6 ms·
Shouldn't parents be the ones to protect their children from the dangers of heroin, rather than an over-reaching state?
by tarkin2 3mo ago
Shouldn't parents be the ones to protect their children from the dangers of heroin, rather than an over-reaching state?
- dom96 3mo agoFunny example, because many argue that stopping the war on drugs would solve a lot of problems.
- thisislife2 3mo 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.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Rebelgecko 3mo agoIMO everything you said is equally applicable to social media (unless you have complete and total surveillance over your kids)
- thisislife2 3mo 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.