5 ms·
So if one agrees that drugs should be legalized then I should be excited about my 4 year old daughter using crack? They're not even connected things. Games in
by jswinghammer 15y ago
So if one agrees that drugs should be legalized then I should be excited about my 4 year old daughter using crack? They're not even connected things.
Games in particular would be easy for younger kids to get if they knew an older kid who could buy them. When I was 18 I would have bought anyone a game because I like games and don't seem them as harmful. Maybe that isn't the best thing to do (I wouldn't do it now probably) but I definitely would have done it at that age.
- niels_olson 15y agoIs it your premise that lowering the legal consequences for selling crack to minors is a good idea?
- jswinghammer 15y agoBelieving something should be legal doesn't mean I want it happening in all cases ever. I don't like adultery but I don't want it to be illegal.
- function_seven 15y agoRight, but is it your premise that 4-year-olds should legally be allowed to purchase crack? That's the relevant discussion, not crack availability to adults.
- niels_olson 15y agothank you, function_seven. Selling to kids is the issue here.
- tomp 15y agoThere might be some good to it... Making drugs legal makes drug business less dangerous and risky, which in turns makes drugs cheaper, which in turn lowers the dealers margins, which in turn makes them less interested in selling drugs... Not saying that this will reduce the access to drugs, but it will probably reduce the active search of new users
- brianleb 15y agoI don't think legalizing violent videogames for minors is equivocal to both a) legalizing drugs, dangerous ones (crack) included and b) legalizing drugs for minors, but I guess I do see your point. At what point do we decide that someone is 'mature' enough to play a violent videogame? Is it a different age than when we think they could use drugs 'responsibly' (in a world where they were legal)? A more obvious example would be alcohol. I would let my children (n.b. I do not currently have children) play a violent videogame, but I would not let them drink a six pack. I see the drugs/alcohol as putting them more in direct physical harm (most likely where they would hurt themselves, or overdose, etc.) than violent videogames. People thankfully can't overdose on violent videogames (except the people who died in Korean internet cafes playing WoW, but I think that's a different topic altogether). Given that someone can't physically hurt themselves with a violent videogame, I would allow a much younger child access to them than I would drugs or alcohol. We could argue whether or not there is any mental/emotional damage, but I think we can agree that whatever mental/emotional damage there could be from playing violent videogames at the age of 12 as much as one wants, it would be much less than the mental/emotional damage of letting a 12 year old have unlimited access to drugs.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mkr-hn 15y agoIt's a bad idea to keep citing the same thing over and over, especially without tying it into the discussion. Otherwise people will focus on the rampant flaws in the link and ignore what you're saying.
- niels_olson 15y agoI disagree with your assertion, but fair enough. Done. Why don't you actually go find any evidence at all. Show me that violent video games make my kids better citizens. Edit: it's not a strawperson. People are biological systems. Spending 3 hours a day with something makes one better or worse, stronger or weaker, faster or slower, never the same. It's sort of like a business: if you're not making money, you're losing it.