5 ms·

Banning phones is a waste of time, the children will find a way. We need to embrace phones and teach responsible use along with holding content providers accoun

Banning phones is a waste of time, the children will find a way. We need to embrace phones and teach responsible use along with holding content providers accountable. A war on phones will be as effective as the war on drugs.

talldatethrow 2y ago
Making things illegal and not accepted works decently well. There wasn't a drug vending machine at my school, even though a few rogue students were probably buying and selling drugs at my highschool. Thus I was less likely to do drugs. Very few handguns are in students backpacks, because we don't accept it. If we didn't accept cell phones, we'd have a lot fewer kids suffering from them.
khalladay 2y ago
This is about banning phones during class or school hours. Even though the war on drugs may have failed the general populace, the prohibition of drugs at schools has been largely successful in preventing drug use from taking place in classrooms and on school property. (the same with smoking bans at schools) This is the same.
eesmith 2y ago
Which was the argument against prohibiting smoking at school: > John Tolton, then chairman of the Metro Toronto School Board, was having none of it. Tolton doubted whether schools even had the right to ban smoking, and if they did, “it will merely drive smoking underground.” (He was also unconvinced of the dangers of second-hand smoke.) There were other concerns, including the belief that bans would drive smokers off school property, inciting conflicts with neighbours and exacerbating absenteeism. Some parents gave their kids permission to smoke, so (the thinking went) better to offer them a regulated space in which to do so. Why won't the war on phones be as effective as the war on tobacco?
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  > Why won't the war on phones be as effective as the war on tobacco? I also just pointed the same thing out to the parent commenter, but to play devil's advocate: it won't be as effective because phones have a variety of legitimate use cases (communicating with family & coworkers being among them) that mean people will end up wanting/needing to use them later in life anyway, and will potentially want or need to use them (or learn how to use them) while they're still students. Tobacco/nicotine drugs serve no functional or productive purpose the way phones do.
  - tnel77 2y ago
    Exactly. A “dumb” phone seems to be the answer.
    - jacobgkau 2y ago
      If we're talking about the professional angle, businesses certainly use apps and the internet for productivity. There are database apps, point of sale apps, group communication software like Slack or Teams, etc. I think you're better off attempting to define what you want to block (e.g. social media, academically dishonest websites, and maybe games) than whitelisting only calling and texting as if the smartphone cat's not out of the bag yet.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    That does not seem to be devil's advocacy but rather changing maximamas' position to one which is more defensible. The argument is "the children will find a way", which was exactly the argument with smoking. In practice, history tells us that fewer children found a way to get tobacco and smoke on school grounds. Why should we think that a school ban would have no effect on smartphone use on school grounds?
    - jacobgkau 2y ago
      I didn't say a ban would "have no effect." I said "it won't be as effective" (in response to a quote from you asking why it wouldn't be "as effective"). I gave my reasoning. It was "devil's advocate" because I was agreeing with you but presenting an argument to the contrary, anyway.
jacobgkau 2y ago
Funny you should say that, when the article specifically mentions how people said the same thing about "attempting" to ban tobacco cigarettes in schools last century, and how-- lo and behold-- while cigarettes do still exist, they're now considered socially unacceptable for students to use by all involved parties, and the percentage of students using them is negligible. I don't necessarily agree with the article's assertion that cigarettes and cell phones are the same kind of problem in need of the same kind of solution (since phones have legitimate use cases outside of the problematic ones, and cigarettes don't). Just wanted to point out that the article specifically called out your argument, and you seem to draw a different conclusion about reality (war on drugs failed) than the article (students no longer smoke).
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  > while cigarettes do still exist, they're now considered socially unacceptable for students to use by all involved parties, and the percentage of students using them is negligible. Cigarettes have been almost entirely replaced by vapor products, which are arguably more popular than cigarettes have been in decades. The bans weren’t effective; by the time they were in place, an new generation of products had already arisen and replaced the targets of those bans. Meanwhile, vapes are banned as well, but are ubiquitous.

