California Dreaming? More Like Disappointing

While Twenty-One Debunked is pleased that the fifth largest economy in the world, California, has fully legalized cannabis for recreational use and even finally has legal weed stores, nearly half a year later the promise of booming tax revenue seems to have been a letdown thus far.  While any cannabis legalization is better than prohibition, and any tax revenue is better than zero, of course, it still seems to have fallen a bit short of the promises.

How so, you ask?  Let us count the ways:

1. Taxes are too high.  When all of the several different taxes are added in, it adds up to as much as 45% of the before-tax price in some municipalities. 
2. That is, of course, if you can even GET any legal weed at all in one's municipality of choice.  Local option means that many towns and cities have chosen to locally ban (or delay indefinitely) the implementation of full retail legalization.
3. And last but not least, the age limit is 21.

Add all these factors up and you have a recipe for a thriving, if smaller, black market for cannabis.  Especially since the original pre-legalization black market was not yet eradicated.  Had the Golden State started out with significantly lower taxes, more municipalities allowing retail cannabis stores, and an age limit of 18 (though the first two factors seem to be the most important), they could have easily eradicated the black market within a few years and then been able to raise the taxes on cannabis to even a much higher level than they are now without the black market coming back anytime soon.  That is basically what Rear Admiral Luther E. Gregory found out after the repeal of alcohol Prohibition in Washington State.  And it worked.

So, in a nutshell, here is how California can solve this problem:

1. Lower the combined taxes on cannabis to no more than $10/ounce (or 10%, whichever is lower) for the first year or two.  And make cannabis retail licenses cheaper than liquor and tobacco licenses.
2. Remove excessively strict levels of local option or at least provide incentives for municipalities to allow retail weed stores.
3. Lower the age limit to 18.  Yesterday.
4. Crack down on any vendors who are caught flouting any of the new laws, and blacklist violators from getting any retail licenses in the future.
5. After the first year or two (or three), jack up the taxes on cannabis to as much as $50/ounce at the cultivation level and additionally 10-15% at the retail level.  Or make the tax proportional to THC content.

Problem solved.  Next.  But of course, that would make far too much sense, right?

Oh, and as long as we are talking about taxes, keep in mind that California's alcohol taxes are below the national average.  Raising those taxes would be a good place to start if they want more revenue quickly.

At least America's friendly neighbor to the north will not be repeating our mistakes.  Taxes in Canada will start out quite low, and the age limit will be 18 or 19 depending on the province.  Watch their economy boom faster than you can say, "O Cannabis!"

New York's Backyard Will Have a Smoking Age of 21

Well, its official now.  Effective just 60 days after it was signed today, Westchester County, NY (aka my own neck of the woods!) will now have a tobacco purchase age of 21, joining NYC as well as Orange, Rockland, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties and all of New Jersey.  It applies to both combustible tobacco products as well as e-cigarettes / vaping devices.  Thus, all of "New York's Backyard" except Putnam County (and Connecticut) will have an age limit of 21.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

The only silver lining is that, just like the rest of New York State (where most other counties are still 18), the so called "smoking age" is only for purchase (not possession or consumption) and is more accurately called a "sale age" in that only the vendor would actually be breaking the law (and thus punishable) in such a case.  Thus, it is a relatively "non-violent" type of age restriction law (albeit still very ageist and repugnant nonetheless) since it is a very different kind of onus.  That is not true in some other parts of the country, unfortunately, and is certainly not true with the 21 drinking age except maybe in Louisiana.  So thank God (or Nature) for such small mercies.  But still, we say to those who voted for the age limit hike:

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

And speaking of NYC, it is very curious indeed that no one seems to be talking about what happened in NYC since they raised their smoking age.

We think we know why.  At first glance, it does appear to have had some effect.  According to the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), teen smoking rates did in fact drop from 2013 to 2015 in NYC:

2005   11.2%
2007   8.5%
2009   8.4%
2011   8.5%
2013   8.2%
2015   5.8%

Those are the percentages of combined 9-12 grade students who reported any current cigarette smoking in the past 30 days.  Looks impressive at first:  a relative 29% drop from 2013 to 2015.  But take a look at the same data for the nation as a whole, for comparison:

2005   23.0%
2007   20.0%
2009   19.5%
2011   18.1%
2013   15.7%
2015   10.8%

As you can see, the nation as a whole also saw a similar (if even faster) drop in teen smoking at the same time, with a relative 31% decrease from 2013 to 2015, despite no change in the smoking age in most places.  And the teen smoking rate in NYC was already much lower before the law change, having dropped more dramatically than the rest of the USA prior to 2007 and then remaining at a low level since.

How about San Francisco, another major city that raised its age limit to 21?

2005   10.9%
2007   8.0%
2009   10.4%
2011   10.7%
2013   7.5%
2015   5.4%

They also saw a similar size drop from 2013-2015, to the tune of 28% (vs. 29% in NYC and 31% in the USA overall).  Just one problem though.  San Francisco did not raise their smoking age until 2016, so these data show that the drop in the smoking rate happened while it was still 18, before the age limit was raised.  Thus, it would actually be part of the no-change control group, not the experimental group.  And if you include the decrease since 2011, San Francisco in fact saw more progress than NYC.

Thus, we can conclude that the decrease in teen smoking in NYC following the hike in the purchase age was most likely NOT causally linked to it, and would most likely have occurred regardless given the above counterfactual data.  Kinda like we at Twenty-One Debunked initially predicted back in 2013 after first learning of the law change being proposed.  So if that wasn't the cause, what was?  Well, we know that nationwide, as well as in NYC, the secular trend for the past four decades (except a brief increase from 1992-1997) has been downward for both teen and adult smoking.  This was due to a general combination of education/awareness, taxation, regulation, and advertising restrictions, and the resulting cultural changes.  And in very recent years, electronic cigarettes have gained popularity as an alternative to combustible cigarettes, and in fact overtaking the latter and becoming at least twice as popular among high-schoolers by 2015.  Note that this was also true in NYC despite the 21 age limit applying to e-cigarettes as well.

Bottom line:  it looks like the supposed benefits of raising the smoking age to 21 were, shall we say, all smoke and mirrors.  The supposed success of Needham, MA was likely a statistical fluke and/or a result of endogeneity, much like the "early adopter" effects of the first few states to raise the drinking age to 21 creating that particular mirage in the 1980s.  Or perhaps increased enforcement in general relative to neighboring towns did the trick regardless of the age limit, like it did in Woodridge, IL and several other communities the 1990s.  We doubt there would be any real benefits for Westchester County or anywhere else that adopts such a law.  And even if such benefits of the 21 age limit were real, we at Twenty-One Debunked would still never support any age limit any higher than 18, on principle alone.

