3 ms·
Shouldn't parents be the ones to protect their children from the dangers of heroin, rather than an over-reaching state?
by tarkin2 5mo ago
Shouldn't parents be the ones to protect their children from the dangers of heroin, rather than an over-reaching state?
- dom96 5mo agoFunny example, because many argue that stopping the war on drugs would solve a lot of problems.
- thisislife2 5mo agoDo you really believe parents can realistically protect their wards from getting hooked to any harmful, addictive drugs? How will they ever know if their kids are experimenting with these drugs? The problem is that the drugs are addictive - all it it needs is for someone to try it a few times to get completely hooked to it. And you don't realise it until it is too late.
- Rebelgecko 5mo agoIMO everything you said is equally applicable to social media (unless you have complete and total surveillance over your kids)
- thisislife2 5mo agoI was explaining why stopping the circulation of harmful substances, like Heroin, do require government intervention and that parents alone cannot fight it. Your conflation that such drugs are equivalent to addictive social media is something I don't agree with - they are addictive but it's a different type of addiction and the harm is different too (more psychological than physical). That said, I will concede that I mostly agree that "age verification" isn't perhaps the best approach to fight it.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]