3 ms·

The "they can just quit it" part is directly at odds with the "harms their mental health" part. Not being able to quit something that is harming you is at the c

The "they can just quit it" part is directly at odds with the "harms their mental health" part. Not being able to quit something that is harming you is at the core of addiction.

filoleg 5y ago
We don't ban alcohol, videogames, twitter, tv shows, or buying excessive amounts of food, despite a giant number of people in the US suffering from addiction to those. War on drugs was a failure. At some point, you have to draw a line at where you take personal responsibility. The utility to those who can use those things I listed above responsibly outweighs the potential danger and plies of those who use "addiction" as their primary argument for bans (aka I have no self-control, so you should not be able to use those things responsibly either). I am not saying "let's make heroin recreationally legal, just use it responsibly", since both utility and danger are gradients, and for heroin they are of very dubious value. But for something that has no physical addiction component at all, like videogames or facebook, I am sorry, it is on you. And please, no pedantry with "I get hits of dopamine when I browse my FB feed, so it is a physical addiction too!". This is not what physical addiction means in the context.
- nafix 5y ago
  Exactly. How is this even an argument point? If you support banning Facebook because of addictive potential, then add about 50 other things to the list to ban as well. If it's to regulate Facebook more, what exact kind of regulation would make it OK again? Age limit, as in 18+ to use? Don't porn sites use that and children still have no issues logging onto those sites.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - iamdbtoo 5y ago
    I never said anything about banning anything.
- iamdbtoo 5y ago
  I never suggested banning anything. I was merely pointing out that those two points are contradictory. The way you talk about addiction, however, makes me think you don't really understand how it works and seemingly view any addiction that isn't physical as invalid and that is not how it works.
  - filoleg 5y ago
    >The way you talk about addiction, however, makes me think you don't really understand how it works and seemingly view any addiction that isn't physical as invalid and that is not how it works. Poor assumption. Psychological addictions are just as valid as physical, and I've never claimed otherwise. I just believe that you cannot legislate the sources of psychological addictions like you can with sources of physical ones. Primarily because literally anything can be a source of psychological addiction, depending on the flavor of the month. Cannabis has a strong psychological addiction component, and yet people tend to conveniently forget about it when it comes to legalizing it recreationally (I am in full support of the legalization btw). Why? I think we know why, it is because people decided that it is the responsibility of an individual to not abuse something that doesn't have a physical addiction component. But if they end up getting psychologically addicted and need help, then sure, I am all in favor of supporting those people and helping them to get out of the addiction rut they are in.

The "they can just quit it" part is directly at odds with the "harms their mental health" part. Not being able to quit something that is harming you is at the core of addiction.

filoleg 5y ago

We don't ban alcohol, videogames, twitter, tv shows, or buying excessive amounts of food, despite a giant number of people in the US suffering from addiction to those. War on drugs was a failure. At some point, you have to draw a line at where you take personal responsibility. The utility to those who can use those things I listed above responsibly outweighs the potential danger and plies of those who use "addiction" as their primary argument for bans (aka I have no self-control, so you should not be able to use those things responsibly either). I am not saying "let's make heroin recreationally legal, just use it responsibly", since both utility and danger are gradients, and for heroin they are of very dubious value. But for something that has no physical addiction component at all, like videogames or facebook, I am sorry, it is on you. And please, no pedantry with "I get hits of dopamine when I browse my FB feed, so it is a physical addiction too!". This is not what physical addiction means in the context.

nafix 5y ago
Exactly. How is this even an argument point? If you support banning Facebook because of addictive potential, then add about 50 other things to the list to ban as well. If it's to regulate Facebook more, what exact kind of regulation would make it OK again? Age limit, as in 18+ to use? Don't porn sites use that and children still have no issues logging onto those sites.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- iamdbtoo 5y ago
  I never said anything about banning anything.
iamdbtoo 5y ago
I never suggested banning anything. I was merely pointing out that those two points are contradictory. The way you talk about addiction, however, makes me think you don't really understand how it works and seemingly view any addiction that isn't physical as invalid and that is not how it works.
- filoleg 5y ago
  >The way you talk about addiction, however, makes me think you don't really understand how it works and seemingly view any addiction that isn't physical as invalid and that is not how it works. Poor assumption. Psychological addictions are just as valid as physical, and I've never claimed otherwise. I just believe that you cannot legislate the sources of psychological addictions like you can with sources of physical ones. Primarily because literally anything can be a source of psychological addiction, depending on the flavor of the month. Cannabis has a strong psychological addiction component, and yet people tend to conveniently forget about it when it comes to legalizing it recreationally (I am in full support of the legalization btw). Why? I think we know why, it is because people decided that it is the responsibility of an individual to not abuse something that doesn't have a physical addiction component. But if they end up getting psychologically addicted and need help, then sure, I am all in favor of supporting those people and helping them to get out of the addiction rut they are in.