Sunday, June 7, 2026

The Kenkel Tax Revisited

In 1993, economist Donald S. Kenkel thought of a rather ingenious idea: lower the drinking age to 18, and also raise the alcohol tax by 12% to 86% (midpoint 49%) of the current price at the time.  To quote him in the abstract of his paper, emphasis ours:

The legal drinking age targets a group at a high risk of alcohol-related problems. This paper argues that taxation could achieve the same benefits as the legal drinking age at a substantially lower social cost. Existing empirical research suggests that simultaneously lowering the legal age to 18 and taxing alcohol purchases at between 12 to 86 percent of the current price would achieve the same results as the current legal age. Levying a special teen tax only on young adults would minimize its social costs. Teen tax revenues between $564 million to $4.03 billion measure the net social gain of replacing the current prohibition on young adults' alcohol purchases with a taxation policy.

Note that sentence in bold right there.  This is, of course a rather unorthodox idea, and we have noted in the past (and now) that raising alcohol taxes should be done across the board, not just for one age group.  That is, the "teen tax" idea, which we prefer to call a "Kenkel tax", while lowering the drinking age to 18, is still head and shoulders better than the 21 drinking age.  We could perhaps even give some to the extra revenue to groups like MADD to buy them off as well and get them on board with it.

If we go that route, it would be best to repackage the idea a bit as a discount for people over 21, rather than a tax on 18-20 year old young adults.  That is, the list price by default would be the price that 18-20 year olds would pay, and the "over-21 discount" would be taken off at the register, much like sales tax but in reverse.  Doing so would put it on the very same spectrum as things like senior citizen discounts, which are well tolerated in our society.

It would also be essentially self-enforcing, since retailers would obviously want to get the extra money!

Of course, a LOT has changed since 1993, not least being the gradual erosion of alcohol taxes by inflation, especially in more recent years.  The last time the federal alcohol taxes were raised was in 1991, and if they were adjusted for inflation, they would be more than double what they are now.  So perhaps one could raise the alcohol taxes across the board to what they were in real dollars in 1991, and then on top of that, add an additional 12%+ or so to the new tax-inclusive price, which then can be taken off at the register as a discount for people over 21.  Or any combination.

This idea can also dovetail nicely with minimum unit pricing (MUP), which is a complementary policy to taxes.  Though it would probably be best practice to set a two-tier MUP, with stronger beverages (more than 20% ABV) having a higher MUP than weaker beverages, to avoid obvious perverse incentives of price hikes on beer, wine, and cider inadvertently steering heavy drinkers more towards distilled spirits, as seen in Scotland.  Thomas Jefferson literally predicted that over two centuries ago.

Twenty-One Debunked is by no means wedded to this idea, but we will still support nonetheless it if it means that we can FINALLY lower the drinking age to 18 sooner than later.

Bonus points for doing this idea with the gas tax as well.  That is, raising it across the board, while giving a partial rebate or "prebate" to licensed vehicle registrants over 21, and an even greater rebate or "prebate" to those over 25.  But hopefully not until gas prices come back down from current wartime highs!

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Operation Rovin' Eyes (Updated Re-post)

It has been a while since Twenty-One Debunked has explored in-depth solutions to the perennial and persistent scourge of drunk driving.  Today we build on what we have learned and what we have advocated since our founding in 2009.

Enter "Operation Rovin' Eyes", an idea that combines roving patrols (saturation police patrols against DUI), citizen ride-alongs, and reality TV.  Decades of research shows that roving patrols work very well at both deterring and catching impaired drivers, with OR without sobriety checkpoints (ideally with them, as a complement).  We believe that combining them with ride-alongs will further enhance the effectiveness.  Be sure to check the back roads too, and areas that are known for lots of parties and such.  And if televised, it would also make a great reality TV show as well, even better than COPS, if you could believe that.

A good slogan would be, "Rovin' Eyes, are watching YOU!"

Another thing that can be added to this is "Operation Fish in a Barrel" or "Operation Jack in the Box", in which a police car is parked outside a bar or club, and the officer(s) watch for signs of intoxication, and wait for the drunk patrons to get to their cars.  Then there are two possible tactics.  One is to intercept the would-be drunk driver before they put the keys in the ignition, and give them a verbal warning and a free ride home.  The other is to wait until after they put the keys in the ignition, and then proceed to bust them for DUI.  GOTCHA!  Either way, they are getting these ticking time bombs off the road for the time being, before they get on the road.  And that would of course save countless lives.

(NOTE to non-American readers:  in some countries outside the USA, such as Canada and the UK, you can still get a DUI even if you have the keys in your pocket and you are within a certain distance from the vehicle.  This is from an American perspective.)

And of course, this idea would be an excellent complement to lowering the drinking age to 18.  Especially if it is done near state lines if and when drinking ages are ever lowered state-by-state and thus end up varying state-by-state, this will certainly help take the wind out of the sails of the very vocal opposition.

So what are we waiting for?

Sunday, May 31, 2026

Defusing The Powder Keg

Or, "It's the Final Countdown!"

The 21 drinking age is an ageist and illiberal abomination that has NO place in a free society.  Its very existence to this day is evidence that we are living in the wrong timeline.  And the sooner it is jettisoned to the trash heap of history, the better.

Twenty-One Debunked has, unwaveringly and  uncompromisingly, since our founding in 2009, sought to speedily lower the legal drinking age (in every sense) to 18, and not a day later.  Period.  That is, the same rights that people over 21 currently enjoy, should be democratized to include 18-20 year olds as well, and yesterday is NOT soon enough!  That is our North Star for the near term, basically.  (And for the very long term?  Don't ask!) The relative purgatory and limbo of setting it at 19, 20, or a split/graduated age limit first has always been best considered a journey, NOT a destination. 

That said, doing so is a LOT easier said than done politically.   The Overton Window is clearly NOT in our favor, to put it mildly (that brief moment in the late 2000s notwithstanding, whose ship has long since sailed).  And while the objections to lowering it to 18 are essentially specious and spurious, they are not entirely pulled out of the ether, either.  So much "referred pain", as it were, is also present as well.  Not least of which is the Law of Eristic Escalation (i.e. Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos), which as a corollary, causes a "chaos deficit" to compound over time.  This sets a massive "powder keg" that is best defused carefully and gingerly, to avoid too much chaos unleashed all at once in the short term, and the reactionary backlash that would follow.  Plus, the fear of it would make it harder to get any bill that would lower the drinking age to have a prayer of passing.