Old enough to fight and vote = old enough to drink and smoke.  'Nuff said.

Have a Safe and Happy Memorial Day Weekend

Today is 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.  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, 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.

18 in '18

Reminder: It is now 2018, and this year may be the very best chance we have had in a long time to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  With the Amethyst Initiative and Choose Responsibility already now over a decade old and ultimately a flash in the pan, and the relative dormancy of our movement since about 2012 or so, it's time to start the "third wave" of our movement now.  We need to be re-invigorated like never before.  And that is an understatement!

Thus, we need to start getting "18 in '18" initiatives on the ballot in as many states as possible, in addition to pressuring our legislators to lower the drinking age to 18.  With the mid-term elections likely to be "on fire" in terms of more voter turnout than usual, especially for young people, it seems that at least some such initiatives may have a chance.

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.

What better time than now?

What About Guns?

Normally, the gun politics debate in general is beyond the scope of Twenty-One Debunked.  But in the wake of the Parkland school shooting in Florida on February 14, 2018, in which the 19 year old killer bought the AR-15 legally, the gun debate has taken on some rather ageist overtones lately, particularly among those who generally pro-gun in general.  Both Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Rick Scott have recently revealed themselves as ageist hypocrites by pushing for raising the age limit for all guns to 21, at both the federal and state levels, respectively.   Under current federal law, the age limit for purchase is 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns, and 18 for simple possession of either type, unless the state sets a higher age limit.  (But heaven forbid these ageists even question the idea that the "right" to own weapons of war like the AR-15 is somehow sacrosanct.)

Twenty-One Debunked fundamentally opposes raising any age limit higher than 18, including but not limited to for guns.  Not only is it ageist, but it also doesn't really solve anything, since most mass shooters are over 21 and those under 21 would simply get a "straw purchaser" over 21 to buy the weapons for them, as the Columbine killers so infamously did.  If we really are serious about solving or even taking the dangerous edge off of America's practically unique gun violence epidemic, we need to get to the root of the problem rather than scapegoat young people for adult problems.

Both Twenty-One Debunked and the TSAP recommends the following measures be taken:

1. Bring back a new and improved 1994 assault-weapons ban yesterday, this time with more teeth.  This time, include all rapid-fire devices and all magazines with more than ten rounds in the ban as well as the previously-banned types of semi-automatic rifles and their knockoffs.
2. Remove the 20-year ban on gun violence research, yesterday. 
3. End the gun-show loophole and implement universal background checks, yesterday.
4. Put a significant excise tax on all bullets/ammo, like Chris Rock recommended. (Seriously)
5. Treat ammo sales the same as gun sales.  Or better yet, treat bullets like Sudafed:  must show ID, limit on the number that one can buy, the number bought would be recorded, and if you do buy too many, you will be investigated.
6. Pass a "one gun a month" law at the federal level.  And consider perhaps putting a limit on the number of guns that an individual can own at a given time, except for antiques/relics/curios.
7. Require reporting of lost or stolen guns.
8. Regulate firearms like other consumer products in terms of health and safety standards--currently such standards are nonexistent.
9. Improve enforcement of existing gun laws, which tend not to be enforced very well these days, and improve state reporting of prohibited persons to NICS.  Also, prohibit anyone on the terrorism watch list from buying any guns, period. 
10. Consider a massive gun buyback program, one that pays significantly more than what the guns are worth on the street.  Voluntary for any still-legal weapons, mandatory for any newly-banned ones. 
11. And last but not least, improve our woefully-inadequate mental healthcare system.

Of course, to truly solve our gun violence problem would require a fundamental overhaul and transformation of our society, which the TSAP clearly supports.  We need to go from being what Riane Eisler calls a "dominator" society to more of a "partnership" society, as the latter kind is far less violent overall.   But in the meantime, the aforementioned recommendations would go a long way towards taking the dangerous edge off of the problem. 

While we don't know why this particular mass murderer did what he did, it was most likely due to a combination of toxic masculinity, easy access to weapons of war (including the obligatory AR-15), and some sort of grudge with the school that kicked him out.  He was also known to do reckless stuff, wanted to join the military (most likely for the wrong reasons), and apparently enjoyed hunting.  Regardless of the motive, the first two factors are absolutely essential for virtually all mass shootings, whether in schools or otherwise.

And before anyone else starts getting on their anti-youth high horse about this, keep in mind that the zero-tolerance school policies put in place in the wake of Columbine, along with the increasingly prison-like atmosphere in schools these days, have done absolutely nothing to stop school shootings from increasing dramatically since then.  Such tragic events went from occurring an average of once or twice a year in the 1990s and early 2000s to nearly once a WEEK this year so far as well as the past few years.  If anything, one can argue that the "powder keg" atmosphere made things worse in the long run.  And of course, most mass shooters in general are over 21 and the vast, vast majority are over 18.  

I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Second Amendment is where it says "well-regulated".  Too bad so many Republican Congresscritters who are bought and paid for by the NRA can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence.  Oh, and nevermind that when it was written, guns at that time fired at most one round per minute, not 600+ per minute like so many of today's killing machines.  Not like the gun lobby and their lackeys really do nuance.

UPDATE:  Looks like while Trump is backing off of the idea of raising the age limit for guns to 21, Governor Scott nonetheless went ahead with it in Florida.  And the NRA is suing the state of Florida over that.

180/180: How to Clean Up Chicago (Or Any Other Major City) In 180 Days Or Less

With all of the talk about Chicago's crime wave (despite most crime being at or close to the lowest in decades nationwide), the national opioid epidemic, and the corresponding calls (mostly from the right-wing) to get "tough on crime" as well as to further reinvigorate the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs, we at Twenty-One Debunked have decided to discuss an idea that our webmaster has been working on for almost a year now, that may one day become a full-length book.  In a similar vein as When Brute Force Fails:  How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment by UCLA researcher Mark Kleiman, we have put together an evidence-based strategy called "180/180" (i.e. turning the crime and drug problem around 180 degrees in 180 days) that we feel jibes better with our movement.   While we borrow many ideas from Kleiman, we also reject a few of his ideas and have added several of our own as well, drawing from the vast experience of various cities, towns, and countries around the world.

