A recent study in Germany on the effects of cannabis and driving should really put the fearmongers at ease for now. This study using a driving simulator found that 1) driving impairment does not really correlate with blood THC levels, except above a threshold of >15 ng/mL in serum (roughly 7.5 ng/mL in whole blood), and 2) any impairment that does occur apparently dissipates and driving ability returns to baseline after a mere three hours following toking.
Of course, smoking very large quantities, or very high potency strains, and/or eating cannabis edibles, will undoubtedly lead to longer periods of greater impairment than observed in the study. But as a general rule, the results of the study make sense.
Thus, zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of cannabis, as well as setting an arbitrary per se blood THC limit analogous to alcohol, appear to be unjustified. That is not to say that a reasonable prima facie blood THC limit (i.e. above which creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt) is bad--Colorado currently sets theirs at 5 ng/mL--but setting it too low or rigidly per se would punish far too many non-impaired drivers. And there is no evidence that zero-tolerance or per se limits for THC actually save lives.
Of course, this is not to suggest that driving stoned is a good idea or without risk. But driving under the influence of cannabis alone is less risky than driving under the influence of alcohol, and the often hysterical fears of prohibitionists are largely unwarranted, while legalization advocates are unsurprisingly vindicated once again.
Remember: "when in doubt, wait it out."
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Community Pubs: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
It is no secret that social cohesion in the USA has declined, and loneliness and social isolation had increased, since the 1980s. While there are likely many causes, the 21 drinking age certainly doesn't help, since it only divides people that much more. It along with the resulting age segregation forces drinking underground for people under 21, making it more dangerous than it has to be, while artificially dividing 18-20 year olds from people over 21.
Enter a fairly new (old) idea that is currently growing on the other side of the pond in the UK, where the drinking age is 18--community pubs. While for decades pubs have been closing across the UK, particularly in rural areas, community pubs (which are community-owned cooperatives rather than privately-owned corporations or sole proprietorships) have grown over 30% and have had a 100% survival rate in recent years. After all pubs in Britain are more than just places to eat and drink--they are important community gathering locations often central to people's sense of place and identity. They can potentially offer a very wide range of services to the larger community. And such community pubs can thus help reduce loneliness and social isolation while improving social cohesion, for all ages and demographic groups.
It would be great if this trend were to spread to the USA as well. Though it is a good idea regardless of the drinking age, for best results the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and all ages should be allowed to be present in the pub for at least the bulk if not all of its opening hours. The less age segregation (in any sense) there is in such places, the better.
Contrary to what many believe, liberty and community are NOT opposites, and need not be at odds with each other at all. That is a 19th century Big Lie that needs to be put to rest for good.
So what are we waiting for?
Enter a fairly new (old) idea that is currently growing on the other side of the pond in the UK, where the drinking age is 18--community pubs. While for decades pubs have been closing across the UK, particularly in rural areas, community pubs (which are community-owned cooperatives rather than privately-owned corporations or sole proprietorships) have grown over 30% and have had a 100% survival rate in recent years. After all pubs in Britain are more than just places to eat and drink--they are important community gathering locations often central to people's sense of place and identity. They can potentially offer a very wide range of services to the larger community. And such community pubs can thus help reduce loneliness and social isolation while improving social cohesion, for all ages and demographic groups.
It would be great if this trend were to spread to the USA as well. Though it is a good idea regardless of the drinking age, for best results the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and all ages should be allowed to be present in the pub for at least the bulk if not all of its opening hours. The less age segregation (in any sense) there is in such places, the better.
Contrary to what many believe, liberty and community are NOT opposites, and need not be at odds with each other at all. That is a 19th century Big Lie that needs to be put to rest for good.
So what are we waiting for?
Saturday, February 9, 2019
New Federal Cannabis Legalization Bill Actually Has A Chance of Passing
There is a new cannabis legalization bill in Congress, sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, and it is actually numbered S.420, in a not-so-subtle nod to cannabis culture. The bill would 1) officially remove cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances completely, thus allowing it to be sold in states where it is legal while barring its sale in the states where it is still illegal, 2) tax cannabis at the federal level like alcohol and tobacco, and 3) otherwise regulate it similarly to alcohol at the federal level. And it actually has a significant chance of passing, in what is currently by far the most cannabis-friendly Congress in all of US history since the famously hemp-growing Founding Fathers. And now with Jeff Sessions out of the way, with enough persuasion the Donald might even sign it, being quite the wildcard that he is.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
And unlike the ill-fated and problematic STATES Act, which effectively would have set a federal age limit of 21 for weed, S.420 is silent on the age issue, essentially leaving it up to the states. Kinda like with alcohol, minus the infamous National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 of course. And while S.420 is not quite as good and comprehensive as the Marijuana Justice Act would be, it is certainly a great start and seriously needs to be passed yesterday.