So here is a potential "menu of options" to defuse the powder keg and its associated fears, and make the age-lowering bill easier to pass, and all of which should have a sunset clause built in so as not to defeat the purpose:
  • Keeping the Zero Tolerance driving BAC age limit at 21 for the time being, or better yet, expanding it to include the first two or three years of having a driver's license, or 21, whichever is longer, largely similar to some other countries with lower drinking ages.  And keep that in place for the first couple of years at least.  (To defuse the fear of DUI.)
  • Keeping the purchase age limit for kegs, cases, and other large quantities of alcohol at 21 for the time being, reasonable limits on quantities purchased per transaction, and no more than one transaction per person per store per day for people under 21.  And keep that in place for the first year or couple of years.  (To defuse the fear of high school keggers, as well as high school drinking more generally.)
  • Phasing down the drinking age, or at least the purchase age (especially on-premise at bars and restaurants), by one month each day.  That is, 20 years 11 months, 20 years 10 months....until it is 18 years and 0 months.  And that phasedown will take all of....36 days to complete.  (Hat tip to a guy on Facebook many years ago who came up with that idea, which we call "The Final Countdown", like the famous song by Europe.) (To defuse the fear of overall chaos in general, especially at bars and surrounding areas.)
  • Best done through explicitly allowing "local option" to do so, and ideally kept only for a limited time, perhaps we could also set only the off-premise purchase age (but NOT drinking age, furnishing age, or on premise purchase age!) to 19 without conditions, and 18 only with a college or military ID, or proof of high school diploma or GED.  (To further defuse any remaining fear of high school drinking and straw purchasing for younger friends.)
  • "25 Mile Rule": To alleviate fears of "blood borders", for on-premise service in any bar or restaurant within 25 miles from the border of a neighboring state with a higher drinking age, no out-of-state IDs will be accepted for anyone from that state for anyone under that age, except 1) students within a college town (or a 5 mile radius from campus) showing valid college ID, 2) overnight guests being served in a hotel where they are staying.
  • Perhaps temporarily (for the first few months or first year or so) keep the off-premise purchase age at 21 (or 20) for hard liquor, or any beverages exceeding 15% or 20% ABV, similar to what Finland (off-premise) and Norway (both on and off-premise) currently do.  (To further defuse fears.)
  • (Holds nose while grudgingly saying this) Continue allowing bars and clubs to set their own age limits higher than the legal drinking age, which many already do, and/or set a higher cover charge for younger folks.  (To defuse the (mostly apocryphal) fear of young people engaging in rowdiness, chaos, "pregaming", and arriving already at least half-drunk and not buying much at the bar.)
  • And be sure to include a severability clause!
Indeed, while we are NOT wedded to any of these, and would rather NOT start out with any compromised position lest we have to compromise further, we endorse and strongly encourage at least the first three items on the list in the short term.  And of course, it should go without saying that it should be accompanied by a renewed crackdown on drunk driving, drunk violence, drunk vandalism, and drunk and disorderly conduct, for ALL ages.  For DUI specifically, combining sobriety checkpoints (subject to constitutionally-correct protocols), roving and saturation patrols, and especially "fish in a barrel" aka "Jack in the box" (police waiting patiently outside of bars for would-be drunk drivers to stumble to their cars, and gotcha!) would essentially make obsolete any concerns of increasing drunk driving, even if the drinking age was lowered to 18 overnight in one fell swoop.

Simple.  Elegant.  Surgical. 

So what are we waiting for?  "It's the Final Countdown!"

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

This weekend is the weekend of 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, all in a vain attempt to defend the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age, 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, use public transportation, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to. Or simply don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head. Problem solved.

(Mic drop)

Thursday, May 7, 2026

A Generational Ban On Everything

NOTE:  The following is SATIRE!

The UK has just famously passed a generational ban on tobacco.  That is, anyone born on or after January 1, 2009 will be permanently banned from ever buying any tobacco products legally.  Like, ever.  It seems that the days of "prohibition" somehow being a dirty word are quite numbered indeed.

But why stop at tobacco?  Why not apply that to ALL adult rights, privileges, and responsibilities?  Why don't we simply do that the for the age of majority in general?  Based on the general cutoff year for Generation Alpha, how about simply declaring anyone born after January 1, 2010 to be perpetual minors?  Or perhaps until they prove themselves otherwise through some arbitrary tests?  After all, kids today are supposedly taking longer to mature than previous generations, perhaps even a permanent state of arrested development.  So why not have the law reflect that?

If you were born before that date, the status quo rules apply, and you are thus grandfathered in by the skin of your teeth.  You truly lucked out.  But if you were born after that date, you are SOL.

How will this affect you, if born after that date?  Not only will you be forbidden from buying or using alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or any other age restricted products (there is always the black market to fall back on), but also voting, driving, contracts, consent to sex, marriage, and pretty much everything else.  Oh, and you will also be permanently banned from social media as well.

But don't worry, Gen Alpha, you WILL still be fully able to join the military and go to war at 18 if we, your betters, deem it necessary for you to fight for the wealth of the few....I mean "national security" and "making the world safe for democracy!"  

I mean, it's kinda like those video games you used to be allowed to play before we banned them for your generation as well.  Only when you die, you do NOT respawn, and there is NO reset button.

And if you are caught doing anything illegal, including the new "status offenses" you will be subject to, rest assured that you WILL be tried and punished as adults.  That's because we, your betters, can be as whimsical as we want.  You do what we say, and we'll do what we wanna do.  Because reasons.  Or something.

Now, if you behave yourselves like good boys and girls, we MIGHT just open up a pathway for you to prove yourselves and earn "conditional adulthood".  For a fee, you can go take some tests of our choosing at this newly created agency of ours that looks and feels suspiciously like a clone of the DMV, of course.  If you pass by our arbitrary standards, and we are in a good mood that day, then you will be treated thereafter as a quasi-adult with some of the conditional privileges typically associated with adulthood.  Your ID will be upgraded to reflect that, and will be colloquially known as a "freedom tag" or "passport to freedom".  But remember, this is entirely conditional on following the rules that go along with it.  Break those rules, and you will go back to being a minor, and (in a cartoon villain voice) "you belong to the state".