Twenty-One Debunked believes that 1) the drinking age should be lowered to 18, 2) cannabis should be fully legalized for everyone 18 and older and treated no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco, and 3) all other currently illegal substances should be treated for the most part according to the Portuguese model of decriminalization of users, since full legalization of such substances (while we don't necessarily oppose doing so) is unlikely to be politically feasible at this time and could have unforseen consequences if not implemented properly.  Additionally, the True Spirit of America Party also supports abolishing (or at least greatly reducing) material poverty (which is, along with structural racism and economic inequality, one of the major root causes of both crime and substance abuse) via a Universal Basic Income Guarantee as well as a Humprey-Hawkins style Job Guarantee program.  In the long run, all of these things are likely to reduce crime and/or substance abuse overall.  But in the meantime, with or without the aforementioned measures in place, enter the 180/180 strategy to really take a bite out of crime in the near-term:

• Implement an all-ages curfew law for the first 90 days, albeit with exceptions for people traveling to or from work or school.  Similar to what Iceland did, except for all ages and for a limited period of time.  Set it at 9 pm Sunday-Thursday and 10 pm on Friday and Saturday in general (10 pm and midnight, respectively, in the summer when days are longer).  
• Implement a "dry law" (no alcohol can be sold, period) for the first 30 days of the strategy.
• Increase the number of police and the number of patrols conducted, while also being careful to maintain good relations overall between the police and the community.
• Raise the taxes significantly on all alcoholic beverages and/or set a price floor on such drinks. 
• Put a "sinking lid" on the number and density of alcohol outlets, especially liquor stores.
• Make simple possession of cannabis (and perhaps other drugs) and "underage" drinking the lowest law-enforcement priority (LLEP), similar to the San Francisco Miracle of the 1990s.
• Do a "low-arrest crackdown" on any hard-drug markets, as was done in High Point, NC.  Instead of the usual catch-as-catch-can, build a case against every drug dealer in town, with enough evidence to put them away for a long time.  Then call them all in for a meeting and give them an ultimatum: stop dealing now or go to prison.  The market will dry up very quickly, and likely remain as such for years.
• Implement Hawaii's HOPE program (for hard drugs) and South Dakota's 24/7 program (for alcohol) for probationers and parolees. 
• Implement the strategies of Operation Ceasefire, aka the Boston Miracle, as a proven way to defuse gang violence.
• Conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness after 180 days.  If serious crime has not dropped by at least half during that time, re-start both the curfew and dry law again, repeating as needed.  Otherwise, do not bring either one back, but maintain the other components of the strategy.

If the reader found the first two components to be a bit jarring, that was in fact the goal.  It SHOULD be very jarring to anyone who believes in individual rights.  Only by applying them to all ages would such measures really have any significant benefit, and should be short-term since they basically function like a tourniquet--good for stopping the bleeding, but once the bleeding has stopped, leaving them in place would do more harm than good on balance.  And doing them frivolously would also do more harm than good, so reserve the curfew and dry law for places with exceptionally high levels of crime and/or hardcore drug abuse.  Otherwise, the other components of the strategy can stand alone, which we like to call "180/180 Lite".

Other, medium- to longer-term measures that ought to be included in a comprehensive strategy are:

• Get the Lead Out, and Take a Bite Out of Crime.  Numerous studies have shown a strong relationship between preschool lead exposure and later involvement in crime and other social ills during adolescence and adulthood.  (And take fluoride out of our drinking water as well, which worsens the leaching and effect of lead and is also neurotoxic in its own right.)
• Provide free birth control to anyone who wants it, and end the current assault on women's reproductive rights, yesterday.  (Fewer unwanted children will lead to fewer criminals in the long run, according to Freakonomics)
• Send nurses to visit the homes of first-time mothers who are poor and/or young.  According to Kleiman, this may be the most cost-effective crime-fighting program ever devised.
• Implement sensible gun control laws (while still respecting the Second Amendment), as well as putting a tax on bullets.
• For cities with very high crime rates, consider combining the controversial Project Exile (i.e. tougher enforcement of federal gun laws) with the aforementioned Operation Ceasefire, as was the case in the strategy known as Project Safe Neighborhoods. 
• Shift the school day (for middle and high school) to both start and end later.
• Raise the minimum wage.  (Yes, studies do show a correlation)
• Implement a "Housing First" approach to solving homelessness.
• Invest more in education in general, from pre-K through post-grad.
• Invest more in both mental health and substance abuse treatment programs, as well as substitution therapy (methadone, buprenorphine) for opioid addicts.
• Provide more opportunities for alternative forms of recreation, like Iceland did.
• If we find we must follow the "broken windows" theory, think James Q. Wilson (who invented it), NOT Rudy Giuliani.  Do NOT use racial profiling or police brutality, or anything else that violates anyone's civil or human rights, period.
• And for crime in general, we must always keep in mind that swiftness and certainty of punishment works better than random severity.  Punishment is a cost, not a benefit.

And of course, all of these things have social benefits that go way beyond simply fighting crime as well.  The evidence is overwhelming, so what are we waiting for?

We have been trying to get "tough on crime" for decades now.  It's time to get SMART on crime instead.

National Academies' Drunk Driving Study Is A Mixed Bag

The latest NHTSA-commissioned study done by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has just been released.  The 489-page report came up with the following recommendations based on a review of the literature:

• Lower the BAC limit for DUI to 0.05 (currently 0.08 in all 50 states* and DC)
• Increase alcohol taxes
• Reduce the hours and days during which alcohol can be sold
• Crack down on sales of alcohol to people under 21 and people who are already intoxicated
• Put limits on alcohol marketing and fund anti-alcohol campaigns similar to what is currently done with smoking.

As we can see, this list of recommendations is a mixed bag overall.  Let's go through each of these ideas, one by one:

Lower the BAC limit to 0.05.  Twenty-One debunked supports this one, albeit with the reservation that driving with a BAC of 0.050-0.079 ought to be a traffic violation rather than a criminal offense, with criminal penalties reserved for those above 0.08.  The models used in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, or even the one currently used in New York, should be used in all states and territories.  And all penalties for DUI should be steeply graduated based on BAC in general.

Increase alcohol taxes.  Twenty-One Debunked fully supports this one, and it is in fact a key component of our proposal.  And it is probably the single best way to reduce alcohol-related harms, including drunk driving casualties.  We recommend raising and equalizing the federal tax on all alcoholic beverages to the 1991 inflation-adjusted level for distilled spirits, namely $24 per proof-gallon.

