Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
lol, yeah that went reeeeally well. "Banning" anything is the stupidest, least effective way of stopping a thing from happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
Actually, No.
https://theconversation.com/nigerias-ban-on-alcohol-sold-in-small-sachets-will-help-tackle-underage-drinking-223136
You should focus on the why, not the what in this problem. Why do people overindulge? Try to focus on that and you reduce the excessive use of most substances.
Neither of these are outright bans, and the results are mixed. If banning worked then Nigeria wouldn't have 4.6 million people abusing opiates.
This article says, in the headline, that it will help tackle underage drinking. So, first, an assertion that the future will be a particular way is not evidence of the claim the assertion makes. Second, in the article there is a statement that banning a particular consumption method reduced consumption of that method. Sure, I'll grant that, because duh? But do you understand that the United States spent a great deal of money and lives over years to ban alcohol for adults and it simply did not work? We have the data on this, it's not even a little obscure.
You should read your links.
The tl;Dr on that article is that the government is enacting a ban of some specific packaging under a lot of speculation that it'll reduce kids access to alcohol and reduce underage drinking.
From the link:
That’s merely a ban on one particular packaging format favored by the poor.
It’s a far cry from a complete ban because most people buy ordinary bottles.
The word should is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Where's the data? Right. There's isn't any. Revisit this 5 years after it's implemented.