4 ms·

If you read the rest of the piece they do argue for more regulation. They aren’t making a personal responsibility argument like other commenters are saying. Th

If you read the rest of the piece they do argue for more regulation. They aren’t making a personal responsibility argument like other commenters are saying. The problem with bans is they claim the technology itself is purely bad and the only solution is to keep it from children. Which on its face is nonsensical. It’s ok for a 17 year old but not a 16 year old? We need genuine regulation tackling the actual problems with this technology. Blanket bans do nothing but make adults feel good about “protecting the children”.

somenameforme 15d ago
Age restrictions don't say it's 'okay' for somebody above a certain age to use something. Cigarettes will screw up your body at 18 just as much as they will at 17. But at 18 you're, legally at least, an adult, the point at which our unstated social contract starts to prioritize liberty over safety. And setting it at such an age also helps significantly reduce the peer pressure to smoke.
- juiceland 15d ago
  You’re right, and that’s the reason why some states have gone further banning cigarettes that have flavorings including menthol.
  - deleted 15d ago
    [deleted]
  - Chris2048 14d ago
    Ironic since menthols are to me associated with an older generation. AFAIK, their original purpose was for smokers with colds / blocked sinuses.
doc_ick 15d ago
Blanket bans are better the no bans at all. I would agree we need genuine and granular regulation, though I don’t think it’s wise to ask kids what they think is best for them. Not a parent but a parent might have some concern for letting kids rule themselves.
NoPicklez 15d ago
That's an odd take in my opinion. Is driving a car on your own ok at age 15? why 16 and not 15? Why not 14? It's ok to drink in Australia at 18 age, why not 17, or 16? Legal drinking age in the US is 21, why not 18 like it is in Australia? Why not allow 20 year olds to smoke, not just 21 year olds. Its because it is the legal age in which we have established people as adults where they're given more liberty as opposed to safety.
- jhbadger 14d ago
  The US is weird in that we can't really decide if you are an adult at 16 (can work a standard job, can drive), 18 (can vote, can serve in the military) or 21 (can drink). In fact for a while between the Vietnam War and the late 1980s, the drinking/smoking age was 18 in many states (or odd compromises where you could drink beer at 18 but liquor at 21). It was largely pressure from groups like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) that increased the drinking age.
  - paulryanrogers 14d ago
    Considering brain development and differing effects of various substances/activities, I don't see any contradiction with having different age thresholds.
cowboylowrez 14d ago
yeah I don't like this "definition", I fully agree that the technology is the issue, but the "badness" of it is irrelevant. In my opinion giving kids unfettered access is the problem. Lockdown tcp/ip and have whitelisted apps and sites for kids at the very most, but I just don't understand the drive to have kids on the internet in general, it seems like a recipe for disaster for the kid and seems abusive, like giving them alcohol or something. I remember the ol "family computer", the kid isn't going to go hunt porn with their parents sitting in the same room, and giving kids these 24x7 smartphones, especially unsupervised, yeah I don't get it. Yes, obviously if a parent trusts their kid but it seems like the entire tech world is being coerced into unpaid babysitting commitments lol
dyauspitr 14d ago
There plenty of stuff that switches arbitrarily between 17 and 18. Tobacco use, sexual consent, army etc.

somenameforme 15d ago

Age restrictions don't say it's 'okay' for somebody above a certain age to use something. Cigarettes will screw up your body at 18 just as much as they will at 17. But at 18 you're, legally at least, an adult, the point at which our unstated social contract starts to prioritize liberty over safety. And setting it at such an age also helps significantly reduce the peer pressure to smoke.

juiceland 15d ago
You’re right, and that’s the reason why some states have gone further banning cigarettes that have flavorings including menthol.
- deleted 15d ago
  [deleted]
- Chris2048 14d ago
  Ironic since menthols are to me associated with an older generation. AFAIK, their original purpose was for smokers with colds / blocked sinuses.

doc_ick 15d ago

Blanket bans are better the no bans at all. I would agree we need genuine and granular regulation, though I don’t think it’s wise to ask kids what they think is best for them. Not a parent but a parent might have some concern for letting kids rule themselves.

NoPicklez 15d ago

That's an odd take in my opinion. Is driving a car on your own ok at age 15? why 16 and not 15? Why not 14? It's ok to drink in Australia at 18 age, why not 17, or 16? Legal drinking age in the US is 21, why not 18 like it is in Australia? Why not allow 20 year olds to smoke, not just 21 year olds. Its because it is the legal age in which we have established people as adults where they're given more liberty as opposed to safety.

jhbadger 14d ago
The US is weird in that we can't really decide if you are an adult at 16 (can work a standard job, can drive), 18 (can vote, can serve in the military) or 21 (can drink). In fact for a while between the Vietnam War and the late 1980s, the drinking/smoking age was 18 in many states (or odd compromises where you could drink beer at 18 but liquor at 21). It was largely pressure from groups like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) that increased the drinking age.
- paulryanrogers 14d ago
  Considering brain development and differing effects of various substances/activities, I don't see any contradiction with having different age thresholds.

cowboylowrez 14d ago

yeah I don't like this "definition", I fully agree that the technology is the issue, but the "badness" of it is irrelevant. In my opinion giving kids unfettered access is the problem. Lockdown tcp/ip and have whitelisted apps and sites for kids at the very most, but I just don't understand the drive to have kids on the internet in general, it seems like a recipe for disaster for the kid and seems abusive, like giving them alcohol or something. I remember the ol "family computer", the kid isn't going to go hunt porn with their parents sitting in the same room, and giving kids these 24x7 smartphones, especially unsupervised, yeah I don't get it. Yes, obviously if a parent trusts their kid but it seems like the entire tech world is being coerced into unpaid babysitting commitments lol

dyauspitr 14d ago

There plenty of stuff that switches arbitrarily between 17 and 18. Tobacco use, sexual consent, army etc.