You could appy the same hyperbole to alcohol. Yet America learnt 100 years ago that prohibition isn't really s solution. As much as you might hate it, there isn't really a way around people being responsible for their actions to a certain degree. Besides, comparing technology to heroin on a site like HN is pretty hilarious.
Gin is supposedly very calming for toddlers. Stressed parents used it a lot back in the day. I hear if you're fancy, cognac is even better. You gotta be a real hypocrite to drink a beer on fridays but not let your toddler have any, right?
Some things are difficult to regulate, even as we know they are harmful and difficult to control for adults due to their addictive nature.
You don't have to think about it very hard to realize that kids, who have not yet learned to emotionally regulate themselves, will be even more vulnerable to these things if we push it on them.
Thanks for underlining my point. Parents giving gin or cognac to their toddlers are just bad parents, a case for CPS, end of discussion. No need to regulate the gin industry just because there are hopelessly bad parents in the world.
but the fact that " Parents giving gin or cognac to their toddlers are just bad parents, a case for CPS, end of discussion" seems so absolutely self-evident to you has been brought about by a century of regulations, public education and resulting stigma/taboo. believe it or not, but giving (small amounts) of alcohol to toddlers and even infants (by way of drinking a shot before breastfeeding) was actually a shockingly widespread practice across many countries over 100 years ago. it took real effort by governments to get people to stop doing that and get us to a point where we are now - where such behaviour is self-evidently bad to anyone in their right mind and we've collectively agreed that it's in everyone's best interest that the state takes children of parents who do this to them into custody. it is not unthinkable that future generations, perhaps not even that far into the future will regard and regulate tablet/phone/[smart device] usage by toddlers in the exact same way.
"over 100 years ago", you wish. The last case I was personally told about was from the 1980s. Yet, regulations and/or taboo didn't help that child. A hopelessly negligent and stupid mother is just that, case closed. And that is pretty much my point. No amount of government regulation is really going to protect the children from the decisions their parents make behind closed doors. And pretending the responsibility is with evil large corporations or the government is only clouding the truth, namely that parents are responsible for their children and what they consume. I am sooo fed up with all these excuses. And I have reasons. My mother wasn't and still isn't the most rational person. And no amount of regulations would have protected me from her mental health issues. It wasn't the fault of the car industry that my mother told me at the age of 14 that she wants me to go with her on a car trip visiting my grandmother because she would prefer me also dying in case she had an accident. No amount of industry regulations would have protected me from the schock I had when I heard that sentence. Openly talking about the responsibilities of parents and not hiding obvious stupidity would have perhaps helped a bit.
I believe that in marketing something to children, you become co-responsible for the usage situation you are promoting, even as parents share that responsibility. Marketing cigarettes, gin or tablets to children would be immoral in deeper ways than doing the same to adults. I stand by that.
For the record I think the gin industry should in fact be regulated from marketing their product as a pacificer for kids. I find it very difficult to believe that you don't.
Nobody is marketing a "toddler pacifier" to children. The intended audience is PARENTS. Or do you actually know toddlers with enough financial power to buy their own tablets/whatever? C'mon, the cope is getting really hilarious. I don't really understand where this reluctance to make parents responsible for their decisions comes from? Is it a knee-jerk reaction of actual parents? Why is it so hard to accept that YOU are responsible for most of the things happening to your child until a certain age?
Nobody is saying parents aren't responsible for their choices, only that trying to influence them to make harmful choices via marketing is immoral and bad for society. The parents are supposed to give this thing to their kids as a pacificer, that is literally the proposed use case here. If you are trying to make money by encouraging people buying your cigarettes for their children, you are morally complicit in that outcome, regardless of all the purchases still being made by adults.