3 ms·

>the government act with expertise to solve the problem Do you have an idea which problem did they solve? Did banning certain psychoactive drugs solved the pro

by gloosx 2y ago

>the government act with expertise to solve the problem Do you have an idea which problem did they solve? Did banning certain psychoactive drugs solved the problem of drug abuse? Maybe banning alcohol removed it from the streets during great depression? Banning gambling? Kids will find a way to get into their social media accounts anyway, and then these democrats will tell you they need to ban every VPN service and set-up Deep Packet Inspection devices for every ISP, make their own govt CA, and trust me all of it will be done in the name of people and child safety. Sad to see a dysfunctional govt. which bans and calls it a solution to the problem. When I will be in the office I would ban the whole concept of banning itself once and forever, and any politician who proposed a single ban in his life would be banned from service. I will of course step out for proposing this ban immediately.

oblio 2y ago
Banning smoking in many places plus banning advertising it plus banning selling it to kids reduced smoking by unfathomable amounts.
- gloosx 2y ago
  Do you have data do back it up? From quickly looking at historical records online, I can't see any unfathomable amounts reduction, It's levelled on 20-30% of smokers among kids, and it remains a core challenge for child and adolescent health to the current day (according to 2020 WHO report[0]), plus they started to smoke vapes. So did the bans you sampled really work, or do they just smoke more discreetly and use tricks to buy cigarettes now, making the whole thing more inaccessible and desirable for an average child? [0] https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/05-06-2020-smoking-still-a-core-challenge-for-child-and-adolescent-health-reveals-who-report https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/05-06-2020-smoking-stil...
  - Timwi 2y ago
    I might be wrong but I read the OP’s comment as sarcastic.
    - oblio 2y ago
      You are wrong. Banning smoking worked.
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        People were already moving away from smoking. The aggressive policies don't deserve all the credit.
        oblio 2y ago
        There are many articles and documentaries about the impact of smoking adoption due to tobacco companies advertising primarily to kids. Even if we disregard all the science, the fact that the very companies themselves were targeting kids shows that they knew where their money was coming from.
      - null0pointer 2y ago
        They mean the root of this comment tree, not your parent comment.
      - refurb 2y ago
        How do you know? At least in the US, smoking rates dropped substantially by the 1980's, long before many anti-smoking laws were in effect (you could still smoke on planes in the 80's!). https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cigarette-smoking-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cig...
        oblio 2y ago
        > In 1970, Congress took their anti-smoking initiative one step further and passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, banning the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio starting on 2 January 1971. In April 1970, President Nixon signed it into law. Can you guys research this stuff before posting, please?
        2y ago
  - oblio 2y ago
    Smoking used to be at much higher levels (50%+) and absolutely everywhere. Also vaping is probably better than smoking, and don't worry, vaping is next on the ban list. It just takes time to build the case.
  - somishere 2y ago
    Well, in Australia at least, the number of smokers in the 18-54 age cohort has almost halved in the decade upto 2022 (older smokers still tend to smoke), and more than halved in the 15-24 category. A "national tobacco strategy" was introduced in 2011/2012 that brought plain packaging, increased taxation and a bunch of other measures. Official data is here if you're interested: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/insights-australian-smokers-2021-22 https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/insights-australian-smokers-... There's also Wikipedia and any number of other resources that go into more detail on the history of decline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Australia
- Aeolun 2y ago
  The very graphic lessons at school showing what a smokers’ lung looks like after a life spent smoking didn’t hurt either.
123124dfasd 2y ago
Just because the War on Drugs failed does not mean the argument extend on to every other fields.
- gloosx 2y ago
  Social media is similar to a drug because it is dopaminergic, and banning it is very similar to War on Drugs scenario, just a knee-jerk reaction, not an expertise-driven policy
- Timwi 2y ago
  And yet, the argument does extend. It applied to Prohibition, too.
  - 123124dfasd 2y ago
    And ban drunk driving works, banning gun works ? I'm not for these kind of policies either but people need more substantiate argument than that.
    - gloosx 2y ago
      Of course it all works. The world now has no drunk drivers, and it is impossible to buy a gun. Thanks to the loving government and caring politicians who had employed best experts, most brilliant minds they could find, to ban the bad things. bad things no-no. We're living in ponyland already just look out of the window!
gloosx 2y ago
For all the proponents of the ban here – I will just tell you what works – for your education. It is endorsing and subsidising healthy and active lifestyle, supporting and promoting strong family wellbeing as well as upholding public psychological and physiological health. Only doing these instead of issuing bans would really contribute to kids choosing virtues of real life over screen time, but unfortunately addressing root causes takes more effort and time than issuing a ban.
- thrixton 2y ago
  That's great for those that can implement that, many cant (don't have the time, education, willpower, etc...), maybe the majority. Given the challenges of rebuilding a proper society, maybe this is a step in the right direction (maybe). We don't allow kids to have other addictive substances, there's definitely an argument (and the co's agree, with 13 yo minimums?) for restricting an addictive medium.