Those rules include a very strict work requirement, by the way.  You will work wherever we assign you to, for as many hours as we assign you to.  And you shall report directly to your overseer....I mean supervisor, which literally means the same thing, only Latinized to make it sound nicer.  Not like you could get out of all that by remaining a perpetual minor, of course.  You would have to work either way, because we said so.  It will just be done in somewhat better taste as a conditional quasi-adult.

Remember, as the saying goes, "work will set you free".  Which admittedly sounds much better in the original German.

(Wow, that escalated quickly!)

Again this is SATIRE.  So let's keep it that way!

Tuesday, May 5, 2026

Why That One Particular Issue?

Twenty-One Debunked, hence our name, has long been advocating for lowering the 21 drinking age to no higher than 18 since our founding in 2009, and since then has also advocated lower the other emerging 21 age limits (tobacco, cannabis, etc.) to no higher than 18 as well, for the same reasons.  We believe setting any age limits higher than the legal age of majority (18 in nearly all states, and nearly all countries as well), especially (but not only) ones that are in any way related to bodily autonomy and/or cognitive liberty, is unjust, unethical, unconstitutional, and ultimately does far more harm than good.  And it clearly has NO place in any free society worthy of the name.  Period.

But doesn't that make us a single-issue, one-trick pony, you say?  Surely there must be more pressing issues than that, right?  And surely even the youth rights movement has more pressing issues, right?  It's not like merely lowering the drinking age to 18 would result in any sort of utopia in practice, anymore than legalizing weed would have somehow ushered in the Age of Aquarius, right?

Well, as the saying goes, "the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."  Natch.  We have already established that adultism is THE central keystone Jenga block of the greater kyriarchy, hands down.  And while striking the root of the problem is ultimately far more important than striking the branches, the fact remains that some of the branches get in the way of even reaching that root in the first place.  Few branches are as obnoxiously obtrusive as the 21 drinking age, toxic and corrosive to society, an outlier among outliers from a global perspective, and utterly symbolic of literally everything that is wrong the the USA in the current timeline since the 1980s.  It is truly an egregious affront to the America that could have been.

We have said it before, and we'll say it again.  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.

Saturday, May 2, 2026

Adultism: The Keystone Of The Kyriarchy

Kyriarchy.  Literally meaning "a rule by a lord or master" in Greek, it is an important term of art originally coined by feminist theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.  As Wikipedia describes:
In feminist theory, kyriarchy (/ˈkaɪriɑːrki/ KY-ree-arr-kee) is a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission. The word was coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza in 1992 to describe her theory of interconnected, interacting, and self-extending systems of domination and submission, in which a single individual might be oppressed in some relationships and privileged in others. It is an intersectional extension of the idea of patriarchy beyond gender. Kyriarchy encompasses forms of dominating hierarchies in which the subordination of one individual or group to another is internalized and institutionalized.
It is essentially one big intersectional pyramid scheme under which we all are forced to live, including patriarchy/sexism, racism, classism, ableism, ageism, heterosexism, cissexism, capitalism, authoritarianism, and basically every other -ism in existence.  We are all both privileged and oppressed, both slaves and slavers, in one way or another, basically.

But there is ONE particular -ism that is often overlooked:  adultism.  Also known as childism, and part of adulto-patriarchy, it is a particular form of systemic ageist oppression and discrimination that is directed against children and young people who are considered non-adults.  And that is more than just a mere oversight, but rather it is by design.  Adultism is literally the keystone Jenga block of the whole entire pyramid scheme of the kyriarchy.  Pull it out, and the whole entire edifice collapses at once, in other words.  So of course it would have to be deliberately obscured by the powerful and privileged to protect that very same pyramid scheme from which they benefit.

Wait, what?  You mean adultism is what is propping the whole system up all along?  Absolutely.  All of the other -isms are imputed, or based on, adultism to one degree or another, as children and youth are literally the OG "suspect class" of people systemically denied full civil and human rights.  And often it is cleverly disguised as "protection".  Does the word "infantilization" ring any bell?  How about "paternalism"?  Or even the word "patriarchy"?  Look at the literal origins of these words.  Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.  Everything else is basically window dressing in this overall Ponzi pyramid scheme, which also functions as a protection RACKET as well.

That is NOT to say that adults are actually better off on balance under adultism and adulto-patriarchy.  They benefit from it in a relative sense, while in an absolute sense, most adults (of all ages) are still worse off on balance under adultism than they would be without it, at least in the long run.  Much like how patriarchy notoriously chews up and spits out most men as "collateral damage" as well, so to does adultism backfire on adults, and makes everyone less free.  The concept of Ubuntu comes to mind, as does the Law of Karma.

And as the late, great Margaret Mead famously noted decades ago, we are moving into what she calls a "prefigurative" society.  She had defined a "prefigurative" culture as a modern, rapidly changing society where children and youth effectively become the teachers of their elders, rather than the other way around.  In this, her third type of culture (after "postfigurative" and "cofigurative"), the future is unknown, making adult experience obsolete.  Thus, adulto-patriarchy is rapidly becoming obsolete.

The antidote, therefore, is Youth Liberation.

So does that mean that we should just abolish all age limits overnight, and then the entire kyriarchy will collapse at once, and we will all live happily ever after?  Well, not so fast.  First of all, being the central keystone Jenga block of the kyriarchy, adultism is HEAVILY and JEALOUSLY guarded, and surrounded with booby traps galore.  Even those who claim to want to "smash the kyriarchy" (or parts of it) still tend to consciously or unconsciously guard it.  Secondly, even if all age limits were somehow abolished overnight, they could be very quickly replaced by something else equally arbitrary and even more questionable in practice, such as Dr. Robert Epstein's (no relation) assimilationist idea of "competency testing".  Not only would that be ableism as imputed adultism (and vice-versa), but that would in fact likely entrench adult supremacy even further by essentially overvaluing "adultness", which is just as much of a social construct as childhood and adolescence.  And finally, the 19th century (and earlier, pick your poison) should loom large as a cautionary tale in that regard:  there were indeed far fewer and lower age limits back then, but children and young people really weren't any less oppressed.  In many ways, the bottom 99% of children and youth were more oppressed back then, as de facto serfs (if not slaves) under such extremely laissez-faire capitalism.  Many of these age limits (things like child labor laws and age of consent come to mind especially), were in fact created as textbook examples of Chesterton's Fences:  before you remove a fence, make sure you know why it was put up in the first place!

