> I feel that most kids with a supportive backgrounds will tame this beast for themselves eventually, so I hate to make hard "no phones" rules. I would rather they come to terms with this addiction for themselves

That approach doesn’t work so well for people with drug and alcohol addictions/dependancies.

What makes you think this is different?

▲ lmm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That approach doesn’t work so well for people with drug and alcohol addictions/dependancies.

Children raised in cultures where alcohol is soft- rather than hard-banned for young people, and gradually introduced to it with parents around (think European teenagers having a glass of wine with lunch), tend to have healthier relationships with alcohol in later life than those raised in hard-ban-until-18/21 cultures. I think exactly the same will prove true of phones.

▲

inglor_cz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There may be a massive confounding factor in the type of alcohol consumed.

The more permissive cultures tend to be beer- or wine-centric. I have never been deeply interested in addictology, but the few (older) works on alcoholism I have read mentioned that beer and wine drinkers tend to develop a different sort of relationship with alcohol than hard drink consuments, in the sense that they have a hard time abstaining entirely, but fewer of them develop into the full-blown "gin zombie" type.

	▲	lmm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I suspect that's not so much a confounder as one of the mechanisms.

▲ Muromec 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That approach works more often than it doesn’t — outside of certain spiraling situations most people don’t became alcoholics and drug addicts.

Some however do, which is why drugs and alcohol are controlled to some degree.

▲

somenameforme 7 hours ago | parent [-]

They weren't always. In fact it took many centuries for this to happen. The history of cocaine in the US is quite interesting. It was being used everywhere and by everybody. Factory owners were giving it to their laborers to increase productivity, it was used in endless tonics, medicines, and drinks (most famously now Coca-Cola = cocaine + kola nut), and so on. You had everybody from Thomas Edison to popes to Ulysses S Grant and endles others testify to the benefits of Vin Mariani [1] which was a wine loaded with cocaine, that served as the inspiration for Coca-Cola.

So probably part of the reason it was so difficult to realize there is a problem is because everybody was coked out of their minds, so it all seemed normal. And I think the exact same is true of phones today. Watch a session of Congress or anything and half the guys there are playing on their phones; more than a few have been caught watching porn during session, to say nothing of the endless amount that haven't been caught! I can't help but find it hilarious, but objectively it's extremely inappropriate behavior, probably driven by addiction and impaired impulse controls which phones (and other digital tech) are certainly contributing heavily to.

I find it difficult to imagine a world in the future in which phones and similar tech aren't treated somewhat similarly to controlled substances. You can already see the makings of that happening today with ever more regions moving to age restrict social media.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani

▲

Aurornis 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> The history of cocaine in the US is quite interesting. It was being used everywhere and by everybody.

Be careful with that comparison. The cocaine infused drinks of the past are not comparable to modern cocaine use for several reasons.

The route of administration and dose matter a lot. Oral bioavailability is low and peak concentrations are much lower when drinking it in a liquid as opposed to someone insufflating (snorting) 50mg or more of powder.

You could give a modern cocaine user a glass of Vin Mariani and they probably would not believe you that it had any cocaine in it. The amount, absorption, and onset are so extremely different.

> So probably part of the reason it was so difficult to realize there is a problem is because everybody was coked out of their minds

That’s an exaggeration. To be “coked out” in the modern sense they’d have to be consuming an insane amount of alcohol as well. We’re talking bottle after bottle of the wine.

Be careful with these old anecdotes. Yes, it was weird and there were stimulant effects, but it’s not comparable to modern ideas of the drug abuse. It’s like comparing someone taking the lowest dose of Adderall by mouth to someone who crushes up a dozen pills and snorts them. Entirely different outcomes.

	▲	somenameforme 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Vin Mariani was 7+mg/oz with a relatively low alcohol content which would have been further mitigated by the stimulant effect of the cocaine in any case. And then of course other concotions (including Coca-Cola) had no alcohol at all - Vin Mariani is just a fun example because of the endless famous names attached to it. Obviously you're right that the absorption is going to be different and a modern coke head with high tolerance likely wouldn't even notice it had anything in it. But give it to a normal person, and they're indeed going to be coked out - in very much the same way that small doses of adderall to non-users can have a very significant effect. The obvious example there being college kids buying pills around around finals.

▲ achikin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because it is proven that phone usage is not an addiction like drugs or alcohol. People put phones away easily if they have a reason to do so.

▲ rossjudson 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have no idea what you are talking about. It walks and quacks exactly like drugs and alcohol.

Thousands of deaths every year are caused by drivers on cell phones. You'd think they'd have a reason to put them away.

	▲	achikin 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are a lot of reasons for distraction while driving, but we don’t call all of them addiction on that premise. If a driver was not looking at his phone - maybe he’d be looking at something else. The phone is not the reason - it’s just a very suitable object.

▲ emil-lp 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Citation needed

▲ achikin 4 hours ago | parent [-]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6174603/

The main idea here is that overuse not equals addiction.

	▲	justinclift an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The first part of the Results section says: `[...] the majority of research in the field declares that smartphones are addictive` Though that section continues on to disagree with that majority, "the majority" declaring smartphones are addictive is certainly supportive of them being so.

▲ wisty 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't have time to search for a credible source, but it is claimed addicts often seek treatment after hitting "rock bottom".

There's obvious reasons why it's not encouraged to wait that long though.

	▲	kergonath 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> it is claimed addicts often seek treatment after hitting "rock bottom". From my experience it is often too late at that point. And actually hitting rock bottom is difficult and destructive, and leaves scars. As they say, preventing is better than curing.
	▲	melagonster 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe we can make school harder so they will go there earlier.