Did you consider that this might be part of why Balkans are so far behind the rest of Europe?
No we are behind because our development was stunted by 45 years of socialism and 35 years of wild corruption.
Socialism... you probably mean communism, but OK. I agree.
The wild corruption... no. That wasn't externally imposed on you/us. Estonia, Letonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia started the race to improve themselves at the same time, and they're far ahead now.
Hah. Try that in the Balkans, with some one your own size, and let me know after how many weeks the concussion effects go away.
Why the Balkans?
A million factions all trying to take their angst out on some other neighboring faction, with geography that also puts everyone in the crossroads of every conquering group.
Banning social media will never work, just as banning prostitution, drugs cigarettes and gambling don't work (in a broad scale). What we can do is change the public (and our) perception of it. Understanding you have a problem is always the first step in any N-step program for whatever addictive substance. Most adults don't see their own consumption and behaviour around social media as harmful or problematic or simply…
Banning cigarette sales actually does reduce smoking.[1] The same way banning drunk driving reduces instances of drunk driving. But it’s not either-or. We can do both: ban cigarette sales for kids and change our perception of it with informational campaigns. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7233410/
Looks like the study refers to banning cigarettes for young adults under age 21. I was referring to a complete ban, all age groups. I doubt it will have a big impact on actual smokers, but similar effects as we saw in the 1920s alcohol prohibition. And I would imagine that a total ban would get actually more young adults to smoke (because it is illegal anyway, and dealers dont care for age verification).
>In both of these cases (and in others), the harms are there for children and adults, but it’s only children who get banned. >I don’t use TikTok and it’s no skin off of my back if it gets banned. Banned or not, though, I don’t see a reason to ban it only for children. It doesn’t seem to be more harmful for them. They don’t seem to be using it lots more than adults. >If you’re going to ban TikTok because it’s harmful…
Yes, this is a classic example of a programmer (or data scientist in this case) believing their expertise in one areas generalises to topics which they don't fully understand.
That’s how it read. Which is what my previous comment responded to. This is getting kind of silly and the tone is not necessary. I think maybe it’s better for us both to move on.
> That’s how it read. Which is what my previous comment responded to. My problem with your previous comment is that it was written after my clarificatory reply to you, and indeed after your reply to that, so you obviously read my clarificatory reply, but instead of revising your initial interpretation based on my clarification, you chose, for whatever reason, to repeat the initial misinterpretation.
Yes, this is a classic example of a programmer (or data scientist in this case) believing their expertise in one areas generalises to topics which they don't fully understand.
Only adjunct professors can chime in?
The great thing about the internet for now is that anyone can chime in, but anytime you find yourself wiring something like "I don't see why", it may be time for a deeper dive to see if the why is well founded.
That’s how it read. Which is what my previous comment responded to. This is getting kind of silly and the tone is not necessary. I think maybe it’s better for us both to move on.
> That’s how it read. Which is what my previous comment responded to. My problem with your previous comment is that it was written after my clarificatory reply to you, and indeed after your reply to that, so you obviously read my clarificatory reply, but instead of revising your initial interpretation based on my clarification, you chose, for whatever reason, to repeat the initial misinterpretation.
Banning cigarette sales actually does reduce smoking.[1] The same way banning drunk driving reduces instances of drunk driving. But it’s not either-or. We can do both: ban cigarette sales for kids and change our perception of it with informational campaigns. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7233410/
Looks like the study refers to banning cigarettes for young adults under age 21. I was referring to a complete ban, all age groups. I doubt it will have a big impact on actual smokers, but similar effects as we saw in the 1920s alcohol prohibition. And I would imagine that a total ban would get actually more young adults to smoke (because it is illegal anyway, and dealers dont care for age verification).
> And I would imagine that a total ban would get actually more young adults to smoke
No we are behind because our development was stunted by 45 years of socialism and 35 years of wild corruption.
Socialism... you probably mean communism, but OK. I agree. The wild corruption... no. That wasn't externally imposed on you/us. Estonia, Letonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia started the race to improve themselves at the same time, and they're far ahead now.
In which case your original question doesn't make sense. The annual alcohol consumption in those countries is around 11 litres of pure alcohol per person. The only Balkan country coming close to that is Bulgaria.