by gloosx 2y ago

oblio 2y ago

Banning smoking in many places plus banning advertising it plus banning selling it to kids reduced smoking by unfathomable amounts.

gloosx 2y ago
Do you have data do back it up? From quickly looking at historical records online, I can't see any unfathomable amounts reduction, It's levelled on 20-30% of smokers among kids, and it remains a core challenge for child and adolescent health to the current day (according to 2020 WHO report[0]), plus they started to smoke vapes. So did the bans you sampled really work, or do they just smoke more discreetly and use tricks to buy cigarettes now, making the whole thing more inaccessible and desirable for an average child? [0] https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/05-06-2020-smoking-still-a-core-challenge-for-child-and-adolescent-health-reveals-who-report https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/05-06-2020-smoking-stil...
- Timwi 2y ago
  I might be wrong but I read the OP’s comment as sarcastic.
  - oblio 2y ago
    You are wrong. Banning smoking worked.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      People were already moving away from smoking. The aggressive policies don't deserve all the credit.
      - oblio 2y ago
        There are many articles and documentaries about the impact of smoking adoption due to tobacco companies advertising primarily to kids. Even if we disregard all the science, the fact that the very companies themselves were targeting kids shows that they knew where their money was coming from.
    - null0pointer 2y ago
      They mean the root of this comment tree, not your parent comment.
    - refurb 2y ago
      How do you know? At least in the US, smoking rates dropped substantially by the 1980's, long before many anti-smoking laws were in effect (you could still smoke on planes in the 80's!). https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cigarette-smoking-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cig...
      - oblio 2y ago
        > In 1970, Congress took their anti-smoking initiative one step further and passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, banning the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio starting on 2 January 1971. In April 1970, President Nixon signed it into law. Can you guys research this stuff before posting, please?
        2y ago
- oblio 2y ago
  Smoking used to be at much higher levels (50%+) and absolutely everywhere. Also vaping is probably better than smoking, and don't worry, vaping is next on the ban list. It just takes time to build the case.
- somishere 2y ago
  Well, in Australia at least, the number of smokers in the 18-54 age cohort has almost halved in the decade upto 2022 (older smokers still tend to smoke), and more than halved in the 15-24 category. A "national tobacco strategy" was introduced in 2011/2012 that brought plain packaging, increased taxation and a bunch of other measures. Official data is here if you're interested: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/insights-australian-smokers-2021-22 https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/insights-australian-smokers-... There's also Wikipedia and any number of other resources that go into more detail on the history of decline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Australia
Aeolun 2y ago
The very graphic lessons at school showing what a smokers’ lung looks like after a life spent smoking didn’t hurt either.

123124dfasd 2y ago

Just because the War on Drugs failed does not mean the argument extend on to every other fields.

gloosx 2y ago
Social media is similar to a drug because it is dopaminergic, and banning it is very similar to War on Drugs scenario, just a knee-jerk reaction, not an expertise-driven policy
Timwi 2y ago
And yet, the argument does extend. It applied to Prohibition, too.
- 123124dfasd 2y ago
  And ban drunk driving works, banning gun works ? I'm not for these kind of policies either but people need more substantiate argument than that.
  - gloosx 2y ago
    Of course it all works. The world now has no drunk drivers, and it is impossible to buy a gun. Thanks to the loving government and caring politicians who had employed best experts, most brilliant minds they could find, to ban the bad things. bad things no-no. We're living in ponyland already just look out of the window!

gloosx 2y ago

For all the proponents of the ban here – I will just tell you what works – for your education. It is endorsing and subsidising healthy and active lifestyle, supporting and promoting strong family wellbeing as well as upholding public psychological and physiological health. Only doing these instead of issuing bans would really contribute to kids choosing virtues of real life over screen time, but unfortunately addressing root causes takes more effort and time than issuing a ban.

thrixton 2y ago
That's great for those that can implement that, many cant (don't have the time, education, willpower, etc...), maybe the majority. Given the challenges of rebuilding a proper society, maybe this is a step in the right direction (maybe). We don't allow kids to have other addictive substances, there's definitely an argument (and the co's agree, with 13 yo minimums?) for restricting an addictive medium.