Why is it that, despite all of those who fight against raising the latest age limits, after losing the battle, most of them suddenly go quiet? I mean, the silence is truly deafening, as we saw after they raised the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s as well as the smoking age to 21 in recent years in some states and localities.
The answer is the "banality of evil", that is, it becomes normalized. Just like every other form of tyranny and oppression, most people simply adapt to it. And that is very dangerous, as history has so painfully shown time and time again. History may not exactly repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
All the more reason to redouble our efforts, yesterday. So what are we waiting for?
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Saturday, September 22, 2018
OK, Ageists, Here's A Modest Proposal Just For You (Part Deux)
In a previous post, we discussed the issue of age of consent for sex and the hypocrisy of ageists who tend to set it lower than the age of other "adult" rights and responsibilities. We thought we should clarify our position a bit on this issue, noting that we do not really want to raise any such age limit higher than 18 in any case. Rather all of the higher age limits than 18, such as the drinking age, should be lowered.
Yesterday.
Yesterday.
For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not take a firm position on what the exact age of consent for sex should be, as the issue is far too fraught, nuanced, and beyond the scope of our organization. But we do not think it should be abolished or drastically lowered from current levels (in the 16-18 range) as that would do far more harm than good overall. Nor do we really think it should be raised any higher than 18. But we do think there needs to be a close-in-age exemption (when one OR both partners is below the age limit) of four or even five years, and there is really no problem with reasonable age of consent laws that cannot be solved by such exemptions to these laws.
For example, consider the following actual law:
This is an example of a reasonable age of consent law, and we really ought to question the motives of anyone over 20 who thinks that such a law is too strict. Same goes for New Hampshire's more nuanced law, which also has an age of consent of 16, a four-year close-in-age exemption, and a hard minimum age of 13.
Think about it.
As for those who believe the age of consent should be raised to (or remain) 18 in a given state, one could simply adopt the same aforementioned law as written above, and add to it the following section or something similar:
(3) The person, being eighteen (18) years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than eighteen (18) years old and who is at least five years younger than the defendant, and is not married to the defendant.
And that would resolve essentially all of the problems associated with current age-of-consent laws even if as high as 18. Unfortunately, not every state even has close-in-age exemptions at all, and some of those laws, such as California, effectively criminalize both parties if they are both under 18. Such a thing is an absolute travesty, in dire need of reform. Ditto for any other laws that are written too broadly or vaguely or that give judges way too much discretion as well.
And come to think of it, any marriage exemptions to such laws should also be removed, since that implies marriage below the age of consent is permissible. And in many states it is, provided there is parental and/or judicial consent. But what it really is in practice is a loophole to cover up abuse and coercion. That said, existing marriages involving 16-17 year olds could be "grandfathered" as "valid but voidable" while the new laws only apply going forward.
As for commerical sex work, "survival sex", and cases where the older person is in a direct position of authority over the younger person, an addtional section can (and should) be added that sets the age limit higher than it would otherwise be (i.e. 18 rather than 16) and zero tolerance in regards to age gaps. But these examples are the exceptions, and no reason for the general age of consent to be affected by such exceptions. And we can also have graduated and enhanced penalties for very large age gaps (i.e. over 21 and under 14, over 18 and under 13, etc.) as well.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Oh, and another thing. The idea that a 17 year old sending a nude photo of him or herself to another 17 year old can be charged with "child pornography" under federal law and given a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in adult prison is absolutely unconsionable. Let that sink in. And such a travesty is a sign that our country has gone completely insane.
Meanwhile, the real rapists and child molesters are out there flying under the radar, and are often hiding in plain sight right now as we speak. Seriously.
Food for thought.
For example, consider the following actual law:
§ 61-8B-5. Sexual assault in the third degree.
(a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when:
(2) The person, being sixteen years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than sixteen years old and who is at least four years younger than the defendant....
Those are the exact, albeit abbreviated, words of West Virginia's law relating to age of consent, as noted on Wikipedia, and with the rather bizarre marriage exemption removed. Thus, the age of consent in WV is 16, with a close-in-age exemption of four years. And note that only people above the age of consent can be punished for violating this law. Another section of this same law also prohibits a person over 14 from engaging in such sexual activity with a person under 12, thus setting a hard limit at 12 without punishing anyone under 14.This is an example of a reasonable age of consent law, and we really ought to question the motives of anyone over 20 who thinks that such a law is too strict. Same goes for New Hampshire's more nuanced law, which also has an age of consent of 16, a four-year close-in-age exemption, and a hard minimum age of 13.
