Have A Safe And Happy Memorial Day Weekend

This coming Monday, May 29, 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, past and present.  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.   Designate a sober driver, call a cab or rideshare, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.

Legalizing Cannabis In Canada NOT Linked To More Traffic Crashes

A new Toronto, Canada study found that neither legalization of cannabis nor the number of cannabis retail stores was associated with an increase in traffic crashes.  This dovetails with other recent studies which came to similar conclusions about legalization across Canada, as well many US studies.

In other words, the predicted "parade of horribles" never happened.  Not with liberalization, not with legalization, and not even with commercialization of cannabis. Fearmongers, prepare to eat crow.

Note that the legal age limit for cannabis is 18 in Alberta and 19 in all other provinces except Quebec, who originally set it at 18 but unfortunately raised it to 21 in 2020.  (For comparison, the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec, and 19 elsewhere.)  Thus, a lower age limit in Canada does not seem to increase traffic crash risk either, relative to the USA where it is 21 in all legalization states.  Not even in Alberta specifically either, whether for all ages OR for Albertan youth specifically. 

Oh, and cannabis legalization does NOT seem to be crazy-making in Canada either.  Again, nt even in the province with the most liberal cannabis policies, Alberta.  Nor does legalization seem to have increased problematic cannabis use among youth or young adults in either Canada or the USA.  Thus, another tired, old myth bites the dust.

Raise Voting Age To 25? HELL To The NO!

Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy apparently want to raise the voting age to 25, the Constitution be damned.  Even his own staffers rightly oppose this utterly ageist, anti-democratic, and simultaneously radical and reactionary Horseshoe Theory idea.

Granted, his idea comes with exceptions for 18-24 year olds who either 1) join the military, 2) become first responders, or 3) pass a civics test.  While that is of course marginally better than a "hard" 25 age limit, it is still an ageist abomination that blatantly violates the Constitution all the same.  As for the idea of requiring a test to vote, well, anyone who stayed awake in history class (or even bothers to do a few seconds of Googling) would know that that such an idea has a rather checkered history in this country, right up there with poll taxes, grandfather clauses, sitting at the back of the bus, and stuff like that.

We at Twenty-One Debunked oppose this idea 100%, and in fact support lowering the voting age to 16.  Honestly, if Trump can vote, the Kardashians can vote, alcoholics can vote, drug addicts can vote, psychotics can vote, severely developmentally disabled folks can vote, and so on, there is no good reason to deny 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote due to age.  And plenty of countries like Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Malta, Nicaragua, Scotland, and Wales currently set the voting age at 16 without the sky falling or any parade of horribles occurring.  And Switzerland, the worlds largest and oldest functioning direct democracy, also currently sets the voting age at 16 for cantonal (state) and local elections, though for national elections it is still 18.

In short, raising the voting age is not only bad policy, for it to even be up for debate also shifts the Overton window in a very questionable direction at best.  Especially with the idea coming from a fairly young 37 year old Millennial like himself who apparently can't wait to pull up the drawbridge and shut the proverbial kingdom in future generations' faces.  Hey Vivek, remember you were 18 once too, buddy.

Or maybe it is all a cynical and cowardly Republican ploy to stop Gen Z from voting for their rivals, the Democrats.  Either way, it's not a good look at all.

Are THC Potency Caps Really Necessary?

Concerns about high-potency cannabis products have prompted calls for increased regulation, particularly potency caps for THC. Common suggestions include a cap of 15% THC for flower and 25-30% for concentrates.  For example, Uruguay currently sets it a 9%, which is similar to the weed that Gen X and older Millennials may remember from the 1990s, so 15% is still pretty generous.  Twenty-One Debunked does NOT oppose such efforts, and would much rather that than other types of restrictions.  But the real question is, are such caps really necessary?

A new British study casts doubt on that seemingly commonsense assertion.  Among young adults in their late teens and early 20s, the researchers failed to find any correlation between cannabis potency and dependence, depression, or psychosis-like symptoms, after adjusting for confounders.  Yes, really.

