prohibition never worked and won't ever - the only way to make it work is by implementing a total surveillance state with draconian punishment for noncompliant citizens. but given that i'm more or less the only one realizing that i just make peace with what is coming.
'Prohibition didn't work' is an almost meaningless statement. It's always some variation on 'yeah, drastically fewer people drank, but it didn't eradicate it entirely and cost a nonzero amount to maintain'. Same as banning anything ever, like murder, or unregistered securities.
prohibition of alcohol didn't just cause less people to drink ... it provided the breeding ground for organized crime, caused people to go blind from drinking self-made liquor and started the war on drugs which eventually led to the fentanyl crisis.
That assumes "make it work" means making it work 100% with no gaps or misses. If it only works 90% of the time then it's still working quite well and you get most of the benefit from it without needing "a total surveillance state with draconian punishment for noncompliant citizens"
For instance, it has always been possible for sufficiently motivated kids to acquire hard liquor. If nothing else they can steal it from their parents. To stop this you would need surveillance inside every home and extremely harsh punishments. But we don't actually need that, because an imperfect prohibition works reasonably well.
The whole premise that if a law isn't perfectly enforceable then it's a bad law is a weird thing that techies on the libertarian/autism spectrum come up with a lot, but it's not the way the world actually works.
prohibition of alcohol didn't just cause less people to drink and more to drink less ... it provided the breeding ground for organized crime, caused people to go blind from drinking self-made liquor and started the war on drugs which eventually led to the fentanyl crisis.
Prohibition of hard liquor for kids causes negligible organized crime. Furthermore, it is unlikely that prohibiting <16 kids from using social media will trigger an organized crime wave.
The failings of blanket alcohol prohibition in America do not automatically transfer to all forms and instances of prohibition. Thinking otherwise is a trap that techie libertarians often fall for, for some reason. Science should study it.
or you are looking at this maybe a little rosy colored. the tabacco ban in new zealand, as well as same ideas for england, would affect also grownups. also - what is social media anyway? i don't think this can be as easily defined as a molecule. and it's supervision would require surveillance. and that's not a good thing. sure kiddies need boundaries and guidance but the broader picture shows that such ideas are usually connected to extending the same thinking to adults. and again - my body, my choice. i do not accept the state telling me what not to do when it isn't impacting somebody else on an individual and direct level. end of story.
> when it isn't impacting somebody else on an individual and direct level
But it is. Children using social media put active pressure on other children to use social media too. Not using social media today is very difficult for children, since it can make social integration a lot more difficult. Children using social media are actively pushing other children into addiction. Children using social media are actively harming others.
Your body, your choice. But if you regularly run over people, I will take away your drivers license.
hey, it definitely works! it lets politicians pat themselves on the back like they did something and get some brownie points and maybe even more people to vote for them.