Think about it.
As for those who believe the age of consent should be raised to (or remain) 18 in a given state, one could simply adopt the same aforementioned law as written above, and add to it the following section or something similar:
(3) The person, being eighteen (18) years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than eighteen (18) years old and who is at least five years younger than the defendant, and is not married to the defendant.
And that would resolve essentially all of the problems associated with current age-of-consent laws even if as high as 18. Unfortunately, not every state even has close-in-age exemptions at all, and some of those laws, such as California, effectively criminalize both parties if they are both under 18. Such a thing is an absolute travesty, in dire need of reform. Ditto for any other laws that are written too broadly or vaguely or that give judges way too much discretion as well.
And come to think of it, any marriage exemptions to such laws should also be removed, since that implies marriage below the age of consent is permissible. And in many states it is, provided there is parental and/or judicial consent. But what it really is in practice is a loophole to cover up abuse and coercion. That said, existing marriages involving 16-17 year olds could be "grandfathered" as "valid but voidable" while the new laws only apply going forward.
As for commerical sex work, "survival sex", and cases where the older person is in a direct position of authority over the younger person, an addtional section can (and should) be added that sets the age limit higher than it would otherwise be (i.e. 18 rather than 16) and zero tolerance in regards to age gaps. But these examples are the exceptions, and no reason for the general age of consent to be affected by such exceptions. And we can also have graduated and enhanced penalties for very large age gaps (i.e. over 21 and under 14, over 18 and under 13, etc.) as well.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Oh, and another thing. The idea that a 17 year old sending a nude photo of him or herself to another 17 year old can be charged with "child pornography" under federal law and given a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in adult prison is absolutely unconsionable. Let that sink in. And such a travesty is a sign that our country has gone completely insane.
Meanwhile, the real rapists and child molesters are out there flying under the radar, and are often hiding in plain sight right now as we speak. Seriously.
Food for thought.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Is Teen Cannabis Use Really on the Rise?
The same FDA chief that has been freaking out over a supposed teen vaping "epidemic" (that is far more molehill than mountain, by the way), Scott Gottlieb, is now also freaking out about teen cannabis use and how it relates to legalization. In fact, he says he is now more worried about weed than vaping, which really says something. But is there any truth to his fears, particularly the idea that teen cannabis use is on the rise as a result of both medical and recreational legalization in more and more states?
The answer is apparently, not really. California is practically ground-zero for both medical and recreational legalization, and their survey actually shows a decrease in teen cannabis use, particularly in the younger grades, from 2013-2015 to 2015-2017 despite medical legalization in 1996, expanded decriminalization in 2011, and recreational legalization via Prop 64 in November 2016. And while the national Monitoring the Future survey showed a slight increase in teen use in 2017 compared with 2016, it had been previously dropping from 2011 to 2016 despite more and more states liberalizing their pot laws during that time. Some epidemic, huh? NOT.
In other words, there is no increase in teen cannabis use that can be unambiguously linked to legalization. And teen use is still far below its 1978-1979 and 1997 peaks, with no indication that it will even come close. Thus, another myth bites the dust. Plus, alcohol, tobacco, and most other substances are at or close to record lows among middle and high schoolers, while the opioid epidemic rages among American adults along with the "pink elephant in the room". So stop freaking out already, and see the forest for the trees.
UPDATE: In terms of problematic use of cannabis, a new study finds that the legal status of cannabis is essentially irrelevant. While that particular study focused on adults, it dovetails rather nicely with another study from last year finding no increase on problematic cannabis use among 12-17 year olds following the passage of legalization. Thus, it looks like the legalization advocates were indeed correct all along, that legalization would result in modest increases in adult use, and negligible increases (or even decreases) in teen use or abuse at any age. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
The answer is apparently, not really. California is practically ground-zero for both medical and recreational legalization, and their survey actually shows a decrease in teen cannabis use, particularly in the younger grades, from 2013-2015 to 2015-2017 despite medical legalization in 1996, expanded decriminalization in 2011, and recreational legalization via Prop 64 in November 2016. And while the national Monitoring the Future survey showed a slight increase in teen use in 2017 compared with 2016, it had been previously dropping from 2011 to 2016 despite more and more states liberalizing their pot laws during that time. Some epidemic, huh? NOT.