So what are we waiting for? It is LONG overdue. And while we are at it, the legalization states should also lower the toking age to 18 yesterday as well.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
And unlike the ill-fated and problematic STATES Act, which effectively would have set a federal age limit of 21 for weed, S.420 is silent on the age issue, essentially leaving it up to the states. Kinda like with alcohol, minus the infamous National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 of course. And while S.420 is not quite as good and comprehensive as the Marijuana Justice Act would be, it is certainly a great start and seriously needs to be passed yesterday.
So what are we waiting for? It is LONG overdue. And while we are at it, the legalization states should also lower the toking age to 18 yesterday as well.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
We Already Know How To Reduce Teen Smoking and Vaping Without Raising Age To 21--So What Are We Waiting For?
A recent study in the medical journal Pediatrics only confirms what Twenty-One Debunked has been saying all along. That is, tougher enforcement of the minimum sales age limit of 18, directed at vendors, does in fact lead to lower smoking as well as vaping rates among teens, and these lower usage rates apparently persist even after such youth reach the legal age to buy such products.
In this study, the proxy for tougher vendor enforcement was the grade (A through F) by the American Lung Association (ALA) on the strength of the local tobacco retail licensing (TRL) laws in the jurisdictions studied. Strong TRL laws imply more frequent retail compliance checks with decoys, since such laws require licensing fees that make the program self-funding, and fines and penalties for violations such as failed compliance checks. This in turn would lead to higher retailer compliance rates in adhering to the age limits for sales, and thus reduced access for youth below the age limit. The study looked at various localities in California, in January-June 2014 and again in January 2015 through June 2016, while the age limit was still 18.
Unsurprisingly, jurisdictions with a grade of A (strong) for their TRL laws indeed had much lower teen smoking and vaping prevalence rates in the surveys compared to those with grades of D or F (weak). At the same time, the ALA grades given for other local tobacco control laws (such as smoke-free laws) in place at the time did not seem to have much if any effect on youth smoking and vaping prevalence rates, and were statistically insignificant.
Thus, even though teens can still often manage to get cigarettes and such from their older friends and relatives (i.e. social sources), the net effect of restricted retail availability to people under 18 is significantly and persistently lower youth smoking and vaping rates. Apparently generosity has its limits, and any forbidden fruit effect (reactance theory) of the age limit itself is outweighed in practice by greatly reduced access and convenience when retail compliance rates are very high, especially for younger and/or less mobile teens. For example, if one in five retailers is willing to sell to people under 18, that is still pretty easy to get, but if only one in 20 retailers is willing to do so, that becomes very inconvenient to acquire and sustain a habit, especially in towns with only a few retail outlets. Remember, a license to sell temptation goods like cigarettes and alcohol is practically a license to print money, and retailers would not want to jeopardize that by breaking the law when the law is strictly enforced with swift and certain sanctions for violations.
And while cigarette taxes were not studied here, since there would not have been within-state local variation in taxes, one should note that an older landmark study found that the two most important predictors of teen smoking rates over time (inversely) were 1) tax/price, and 2) retailer compliance rates. This was particularly true for daily smoking rates.
Such results dovetail nicely with those of the famous studies of Woodridge, IL and Leominster, MA, in the 1990s that found that sustained tougher enforcement directed at vendors greatly reduces youth smoking rates without having to raise the age limit any higher than 18, and without having to involve the criminal justice system at all. Now if only such logic would be applied to alcohol and cannabis as well.
And lest anyone claim that this would not apply to alcohol with a drinking age of 18, keep in mind that this is precisely what happened in the UK with both alcohol and tobacco upon implementing increased retail enforcement combined with higher tax rates on both substances. So what are we waiting for?
In this study, the proxy for tougher vendor enforcement was the grade (A through F) by the American Lung Association (ALA) on the strength of the local tobacco retail licensing (TRL) laws in the jurisdictions studied. Strong TRL laws imply more frequent retail compliance checks with decoys, since such laws require licensing fees that make the program self-funding, and fines and penalties for violations such as failed compliance checks. This in turn would lead to higher retailer compliance rates in adhering to the age limits for sales, and thus reduced access for youth below the age limit. The study looked at various localities in California, in January-June 2014 and again in January 2015 through June 2016, while the age limit was still 18.
Unsurprisingly, jurisdictions with a grade of A (strong) for their TRL laws indeed had much lower teen smoking and vaping prevalence rates in the surveys compared to those with grades of D or F (weak). At the same time, the ALA grades given for other local tobacco control laws (such as smoke-free laws) in place at the time did not seem to have much if any effect on youth smoking and vaping prevalence rates, and were statistically insignificant.