Reduce the hours and days during which alcohol can be sold.  Twenty-One Debunked does not take an official position on this one, but would be fine with a modest reduction depending on the details (days?).  It would seem that there is an optimum time for "last call" which is overall better than anything much earlier or later.   We need more information to make a sound judgment about this recommendation.

Crack down on alcohol sales to people under 21.   Well, you should know by now how we stand on that one.  In a word, NO.  Twenty-One Debunked believes in lowering the drinking age to 18, full stop.  That said, we would be fine with cracking down on vendors who sell to people under 18 all the same.

Crack down on sales to people who are already (noticeably) intoxicated.  Twenty-One Debunked would be okay with that, as long it is not done in an ageist or overly heavy-handed fashion.

Put limits on alcohol marketing and fund anti-alcohol campaigns similar to smoking.  Twenty-One Debunked supports this one, albeit with some reservations.  Clearly, alcohol and tobacco are quite different from one another in terms of both harm and addictiveness, and that undeniable fact should figure into any such campaigns.  Alcohol is not all bad per se, unlike tobacco.  As a wise man once said, smoking is not like drinking, it is more like being an alcoholic.

Also, some ideas were noticeably absent or at best downplayed from the list of recommendations.  These include:

• Tougher enforcement against DUI
• Tougher (and graduated) penalties for DUI
• Ignition interlock devices
• South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program 
• Safe rider programs
• Alcohol server training
• Reducing outlet density
• Social norms marketing
• Innovative alcohol education methods
• Improved treatment for alcohol use disorders
• Better public transportation 
• Better traffic safety measures in general
• Increasing the gas tax

All of which we support, and are either proven or at least promising.  And of course we support lowering the drinking age to 18.  Yet they supported tougher enforcement of the 21 drinking age.  Why, given how it has been so thoroughly debunked by Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) and several other studies?  Well, no one wants to admit that their crown jewel is somehow tainted--and NHTSA et al. clearly considers the 21 drinking age to be their crown jewel of sorts.

But back to the controversial 0.05 limit proposal, as we have noted above, it should be administrative rather than criminal.  Even for BACs above 0.08 it should also carry such administrative sanctions in addition to (and separate from) any criminal penalies.  And the Canadian experience with such has shown that swift and certain (but modest) punishment works wonders, much more so than lowering the boom rarely and haphazardly.  As for the fear that bars and restaurants will lose business as a result?  Well, let us play the world's smallest violin for them.  They may want to think ahead and invest in "safe rider" programs then.  Problem solved.

So what are we waiting for?

* The criminal BAC limit is 0.08 in all states except Utah, whose new 0.05 law goes into effect on December 30, 2018.  Some states, such as New York, actually already set the limit at 0.05 for a lesser offense that is just a traffic violation and not a criminal offense, albeit with license suspension.

Why Are Traffic Deaths On The Rise?

After decades of a massive secular decline in traffic deaths, reaching an all-time record low in 2014 per VMT as well as per capita, such deaths have been creeping up again since then.  2015 and 2016 both saw national increases in fatalities, and 2017 looks likely to continue that grim trend (and indeed has in several states).  In fact, it is the largest two-year jump in deaths in half a century.  So why has progress stalled and begun to reverse in recent years?

The list of most likely factors includes the following:

• Lower gas prices
• An improving economy since the Great Recession
• An increase in distracted driving (and walking), primarly from smartphones
• Higher speed limits than in the past 
• Infrastructure in disrepair from neglect
• Slacking on traffic safety improvements in general since the early 1990s

All of these things are true, and all of them are known to be correlated with traffic casualties.  Other factors are involved as well, to be sure, but these are the big ones.  The first three are the proximal causes, while the last three are the more distal ones.

Of course, drunk driving and not wearing seatbelts remain rather persistent contributors to the number of these deaths, but such behaviors remain far lower than they were decades ago.  Nevertheless, they remain at dangerous levels, and it is apparently a bit too early to feel safe in that regard.  And with real alcohol prices at record lows today and alcohol consumption on the rise for the past two decades, there is definitely a cause for concern in that regard.

What about drugged driving, then?  Is it really on the rise, like some have claimed?  Perhaps, but it may simply be that we are getting better at detecting it rather than an actual increase.  Or perhaps it is a bit of both.  The opioid epidemic certainly doesn't make the roads any safer.  And contrary to the anti-legalization folks, there does not seem to be any firm link between cannabis legalization and traffic fatalities.  In fact, some studies have found decreases in highway deaths following cannabis liberalization, due to an apparent substitution with alcohol.

One thing is for sure.  Whether this spike in traffic casualties is a short-term blip or the start of a longer-term trend (which will only be known in hindsight), it should be a major wake-up call that we clearly cannot afford to be complacent about it any longer.

In Other News, New Study Finds That The Sun Rises In The East

Captain Obvious called, and they want their study back.  Namely, the one that found that more frequent police traffic stops in general leads to less drunk driving.  In fact, communities with very few traffic stops had a rate of impaired driving that was as much as two to three times higher than in communities with more frequent traffic stops.  The same was true for the intensity of DUI saturation patrols, which, interestingly enough, were found to be quite superior to roadblock-style sobriety checkpoints in this study.

Additionally, they also found that the number of DUI arrests, after other variables controlled for, was also inversely correlated with drunk driving despite the chicken-or-egg problem inherent in this measure.  Thus, on balance, the greater the probability of arrest if one does drive drunk in a given community, the less people are willing to drive drunk in that community.

Again, we see that the perception of swift and certain punishment--that is, greater odds of getting caught--does indeed act as a robust deterrent for drunk driving.  Gee, who woulda thunk it?

So how about the following thought experiment:  if the drinking age was suddenly lowered to 18 overnight, how would police respond now in 2018?  Most likely, they would become more active in cracking down on DUI, fearing an increase in such among young people.  And that crackdown would not only prevent the feared short-term increase in traffic casualties, but also have a spillover that would reduce traffic casualties among all ages.  That is the most logical prediction of the net effect of doing so nowadays, as it's clearly not the 1970s anymore.

It's time to finish the job.   So what are we waiting for?

18 in '18

It is now 2018, and this year may be the very best chance we have had in a long time to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  With the Amethyst Initiative and Choose Responsibility already now over a decade old and ultimately a flash in the pan, and the relative dormancy of our movement since about 2012 or so, it's time to start the "third wave" of our movement now.  We need to be re-invigorated like never before.

