Five years after cannabis was first legalized for recreational use in Colorado and Washington in late 2012, over three years after full implementation of such legalization in 2014, and several more states since then, what can we conclude from the data so far? The best evidence shows that such legalization was NOT a disaster after all, the fears were ridiculously overblown, and if anything legalization turned out to be a win-win-win situation for everyone but the crooks, creeps, cops, and cronies. It saved a ton of money on law enforcement and related costs, brought in major tax revenue, and the supposedly large social costs of legalization that the naysayers feared still have not panned out even several years later. And thus, no good reason for cannabis to remain illegal anywhere else at this point.
And now that California Dreaming has finally become a reality in a critical number of states, Twenty-One Debunked will become that much more aggressive in advocating that the age limits for cannabis in legaliztion jurisdictions be lowered to 18 going forward. While we very grudgingly supported legalization initiatives with an age limit of 21 while they were being debated and voted on in the name of pragmatism, now that the proverbial dam has broke it is time to take on the age limit issue with at least the same tenacity that we have shown with alcohol.
To all of those who still support cannabis prohibition: how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history? Because we wouldn't know anything about that.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
The 21 Drinking Age Is An Inherently Violent Law
Let's put this as bluntly as possible. The 21 drinking age is an inherently violent law, at least the way it is typically implemented. And insofar as it is violent, it its also therefore a hate crime against young people.
Except perhaps for those shrinkingly few jurisdictions in this country where it is not vigorously enforced or only enforced on vendors, enforcing such an illiberal law against a victimless crime is inherently violent. In fact, it is literally impossible for police to enforce against young people themselves without violence or the threat of violence. And if you resist such efforts, that is "resisting arrest". Try to imagine a non-violent version of such an abomination--you literally can't!
One yardstick we like to compare it to is the smoking age for tobacco in still many parts of the country. New York State, for example, has a legal minimum sale age of 18 for all tobacco products and e-cigarettes. NYC and Suffolk County set it at 21, and a few other counties such as Nassau set it at 19. But in all of the state, the age limit only pertains to who can buy it, and only vendors are penalized for it. Purchase, use, and possession (PUP) under the legal age are not actually illegal in NY. I believe that even furnishing cigarettes to people under the legal age in private is not a punishable offense either. That is an example of a (relatively) non-violent smoking age, if one can argue that there is such a thing.
Yet we can't seem to recall anywhere in the country, except maybe Louisiana, that has a 21 drinking age that follows such a model in theory or practice. And unfortunately many parts of the country are increasingly following the typical drinking age model (or worse) for cigarettes and now cannabis as well.
That said, we would still vehemently oppose the age limit for alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis set any higher than the general age of majority regardless, as it is still an unduly paternalistic violation of civil rights and liberties. That means no higher than 18, period. As for people under 18, ideally there should be no penalties for simple possession or private consumption per se, but if there must be, they should be no worse than a traffic ticket and there should be no jail time or criminal record involved. We would grudgingly support such a thing only to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good (and thus ending up with neither). But otherwise, any age limit should be enforced only on vendors (with violations punishable by liquor licence suspensions/revocations) and perhaps people over 18 who otherwise knowingly furnish such substances to people under 18 (for example, by fining and "blacklisting" such scofflaws from buying alcohol for a period of time). The criminal law is far too harsh a tool to apply to such things per se, except perhaps in truly egregious cases.
But as for drunk driving, drunk violence, and other alcohol-related crimes with victims, we say, NO MERCY! Do the crime, do the time.
Oh, and by the way, during Prohibition (1920-1933) when alcohol was banned for all ages, it was actually NOT illegal to possess or consume alcohol per se. It was of course illegal to sell, manufacture, transport, or give away such beverages, but drinking itself was not a crime. Thus, the current ignoble experiment that is the 21 drinking age is in fact more violent than 1920s Prohibition for people under 21.
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.
Except perhaps for those shrinkingly few jurisdictions in this country where it is not vigorously enforced or only enforced on vendors, enforcing such an illiberal law against a victimless crime is inherently violent. In fact, it is literally impossible for police to enforce against young people themselves without violence or the threat of violence. And if you resist such efforts, that is "resisting arrest". Try to imagine a non-violent version of such an abomination--you literally can't!
One yardstick we like to compare it to is the smoking age for tobacco in still many parts of the country. New York State, for example, has a legal minimum sale age of 18 for all tobacco products and e-cigarettes. NYC and Suffolk County set it at 21, and a few other counties such as Nassau set it at 19. But in all of the state, the age limit only pertains to who can buy it, and only vendors are penalized for it. Purchase, use, and possession (PUP) under the legal age are not actually illegal in NY. I believe that even furnishing cigarettes to people under the legal age in private is not a punishable offense either. That is an example of a (relatively) non-violent smoking age, if one can argue that there is such a thing.
Yet we can't seem to recall anywhere in the country, except maybe Louisiana, that has a 21 drinking age that follows such a model in theory or practice. And unfortunately many parts of the country are increasingly following the typical drinking age model (or worse) for cigarettes and now cannabis as well.