It's almost like treating children as miniature adults, while still maintaining adult supremacy, isn't anywhere near as liberating as it sounds.  Gee, who woulda thunk it?

(Oh, and notice that the voting age was 21 back then, as was the general age of majority?  And how government was much smaller, but privatized tyranny, both family and otherwise, was much larger?  Moral of the story?  Always beware whenever adults in power choose to selectively dole out some freedoms to young people while also withholding others.  Natch.)

Thus, taking a meat cleaver approach willy-nilly to all official age limits without changing the underlying social structure is clearly folly in more ways than one, and will NOT actually solve the problem of adultism OR kyriarchy.  It is multifaceted, and must thus be tackled from many different angles.  That is not to say that some age limits should not be lowered or jettisoned at once (the voting age and drinking age come to mind, along with curfew laws and such). And we certainly should NOT add new age limits or raise any existing ones further!  But otherwise, it needs to be dealt with VERY carefully and gingerly, or else at everyone's peril.

For example, in a just society, we would need to have a VERY robust social safety net that would make the Nordics blush, and even Universal Basic Income (UBI) in place before we could even consider phasing out child labor restrictions, lest such labor become economically coerced like it was back in the day (and still is today in much of the developing world).  With NO apologies to glibertarians or paleoconservatives, just societies need to have "just transitions".  The cart clearly does NOT go before the horse!

And speaking of putting carts before horses, it should also be noted that, without Youth Liberation happening first, the often vague and nebulous idea of "the village" raising the children would really just be building a bigger prison with more guards.

After all, negative liberty (freedom from) and positive liberty (freedom to) are NOT mutually exclusive, but are rather two sides of the same coin.  You cannot truly have one without the other.

But yes, once adultism is gone, and young people are finally liberated for good, the kyriarchy will collapse and go on the trash heap of history for good.  In other words, when youth are finally free, we will ALL be free at last.  So what are we waiting for?

Smash the adulto-patriarchy, smash the kyriarchy!  Tear down the "walled garden" prison!  And let the planetary healing begin!

UK's "Generational Ban" On Tobacco Has Passed. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Well, it's official now.  The UK's "Generational Ban" on all tobacco products has now become law.  Effective January 1, 2027, this law permanently bans anyone born after January 1, 2009 from buying any cigarettes or tobacco products, herbal cigarettes, or rolling papers.  And yes, like New Zealand's now-repealed effort that would have exempted vape products, the UK's ban does NOT include non-combustible nicotine products, including vapes and presumably pouches, which shall remain at 18 (for now).  Though it does increase restrictions on vaping, banning its use in locations where smoking is already prohibited, the generational ban does not apply to vapes. Thank God for small mercies, right?

Read that again.

It's safe to say that Twenty-One Debunked opposes this generational ban 100%, full stop.  Not because we like tobacco or nicotine products (we do not encourage the use of these things at all by anyone, period), but because it is inherently ageist, illiberal, impractical, and a massive government overreach.  Not to mention it is bloody daft, as the locals would say there.  And it also clearly sets a very questionable precedent as well:  what is the next thing to be banned in like fashion?  Hmmmmm.

The UK should have just kept the age limit at 18.  Their tobacco taxes are already very high, and the black market is rife, so there is not much wiggle room there as a strategy now.  But they could still have done other things to further reduce smoking rates, like 1) cap the amount of nicotine in combustible tobacco, or at least ready-made cigarettes, to a non-addictive level, 2) ban all non-tobacco additives in tobacco products, 3) restrict the sale of tobacco products to only dedicated tobacco stores or other adults-only stores, and stuff like that.  Otherwise, they should butt out.

Meanwhile, the black market is clearly salivating like a Pavlov's Dog as we speak, per the Law of Unintended Consequences....

Australia is already a cautionary tale, with their ridiculously high taxes on combustible tobacco paired with their ban on nicotine-containing vapes.  Imagine this, but at a MUCH larger scale.

(And by "ridiculously high taxes", we mean the price of a pack of legal 20 cigarettes in Australia is a whopping $40 to $50 Australian dollars on average, or $30 to $45 US dollars.  Let that sink in!)

And now, over to you, America.  Those watching this from this side of the pond should take this as a warning, NOT an example!

ERRATUM:  The original version of this article stated incorrectly that this generational ban applied to vapes and pouches, which has since been corrected.  But apparently it does unfortunately apply to (non-tobacco) herbal cigarettes and rolling papers, regardless of whether or not they are used for tobacco.

Saturday, April 25, 2026

Zylman's Razor

Here is a partial list of philosophical razors, which are "principles that "shave off" or eliminate unlikely explanations, helping to simplify reasoning and avoid unnecessary steps", per Dr. Google and Wikipedia:
  • Occam's Razor: When faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest one is often the correct one. 
  • Hitchens's Razor: Any claim asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 
  • Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. 
  • Alder's Razor: If an explanation requires more assumptions than another explanation for the same phenomenon, the explanation with fewer assumptions is preferred. 
  • Hume's Razor: Claims must be supported by evidence equal to their magnitude; for a large claim, large evidence is needed. 
  • Sagan Standard: A variation on Hitchens's Razor that states "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". 
  • Popper's Falsifiability Principle: A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning it must be possible to prove it wrong. 
  • Newton's Flaming Laser Sword: The principle that what can be asserted without evidence can also be destroyed without evidence. 
  • Grice's Razor: The principle that you should assume the speaker means what they say, avoiding over-interpretation. 
  • Einstein's Razor:  Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
  • Hume's Guillotine:  Or the "is-ought problem", is the philosophical observation by David Hume that one cannot logically derive prescriptive "ought" statements (what should be) from purely descriptive "is" statements (what is the case) without an unstated or unjustified assumption. 
(There are several other such razors as well, see the complete list.)

Enter the late Professor Richard Zylman of the Center for Alcohol Studies at Rutgers University, who was a Wisconsin State Trooper before that as well.  In reference to a trio of great studies regarding the drinking age and traffic casualties by Zylman (1974a and 1974b) and also Zylman (1978) that I had recently came across once again, I think it is a good idea to add the following maxim to the list of philosophical razors:

Zylman's Razor:  "There is a real danger that if we look for evil, we will find it--even when it does not exist", or, "It is easy to find evil if one seeks evil; this is especially true when youth and alcohol are concerned".  (These are verbatim quotes of his.)