Thus, we need to start getting "18 in '18" initiatives on the ballot in as many states as possible, in addition to pressuring our legislators to lower the drinking age to 18.  With the mid-term elections likely to be "on fire" in terms of more voter turnout than usual, especially for young people, it seems that at least some such initiatives may have a chance.

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.

What better time than now?

The One Thing That Philip J. Cook and Wayland Ellis Both Agree On

Sometimes an idea comes along that is so compelling that even polar opposites of a particular ideological or public policy spectrum are willing to at least grudgingly embrace.  And sometimes that idea is not only not a new one, but has existed since practically forever yet has been largely underutilized all the same despite all the evidence in its favor.

Take the following two authors and researchers:  Philip J. Cook (author of Paying the Tab:  The Costs And Benefits of Alcohol Control) and Wayland Ellis (author of Abolish the Drinking Age:  The Conservative Case Against Alcohol Regulation).  The two can be considered to be each other's foil in many ways in regards to alcohol.  Cook is American, pro-21, pro-regulation, leans a bit more liberal than conservative, and leans more communitarian than libertarian.  In contrast, Ellis is British, anti-21, anti-regulation, conservative by British standards, and leans quite libertarian even by American standards.   

And yet, there is one thing that they both agree on:  the single most effective public policy measure to reduce alcohol-related harms is higher alcohol prices, such as through higher alcohol taxes.  Cook arrives at that conclusion enthusiastically while Ellis arrives at it perhaps a bit grudgingly, but the conclusion is the same regardless despite their otherwise polar opposite views on the drinking age and alcohol regulation in general.  Now that really says something!

And it pans out, given the reams upon reams of research evidence that arrive at that same conclusion in a wide variety of times, places, demographics, and functional forms.  Twenty-One Debunked generally agrees more with Cook than Ellis on most of the topics under discussion with the notable exception of the drinking age of course.  Especially since Cook's own 1984 study with Tauchen was one of the now-outdated studies that convinced the feds to force states to raise the drinking age to 21 in the first place.  We agree with Cook on some things, Ellis on others, and clearly agree with both on the issue of alcohol taxes.  Alcohol prices relative to inflation and income are currently at a record low in the USA, in no small part because taxes are at at a record low as well.  And there really is no overarching benefit to society for alcohol to be that cheap, while there is plenty of proven and serious harm from the excessive drinking (among all ages) that such cheap alcohol encourages.

Twenty-One Debunked supports lowering the drinking age to 18, while also raising and equalizing the federal alcohol taxes across the board to $24/proof-gallon, equal to the inflation-adjusted 1991 level for distilled spirits.  That would be a little more than an extra dollar for a six-pack of beer or an extra dollar on a fifth of liquor.  That could be done more gradually by first raising it to $16/proof-gallon and then to $24 a year later. Additionally, we would also be fine with (though not necessarily wedded to) the idea of setting a minimum price of $0.50-0.75 per standard drink or at least banning the practice of retailers selling alcohol below cost (already banned in many states).   Cook would support the latter idea of a price floor while Ellis would most likely not, but both would at least support higher alcohol taxes.

So what are we waiting for?

Would A Price Floor for Alcohol Be A Good Idea?

With the issue of alcohol taxes now coming to the forefront lately, there is also another policy measure designed to reduce the problems and externalities associated with excessive consumption of alcohol:  minimum unit pricing.  That is, a setting a minimum price per standard unit* of alcohol, which like excise taxes would increase the price of the cheap stuff (that is favored by heavy drinkers) but unlike taxes would have no effect on beverages whose price is already higher than the new minimum.  After all, the effect of taxes operates through the mechanism of higher prices, so the public health benefits should be similar for both taxes and a price floor, or some combination of the two.  The biggest differences would be in efficiency (who bears the costs) versus revenue (who gets it)--though even for taxes alone, the largest effect size, at the margins, would be on the heaviest drinkers as well, for obvious reasons.

One can see the effects of a price floor on both cheap alcohol in general as well as in bulk quantities.  Take a 40 oz. bottle of 8% ABV malt liquor that now costs $2.99.  That contains a whopping 5.3 standard American drinks*.  If the price floor was then set at $0.75 per standard drink, for example, the price would go up to $3.99, a small but significant jump that really would add up for a heavy (and/or very young) drinker.  A six-pack of 12 oz. cans of say, Budweiser (5% ABV) that sells for $5.99 per six-pack, already above that hypothetical price floor at $1.00 per standard drink--and that is a low-ball price for a six-pack in the USA--would be unaffected.  A 12-pack of the same product selling for $9.99 would still be unaffected, and an 18-pack could be sold for as little as $13.50.  But that 30-pack now on sale for $14.99?  Well, the price for that would go up to $22.50.  And that 15.5 gallon keg that currently sells for $100 or less, excluding deposit?  Well, that contains about 168 standard drinks, so the minimum price for that would jump to $126 per keg.  And those prices for bulk quantities would really add up for anyone who frequently throws or attends keggers or other large drinking parties--leading to somewhat fewer such occasions and/or less beer to go around at such parties.  And now combine that with even a modest tax hike and you get a marginal effect size that is greater than either measure alone.

What about the hard stuff?  Well, we see that while most of it would remain unafffected by a price floor, the cheaper end of the scale would be nonetheless be affected as well in a similar manner to beer.  Take a "handle" (i.e. a 1.75 L bottle) of the cheapest vodka, whiskey, or whatever that currently costs $12.99 in some places.  That contains about 40 shots of 1.5 oz each, so at 80 proof that would equal roughly 40 standard drinks per bottle.  If the minimum price were set at $0.75 per standard drink, that bottle would now cost about $30.  Even a mere $0.50 per drink floor price would raise the price of the cheap booze to around $20 or so.  So while distilled spirits would be the least affected category overall, they would in fact be even more affected than beer at the lower end.   And this would also lesssen the yawning disparity between on- and off-premise prices, thus reducing the urge to "pre-load" or "front-load" with cheap booze before going out to the bar, pub, or club.

So yes, Twenty-One Debunked would be fine with a price floor of $0.75 per standard drink, just as we would be fine with raising alcohol taxes across the board to as high as $24/proof-gallon for all beverage types.   A combination of both would also be good as well.  Given how moderate and responsible drinkers would barely be affected at all by either measure as noted (as long as the thresholds are not set much higher than the ones above), they hardly qualify as blunt instruments and are in fact highly efficient in practice.  That's a small price to pay for liberty.