Thus, even though teens can still often manage to get cigarettes and such from their older friends and relatives (i.e. social sources), the net effect of restricted retail availability to people under 18 is significantly and persistently lower youth smoking and vaping rates. Apparently generosity has its limits, and any forbidden fruit effect (reactance theory) of the age limit itself is outweighed in practice by greatly reduced access and convenience when retail compliance rates are very high, especially for younger and/or less mobile teens. For example, if one in five retailers is willing to sell to people under 18, that is still pretty easy to get, but if only one in 20 retailers is willing to do so, that becomes very inconvenient to acquire and sustain a habit, especially in towns with only a few retail outlets. Remember, a license to sell temptation goods like cigarettes and alcohol is practically a license to print money, and retailers would not want to jeopardize that by breaking the law when the law is strictly enforced with swift and certain sanctions for violations.
And while cigarette taxes were not studied here, since there would not have been within-state local variation in taxes, one should note that an older landmark study found that the two most important predictors of teen smoking rates over time (inversely) were 1) tax/price, and 2) retailer compliance rates. This was particularly true for daily smoking rates.
Such results dovetail nicely with those of the famous studies of Woodridge, IL and Leominster, MA, in the 1990s that found that sustained tougher enforcement directed at vendors greatly reduces youth smoking rates without having to raise the age limit any higher than 18, and without having to involve the criminal justice system at all. Now if only such logic would be applied to alcohol and cannabis as well.
And lest anyone claim that this would not apply to alcohol with a drinking age of 18, keep in mind that this is precisely what happened in the UK with both alcohol and tobacco upon implementing increased retail enforcement combined with higher tax rates on both substances. So what are we waiting for?
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
To Governor Cuomo: Do NOT Raise Smoking Age to 21!
Dear Governor Cuomo,
First, we at Twenty-One Debunked, and I personally as a New Yorker, would like to thank you for supporting cannabis legalization, albeit with some nuance. We also would like to thank you for standing up to Trump whenever possible thus far.
That said, we at Twenty-One Debunked simply cannot get behind your recent proposal to raise the age limit for tobacco and vaping devices from 18 to 21. We believe it is an unnecessarily ageist policy to set the age limit any higher than the current age of majority, which is 18 in New York. Thus, first and foremost, we oppose such a policy on principle--just as we feel the same way about the drinking age and the soon to be legal toking age as well.
And while there are already several counties, including NYC and its entire "backyard", such as Westchester County where I live, that have raised the smoking and vaping age to 21, there is really no hard evidence that it reduces youth smoking rates compared to keeping it 18. The same goes for other states and localities that have raised their age limits in recent years. In fact, to the extent that it makes vaping devices harder for 18-20 year olds to get, it could easily steer current vapers back to smoking, which would clearly not be good for public health.
So what can be done instead to further reduce already low and falling smoking rates for both youth and adults?
Thus, we ask that you please reconsider your support for the 21 age limit for tobacco and vaping, and we hope you will realize that keeping it 18 is the right thing to do.
Sincerely,
Ajax the Great, Twenty-One Debunked
First, we at Twenty-One Debunked, and I personally as a New Yorker, would like to thank you for supporting cannabis legalization, albeit with some nuance. We also would like to thank you for standing up to Trump whenever possible thus far.
That said, we at Twenty-One Debunked simply cannot get behind your recent proposal to raise the age limit for tobacco and vaping devices from 18 to 21. We believe it is an unnecessarily ageist policy to set the age limit any higher than the current age of majority, which is 18 in New York. Thus, first and foremost, we oppose such a policy on principle--just as we feel the same way about the drinking age and the soon to be legal toking age as well.
And while there are already several counties, including NYC and its entire "backyard", such as Westchester County where I live, that have raised the smoking and vaping age to 21, there is really no hard evidence that it reduces youth smoking rates compared to keeping it 18. The same goes for other states and localities that have raised their age limits in recent years. In fact, to the extent that it makes vaping devices harder for 18-20 year olds to get, it could easily steer current vapers back to smoking, which would clearly not be good for public health.
So what can be done instead to further reduce already low and falling smoking rates for both youth and adults?
- Tobacco taxes can of course be hiked further, though in New York they are already the highest in the nation, and even higher still in NYC. And there is already quite a black market for contraband cigarettes now.
- The current age limit of 18 can of course be more vigorously enforced, as there is still room for improvement in terms of retailer compliance rates.
- Limit and reduce the number and density of outlets that sell tobacco products (for example, your plan to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies).
- Build on NYC's already successful smoking cessation program, with free nicotine patches and gum available for all smokers who wish to quit.
- Advertising restrictions to the greatest extent that the US Constitution will allow.
- Counter-advertising, such as the Truth campaign, has been shown to work wonders in other states like Florida and California.
- Consider phasing down the maximum allowable nicotine content of cigarettes to a non-addictive level.
- For e-cigarettes, cap the nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels (JUUL, we're looking at YOU).
Thus, we ask that you please reconsider your support for the 21 age limit for tobacco and vaping, and we hope you will realize that keeping it 18 is the right thing to do.
Sincerely,
Ajax the Great, Twenty-One Debunked
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
