[eesmith]

Which was the argument against prohibiting smoking at school:

> John Tolton, then chairman of the Metro Toronto School Board, was having none of it. Tolton doubted whether schools even had the right to ban smoking, and if they did, “it will merely drive smoking underground.” (He was also unconvinced of the dangers of second-hand smoke.) There were other concerns, including the belief that bans would drive smokers off school property, inciting conflicts with neighbours and exacerbating absenteeism. Some parents gave their kids permission to smoke, so (the thinking went) better to offer them a regulated space in which to do so.

Why won't the war on phones be as effective as the war on tobacco?

[jacobgkau]

> Why won't the war on phones be as effective as the war on tobacco?

I also just pointed the same thing out to the parent commenter, but to play devil's advocate: it won't be as effective because phones have a variety of legitimate use cases (communicating with family & coworkers being among them) that mean people will end up wanting/needing to use them later in life anyway, and will potentially want or need to use them (or learn how to use them) while they're still students. Tobacco/nicotine drugs serve no functional or productive purpose the way phones do.

[eesmith]

That does not seem to be devil's advocacy but rather changing maximamas' position to one which is more defensible.

The argument is "the children will find a way", which was exactly the argument with smoking.

In practice, history tells us that fewer children found a way to get tobacco and smoke on school grounds.

Why should we think that a school ban would have no effect on smartphone use on school grounds?

[jacobgkau]

I didn't say a ban would "have no effect." I said "it won't be as effective" (in response to a quote from you asking why it wouldn't be "as effective"). I gave my reasoning.

It was "devil's advocate" because I was agreeing with you but presenting an argument to the contrary, anyway.

[eesmith]

Which is why I said you changed the topic to something more defensible than the original comment. That isn't "devil's advocacy" but arguing for the sake of arguing.

We see alcohol is used for business and social purposes, including Friday beer and pizza paid by the company, and conferences with beer and wine during receptions.

If we accept the premise that "legitimate use cases" that "people will end up wanting .. later in life" justifies it being taught or allowed at school then when will we teach high schoolers to drink alcohol?

[jacobgkau]

> Which is why I said you changed the topic to something more defensible than the original comment.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a conversation. I didn't realize nobody was allowed to rebut you since you were just replying to one specific comment. /s

> If we accept the premise that "legitimate use cases" that "people will end up wanting .. later in life" justifies it being taught or allowed at school then when will we teach high schoolers to drink alcohol?

What are you even trying to say here? Drinking alcohol isn't a skill people need for anything productive. I'm almost 26 and I've never had an alcoholic drink.

> We see alcohol is used for business and social purposes,

Information technology is required for certain business processes to increase productivity. Alcohol is not. Your argument is either bad-faith or just poorly formed.

Drinking alcohol at work would more appropriately be compared to using social media at school (it's a social vice that doesn't help you practically). Not using phones in general.

[eesmith]

There are certainly jobs in the alcohol industry which require drinking alcohol.

Try getting a job as a wine critic without ever drinking.

Some sales reps get an entertainment budget for, among other things, meeting a potential client over drinks. A teetotal at the same job may have a harder time being productive.

People do actually drink alcohol while on the job, in situations condoned by their employer, and where they are being paid. I gave examples, and can think of others, like a company holiday party.

That is very unlike using social media at school during class.

Just like how you have not ingested any alcohol, I don't have a smartphone and don't see how having it will increase my business productivity. I actually think it will make my productivity worse as I already have to force myself to work where there is no ready internet connectivity, otherwise I am too easily distracted by checking to see what's new, rather than working.

[tnel77]

Exactly. A “dumb” phone seems to be the answer.

[jacobgkau]

If we're talking about the professional angle, businesses certainly use apps and the internet for productivity. There are database apps, point of sale apps, group communication software like Slack or Teams, etc.

I think you're better off attempting to define what you want to block (e.g. social media, academically dishonest websites, and maybe games) than whitelisting only calling and texting as if the smartphone cat's not out of the bag yet.