* One "standard American drink" or "standard unit" of alcohol is equal to one measure of the following:  one 12 ounce can/mug/glass of beer at 5% ABV, one 5 ounce glass of wine at 12% ABV, or one 1.5 ounce shot of distilled spirits at 80 proof (40% ABV).  This is known as alcohol equivalence.  Contrary to popular opinion, these all contain the same amount of alcohol.  So keep this in mind if or when you drink.

Of Death And Taxes, Part Deux

While the opioid epidemic has recently been declared a public health emergency, what if we were to tell you that there is another drug epidemic that kills even more people (a whopping 88,000 per year vs. 65,000 per year for opioid and all other drug overdoses combined), a number that has actually been increasing in recent years?  And that number, though staggering in itself, is merely the tip of a very large iceberg of injury, illness, crime, violence, motor vehicle crashes, family breakdown, addiction, and other social costs linked to this deadly yet ubiquitous substance.  Meanwhile, the powers that be are responding to this epidemic with a collective shrug for the most part.  I think the reader would figure out by now that we are talking about alcohol.

And aside from its overall banality, what is particularly notable about the alcohol epidemic is how ageist our response has been.  While the epidemic clearly affects all ages, the powers that be have been focusing in laser-like fashion on people under 21 while largely ignoring people over 21, despite the fact that people over 21 make up the vast majority of this epidemic.  Not only does this scapegoat young people for largely adult problems, but it also hinders any real solutions to such problems as well.  It's basically the "pink elephant in the room".

Fortunately, we know now after decades of reams of research evidence that there is in fact a very simple solution for reducing the death rates and other harms of excessive drinking.  And that solution is raising alcohol taxes.   The higher the price of alcoholic beverages, the fewer deaths and other alcohol-related problems occur, all else being equal.  Even modest increases seem to have a significant impact.   We know this, yet not only have the powers that be generally let the alcohol taxes lag behind inflation, but have actually moved to lower such taxes as a lesser-known part of the new Republican tax bill.  

So what should the ideal alcohol tax be?  According to researchers, the externality costs of alcohol are estimated to be around $45-58 per proof-gallon, yet the federal tax on distilled spirits is $13.50 per proof-gallon, and for wine and beer it varies but tends to hover between $4 and $5 per proof-gallon.  And while state and local alcohol taxes vary, they are also generally very modest in most states, especially for beer.  So there is a very wide range by which such taxes can be raised while still being socially efficient.

Of course, those figures are now effectively even lower now that the Republican tax bill has lowered such rates even further for roughly the first 100,000 proof-gallons of all alcoholic beverage categories across the board.  But the aforementioned rates still remain the top rates above the respective thresholds in the now-tiered system.  Beer was always tiered with a reduced rate for the first 60,000 barrels, but now that reduced rate is even lower still, and for the first time ever distilled spirits now enjoy a reduced rate for the first 100,000 proof-gallons.  The rate structure is not inherently bad in itself, of course, but both the new and old rates are simply too low.

Twenty-One Debunked believes that, along with lowering the drinking age to 18, that alcohol taxes should be raised significantly.  Specifically, we support raising and equalizing the federal tax on all alcoholic beverages to the inflation-adjusted 1991 level for distilled spirits, which would be $24 per proof-gallon in 2016 dollars.  It should also be simplified by getting rid of all credits and lower tax rates, with perhaps the exception of ones for the first X number of proof-gallons produced by very small domestic producers.  At the state level, it would also be good to equalize alcohol taxes across all beverage types, while allowing localities to levy their own alcohol taxes (including sales and gross excise taxes) as they see fit.  The latter is especially important for college towns.

Even a smaller hike, such as to $16 per proof-gallon across the board, would likely save thousands of lives per year according to researchers.  And of course it would also raise more revenue.  As for job losses, the best research suggests that the net effect is actually neutral or even positive with respect to jobs overall.  So it should be a no-brainer.  A win-win-win situation for everyone but the alcohol industry, basically.

Oh, and by the way:  craft breweries (both macro and micro) not only exist in high-tax Canada, but actually appear to be thriving over there.  Ditto for even higher-tax Iceland as well.   Keep in mind that the tax hikes we propose would still leave American beverages cheaper than Canadian beverages.  So even if we raise such taxes dramatically without reduced rates or credits for small producers, they will likely continue to thrive here as well (at least if such tax hikes are phased in somewhat gradually).

Don't get us wrong, Twenty-One Debunked does not believe that alcohol is inherently evil or anything like that.   We are certainly not in league with the neo-dry lobby!  But when we as a society fail to appreciate that alcohol has a very real dark side for all ages, there are very serious consequences to doing so.  History speaks for itself.  So what are we waiting for?

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.  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 don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.  Seriously.  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.

Latest 2017 MTF Survey Results

The results of the annual Monitoring the Future survey for 2017 are in.  And here is a brief summary of the results:

• Alcohol use in general as well as "binge" drinking among all three grades (8, 10, 12) remains at the same record-low levels as 2016.  
• Tobacco use overall in all grades continued its long decline to a new record low in 2017, particularly for cigarettes, though vaping (e-cigarettes) did increase slightly in 2017 after decreasing a bit in 2016.
• Cannabis use went up slightly in 2017 from 2016 after declining for several years, though generally still remains below 2012 levels, and of course far below the peaks in both 1979 and 1997.  This dovetails with another recent study of legalization states which found no significant increase in teen use post-legalization.
• Opioids, including heroin, remain at very low levels among teens, while the opioid epidemic continues largely unabated among adults.
• Inhalant use went up slightly among 8th graders after a long decline, though still remains at low levels.
• All other substances decreased or saw no significant change either way in 2017.

So what can we conclude from all of this?  First, we can conclude that cannabis legalization did not increase teen cannabis use as the fearmongers claimed it would. Nor did the use of other substances increase as the "gateway" theory would have predicted--in fact, most other substances decreased.   So much for that theory.  Second, it would appear that e-cigarette vaping is to some extent displacing cigarette smoking, rather than exerting a "gateway" effect as was often feared--smoking would have increased along with vaping if those fears were true, and in fact the opposite has occured instead.  Which any way you slice it, is ultimately a net win for public health even if vaping is not completely harmless.  In fact, the drop in cigarette smoking was much faster from 2013-2015 than it was in the years before or since, coinciding with the period of greatest increase in e-cigarette use.   And finally, we can conclude that the kids are (mostly) alright, at least compared to the many adults around them who continue to drink themselves to death and/or rot and rust in opioids.