In other words, there is no increase in teen cannabis use that can be unambiguously linked to legalization. And teen use is still far below its 1978-1979 and 1997 peaks, with no indication that it will even come close. Thus, another myth bites the dust. Plus, alcohol, tobacco, and most other substances are at or close to record lows among middle and high schoolers, while the opioid epidemic rages among American adults along with the "pink elephant in the room". So stop freaking out already, and see the forest for the trees.
UPDATE: In terms of problematic use of cannabis, a new study finds that the legal status of cannabis is essentially irrelevant. While that particular study focused on adults, it dovetails rather nicely with another study from last year finding no increase on problematic cannabis use among 12-17 year olds following the passage of legalization. Thus, it looks like the legalization advocates were indeed correct all along, that legalization would result in modest increases in adult use, and negligible increases (or even decreases) in teen use or abuse at any age. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Latest Regression Discontinuity Study Only Confirms Powder Keg Theory (Again)
As we have noted before back in 2016, the latest type of drinking age studies, i.e. "regression discontinuity" (RD) studies, superficially appear to support the 21 drinking age, but upon closer examination actually kind of imply the opposite, namely 1) there is really nothing magical about 21, and 2) delaying legal access to alcohol to 21 compared with 18 only creates an even larger ticking time-bomb and powder keg that goes off at 21, with no real net benefit.
In 2016, pro-21 researchers Kitt Carpenter and Carlos Dobkin were at it once again. As you may recall, we at Twenty-One Debunked have critiqued much of their previous work, particularly their use of the "regression discontinuity" approach. The researchers found a significant jump in statistical death rates, arrests, and stuff like that immediately after young people turn 21 compared with before. And their latest study seems to be more of the same, this time looking at non-fatal injuries as measured by both ER visits and inpatient hospital admissions.
Oddly, these researchers actually (and without even a hint of irony) claim that these studies show that the 21 drinking age is effective in saving lives and reducing alcohol-related harm! But we at Twenty-One Debunked see it rather differently--if anything, it shows that there is nothing at all magical about turning 21 that makes one invulnerable to the deleterious effects of excessive alcohol consumption. And setting the drinking age at such an arbitrarily high age only sets a powder keg (pun intended) that goes off when young people reach that age. The higher the drinking age, the larger the powder keg, it seems. And it also shows that the Law of Eristic Escalation (i.e. imposition of order leads to escalation of chaos) is correct, as well as Fenderson's Amendment (the tighter the order is maintained, the longer it takes for the chaos to escalate, but the more it does when it does). Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 21 drinking age!
Of course, Carpenter and Dobkin also find evidence of a jump in both drinking and alcohol-related deaths among Canadians upon reaching their MLDA (18 or 19, depending on the province), particularly among males, and the increase in mortality seems to be due to a sudden jump in "extreme" binge drinking. It seems there is always a risk of increased alcohol-related harm in the short-run after suddenly turning legal, regardless of age. But as much other research shows, there is good reason to believe that such an effect is worse and longer-lasting when the the legal drinking age is higher rather than lower. And furthermore, a recent study in Australia (where the drinking age is 18 and DUI laws are tougher) found essentially no link between being able to drink legally and motor vehicle accidents of any type in the state of New South Wales. Food for thought indeed.
On the plus side, one should also note that another recent study using a regression-discontinuity approach found that being able to drink legally reduced the consumption and initiation of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) among young people, with no effect on tobacco use. And still another RD study finds that when alcohol retreats, cannabis advances (and vice-versa). These findings blow yet another big hole in the junk science that is the roundly-debunked "gateway" theory of drugs.
Fast forward to 2018, when another researcher, UW-Madison Professor Jason Fletcher, conducted yet another regression discontinuity study in the USA, this time looking at previously unexplored risk behaviors and consequences relating to drinking. In addition to replicating the results of the aforementioned previous studies, these novel measures included self-reports of drunk driving, boozy and risky sex, interpersonal troubles, violence, and of course, hangovers. And not surprisingly, these effects also jumped at 21 as well, with larger effects on males than females. And again, this is simply further confirmation of the powder keg theory.
