It sure does seem risky to give children something for which the long-term risks are unknown. I’d hate to think people have been doing that in recent years.
he says probably, I would not personally risk doing it if I am not 100% sure it's safe. I mean babies don't really need it , why risk it for something that is hardly providing any benefit for a child.
Not that I know. Bad wording from my side, I was only thinking about teens (like the case of the author). Some day research might tell us, until then, you better avoid a risk to your child.
I think you'll end up with drug-naive kids, which may be a similar risk. You've just shifted the risk to an older period of their life. Kids need information, not naivete enforced through ignorance.
What do I have to add? I am giving the opposing opinion here which from anecdotal experience is also the opinion of almost every parent I've met (n~=40) in contrast to the opinions of some people trying to give the impression that it's normal for children to be getting drugs from people they know online because that's what they want.
If the government bans some form of medical treatment and Keffals is trying to bypass this ban then this obviously would raise questions of legality.
Yeah, it's cutsey and all, but you should include a parenthetical explanation (so people don't panic over 10 year olds risking their health on that kinda shit).
Yea that's why it's so dangerous... because we know that many parents will fail at this.
Keep in mind a better analogy is a personal computer. A curious kid might use it and stumble on pornography. But we're not going to go locking computers into closets. Plus the dangers of printing a gun aren't that clearcut for a 10 or 12 year old, especially in our violent video game world of today.
Its about risk/reward. The fun to be had is perhaps small compared to the large risk (hospitalization).
Most of us trust that toys for kids will be essentially harmless. We choose to live in a trusting society, yes. That doesn't make us guilty of anything.
This is such a subtle risk, its arguable that a printed warning on a paper container is insufficient. What happens when the packaging is discarded? Another kid enters the house? Your kid gives the toy away?
> But because they believe it's risk free they aren't exactly telling teens not to use it.
Citation, please. My personal experience as a teenager two and a half decades ago and as someone responsible for the care of teens and pre-teens now is quite the opposite of this. The teens/kids I observe are being told very stridently not to use it, in the same terms and even by some of the same organizations (D.A.R.E.) that we were in the '90s.
While there might be a (strong, IMO) argument that teens are disregarding real, serious risks because they find out some of the bogeymen presented by D.A.R.E and similar are overblown and assume all of us are over-articulating risks, I don't think kids are being told any less to "just say no." As if that helped in the first place.
I’m not sure how you imagine communicating such things to a child. Do you have a flip chart with full frontal nudes in red and feet pictures in orange? It’s not like there’s anything more prohibitive than “absolutely not ok”. Both are beyond that. Your argument sounds like needing to clarify that Fentanyl is worse than heroin, and that if I don’t make it clear that fentanyl is worse, they’re going to do both?
If you can prevent either, you should prevent both.
I asked my boomer mother about whether she'd have liked to have had a gps on me when I was a kid in the 80s. She said she would have loved it. she worked until 5 and there was no "after school care" in our small town... she kept our pantry full of chips and soda and our video games new so that we'd be home when she got home, rather than out somewhere else with our friends.
To her, the lack of near constant panic attacks would be a godsend, and she wouldn't have felt so bad about using video games as childcare.
As a parent, my concern isn't about my kid being abducted... an air tag in their pocket would be more discreet. It's about letting them explore with a safety net. Go for longer bike rides, knowing that if it gets too dark, I can pick them up... that's not risk averse.
The level of risk for every generation has been dramatically lower since the 1920s. Both of my parents lost an older sibling... loss happened at the family level in the 50s. in the 80s, I maybe had one or two kids in my class that had experienced loss... a tractor accident or gun accident... but now there's been one child that died in the past three years at my son's school.
Risk had bigger consequences 60 years ago. Our kids are better off for it.
reply