We should also note a corollary as well, that this does NOT only apply to phantom evils, but also to real evils that have really existed all along, but were widely ignored, underreported, or undercounted, and are only belatedly uncovered.  (And in the specific case of drunk driving, it seems that both have been true.) Either way, it creates an illusion of new or increasing evil, which then all too often leads to moral panic and illiberal policies.

Zylman was one of the lone voices of reason at a time of increasing moral panic regarding youth drinking and DUI, and thus the legal drinking age.  America ignored him at our peril.

P.S.  Note that this same exact philosophical razor can also be used as an allegory for certain other current events now as well.

Friday, April 3, 2026

Alcohol Retreats, Cannabis Advances. Even In Alberta, Where Both Are Legal At 18

Once again, we see that alcohol retreats, while cannabis advances.  Even in Alberta, Canada, where both substances are legal at age 18+.  It's almost like age limits don't really matter when it comes to secular trends.  Because they really don't matter:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-alcohol-cannabis-trends-1.7582982

Redditors also sum it up pretty well anecdotally, especially in regards to the younger generation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1m5jufa/albertans_drinking_way_less_booze_than_they_used/

Now, it's not entirely a result of cannabis legalization and increased popularity that alcohol consumption has been on the decline.  The latter trend has been observed practically everywhere in the world in recent years, and is at least in part driven by increasing health concerns in regards to alcohol, as well as more people preferring to socialize online instead of IRL. But one still cannot dismiss the partial substitution effects as well.

Thursday, April 2, 2026

Australia's Social Media Ban Is A Flop

Well, well, well.  The results are finally in about Australia's social media ban for people under 16.  And the results are.....WOMP WOMP.  Apparently, it's WORSE than doing nothing at all.  But no one with half a brain could have predicted that, right?  

Can you say, "I told you so!".  OOPS, maybe they should have actually thought it through before doing it.

Now over to you, New Zealand.  And a number of other countries as well, who also seek to emulate such a ridiculous thing.

UPDATE:  And now Australian officials actually have the GALL to claim that they "can't go it alone", and urge the rest of the world to implement similar utterly failed policies, because reasons?  Wow, I swear, you really cannot make this stuff up!

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

OK, You Win. You Have Convinced Us.

(NOTE:  Read this to the very end!)


Well, after doing some deep thinking and soul-searching, it looks like the pro-21 crowd was right all along for the most part.  And thus we have decided to join them in their long and noble fight to save lives and protect the next generations.  We have even decided to attempt to join MADD, if only they would have the mercy to forgive us for our decades of obstinate contumacy against them. 

Our recent "come to MADD moment" hit us like a ton of bricks the other day:  the science on the 21 drinking age is at least as settled as the science on climate change, if not even more settled.  Therefore, those who deny it are just as bad as climate deniers.  That is true not only for its effect on drunk driving, but also the state-of-the-art findings about the adolescent brain from some of the finest neuroscientists in the world as well.  Like C.S. Lewis in regards to Christianity, we've been spending decades trying to debunk and disprove the truth, only to end up discovering the truth all along.

As corny as it sounds, if it saves even ONE life, it's worth it.

Our ONLY gripe with MADD today is that they still refuse to welcome their founder, Candy Lightner, back into the fold after her ignominious ouster long ago.  If anything, they should seriously be canonizing her as a secular saint!

Channeling the late, great Thomas Hobbes, we have also come to realize that the 21 drinking age, though far from perfect, is most analogous to a palliative treatment for a hopelessly incurable disease.  But even then, we will work to hopefully defy what are taken for granted as the laws of human nature to not only reduce, but thoroughly eradicate the horrible and deadly scourge of underage drinking.  And we must of course exorcise the ghosts of John Locke and especially the fiendish John Stuart Mill as well.

We are still keeping the legacy name "Twenty-One Debunked", of course.  That's because we think the current 21 drinking age is if anything too LOW.  It needs to be raised to AT LEAST 25, yesterday, with NO grandfather clause and NO LOOPHOLES.  May MADD accept that as our penance.  And while we are at it, we should seriously consider bringing back Prohibition for all ages, this time with teeth!

Because we have also learned that, actually, Prohibition was a success according to the best evidence.  And had it been properly enforced, and not sabotaged by those who put personal gratification ahead of the common good, it could have been even more successful to this day.

And all of the above shall apply a fortiori to cannabis and tobacco as well, by the way.  Those should never have even been legalized at all.  Thus, we need to redouble our efforts and renew the War on Alcohol And Other Drugs, and stop our "retreat and defeat" strategy.  Yesterday.

And finally, dear reader, as a wise college administrator once said, we DARE NOT let alcohol or any other substance blemish your bright promise.

(Scroll down)

(Scroll down)

(More)

(More)

(More)

APRIL FOOLS!


Of course we would never in a million years agree with any of what we said above, not one iota.  We will never, EVER sell out like that!  But you have to admit, with that sort of satirized sophistry, we sure had you, didn't we 😉

Friday, March 27, 2026

A Message To Those Who Still Support The 21 Drinking Age And Other Ageist Policies

Here's a message to those who still support the 21 drinking age and other ageist policies:

(Mic drop)

Wednesday, March 4, 2026

Ding Dong, The Troll Is Dead!

We at Twenty-One Debunked would like to announce some news.  We have just learned belatedly that a certain pro-21 troll who would come onto our blog from time to time has finally passed away, as of November 18, 2024.  His name was Randall "Randy" Kovar, along with a number of silly aliases that he would use to relentlessly troll us with.  We were wondering why he hasn't been trolling for the past two years or so, and now we know why.  

So pop the champagne, everyone! 

And make the following toast:

"Ding dong, the troll is dead!"

And finally:

May his name and memory be forever blotted out.

Saturday, February 7, 2026

Young People Have Too LITTLE Personal Autonomy, Actually

With the Epstein scandal now finally in the foreground at long last, many people are wondering how the hell were these atrocities allowed to happen for so long?  There are a number of reasons, of course, but the two biggest ones are 1) power of the perperators, and 2) lack of personal autonomy of the victims. 

The first is painfully obvious, as power lets perpetrators get away with far more than they would have without such power.  And of course, they are surrounded with rape apologists, enablers, and guilty bystanders as well.  Natch.  But denying young people autonomy and civil rights in the name of "protecting" them also not only fails to really protect them from predators, but actually puts them at greater risk.  As a very different Dr. Robert Epstein (no relation!) has famously noted, teens have fewer rights than convicted felons, and in fact have ten times more restrictions.