(Other recent studies on both sides of both major oceans find that the "Reefer Madness 2.0" fears in general are largely if not entirely unfounded as well.)

That said, there is also a good case for "bringing back mids" as well.  We know that too-potent weed (over 20% THC, up to even 40% sometimes), and especially concentrates (up to 90% THC), may be too much for inexperienced and/or very occasional users to handle.  Usually most users can easily self-titrate their dose when smoking or vaping (but not eating!) cannabis so they don't get too stoned, but when it is extremely potent it becomes that much more difficult.

So what is best to do then?  Simply tax cannabis based on potency, that is, by milligram of THC, and perhaps a discount for the amount of CBD it contains as well.  Current high taxes based on gross weight alone not only notoriously incentivize the persistence of black markets, but they also perversely incentivize very high potency products as well, almost to the exclusion of lower potency products.  That is especially true when leaf/trim is overtaxed as well, as that incentivizes the extraction of concentrates from such material rather than simply selling it as-is.  Untaxing leaf/trim (or trivially taxing it) would go a long way toward rebalancing the cannabis market. And overregulation that makes licenses to legally sell cannabis so ridiculously hard to get (New York, I'm looking at YOU!) needs to be fixed as well.

Remember, all of this is for a plant that is literally about as easy to grow as BASIL. Look at the prices per weight of dried basil at the store or Google it.  Then compare the prices by weight of even the cheapest weed before legalization, and also the prices for the cheapest weed right after and then years after legalization.  Notice the stark disequilibrium here?  And the headfake?  Free markets (which don't currently exist for cannabis anywhere) are clearly excellent at solving such disequilibria.  Just saying. 

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  A good op-ed debunking the "Reefer Madness 2.0" mass hysteria can be found here.

The Law of Eristic Escalation Revisited

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986) illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.

The Trouble With Mandatory Age Verification Online

(See our previous articles about this topic.)

A new bipartisan (aka the very worst kind of tyranny) bill in Congress seeks to 1) ban anyone under 13 from social media platforms entirely, 2) require parental consent for anyone over 13 but under 18 to join such platforms, 3) require mandatory age verification (and verification of parental status) to enforce the above.  This is very similar to Utah's new law, which is the strictest one passed to date.

(Arkansas recently passed a similar law as well, but theirs exempts so many social media platforms as to render it largely toothless in practice.  I'm sure the fact that the same state that recently relaxed child labor laws for youth under 16 also conveniently exempted LinkedIn is entirely a coincidence, right?)

The bill as currently written would apply the age verification requirement to all new accounts opened after enactment, and would have a two year grace period (why not simply exempt entirely, like in Josh Hawley's bill?) for existing accounts after which unverified accounts would be suspended.  Fortunately, unlike Hawley's bill, it does not specifically require government-issued ID (yet).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pitfalls of such a sledgehammer approach to a problem that really calls for a scalpel.  Not only does it arguably infringe on the First Amendment rights of people under 18, but it also backfires on adults over 18 almost as badly as well.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wrote an excellent article as to the very real perils and pitfalls that come with mandatory age verification, not least of which include the undermining of what is left of any semblance of privacy and anonymity online for all ages.  It is not much of a leap from that to further censorship and surveillance, digital ID, and ultimately social credit scoring to effectively lock "undesirable" people out of the public square for the purpose of power and control--a budding totalitarian's dream come true (and a nightmare for everyone else).  As a best case scenario, it will sound the death knell for what's still left of the free and open internet as we knew it.

Kafka, meet trap.  Pandora, meet box.  Albatross, meet neck.  Baby, meet bathwater.  Camel's nose, meet tent.  Horse, meet barn.  Trojan, meet horse.

Make no mistake, this is a Trojan horse!

The ONE possibly good thing in this bill is that it prohibits the use of algorithmic recommendation systems for people under 18 (why not all ages?), but otherwise it throws out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, and likely does more harm than good.  While it simultaneously lets Big Tech largely off the hook in terms of design safety.  That makes the bill both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.

