4 ms·

In the US, we restrict driving to around age 16, alcohol consumption to 18, voting to 18, and tobacco consumption to 21. Then there are industry-applied age ra

In the US, we restrict driving to around age 16, alcohol consumption to 18, voting to 18, and tobacco consumption to 21. Then there are industry-applied age ratings, like the MPA’s PG-13, R, and NC-17 ratings. Barbiturates and amphetamines we’re once available without a prescription. There’s official/unofficial wiggle room, but there are limits. For example, if you live on a farm, you may be driving on the farm before you have a license to drive on public roads. I could see mobile-phone ownership becoming similarly-restricted.

senfiaj 11mo ago
Kids can / often use other family members' smartphones / tablets (I assume it's the majority of cases). How can the law prevent this if parents do nothing about this?
- lemming 11mo ago
  The same way that the law prevents kids drinking their parents’ alcohol - it doesn’t. But having it be illegal sends a signal, even though it’s possible to circumvent it, and also allows prosecution if warranted.
- roenxi 11mo ago
  That'd put it in the same basket as alcohol and tobacco. Although the pro/con of owning a mobile are a lot less clear than those two and banning phones in that way is probably a mistake.
2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
It sucks because they could be pocket-sized bicycles for the mind rather than addicting ad-driven bullshit surveillance slot machines that maximize attention. Humanity had a choice and chose poorly.
fsckboy 11mo ago
>In the US, we restrict ... alcohol consumption to 18 isn't it 21 all over the US? it was changed to cut drunk driving in the late 70s at the federal level, tied to highway funds, so the states needed to cave
- bigstrat2003 11mo ago
  Not only that, but at least in my home state you can buy tobacco at 18. Maybe the person you replied to got the two mixed up?
makeitdouble 11mo ago
Driving is restricted because of responsibility (same way marriage and contracts in general require someone legally responsible) Porn, alcohol, tobacco and gambling is cultural/religious, the same way The Prohibition happened in the US, or all alcohol and gambling is banned in hard Islamic countries and adult women are mandatory veiled. It's pretty interesting to see where a smartphone ban would fit as a category.
- tyleo 11mo ago
  I think alcohol and tobacco used to be banned for cultural reasons but there’s pretty clear research now pointing to bad outcomes for early drug use. 21 is still high so some of the cultural element remains but I wouldn’t consider those two entirely ungrounded in reason.
  - makeitdouble 11mo ago
    > there’s pretty clear research now pointing to bad outcomes for early drug use I wasn't aware. Or more specifically, I thought it wouldn't ethically be possible to do that research while it's legally forbidden. I assumed We'd be bound to look at cases pathologic enough to warrant intervention, and the researchers tracking back the root cause at drug ingestion. While a useful approach, it would tell us nothing about all the other cases that weren't pathological. On tobacco specifically I think most long term effects disappear in smoker below 25 ? Not arguing that kids should smoke, but like coming at th French situation, it looks like there is a dose where the effects on kids will be negligible. PS: even for people withing the legal smoking range, studies on drugs still tend to focus on patients that had to enter the medical system https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10798824/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10798824/ If you have any good study that encompasses a wider range I'd love to read it.
    - tyleo 11mo ago
      The negative outcomes aren’t health outcomes as in lung sickness. Instead early consumption correlates with increased likelihood of future addiction. I’ll see if I can find some studies but it might be some weeks before I get back to this post.
squigz 11mo ago
Banning smartphones in general would be more akin to banning kids from riding in cars (not driving them) or being around alcohol (even in their own home) To say nothing of the inconsistency of those bans. You can vote, enlist in the army, and take on life-altering student loans... but smoke a cigarette? No way! Also, isn't it the sale and purchase of alcohol that is banned for underage persons, not the consumption? That is, if parents want to give their kids alcohol, that's not illegal.
- tremon 11mo ago
  Banning smartphones in general would be more akin to banning kids from riding in cars (not driving them) How so? I don't see you make an argument for why your simile would be more accurate, and I fear I lack the imagination to conjure up what back-seat phoning would look like.
  - johnisgood 11mo ago
    Well, I had to carry my phone everywhere just so my mom could call me to check up on me. It is a good enough reason against the ban... to me.
  - squigz 11mo ago
    Correlating smartphone ownership with mental health issues - without diving into how they actually use them - would be like correlating kids simply sitting in a car with them not being able to drive it safely. Or, to use another of my examples, it would be like correlating cigarette possession with cancer rates. Yes, you'll probably see some correlation, unsurprisingly, but it doesn't give any information on causation.