True, it is very nuanced, and the correlation is probably NOT linear or even monotonic.  Sometimes, a supposed "middle ground" is in fact the most dangerous place of all.  Recall the "most murder in the middle" theory, where the midpoint (known as anocracy or semi-democracy) in the transition between full democracy and full autocracy is in fact the most violent of all.  A similar analogy likely holds here as well, as in the abysmal status quo where young people are granted JUST barely enough agency to be blamed, shamed, and gaslighted for being victimized, but not nearly enough agency to actually empower them.  And the solution is NOT to take more rights and autonomy from young people, but rather to give them MORE rights and autonomy.  And of course, we must actually hold the perpetrators fully accountable regardless of their wealth, power, and social status.

So what are we waiting for?

P.S. And let's not forget to "thank" the peddlers of the previous moral panics from the Satanic Panic all the way to Pizzagate and QAnon, for crying "WOLF" so many times, that now that the wolf actually IS at the door, people are hesitant to believe it now.

(Mic drop)

Monday, January 26, 2026

Never Ask Meme (Re-Post)

There is a good meme that I found recently on Reddit about the, shall we say, shadow side of so many famous and otherwise "great" philosophers throughout recorded history:



And to that, we would like to add the following:

Never ask 57% of Michiganders, what they voted for in November 1978.  

(Hint:  it set into motion a sweeping national trend since then, a very dubious, toxic, illiberal, and ageist trend that might not otherwise have occurred, and without it, the USA would have most likely been more like Canada in that regard.  Seriously.  The agony of regret indeed....)

Thursday, January 1, 2026

The Law of Eristic Escalation Revisited (Re-Post)

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

Happy New Year, everyone!  Just thought we should share this re-post of a very timeless article that remains just as relevant now.

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), etc. 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.

P.S.  The Dutch seem to understand this better.  They even have a proverb:  "when you permit, you control", which is the antithesis of the American proverb, "when you permit, you promote".  Carl Jung would also likely have a field day with that as well.

Monday, December 22, 2025

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, pretty much back to normal now.  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.

Friday, December 12, 2025

When Cannabis Advances, Alcohol Retreats (Again)

Yet another study adds to the growing body of evidence that cannabis and alcohol are at least partial substitutes.  When cannabis advances, alcohol tends to retreat, as seen in many studies.  That seems to be true both in Canada (18 or 19 depending on the province for both, except 21 in Quebec), and in the USA (21 for both, and cannabis legal only in some states).

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Australia Has Fallen (Part Deux)

Australia' broadstroke social media ban for people under 16 that was passed last year is set to fully go into effect just days from now on December 10th.  That makes Australia the strictest country in the world in that regard (though a few other countries are moving towards something similar).  And Big Tech said they will comply with it.  Much like how Big Tobacco and Big Vape ultimately cynically supported the 21 smoking/vaping age here.

We at Twenty-One Debunked have already discussed why we oppose such a ban:  it is overbroad, throws the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, the mandatory age verification would create a privacy and cybersecurity nightmare for all ages, violates free speech, and last but not least, blatantly violates youth rights.  And on balance, we believe it does far more harm than good.

Yes, we are well aware that social media does have a dark side, for all ages, and that it needs much better guardrails.  But this age ban is both over- and under-inclusive, and thus utterly fails to accomplish the stated objectives.  Rather, we believe that (as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) advocates), comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages, that would ban the practice of surveillance advertising, would be a far better idea to do before anything else.  Then improve the safety features/defaults of these platforms, and if we still want something more age-specific, perhaps have something like New York's SAFE For Kids Act and the New York Child Data Protection Act.  In fact, New York even has a bill that has yet to become law, the SAFE For All Act, which would go a LONG way to making these platforms much safer and less addictive for all ages, and we fully support that 100%.

(The SAFE For Kids Act does have some flavor of age verification, but it narrowly targets only two very specific features of social media platforms:  1) Personalized algorithmic feeds (aka "addictive feeds"), and 2) Late night notifications (12 am to 6 am).  These relatively useless and harmful features are disabled by default, and only to enable them would one need to verify age.)

But an Australian-style age ban?  HELL NO!  The same also goes for the creeping censorship of the UK currently (and soon eventually Australia as well, with the way things are going now).

And Big Tech can go EFF off!

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  Amnesty International opposes the Australian social media age ban as well.  They have consistently been on the right side of history.  And the EFF also wrote another great article too, about the hidden dangers of mandatory age verification online.

And now over to you, Brazil.  It is the height of chutzpah and hubris for President Lula to implement mandatory age verification for social media in his country, especially given how it was 16 and 17 year voters who made his election win possible (the voting age is 16 in Brazil).  And they even have the GALL to package it all in patronizing and paternalistic Orwellian "children's rights" language.  Natch.  The next domino to fall.

Sunday, November 30, 2025

It Was 40 Years Ago Today

It was 40 years ago today, the last day in history that young New Yorkers could legally drink before 21.  The drinking age in my home state of New York, originally 18 for nearly half a century, was raised first to 19, effective December 4, 1982, and three years later raised to 21, effective December 1, 1985.  Just in time for the holiday season.  And with no grandfather clause either.

New York, due to their sheer size and clout on the national stage, was essentially the last real hope for bucking the trend and opposing federal coercion to raise the drinking age to 21.  And, alas, they too drank the Kool-Aid as well.  As did the other last real hope, Florida, the following year as well, albeit with a grandfather clause.  Without those two anchor states, the remaining holdouts didn't stand a chance against the feds, and the rest is history.....

Note that the iconic 1985 hit song "You Belong To The City" by Glenn Frey (RIP), is now officially 40 years old as well.  It came out in September 1985, three months earlier, and was famously used in the TV show Miami Vice.  An excellent song and video, filmed in and taking place in New York City, very nostalgic indeed.

Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Have A Safe And Happy Thanksgiving And Thanksgiving Eve

(This is a public service announcement)

It is that time of year again when Thanksgiving and Thanksgiving Eve (Blackout Wednesday) is upon us, and many of us Americans will be celebrating with alcohol and/or other substances, pretty much back to normal now.  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.