talldatethrow 2y ago

Making things illegal and not accepted works decently well. There wasn't a drug vending machine at my school, even though a few rogue students were probably buying and selling drugs at my highschool. Thus I was less likely to do drugs. Very few handguns are in students backpacks, because we don't accept it. If we didn't accept cell phones, we'd have a lot fewer kids suffering from them.

khalladay 2y ago

This is about banning phones during class or school hours. Even though the war on drugs may have failed the general populace, the prohibition of drugs at schools has been largely successful in preventing drug use from taking place in classrooms and on school property. (the same with smoking bans at schools) This is the same.

eesmith 2y ago

Which was the argument against prohibiting smoking at school: > John Tolton, then chairman of the Metro Toronto School Board, was having none of it. Tolton doubted whether schools even had the right to ban smoking, and if they did, “it will merely drive smoking underground.” (He was also unconvinced of the dangers of second-hand smoke.) There were other concerns, including the belief that bans would drive smokers off school property, inciting conflicts with neighbours and exacerbating absenteeism. Some parents gave their kids permission to smoke, so (the thinking went) better to offer them a regulated space in which to do so. Why won't the war on phones be as effective as the war on tobacco?

jacobgkau 2y ago
> Why won't the war on phones be as effective as the war on tobacco? I also just pointed the same thing out to the parent commenter, but to play devil's advocate: it won't be as effective because phones have a variety of legitimate use cases (communicating with family & coworkers being among them) that mean people will end up wanting/needing to use them later in life anyway, and will potentially want or need to use them (or learn how to use them) while they're still students. Tobacco/nicotine drugs serve no functional or productive purpose the way phones do.
- tnel77 2y ago
  Exactly. A “dumb” phone seems to be the answer.
  - jacobgkau 2y ago
    If we're talking about the professional angle, businesses certainly use apps and the internet for productivity. There are database apps, point of sale apps, group communication software like Slack or Teams, etc. I think you're better off attempting to define what you want to block (e.g. social media, academically dishonest websites, and maybe games) than whitelisting only calling and texting as if the smartphone cat's not out of the bag yet.
- eesmith 2y ago
  That does not seem to be devil's advocacy but rather changing maximamas' position to one which is more defensible. The argument is "the children will find a way", which was exactly the argument with smoking. In practice, history tells us that fewer children found a way to get tobacco and smoke on school grounds. Why should we think that a school ban would have no effect on smartphone use on school grounds?
  - jacobgkau 2y ago
    I didn't say a ban would "have no effect." I said "it won't be as effective" (in response to a quote from you asking why it wouldn't be "as effective"). I gave my reasoning. It was "devil's advocate" because I was agreeing with you but presenting an argument to the contrary, anyway.

jacobgkau 2y ago

Funny you should say that, when the article specifically mentions how people said the same thing about "attempting" to ban tobacco cigarettes in schools last century, and how-- lo and behold-- while cigarettes do still exist, they're now considered socially unacceptable for students to use by all involved parties, and the percentage of students using them is negligible. I don't necessarily agree with the article's assertion that cigarettes and cell phones are the same kind of problem in need of the same kind of solution (since phones have legitimate use cases outside of the problematic ones, and cigarettes don't). Just wanted to point out that the article specifically called out your argument, and you seem to draw a different conclusion about reality (war on drugs failed) than the article (students no longer smoke).

Ancapistani 2y ago
> while cigarettes do still exist, they're now considered socially unacceptable for students to use by all involved parties, and the percentage of students using them is negligible. Cigarettes have been almost entirely replaced by vapor products, which are arguably more popular than cigarettes have been in decades. The bans weren’t effective; by the time they were in place, an new generation of products had already arisen and replaced the targets of those bans. Meanwhile, vapes are banned as well, but are ubiquitous.