For Alcohol, Tobacco, or Cannabis, 18 Is High Enough

Having established that cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and that the 21 drinking age has been the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, it may seem a bit odd that Twenty-One Debunked has grudgingly supported cannabis legalization with a 21 age limit thus far.  The reason for this was, of course, pure pragmatism, as the odds of legalization actually passing with an age limit of 18 would have been almost nil in the critical early years of 2012-2016.  It was, after all, the lesser evil compared with continued prohibition.  But five years and eight states later after the first initiatives passed (albeit narrowly) in November 2012, we feel it is now time to really tackle the issue of cannabis age limits.

To put it bluntly, there is absolutely no legitimate scientific or public health reason why the age limit for cannabis should be any higher than 18.  Zip, zilch, nada.  And while cannabis (though safer than alcohol and tobacco) is not completely harmless, and there is of course some evidence that it can be more harmful before age 18 and especially before 15, there is still no hard scientific evidence that it is any more harmful at 18 than it is at 21, 25, or even 30 for that matter.  Any claims of such are merely glib conjecture rather than real science.  In fact, a recent study by the American Psychological Association on the long term physical and mental health effects of teen and young adult cannabis use should be seen as the final nail in the coffin in that regard.  One possible reason for the null results (i.e. no significant differences between groups regardless of cannabis use trajectory) not always echoed by other studies may be the relative lack of participants who began before age 15 and the relative lack of ultra-heavy users at any age in this study, but overall it should greatly alleviate the worst fears about both legalization itself as well as late adolescent and young adult cannabis use in general.

And after reviewing the most major studies of drugs and drug policy (with cannabis being the most heavily studied of all) throughout history, the results of this recent study should really not come as much of a surprise.  Unless, of course, you have a vested interest in maintaining prohibition and/or are simply a bigoted, intolerant, ageist jerk.  But in that case, you probably wouldn't be caught dead reading this blog.

Additionally, the issue of the black market comes to mind as well.  Given the fact that cannabis use tends to peak around age 18-20 or so, an age limit of 21 would be more likely to encourage at least some persistence of the black market compared with an age limit of 18, particularly if taxes are high.  After all, dealers don't ask for ID, and such an issue for cannabis would be more likely than alcohol or tobacco since the former has had decades of black market history and is less bulky per dose than the other two.   And such dealers would probably continue to sell to people under 18 as well, including in schools, as they currently do under prohibition.  So any concerns about "trickle-down effects" of an age limit of 18 need to be put in such perspective.  Besides, any such "trickle-down" can be greatly curbed by simply capping how much 18-20 year olds can buy in the stores (say, no more than an eighth of an ounce per transaction, and no more than one transaction per day).  You know, kinda like Twenty-One Debunked has long advocated for alcohol sales.

And let's not forget the issue of social cohesion as well.  Few things are more inherently communal than sharing a joint, blunt, bowl, bong, or whatever sort of cannabis smoking implement--in fact, that is literally the origin of the term "joint".  And if the 21 age limit is to be taken seriously to its logical conclusion, it would mean that every time someone over 21 passes it around to someone under 21, a crime has technically been committed.   At least during prohibition, everyone is in the same illegal boat in that regard, but a 21 age limit would divide the 18-24 year old demographic in that regard, potentially inhibiting social cohesion.  Not to mention it gives people over 21 one more thing to "lord it over" people under 21.  At a time in history where social cohesion appears to be at a record low overall, we need that kind of additional division like we need a hole in the head!

But truly the strongest argument of all for an age limit no higher than 18 is one of civil rights.  The age of majority (i.e. legal adulthood) is 18 in nearly all states, and denying legal adults the right to decide what they put into their own bodies has no place in a free society.  Old enough to fight and vote = old enough to drink and toke.  'Nuff said.

Who's Afraid of Cheap, Legal Weed?

Aside from the usual suspects (Big Alcohol, Big Pharma, and of course the illegal drug cartels), who stand to lose the most from cannabis legalization and/or falling cannabis prices, as well as those who simply oppose cannabis in general, there have also been some legitimate public health researchers such as Mark Kleiman who also seem to fear it--specifically the "cheap" part, not the "legal" part.  The fear here is that, while legalization per se may be a non-problem, a large price drop may lead to a significant increase in heavy cannabis use and related problems, at least in theory. But we don't really see much reason to worry.  

Of course, prior to Colorado and Washington's cannabis legalization, there had been a widespread belief that before-tax prices would plummet by at least half, and perhaps even 80% or more, upon legalization or very shortly after.  And yet, that did not happen--yet.  If anything, prices went up at first due to higher demand in the short term, and with or without taxes the prices three years later still have not dropped nearly as much as predicted compared with the status quo ante, at least not at the retail level.

And while the price elasticity of demand for cannabis remains controversial to this day, it is generally thought to be relatively inelastic overall, though estimates vary dramatically.   Note that all estimates were calculated during the time of prohibition and do not always adjust for potency.  There may very well be a relatively "elastic zone" above a certain price point, such as the average price during the 1980s and early 1990s when usage rates dropped, but any further decreases from current levels are squarely in the "inelastic zone".  In fact, even before legalization, the typical cost per buzz-hour was already cheaper than beer.

Still, the long-term trend in cannabis prices does seem to be downward, both in legalization states and nationwide.  And contrary to what the fearmongers like to claim, that is not necessarily a bad thing, given how cannabis is overall safer than alcohol, and generally tends to substitute for it.  Many studies strongly suggest that when one advances, the other retreats, albeit with some nuance.  Cannabis may even take a major bite out our nation's deadly and devastating opioid epidemic as well, according to some studies.  Thus, cheaper weed, especially if it is legal, may very well be a net public health and safety benefit on balance.   And there is also no hard evidence that teen cannabis use has increased as a result of legalization--on the contrary, the latest NSDUH data find that cannabis use among 12-17 year olds nationally has dropped to a 22-year low, even as it has risen significantly among both 18-25 year olds and those 26 and over since 2008.

As for heavy use, the definition of that term varies, but for argument's sake let's use Mark Kleiman's "daily or near-daily" (DND) use definition of 20+ times per month.  He notes how the rate of past-month use among adults is roughly the same as it was in the early 1990s, but within that group the proportion of DND users has apparently increased fourfold by 2014.  And yes, heavy users would be the most sensitive to price as a rule, since they spend a more significant chunk of their incomes on weed than non-heavy users.   But this increase occured almost entirely during prohibition, and now it seems like the market for heavy use is quite saturated even with legalization and falling prices.  So heavy use is unlikely to increase much more (if at all) going forward, regardless of price or legal status.