Thus, Twenty-One Debunked categorically opposes this bill or any other that contains mandatory age verification for social media and/or the internet in general.  But in the event that mandatory age verification does become a foregone conclusion, we demand that the following safeguards be included:

• It must be as narrowly tailored as humanly possible.  Think scalpel, not sledgehammer. 
• The age limit should be no higher than 16 for social media or any other sites (except 18 for stuff like porn, gambling, and dating sites).
• All existing social media accounts (that were opened prior to the law's enactment date) must be "grandfathered" and thus fully exempt from mandatory age verification, period.
• A varied "menu" of options for age verification must be available for all.  Government-issued ID should be only one of many options. 
• All data collected for the purpose of age verification must be deleted immediately after verification, and not retained for any purpose whatsoever. 
• Age verification must be "one and done" when opening a new account.
• At most, only people who look and/or claim to be under 25 should be subject to age verification, similar to how it is done for requiring ID for buying tobacco products offline at the store.
• And there must be full liability for any misuse or abuse of data collected for the purpose of age verification. 

Then, and only then, would the slippery slope become less slippery.  Otherwise, slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear!

Until then, we will vehemently oppose any bill that is stricter than the competing bills COPPA 2.0, KOSA in its newest version, and the Kids PRIVCY Act.  And we support the current "Age Appropriate Design Codes" already in places like California and the UK as well, which put the onus on Big Tech to make their platforms safer.  Make those the national standard in the USA.  Also, make social media safer for ALL ages as well.  But any further is a bridge too far for us.

(TL;DR version:  Just make "California standards" (both CCPA and CAADCA) the national standard, and also better data privacy laws for all ages.)

Oh, and by the way:  DON'T think it will stop at 18, or stop at social media, either.  Once this inherently illiberal bill passes, it will inevitably shift the Overton window further in the dystopian direction, making further encroachments of civil liberties that much easier going forward.  Just look at history. 

Three years ago, we effectively saw just how very quickly the unthinkable and the unquestionable can completely switch places given enough of a panic.  Let's NOT make the same mistake again!

UPDATE:  Already there are some people on Twitter who believe this bill doesn't go far enough as far as age limits, with some calling for the hard age limit to be raised to 21 or even higher.  You may laugh, but once this bill passes, that is really not much of a leap.  And how long before Big Tech, who currently opposes any hard age restrictions, will flip flop and openly come out in favor of raising the hard age limit, first to 18 and then 21, in return for less regulation overall, much like Big Alcohol, Big Tobacco, and Big Vape did?  Clearly 2023 smells a LOT like 1983 in that regard.

In other words, we have seen this movie before.  And it really doesn't end well.

UPDATE 2:  The leading competing bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), has recently been resurrected with amendments that fixed some of its more glaring flaws for now.  That said, while we would MUCH rather KOSA pass compared to the much worse mandatory age verification bill discussed above, KOSA unfortunately still remains significantly problematic in its new version as well, and thus we cannot fully support it as currently written.  It can still be a potential Trojan horse.  That said, COPPA 2.0 and the Kids PRIVCY Act are good enough as written.  It is notable that the Center for Humane Technology doesn't include KOSA on their list of proposed policies.

Why there is still no serious attempt at any general comprehensive privacy legislation for all ages, and one that is content-neutral, currently remains a mystery (not).  The powers that be don't want it.

UPDATE 3:  Looks like reasonable doubt still remains about the more fanciful claims regarding the supposed causal link between social media, smartphones, and the teen mental health crisis when you zoom out and look at enough non-Anglo countries.  And yes, contrary to Jon Haidt, that IS an appropriate bar to clear before abruptly making truly radical (and likely unconstitutional) changes to society, especially from a place of moral panic.

UPDATE 4:  We should also note that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is often a frequent target for reform, if not outright repeal.  It effectively provides civil liability protection for online platforms who host user-generated content, with very few exceptions, and it is thus the sine qua non of the free and open internet as we know it.  While we can debate the merits of some degree of reform perhaps, repealing it in its entirety would throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and have a chilling effect on free speech.  Section 230 repeal would be even worse than mandatory age verification. 