That said, we would still vehemently oppose the age limit for alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis set any higher than the general age of majority regardless, as it is still an unduly paternalistic violation of civil rights and liberties. That means no higher than 18, period. As for people under 18, ideally there should be no penalties for simple possession or private consumption per se, but if there must be, they should be no worse than a traffic ticket and there should be no jail time or criminal record involved. We would grudgingly support such a thing only to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good (and thus ending up with neither). But otherwise, any age limit should be enforced only on vendors (with violations punishable by liquor licence suspensions/revocations) and perhaps people over 18 who otherwise knowingly furnish such substances to people under 18 (for example, by fining and "blacklisting" such scofflaws from buying alcohol for a period of time). The criminal law is far too harsh a tool to apply to such things per se, except perhaps in truly egregious cases.
But as for drunk driving, drunk violence, and other alcohol-related crimes with victims, we say, NO MERCY! Do the crime, do the time.
Oh, and by the way, during Prohibition (1920-1933) when alcohol was banned for all ages, it was actually NOT illegal to possess or consume alcohol per se. It was of course illegal to sell, manufacture, transport, or give away such beverages, but drinking itself was not a crime. Thus, the current ignoble experiment that is the 21 drinking age is in fact more violent than 1920s Prohibition for people under 21.
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.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Kudos to Puerto Rico (and the U.S. Virgin Islands)!
With all the monumental and unprecedented devastation to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricane Maria, we at Twenty-One Debunked have been thinking about just how much integrity they have shown over the past three decades. As you probably already know, since 1988 they have continually chosen to keep their drinking ages at 18 instead of raise it to 21, even at the cost of 10% of their federal highway funding being withheld from them. Even Guam eventually sold out in 2010, yet Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands still show no signs whatsoever of selling out anytime soon, despite how battered they are by the hurricane. Now that REALLY says something! So thank you, and kudos to both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. You are excellent role models for the sort of integrity that one can only wish that the mainland states had shown.
Of course, there have repeatedly been fleeting movements to raise the drinking age to 21 in Puerto Rico over the years, but every single one of them failed due to lack of public support. But keeping the drinking age at 18 did not stop them from harm reduction. In fact, even the temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation concedes that Puerto Rico was able to reduce both alcohol-related traffic fatalities and underage (under 18) drinking since the 1990s without raising the drinking age at all. Rather, they simply started enforcing the existing drinking age of 18, passed tougher DUI laws (and enforced them), and also raised the excise tax on alcoholic beverages. From 1982 to 2009, Puerto Rico saw a whopping 84% decline in teenage (16-20) drunk driving fatalities, while the nation as a whole saw a 74% drop, in both cases to record-low levels. Now that's a great American success story!
In other words, it appears that Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) were spot on when they said that the drinking age appears to have "only a minor impact on teen drinking," just like they were right about its lack of a lifesaving effect on the highways.
Of course, there have repeatedly been fleeting movements to raise the drinking age to 21 in Puerto Rico over the years, but every single one of them failed due to lack of public support. But keeping the drinking age at 18 did not stop them from harm reduction. In fact, even the temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation concedes that Puerto Rico was able to reduce both alcohol-related traffic fatalities and underage (under 18) drinking since the 1990s without raising the drinking age at all. Rather, they simply started enforcing the existing drinking age of 18, passed tougher DUI laws (and enforced them), and also raised the excise tax on alcoholic beverages. From 1982 to 2009, Puerto Rico saw a whopping 84% decline in teenage (16-20) drunk driving fatalities, while the nation as a whole saw a 74% drop, in both cases to record-low levels. Now that's a great American success story!
In other words, it appears that Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) were spot on when they said that the drinking age appears to have "only a minor impact on teen drinking," just like they were right about its lack of a lifesaving effect on the highways.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Have We Got the "Teen Brain" All Wrong?
One thing that is commonly accepted as a truism in the USA is that crime, especially violent crime, is a young person's (and especially a young man's) vice. It typically rises rapidly in the mid-teens and peaks around the late teens and very early twenties before rapidly and then gradually declining from then on, and it is often said that "the best cure for crime is a 30th birthday." The statistics do indeed bear this out, but it is often accepted without question that the causes of this phenomenon are biological (particularly neurological and/or hormonal) as opposed to cultural ones.
Well, a new study by researchers at Penn State seems to put the lie to the biological determinist theory. While previous studies tended to look only at Western cultures (which all show a similar age pattern for crime), this one compared the USA to Taiwan instead. If brain development (or lack thereof) is the cause, then the age pattern for crime should be pretty much the same worldwide, but it turns out that this was not the case for Taiwan. Over there, crime peaked in the late twenties and early thirties, roughly a decade later than in the USA. Thus, the researchers concluded, that cultural factors, not biological/neurological ones, are primarly responsible for the crime patterns by age. Notably, this is true even though the drinking age in Taiwan is 18, compared to 21 in the USA.
It is rare that a single study can overturn such an apparent mountain of evidence. Unless, of course, that "mountain" turned out to be a molehill all along--and a rather shaky one at that.
