The Government of Canada under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau still plans to legalize cannabis nationwide. Though not finalized yet, it is tentatively set to go into effect sometime in July 2018. And various provinces are already preparing for it.
As for what the age limits will be, that will be up to the provinces to decide. The federal age limit will likely be 18, and most provinces have tentatively decided that their own cannabis smoking ages will match their drinking ages (currently 18 in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec, 19 elsewhere). Thus, the age limit for cannabis in Canada will most likely end up being 18 or 19, depending on the province.
For the record, Twenty-One Debunked believes that the age limits for alcohol, tobacco and cannabis should be 18, or at least no higher than that. We in the USA (where in the growing number of states in which cannabis is legal, the age limit is 21) can really learn a lot from our friendly neighbor to the north!
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
How to Quash a Black Market in Five Easy Steps
A black market (or underground economy) typically occurs when the legitimate market for a particular good or service is either nonexistent, out of reach, or otherwise far too insufficient to meet the demand for that good or service. Black markets are by definition illegal to one degree or another, while informal markets that are technically legal or quasi-legal are known as gray markets. While the usual proximal cause for a black market is prohibition of a good or service (and thus no legitimate market existing), a black market can also occur (albeit to a much lesser extent) when the taxes and/or other government fees on or surrounding the product or activity are excessively high relative to what consumers are willing to pay (and relative to the informal economy). Sometimes taxes can be so high so as to be considered "prohibition by price", though the relative price difference is typically far more important than the absolute price.
Twenty-One Debunked believes in raising alcohol taxes significantly in conjunction with lowering the drinking age to 18. The level we suggest ($24/proof-gallon, equalized for all alcoholic beverages), though significantly higher than now, would still be too low to encourage a significant amount of moonshining and bootlegging. But what about cannabis, which is currently being legalized in more and more states, many of which started out with fairly high taxes and/or licensing fees? Though a positive development overall, in some of such places, the black market still exists to one degree or another, albeit much less so than when cannabis was illegal. And of course we all know that places like NYC with extremely high cigarette taxes have their share of black markets in untaxed, out of state, counterfeit, and/or stolen cigarettes as well. So how does one solve such a 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:
Problem solved. The legal market proved to be competitive with what was left of the black market, and drinkers 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 no reason why this strategy would not work in this day and age. And instead of holding down taxes for three years, merely one year 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 one year, and probably not for several years, but the black market could be easily quashed in that timeframe all the same.
As for cigarette taxes, both NYC and NYS should implement this strategy as well. And of course, the low-tax states such as Virginia should also raise their cigarette taxes (within reason) so as to not be such a source state for cigarette smuggling to other states. And of course, lower NYC's age limit back to 18 as well. Same for cannabis in legalized states as well.
In fact, this strategy would work for just about any type of black market. That's because it is based on the hard facts of economics, not half-baked wishful thinking. Unlike prohibition or unrealistically high age limits, taxes are not a "blunt" policy instrument, but rather a razor-sharp, double-edged sword.
So what are we waiting for?
Twenty-One Debunked believes in raising alcohol taxes significantly in conjunction with lowering the drinking age to 18. The level we suggest ($24/proof-gallon, equalized for all alcoholic beverages), though significantly higher than now, would still be too low to encourage a significant amount of moonshining and bootlegging. But what about cannabis, which is currently being legalized in more and more states, many of which started out with fairly high taxes and/or licensing fees? Though a positive development overall, in some of such places, the black market still exists to one degree or another, albeit much less so than when cannabis was illegal. And of course we all know that places like NYC with extremely high cigarette taxes have their share of black markets in untaxed, out of state, counterfeit, and/or stolen cigarettes as well. So how does one solve such a 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:
- End Prohibition, first of all.
- Give amnesty and issue licenses to anyone willing to play by the state's rules, whether former bootleggers or otherwise.
- Set the alcohol taxes as low as possible at first, the lowest in the country in fact.
- 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.
- 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 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 no reason why this strategy would not work in this day and age. And instead of holding down taxes for three years, merely one year 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 one year, and probably not for several years, but the black market could be easily quashed in that timeframe all the same.
As for cigarette taxes, both NYC and NYS should implement this strategy as well. And of course, the low-tax states such as Virginia should also raise their cigarette taxes (within reason) so as to not be such a source state for cigarette smuggling to other states. And of course, lower NYC's age limit back to 18 as well. Same for cannabis in legalized states as well.
In fact, this strategy would work for just about any type of black market. That's because it is based on the hard facts of economics, not half-baked wishful thinking. Unlike prohibition or unrealistically high age limits, taxes are not a "blunt" policy instrument, but rather a razor-sharp, double-edged sword.
So what are we waiting for?
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Legalization of Cannabis Not A Disaster After All
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