UPDATE 5:  Is Big Tech the new Big Tobacco? Honestly a better analogy is that Big Tech is new Big Oil.  And while there most likely is a "there", there, in terms of teen mental health issues, the specious idea of there being absolutely no safe level of social media use before some arbitrarily high age and they should be banned completely from it is a gross exaggeration. 

See also the EFF's other excellent article.

UPDATE 6:  See another great rebuttal here.

UPDATE 7:  KOSA is even worse than we thought, and thus we vehemently oppose it.  It is literally a textbook example of a Trojan horse that will effectively censor the internet and have a chilling effect on free speech, and also act as a likely gateway to the very same (de facto) mandatory age verification discussed above.  It needs a fundamental overhaul before it can even be considered at all.  As a wise man said, "no amount of lipstick can save this pig".

UPDATE 8:  See this other new study.

FINAL THOUGHT:  If we really want to throw the proverbial One Ring into Mount Doom for good in regards to Big Tech's highly toxic business model, we need to ban surveillance advertising, ban data brokers, and implement strong, comprehensive digital privacy legislation for ALL ages, period.  And go antitrust on the adtech duopoly as well.  In other words, platforms need to put users first, period.  And call their bluff whenever Big Tech falsely claims that a parade of horribles of some sort would result from doing so.  Ask them, "is that a threat, or a promise?"  

(Mic drop)

The Trouble With "Competency Testing"

One idea often floated by some libertarians, paleoconservatives, and youth rights activists alike is the idea that most if not all age restrictions can and should be replaced with a competency test of some sort.  Dr. Robert Epstein (not to be confused with that other Epstein!) famously advocates this in his book Teen 2.0.  The arguments for this may seem appealing at first glance, but upon closer examination they largely fall apart as quixotic at best, and perhaps even worse than the current abominable status quo.

First of all, like most other glib and specious technocratic and ivory tower solutions in search of a problem (see Epstein's other idea from 2020 about instantly ending the Covid pandemic with mass testing of the entire population and isolating the positives, then ask Slovakia how well that idea worked out), it is unrealistic and impractical.  For example, Epstein literally uses the DMV (!) of all things as a model, without seeing the irony of it all.  Who exactly decides what the tests consist of, who administers and evaluates each one, and what adult rights, responsibilities, and privileges even need any tests or age restrictions at all?  Who validates whether these new tests even have any predictive value at all, as opposed to merely being gatekeeping of privilege?  And who watches the watchers?  Epstein leaves the hopeful but bewildered readers with far more questions than answers.  Strike one.

Secondly, there is the problem of scalability.  Traditionally, any formal coming-of-age ritual "tests", to the extent that they even existed at all, were done at the local or tribal level, and administered by familiar elders, not by large faceless bureaucracies governing millions of people.  Strike two.

Finally, and more importantly, all competency tests of any kind are, by their very definition and nature, inherently ableist. True, one can argue that Mother Nature is also ableist, but while that is technically true, that does NOT justify being any MORE ableist than Mother Nature already is, only that anti-ableism is unfortunately an imperfect duty rather than a perfect one.  And ableism, just like ageism/adultism, is both bad enough on its own as well as a major "gateway" and "underpin" to the rest of the kyriarchy (patriarchy, sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and all the other intersectional -isms out there).

For example, can you imagine if everyone had to take a test to be allowed to vote regardless of age?   There was a precedent for that in the Southern states prior to the civil rights movement, and it wasn't a good thing at all.  Having a test only for people under 18 (or under 16) to vote could be defensible perhaps, but if applied to the entire population regardless of age it opens the door to not only ableism, but also racism, classism, elitism, and perhaps other -isms as well.  It is far too easy to rig such tests, as history has shown.

Strike three, you're OUT!

