4 ms·
Prohibition didn't work for booze, doesn't work for drugs. Why would you be expecting better results for this ?
by makeitdouble 1y ago
Prohibition didn't work for booze, doesn't work for drugs.
Why would you be expecting better results for this ?
- Ekaros 1y agoSmoking ban in bars and restaurants seem to work. So doing same with phones in schools during lesson time does not seem unreasonable.
- Miraltar 1y agoThis and taxes, it's much much harder to get cigarettes as a teenager now because of the price
- ty6853 1y agoI agree it is not unreasonable, but I'd also note that bars have their livelihood at stake. While a child has their phone at stake, you cannot threaten their livelihood without a trip to prison. There are no material stakes to the child other than losing their entertainment device. Might as well break the rules.
- makeitdouble 1y agoLimited restrictions for specific times and places is totally reasonable, I read the parent comment in a larger scope as it was about stopping addiction.
- ndr42 1y agoIf you would like to prohibit e.g. gambling mechanisms in games or social media you need a legal framework and then you investigate and fine the firms that don't adhere to the rules. This works very well in the EU as seen by the example of apple and facebook last week. It's not perfect but what is?
- makeitdouble 1y agoThe EU still largely allows for lucrative gambling mechanisms, they just can't be predatory or deceptive. Which I agree is probably the best approach, coupled with advertisement restrictions etc.