famously said, "When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary. When mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable".  From another angle, that is a good argument against the other side's specious claim that our society is currently somehow too immoral, weak, fractured, spoiled, undisciplined, individualistic, heterogeneous, or whatever to trust people with personal liberty and bodily autonomy.

And finally, there is that classic Pigouvian argument from externalities.  The best response to that is that it is literally impossible for humans to exist at all without imposing both positive and negative externalities on others to one degree or another.  So arbitrarily designating select vices as crimes is both over- and under-inclusive.  And externalities are generally better dealt with via education, persuasion, and mutual consent, or failing that, via targeted taxes and subsidies.  Prohibition is far too blunt an instrument to deal with most externalities, and typically does far more harm than good in practice.