Thus, after giving it much thought, Twenty-One Debunked keeps coming back to the same answer.  And that answer is, competency tests have their place as an alternative to age limits for some but not all things, and regardless, there needs to be a default age of majority above which one is automatically given the benefit of the doubt and presumed to be an adult (unless an individual is formally declared incompetent by the state), and thus exempt from such tests for all general adult rights, responsibilities, and privileges.  And after that, once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.  That would take most of the ableism out of the equation, albeit with an unavoidable tradeoff between ableism and ageism/adultism for people below that age.  And for that reason, some current age limits for specific things simply should be lowered or abolished rather than replaced with all-new competency testing.

And Twenty-One Debunked believes that default age should be no higher than 18.  Before that age, there is plenty of room for nuance, of course.  But NOT after.

(Mic drop)

Looks Like The "Teen Vaping Epidemic" Was Just A Brief Fad All Along

Looks like the "teen vaping epidemic" of 2018-2019 was really just a brief fad all along.  Since then, per the National Youth Tobacco survey, teen vaping has plummeted by 50%, returning to its 2015 baseline by 2021, and teen smoking continues its long-term decline.  Two Tweets with infographics say it all:

And JUUL?  The brand that notoriously drove the "epidemic"?  That's not cool anymore either, apparently, as use of that particular brand was approaching nil by 2022.  And the survey results pan out, as one can even see with their own eyes a marked reduction in vape pod litter (especially JUUL pods) on streets, sidewalks, and parking lots these days compared to 2018-2019 and early 2020.

And lest anyone spuriously credit the raising of the age limit to 21 with these positive trends, keep in mind that the "epidemic" self-evidently occurred just as much in states like California and New Jersey that raised their own tobacco and vaping age limits to 21 prior to 2018 than in those states who did so later or not at all, and it had already peaked nationwide before the federal age limit of 21 was enforced.  And the secular decline in teen smoking began well before any state or major city raised their age limits to 21.

But don't expect the MSM to tell you that.

What Is The Proper Role Of Government In A Free Society?

One perennial question that every society has wrestled with is, "what is the proper role of government in a free society?".  Libertarians (or rather, right-libertarians) argue that the proper role is as minimal as possible, and akin to a night-watchman, while statists argue that the proper role is as large and comprehensive as possible, and akin to that of a micromanaging nanny.  The former protects individuals only from very narrowly-defined force or fraud, as well as foreign attack, while the latter pre-emptively protects individuals from all possible threats that exist or that one could imagine, including from themselves.  The former believes only in negative liberty at the expense of positive liberty, while the latter believes (nearly) exclusively in positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty. 

Twenty-One Debunked and the TSAP believe that both extremes are quite incorrect and often disingenuous, and that the proper role of government (at any level) is that of a macromanager.  Negative and positive liberty ought to carry (roughly) equal weight.  A welfare state, broadly defined, need not be abolished and need not be a controlling nanny state either.  And protecting individuals from themselves against their will, at least as far as consenting adults are concerned, is a fundamental overreach of the proper role of government in a free society.  And, of course, once you are an adult, you are an adult, period.

QED

Naloxone Not Associated With Moral Hazard

Good news, a new study finds that expanding access to naloxone (Narcan), an antidote that reverses opioid overdoses and saves countless lives every day, was NOT associated with increased heroin or other intravenous drug use among adolescents.  This echoes previous research that finds no such "moral hazard" occurring among adults either.  Thus conclusively ends one of the most tired, jaded, cynical, and empathy-lacking arguments against harm reduction.  

In other words, in this day and age, there is absolutely no rational reason to not make naloxone readily available, period.  Ditto for things like fentanyl test kits as well.  Those who oppose doing so are thus basing their self-righteous opposition on a selectively moralistic and ideological foundation, and certainly not a scientific or a humanitarian one.

The same goes for needle exchange programs as well, something even former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg openly came out in favor of during his time as mayor. 

The flip side of "live and let live" need not be "live and let die".  Harm reduction is NOT a zero-sum game, since dead people can't recover from addiction. 

NOTE:  Narcan nasal spray is now approved for over the counter (OTC) sale by the FDA.  It should have always been, but better late than never.  Beware that it only reverses opioid overdoses, not overdoses of other, non-opioid drugs such as alcohol, cocaine, crack, meth, Adderall, benzos, or xylazine ("tranq").