Friday, October 17, 2025

Alberta Gets It Right (Re-Post)

The Canadian province of Alberta is basically the only place in all of North America that gets it right across the board.  Legal age limits there are as follows:

  • Alcohol:  18
  • Tobacco and Vaping:  18
  • Cannabis:  18
  • Gambling:  18
  • Guns:  18
  • Voting:  18
  • Run for office:  18
  • General age of majority:  18
  • School leaving age:  16
  • Driving:  14 for learner permit, 16 for GDL, and 18 for full unrestricted license
  • All other age limits:  similar to the rest of Canada and the USA overall (at or below 18)
  • Curfew:  None at provincial level, only locally in a few towns here and there (usually 15)
In other words, 18 is the age of majority, and once you are an adult, you are an adult.  Period, full stop.  Some age limits can be lower than that, of course, as there is much room for nuance, but no age limit can ever be higher than that, at least not without extraordinary levels of justification.  And guess what?  The sky didn't fall in Alberta.  No seriously, it really didn't.  Alberta still has yet to get the memo about the supposedly catastrophic effects of full adult rights combined with "underdeveloped" 18-24 year old brains.

In fact, the Alberta Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits age discrimination for anyone over 18, except for senior citizen privileges for people over 55.  Anything else requires truly extraordinary justification, which in practice is about as rare as a unicorn. 

That is really how it should be everywhere, regardless of what exact age limit is chosen for age of majority (which is 18 in most of the world and most of the USA).  It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, as a child can easily understand it, but too many chronological "adults" seem to be unable to do so.  Anything else is a slippery slope, and such slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear.

And for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, while underage possession and consumption is illegal, for all three it is basically a mere ticket-level offense with no criminal record.  Unlike many US states have.  And parents are allowed to give their own underage children (but no one else) alcohol at home (within reason), as many but not all states currently do.

The driving thing is of course probably the most jarring one of all to the rest of the world, so allow us to explain.  The global outlier young age limit of 14, rivaled only by South Dakota and a few other rural states, applies ONLY to the learner permit, which is similar to an American style learner permit, with only supervised driving allowed among other restrictions.  To get a GDL (probationary) license, i.e. what Americans often call a "junior" license, you need to be at least 16 and also have had a permit for one year or more, and pass the basic road test which is harder than an American road test.  There are some restrictions to the GDL, such as no more passengers than there are seat belts, and a zero tolerance limit for both alcohol and cannabis, but no night restrictions.  And to graduate to the next level, the full unrestricted license, one must have had the GDL for at least two years regardless of age, be suspension-free for the final year of two years, and pass an advanced road test, the latter of which has since been phased out in 2023 in favor of simply making the basic road test more difficult and more like the advanced road test.  Honestly, making the American road test more difficult would probably be far more effective than any age-based restrictions ever could be.

Alberta in recent years has had one of the lowest overall traffic death rates per vehicle kilometers traveled in Canada, and lower than the USA, so they must be doing something right!

And DUI laws are quite strict there regardless of age as well.  There are swift and certain penalties of immediate but temporary administrative license suspension and vehicle impoundment for BAC as low as 0.05% (or 0.00% if GDL), in addition to any criminal penalties if above 0.08% and/or obviously impaired.  Note that the zero tolerance for GDL is regardless of age.  For DUI cannabis they are also quite strict as well, and we at Twenty-One Debunked think TOO strict since hard per se limits (let alone zero tolerance) don't really make sense for a substance with such complex pharmacokinetics and long detection times, and generally less impairing than alcohol.  At the very least, in the interest of simple justice, they really need to set the testing cutoff for positivity high enough to prevent false positives or innocent positives. 

Thus overall, Alberta is a good model for America to follow.  So what are we waiting for?

Oh, and they also have the best and largest shopping mall in the entire western hemisphere, the West Edmonton Mall.  It makes the even the vaunted Mall of America look a bit "meh" by comparison. 

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

How America Lost The Plot (Repost)

From the ageist and illiberal abomination that is the 21 drinking age and especially its authoritarian enforcement, to drunk driving, to drug policy, to transportation policy, to environmental policy, to foreign policy, to Tobacco 21, and so on, America has well and truly lost the plot long ago on so many issues.  How long ago, you may ask?  Well, roughly 40 years ago, if not even a bit earlier than that.  But how and why did it happen in the first place?  Why can't our "leaders" (and many of those who keep voting for them) ever seem to see the forest for the trees?

In the book, The Master and His Emissary:  The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist (2009), the author delves into the familiar idea of the left vs right hemispheres of the brain.  Only unlike the usual surface-level analysis in that we see in pop neuroscience, this one is a real deep dive into the truly resounding implications of these brain differences for society and civilization.  Ten years later, it was even made into a documentary, The Divided Brain (2019), by McGilchrist himself along with award-winning documentary filmmaker Vanessa Dylyn, et al.

To summarize:  the two hemispheres of the brain each see the world and process information in fundamentally different ways:  the left brain is more reductionistic in thinking, while the right is more holistic in thinking.  The left is more logical, analytical and detail-oriented, while the right is more creative, intuitive, and sees the bigger picture.  The left is more linear, while the right is more non-linear.  The left sees the map, while the right sees the territory.  And so on.  While both sides are of course quite valuable and necessary, the brain functions best overall when the right brain is in charge.  The left is a great servant, but a terrible master, hence the title of the book.  And Western culture has, for thousands of years, oscillated between favoring the overall relative dominance of each of the two hemispheres.  In recent centuries and decades, as in some other historical periods as well, we have become far too left-brain dominant, with very negative consequences, according to the author.  Not only does the left not really know what the right is doing, but at least half the time the left doesn't even know what the left is doing!  The left brain has thus essentially hijacked society, and that in turn leaves us "increasingly incapable of grappling with critical economic, environmental, and social issues, ones that shape our very future as a species", as the documentary would put it.  I am largely oversimplifying what he said, of course, but that is the basic gist of it overall.

One obvious reason for this excessive left-brain dominance could be due to poorly-designed education, of course.  But another could be that the left brain is faster in terms of processing speed than the right, and the pace of life is undoubtedly much, much faster nowadays than even the recent past.  Though the latter would be more of a chicken-or-the egg question. 

(And to all of the political conservatives and reactionaries who try in vain to shoehorn all of this into their silly left-wing vs right-wing political spectrum, like that one guy on The Daily Sceptic did recently, please get your own ideas.  This book, by a renowned Oxford scholar, truly thoroughly transcends such a naive interpretation of politics.)

A-ha!  That really explains a LOT!

