3 ms·

> That’s where i disagree with your characterisation of the difference between chess and slot machines. It depend entirely on the person involved. Folks who can

by skohan 5y ago

> That’s where i disagree with your characterisation of the difference between chess and slot machines. It depend entirely on the person involved. Folks who can enjoy responsibly shouldn’t penalised because there are others who can’t. Arguably we do have that with slot machines. If you want to go somewhere to gamble recreationally, you can book a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City. But we limit access because of the potential for harm. We don't let kids gamble, and I'm certain if every gas station was allowed to have a couple slot machines inside, we'd see a lot more people throwing their life savings away because their brains aren't wired in a way which lets them resist the compulsion. There's a spectrum in terms of how addictive things are, and how much harm they do which we use to determine how much we as a society deem it is responsible to limit access to these things in order to protect people and society as a whole. For instance, coffee is quite addictive, but it's not vary harmful, so access is pretty much free. Sugar is pretty addictive, but only slightly harmful, so it largely gets a pass. Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive and moderately harmful, so we keep them away from kids and tax them to make them more expensive and less attainable. Hard liquor is more harmful than beer and wine, so a lot of places restrict access to specific stores to make it harder to come by. And it might be the case that some people can enjoy heroin responsibly, but it's so strongly addictive, and so incredibly harmful that we make it illegal to obtain it at all - even that means "penalising" the few folks who could potentially enjoy it responsibly. I don't know where social media fits on that spectrum, but it is addictive, and it is at least worth considering how much harm is being done and whether we should think about regulating it.

nindalf 5y ago
How are you measuring harm? By number of people who die? The cost to the healthcare system? If so I reckon the number of people suffering from diabetes vastly outnumbers those suffering from cirrhosis of the liver. Treating these people costs a lot. Certainly we should restrict access to sugar, or at least tax it. But in most places, such policies are non starters.
- skohan 5y ago
  You may be right about the harm with sugar. I think it is probably way more toxic than we give it credit for, but it's difficult to imagine any kind of regulation around it since it's so ingrained in society. When NYC for example tried to tax sodas there was massive backlash. When a smoker gets lung cancer, we tend to blame tobacco, but when someone gets diabetes we blame the individual's lack of self control. That's probably not entirely justified given the addictive potential of refined sugar. But I think you're undercounting the harm caused by alcohol. There are diseases of abuse to consider, but the damage caused by alcohol is often more acute: traffic accidents and acts of violence are made much more likely by alcohol consumption. Similarly, I think the harm caused by social media is also under-counted. In it's current state, it seems to cause an increase in the spread of misinformation, and a decrease in political stability and social cohesion.

by skohan 5y ago

nindalf 5y ago

How are you measuring harm? By number of people who die? The cost to the healthcare system? If so I reckon the number of people suffering from diabetes vastly outnumbers those suffering from cirrhosis of the liver. Treating these people costs a lot. Certainly we should restrict access to sugar, or at least tax it. But in most places, such policies are non starters.

skohan 5y ago
You may be right about the harm with sugar. I think it is probably way more toxic than we give it credit for, but it's difficult to imagine any kind of regulation around it since it's so ingrained in society. When NYC for example tried to tax sodas there was massive backlash. When a smoker gets lung cancer, we tend to blame tobacco, but when someone gets diabetes we blame the individual's lack of self control. That's probably not entirely justified given the addictive potential of refined sugar. But I think you're undercounting the harm caused by alcohol. There are diseases of abuse to consider, but the damage caused by alcohol is often more acute: traffic accidents and acts of violence are made much more likely by alcohol consumption. Similarly, I think the harm caused by social media is also under-counted. In it's current state, it seems to cause an increase in the spread of misinformation, and a decrease in political stability and social cohesion.