So what do we call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
In 2016, pro-21 researchers Kitt Carpenter and Carlos Dobkin were at it once again. As you may recall, we at Twenty-One Debunked have critiqued much of their previous work, particularly their use of the "regression discontinuity" approach. The researchers found a significant jump in statistical death rates, arrests, and stuff like that immediately after young people turn 21 compared with before. And their latest study seems to be more of the same, this time looking at non-fatal injuries as measured by both ER visits and inpatient hospital admissions.
Oddly, these researchers actually (and without even a hint of irony) claim that these studies show that the 21 drinking age is effective in saving lives and reducing alcohol-related harm! But we at Twenty-One Debunked see it rather differently--if anything, it shows that there is nothing at all magical about turning 21 that makes one invulnerable to the deleterious effects of excessive alcohol consumption. And setting the drinking age at such an arbitrarily high age only sets a powder keg (pun intended) that goes off when young people reach that age. The higher the drinking age, the larger the powder keg, it seems. And it also shows that the Law of Eristic Escalation (i.e. imposition of order leads to escalation of chaos) is correct, as well as Fenderson's Amendment (the tighter the order is maintained, the longer it takes for the chaos to escalate, but the more it does when it does). Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 21 drinking age!
Of course, Carpenter and Dobkin also find evidence of a jump in both drinking and alcohol-related deaths among Canadians upon reaching their MLDA (18 or 19, depending on the province), particularly among males, and the increase in mortality seems to be due to a sudden jump in "extreme" binge drinking. It seems there is always a risk of increased alcohol-related harm in the short-run after suddenly turning legal, regardless of age. But as much other research shows, there is good reason to believe that such an effect is worse and longer-lasting when the the legal drinking age is higher rather than lower. And furthermore, a recent study in Australia (where the drinking age is 18 and DUI laws are tougher) found essentially no link between being able to drink legally and motor vehicle accidents of any type in the state of New South Wales. Food for thought indeed.
On the plus side, one should also note that another recent study using a regression-discontinuity approach found that being able to drink legally reduced the consumption and initiation of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) among young people, with no effect on tobacco use. And still another RD study finds that when alcohol retreats, cannabis advances (and vice-versa). These findings blow yet another big hole in the junk science that is the roundly-debunked "gateway" theory of drugs.
Fast forward to 2018, when another researcher, UW-Madison Professor Jason Fletcher, conducted yet another regression discontinuity study in the USA, this time looking at previously unexplored risk behaviors and consequences relating to drinking. In addition to replicating the results of the aforementioned previous studies, these novel measures included self-reports of drunk driving, boozy and risky sex, interpersonal troubles, violence, and of course, hangovers. And not surprisingly, these effects also jumped at 21 as well, with larger effects on males than females. And again, this is simply further confirmation of the powder keg theory.
So what do we call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
UPDATE: A later study in Austria, where the drinking age is 16, also dovetails with this same theory as well. Similarly, so does another study in Germany (also 16).
And another Canadian study, looking at sexual assault perpetration, finds mixed results. That is, for provinces with a legal drinking age of 19, they find such as significant discontinuous increase, but in provinces with a drinking age of 18, in contrast they find no significant jump.
And finally, a later Dutch study also dovetails with this general theory as well in terms of crime victimization. And in stark contrast to a recent American study, no effect was seen for sexual assault victimization in the Netherlands.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Do Tobacco 21 Laws Really Work?
One preliminary study seems to think so about California's law that raised the age limit to buy tobacco and e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 as of June 9, 2016. But the devil is really in the details. The study did not, I repeat, did NOT, look at actual teen smoking rates, only the degree of retailer compliance as measured by decoys, which did in fact improve since then in terms of sales to people under 18.
The two problems with this logic are 1) it is not necessary to raise the age limit to 21 to discourage retailers from selling to people under 18, as simply better enforcement against scofflaw vendors would do the trick, and 2) survey data do not really show any decrease in teen smoking that can be unambiguously linked to the policy change, whether in California or elsewhere with a Tobacco 21 law. Teen smoking dropped nationwide from 2015 to 2017, and while it dropped somewhat faster in California, keep in mind that California also raised their cigarette tax significantly during that time, by $2.00/pack, and Pennsylvania saw an even larger drop in teen smoking despite keeping the age limit 18 and a cigarette tax hike of $1.00/pack, only half as large.
