• SootySootySoot [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is the weirdest upvoted take on Hexbear I have ever seen.

    There’s a huge difference between imprisoning people for taking a drug, and banning the sale of goods to children.

    But never mind, I agree, legalise the direct sale of cocaine to children now!

    • Euergetes [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      under 16 year olds shouldnt have any reason to be consuming stimulants but they clearly are, instead of the state intervening in why they do that theyre just throwing the book at one sensationalized product group.

      literally 0 cafeine or sugar addicts will be stopped, because neither is actually being blocked, just an arbitrary combination of the two.

      just because you believe in the utility of state bans on products you shouldn’t credulously entertain the worst incarnations of these coming from the worst governments on earth. the UK government is starving children with austerity but sure, this is about children’s health and not a bone to tabloid readers

    • redchert@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Not to entirely defend that take. But the authorial family structure/upbringing as a result of patriarchy is something a lot marxist spoke out against.

      • glimmer_twin [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Hard disagree that this will hurt and stigmatise children to any degree. Are children stigmatised because they can’t vote or drive?

        Letting kids sleep in a couple more hours in the morning before school would help them more than giving them unlimited access to gamer juice.