So how far will the price ultimately fall?  Well, consider this.  Take a look at the price by weight of various products in your local grocery store.  For example, think "parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme" (like the song), and of course oregano and tea bags--all of which are typically just a few dollars per ounce (which works out to mere pennies per gram), compared to cannabis at $100/oz. for low-grade and $300+/oz. for high-grade (i.e. $1600-5000/lb.) despite it being roughly as easy to grow as basil.  That's a roughly 100-fold difference!  The notable exception to this rule is saffron, which is about $1000-5000/lb. but that is because it is made from just the pistils of the crocus flower and thus requires a LOT of flowers, and a little bit goes a very long way.  But for cannabis, once the industry becomes fully developed, the current artificial scarcity caused by tight regulation and licensing will dissipate, and the inevitable (albeit delayed) drop in price will happen, sooner or later.   Exactly how much is anyone's guess, and depends on supply and demand as well as taxation, but down it will go, most likely by a lot.  Perhaps even so low that a "dime bag" would literally cost a dime (before taxes), though demand would most likely buoy the price at least somewhat higher than that.  

Thus, an 80-90% price crash at some point in the not-too-distant future is really not too farfetched.  If that happens, then the average potency would also likely drop from its currently high levels.  What would be the point of using energy-intensive indoor growing methods to force the THC percentage levels well into the double-digits and even into the twenties, when decent bud can be produced much more cheaply and efficently via outdoor growing or in literal greenhouses?  After all, the whole point of high-potency weed is more "bang for the buck", as well as making it easier to conceal.  At the same time, bunk weed would be, well, weeded out.  And specialty products such as edibles and vape products will likely increase in production, as the cost of producing them will go down due to cheaper crude cannabis prices.

And for those who are concerned about a hypothetical Big Tobacco-style supervillain cannabis industry somehow endangering public health?   Well, if the price really does plummet as much as researchers predict, it would really take the profit out of it at the same time, so this hypothetical "Big Pot" would not get very far.   Thus, Twenty-One Debunked believes "don't fear the reefer", no matter how cheap and readily avaliable it may eventually become.

Cannabis Taxes: Start Low, Go Slow

With several states having legalized cannabis now, and taxing it, what lessons have we learned thus far?  It would seem that the biggest one of all is, "start low, go slow" when it comes to taxes.

As Rear Admiral Luther E. Gregory found out after the repeal of alcohol Prohibition, the black market does not vanish right away, and setting the tax rate too high at first will keep the black market in place, while setting it low to start with will undercut it.  And once the black market is gone, it will not return easily, so then one can raise the tax rate quite high without worrying about the black market making a comeback.  Of course, there is still such a thing as "too high" in that regard, but the threshold for significant black market formation and persistence is much higher afterwards than it is in the very first year or two post-prohibition.

Fast-forward to cannabis legalization in 2014, Colorado and Washington found out the hard way what happens when cannabis excise taxes are too high.  Though otherwise successful, their legalization success was hampered by a fairly persistent black market, albeit smaller than the pre-legalization one.  So they both ended up having to cut their tax rates as a result.  

So why did they start out with such high taxes?  Well, the promise of much-needed revenue certainly helped sweeten the deal for the fence-sitters.   But also, there was a widespread belief that before-tax prices would plummet by at least half, and perhaps even 80% or more, upon legalization or very shortly after.  And yet, that did not happen.  If anything, prices went up at first due to higher demand in the short term, and with or without the taxes the prices three years later still have not dropped very much compared with the status quo ante.  And while the price elasticity of demand for cannabis remains controversial to this day, it is generally thought to be relatively inelastic overall, though estimates vary dramatically.

Still, the long-term trend in cannabis prices does seem to be downward, both in legalization states and nationwide.  And contrary to what the fearmongers claim, that is not necessarily a bad thing, given how cannabis is overall safer than alcohol and generally tends to substitute for it.  Many studies strongly suggest that when one advances, the other retreats, albeit with some nuance.  Cannabis may even take a bite out our nation's deadly and devastating opioid epidemic as well, according to some studies.  Thus, cheaper weed, especially if it is legal, may very well be a net public health and safety benefit on balance.   And there is also no hard evidence that teen cannabis use has increased as a result of legalization--on the contrary, the latest NSDUH data find that cannabis use among 12-17 year olds nationally has dropped to a 22-year low, even as it has risen among both 18-25 year olds and those 26 and over since 2008.

As for specifics as to what the the tax on cannabis should be, it seems that an initial rate of 30% or more on final retail sales like Colorado and Washington originally had is too high to eliminate the black/gray market, and 10-25% is now what most legalization states are aiming for.  Alaska chose a flat $50/oz., which based on the average price of $250/oz. would be about 20%.  There are pros and cons to either method, ad valorem or by weight, and California is apparently combining both types of taxes.  And once the black market is gone after a year or two, then jack the rate up to a level just shy of what would cause a significant black market to return.   But to start with, Twenty-One Debunked recommends a rate of 10% and/or $10-20/oz. for the first year or two before raising it any higher, and perhaps even a "tax holiday" for the first three months of legalization like Oregon did.

Also, once the kinks are worked out, we think it would be a good idea to have the tax rate be at least somewhat proportional to THC levels and perhaps even inversely proportional to CBD levels as well.  For now, though, a simple single rate (whether ad valorem or by weight) will likely be the most workable starting point for any states that are new to legalization.  And if they wish to incentivize THC not being too high or CBD too low, the regulators are free to cap THC levels and/or set a floor for CBD levels.

As for California's idea of having a combination of different taxes (a $9.25/oz. cultivation for flowers, $2.75/oz. for leaves, and a 15% ad valorem tax on retail sales, plus any additional taxes levied by municipalities if they so choose), that's fine.  But both the state and municipalities really might want to consider reducing their rates for the time being, as the combined rates  may be as high as 45% in some parts of California by the time it reaches the consumer.  Ouch.  And unlike in Colorado and Washington, medical cannabis will soon be taxable in California as well, so that's a double ouch.   Best advice?  Municipal taxes shouldn't be too much of an issue, since one can just go to the next town.  But the state should aim for a retail excise tax of 10% and $10/oz. for flowers at the cultivation level.  Ten and ten.  The lower rate for leaves makes sense too, given their generally far lower THC content.  "Start low, go slow."