As we have noted before based on survey data for the past few years, there is really no robust correlation between a state or local smoking age (whether 18, 19, or 21) and the teen (or adult) smoking rate. The strongest predictors of both teen and adult smoking are the tax/price of cigarettes and the prevailing social attitudes towards smoking, and in fact prices seem to have a larger effect on young people than adults. It is practically axiomatic. Retailer compliance is also inversely correlated with smoking by people under 18, but again it has proven to be entirely possible achieve nearly 100% compliance without raising the smoking age any higher than 18, as long as there is the political will for it. And it doesn't even require the criminal justice system at all, since the best tobacco-control success stories involved only administrative penalties (i.e. fines and/or tobacco license suspensions) against rogue vendors. Nor does it require criminalizing young people themselves.
If anything, if NYC is any indication, retailer compliance actually deteriorated following their age limit hike from 18 to 21 in 2014. This was in spite of heavy crackdowns against contraband tobacco during that time. In any case, while teen smoking rates declined in NYC following the law change, they did not drop any faster than the rest of the state or the nation as a whole, in fact they declined at a slower rate in NYC compared with the control locations, and teen vaping actually increased despite the fact that the law applied equally to e-cigarettes as well as combustible cigarettes. If that's "success", we would really hate to see what failure looks like.
And in fact, this also once again calls into question how effective the 21 drinking age (and now toking age in some states) is as well. Spoiler alert: not very. Thus, if there is a silver lining to the recent hike in the smoking age to 21 in some states and localities, it is that re-running this same failed social experiment with a different age-restricted psychoactive substance only to see it fail yet again in more modern times, a fortiori, is probably the strongest evidence against the very concept of such ridiculously high age limits in general. If you give the pro-21 crowd enough rope...
The two problems with this logic are 1) it is not necessary to raise the age limit to 21 to discourage retailers from selling to people under 18, as simply better enforcement against scofflaw vendors would do the trick, and 2) survey data do not really show any decrease in teen smoking that can be unambiguously linked to the policy change, whether in California or elsewhere with a Tobacco 21 law. Teen smoking dropped nationwide from 2015 to 2017, and while it dropped somewhat faster in California, keep in mind that California also raised their cigarette tax significantly during that time, by $2.00/pack, and Pennsylvania saw an even larger drop in teen smoking despite keeping the age limit 18 and a cigarette tax hike of $1.00/pack, only half as large.
As we have noted before based on survey data for the past few years, there is really no robust correlation between a state or local smoking age (whether 18, 19, or 21) and the teen (or adult) smoking rate. The strongest predictors of both teen and adult smoking are the tax/price of cigarettes and the prevailing social attitudes towards smoking, and in fact prices seem to have a larger effect on young people than adults. It is practically axiomatic. Retailer compliance is also inversely correlated with smoking by people under 18, but again it has proven to be entirely possible achieve nearly 100% compliance without raising the smoking age any higher than 18, as long as there is the political will for it. And it doesn't even require the criminal justice system at all, since the best tobacco-control success stories involved only administrative penalties (i.e. fines and/or tobacco license suspensions) against rogue vendors. Nor does it require criminalizing young people themselves.
If anything, if NYC is any indication, retailer compliance actually deteriorated following their age limit hike from 18 to 21 in 2014. This was in spite of heavy crackdowns against contraband tobacco during that time. In any case, while teen smoking rates declined in NYC following the law change, they did not drop any faster than the rest of the state or the nation as a whole, in fact they declined at a slower rate in NYC compared with the control locations, and teen vaping actually increased despite the fact that the law applied equally to e-cigarettes as well as combustible cigarettes. If that's "success", we would really hate to see what failure looks like.
And in fact, this also once again calls into question how effective the 21 drinking age (and now toking age in some states) is as well. Spoiler alert: not very. Thus, if there is a silver lining to the recent hike in the smoking age to 21 in some states and localities, it is that re-running this same failed social experiment with a different age-restricted psychoactive substance only to see it fail yet again in more modern times, a fortiori, is probably the strongest evidence against the very concept of such ridiculously high age limits in general. If you give the pro-21 crowd enough rope...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