Clearly, the USA (and a good chunk of the world as well, but especially the USA), has only gotten more, not less, left-brain dominant since roughly 40 years ago.  We as a society have been reactively lurching from crisis to crisis, moral panic to moral panic, trend to trend, fad to fad, idol to idol, and propaganda to propaganda, throwing at each whatever left-brained nostrums seem like a good idea at the time without really thinking it through.  But try as they may, the map is NOT the territory.  And their reductionist "solutions" invariably affect not just this thing over here, but also that thing over there, and that other thing all the way over there, and so on.  Oops!

One thing's for sure:  As the late, great Buckminster Fuller famously said, you cannot solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that got us into that problem in the first place.  Unfortunately, not nearly enough people have gotten the memo, it seems.

UPDATE:  Looks like McGilchrist has a sequel to the aforementioned book, titled The Matter with Things, as well.  In it, the following quote is probably the most pertinent:

"[Y]ou could say, to sum up a vastly complex matter in a phrase, that the brain's left hemisphere is designed to help us ap-prehend – and thus manipulate – the world; the right hemisphere to com-prehend it – see it all for what it is."

Food for thought. 

A brain divided against itself cannot stand.

Saturday, September 27, 2025

The ONE Thing We Agree With The Late Charlie Kirk On

There is indeed ONE thing we fully agree with the late Charlie Kirk on.  Care to guess what it is?

(Hint:  it is quite literally the very founding cornerstone of Twenty-One Debunked indeed.)

Give up?  

Well, the following tweet from him from 2018 says it all:

AMEN to that!  And we are not aware that he has ever officially reversed or repudiated that stance, even after he recently quit drinking completely himself.

A stopped clock can indeed be right twice a day.

Actually, there is one more thing we agree with him on as well:

For the EPSTEINTH time, RELEASE THE FILES!

(Mic drop)

Friday, September 19, 2025

Never Ask Meme

There is a good meme that I found recently on Reddit about the, shall we say, shadow side of so many famous and otherwise "great" philosophers throughout recorded history:


And to that, we would like to add the following:

Never ask 57% of Michiganders, what they voted for in November 1978.  

(Hint:  it set into motion a sweeping national trend since then, a very dubious, toxic, illiberal, and ageist trend that might not otherwise have occurred, and without it, the USA would have most likely been more like Canada in that regard.  Seriously.  The agony of regret indeed....)

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

"You Belong To The City" by Glenn Frey, 40 Years Later

The iconic 1985 hit song "You Belong To The City" by Glenn Frey (RIP), is now officially 40 years old.  It came out in September 1985, and was famously used in the TV show Miami Vice.  An excellent song and video, filmed in and taking place in New York City, very nostalgic indeed.

Note that this was literally less than three months before my home state of New York raised the drinking age to 21.  

Friday, August 8, 2025

A Message To Those Who Still Support The 21 Drinking Age And Other Ageist Policies

Here's a message to those who still support the 21 drinking age and other ageist policies:

(Mic drop)

Thursday, July 17, 2025

What If We Have Gotten "Age At First Use" All Wrong?

What if we (as a society) have gotten "age at first use" all wrong in regards to addiction?  The conventional wisdom is that the younger a person is when first trying a given substance (whether it's alcohol, tobacco/nicotine, cannabis, or otherwise), the more likely that person is to become addicted or dependent on that substance, and the more severe the problem they will develop, all else being equal.  This idea is often paired with the controversial (and half-baked at best) "gateway drug theory", namely that the use of lesser substances (alcohol, tobacco, and especially cannabis) increases the risk for subsequent use and/or addiction to other, harder substances.  But while the "gateway theory" is relatively easy to debunk, the "age at first use" theory has had much more staying power to date, mainly due to the fairly strong, and seemingly rugged and robust, correlational evidence, often combined with relatively superficial knowledge of human brain development.

However, a new study (albeit not exactly a new idea) strongly implies that at least much of the observed association between earlier age at first use and greater likelihood of addiction is actually due to reverse causation.  That is, kids who were at greater risk of addiction actually showed measurable brain differences compared to those who weren't, even before they took their first sip or puff.  This is truly a paradigm-shifting study indeed, and one that will require everyone to fundamentally rethink their approaches to substance abuse prevention.

That is NOT to say that using substances at an early age (especially before 15) is actually a wise idea, of course.  It still appears to be at least somewhat riskier overall, and the results of twin studies (which completely control for genetics, and largely control for environment) of the past still have yet to be completely explained away.  (For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT endorse or encourage the underage use of any such substances.)  But this latest study shows that the reality is far more nuanced than meets the eye, and that "delay, delay, delay that first drink or use at any cost!" is also probably not the wisest approach to prevention either.  And, of course, by implication, the 21 drinking age (and smoking age and toking age) now has even less support still from The Science.

(We should also note also that people who actually do wait until 21 or older to use such substances, especially alcohol, tend not to be very gung-ho about such substances to begin with, and thus tend to be non-drinkers, non-smokers, and non-users.  That is true for both age at first use, as well as age at first regular use.  It's basically tautological.)

Perhaps this why Denmark and Iceland, who each famously take diametrically opposite approaches to teen drinking (i.e. very permissive vs. very restrictive, respectively), still ultimately end up with remarkably similar alcoholism rates among adults.  Just like the USA vs Canada, basically.

Saturday, June 28, 2025

Supreme Court Upholds Age Verification For Adult Sites

Among other terrible rulings yesterday, the increasingly reactionary Supreme Court of the United States upheld Texas' age verification laws for porn sites (and by extension, by several other states with similar laws as well).  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reports:
Today’s decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a direct blow to the free speech rights of adults. The Court ruled that “no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age.” This ruling allows states to enact onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize their data security and privacy. These are real and immense burdens on adults, and the Court was wrong to ignore them in upholding Texas’ law.  
Of course, this ruling is relatively narrow, at least for now:
Importantly, the Court's reasoning applies only to age-verification rules for certain sexual material, and not to age limits in general. We will continue to fight against age restrictions on online access more broadly, such as on social media and specific online features.  
But it still sets a very questionable precedent at best, and we know that it won't stop there without a fight.  Twenty-One Debunked of course vehemently opposes the use of mandatory age verification in general (including, but not limited to, social media platforms) on First Amendment grounds, youth rights grounds, and cybersecurity grounds as well.  Stay tuned, because this fight is NOT over!