senfiaj 11mo ago

Kids can / often use other family members' smartphones / tablets (I assume it's the majority of cases). How can the law prevent this if parents do nothing about this?

lemming 11mo ago
The same way that the law prevents kids drinking their parents’ alcohol - it doesn’t. But having it be illegal sends a signal, even though it’s possible to circumvent it, and also allows prosecution if warranted.
roenxi 11mo ago
That'd put it in the same basket as alcohol and tobacco. Although the pro/con of owning a mobile are a lot less clear than those two and banning phones in that way is probably a mistake.

2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago

It sucks because they could be pocket-sized bicycles for the mind rather than addicting ad-driven bullshit surveillance slot machines that maximize attention. Humanity had a choice and chose poorly.

fsckboy 11mo ago

>In the US, we restrict ... alcohol consumption to 18 isn't it 21 all over the US? it was changed to cut drunk driving in the late 70s at the federal level, tied to highway funds, so the states needed to cave

bigstrat2003 11mo ago
Not only that, but at least in my home state you can buy tobacco at 18. Maybe the person you replied to got the two mixed up?

makeitdouble 11mo ago

Driving is restricted because of responsibility (same way marriage and contracts in general require someone legally responsible) Porn, alcohol, tobacco and gambling is cultural/religious, the same way The Prohibition happened in the US, or all alcohol and gambling is banned in hard Islamic countries and adult women are mandatory veiled. It's pretty interesting to see where a smartphone ban would fit as a category.

tyleo 11mo ago
I think alcohol and tobacco used to be banned for cultural reasons but there’s pretty clear research now pointing to bad outcomes for early drug use. 21 is still high so some of the cultural element remains but I wouldn’t consider those two entirely ungrounded in reason.
- makeitdouble 11mo ago
  > there’s pretty clear research now pointing to bad outcomes for early drug use I wasn't aware. Or more specifically, I thought it wouldn't ethically be possible to do that research while it's legally forbidden. I assumed We'd be bound to look at cases pathologic enough to warrant intervention, and the researchers tracking back the root cause at drug ingestion. While a useful approach, it would tell us nothing about all the other cases that weren't pathological. On tobacco specifically I think most long term effects disappear in smoker below 25 ? Not arguing that kids should smoke, but like coming at th French situation, it looks like there is a dose where the effects on kids will be negligible. PS: even for people withing the legal smoking range, studies on drugs still tend to focus on patients that had to enter the medical system https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10798824/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10798824/ If you have any good study that encompasses a wider range I'd love to read it.
  - tyleo 11mo ago
    The negative outcomes aren’t health outcomes as in lung sickness. Instead early consumption correlates with increased likelihood of future addiction. I’ll see if I can find some studies but it might be some weeks before I get back to this post.

squigz 11mo ago

Banning smartphones in general would be more akin to banning kids from riding in cars (not driving them) or being around alcohol (even in their own home) To say nothing of the inconsistency of those bans. You can vote, enlist in the army, and take on life-altering student loans... but smoke a cigarette? No way! Also, isn't it the sale and purchase of alcohol that is banned for underage persons, not the consumption? That is, if parents want to give their kids alcohol, that's not illegal.

tremon 11mo ago
Banning smartphones in general would be more akin to banning kids from riding in cars (not driving them) How so? I don't see you make an argument for why your simile would be more accurate, and I fear I lack the imagination to conjure up what back-seat phoning would look like.
- johnisgood 11mo ago
  Well, I had to carry my phone everywhere just so my mom could call me to check up on me. It is a good enough reason against the ban... to me.
- squigz 11mo ago
  Correlating smartphone ownership with mental health issues - without diving into how they actually use them - would be like correlating kids simply sitting in a car with them not being able to drive it safely. Or, to use another of my examples, it would be like correlating cigarette possession with cancer rates. Yes, you'll probably see some correlation, unsurprisingly, but it doesn't give any information on causation.