Well, a new study by researchers at Penn State seems to put the lie to the biological determinist theory. While previous studies tended to look only at Western cultures (which all show a similar age pattern for crime), this one compared the USA to Taiwan instead. If brain development (or lack thereof) is the cause, then the age pattern for crime should be pretty much the same worldwide, but it turns out that this was not the case for Taiwan. Over there, crime peaked in the late twenties and early thirties, roughly a decade later than in the USA. Thus, the researchers concluded, that cultural factors, not biological/neurological ones, are primarly responsible for the crime patterns by age. Notably, this is true even though the drinking age in Taiwan is 18, compared to 21 in the USA.
It is rare that a single study can overturn such an apparent mountain of evidence. Unless, of course, that "mountain" turned out to be a molehill all along--and a rather shaky one at that.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Reflections on the Penn State Tragedy
In the wake of the Penn State tragedy which led to the untimely death of 19 year old sophomore Timothy Piazza, Twenty-One Debunked was initially quiet about it lest we be accused of cynically exploiting this tragedy. But as time goes on, I have decided that as an activist and a Penn State alum myself, I cannot remain silent about it any longer.
First, I must say that the fraternity brothers who were present at the event in which Piazza was fatally injured should not be in any way absolved of responsibility for what happened. It was bad enough that they gave (or more accurately, force-fed) him ludicrous amounts of alcohol in a short amount of time, enough to reach a BAC of 0.40 (!), apparently as a hazing ritual. But when he fell down the stairs and sustained a nasty head injury and was barely responsive, they could have very likely saved his life by calling 911 or otherwise getting medical attention for him, but chose not to. Instead, they basically treated him like a rag doll and subsequently let him "sleep it off". Regardless of the drinking age and the age of the people involved, what the brothers did, and failed to do, was nothing less than reckless, selfish, and cowardly, and they should certainly never be allowed to get away with it. So don't even think about putting any sort of words in our mouths.
But then a very ageist article was wrtitten to try to explain this tragedy away as a result of brain development or lack thereof. And that's when we at Twenty-One Debunked really saw nothing but red. The article was not only blatantly ageist, but completely missed the point by a long shot. If the drinking age was 18, for example, this tragedy would have been far less likely to have happened. There would be less reason for frats to even exist begin with, since 18-20 year old students would readily have more reliable alternative sources for alcohol and parties, and most of all drinking would occur in safer environments in which people would be more far likely to call 911 or otherwise get help for injuries or overdoses without fear of legal reprisals. Even medical amnesty policies, which are good, are still no substitute for full legalization or at least decriminalization of "underage" drinking in general. While lowering the drinking age is not a magic bullet, it will nonetheless go a long way towards reducing the problem of extreme and dangerous drinking on college campuses and towns, particularly among Greek organizations and athletes. Additionally, we need to hold rogue individuals and organizations accountable for their behavior regardless of how powerful or privileged they are.
How many more must die or otherwise have their lives ruined for such an ignoble experiment as the 21 drinking age? Are we as a society really so pharisaical that we don't even follow our own advice when we selectively say "if it saves one life, it's worth it"? Because the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is that the pro-21 crowd has some serious blood on their hands.
First, I must say that the fraternity brothers who were present at the event in which Piazza was fatally injured should not be in any way absolved of responsibility for what happened. It was bad enough that they gave (or more accurately, force-fed) him ludicrous amounts of alcohol in a short amount of time, enough to reach a BAC of 0.40 (!), apparently as a hazing ritual. But when he fell down the stairs and sustained a nasty head injury and was barely responsive, they could have very likely saved his life by calling 911 or otherwise getting medical attention for him, but chose not to. Instead, they basically treated him like a rag doll and subsequently let him "sleep it off". Regardless of the drinking age and the age of the people involved, what the brothers did, and failed to do, was nothing less than reckless, selfish, and cowardly, and they should certainly never be allowed to get away with it. So don't even think about putting any sort of words in our mouths.
But then a very ageist article was wrtitten to try to explain this tragedy away as a result of brain development or lack thereof. And that's when we at Twenty-One Debunked really saw nothing but red. The article was not only blatantly ageist, but completely missed the point by a long shot. If the drinking age was 18, for example, this tragedy would have been far less likely to have happened. There would be less reason for frats to even exist begin with, since 18-20 year old students would readily have more reliable alternative sources for alcohol and parties, and most of all drinking would occur in safer environments in which people would be more far likely to call 911 or otherwise get help for injuries or overdoses without fear of legal reprisals. Even medical amnesty policies, which are good, are still no substitute for full legalization or at least decriminalization of "underage" drinking in general. While lowering the drinking age is not a magic bullet, it will nonetheless go a long way towards reducing the problem of extreme and dangerous drinking on college campuses and towns, particularly among Greek organizations and athletes. Additionally, we need to hold rogue individuals and organizations accountable for their behavior regardless of how powerful or privileged they are.
How many more must die or otherwise have their lives ruined for such an ignoble experiment as the 21 drinking age? Are we as a society really so pharisaical that we don't even follow our own advice when we selectively say "if it saves one life, it's worth it"? Because the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is that the pro-21 crowd has some serious blood on their hands.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
