[Nursie]

Sorry what?

Kids with low parental supervision who steal uncle Roy's marlboro are more likely to be able to cope with tobacco addiction?

Do you have any reasons to think this might be the case? Studies, research, a well thought-out article?

[AnthonyMouse]

To get reliable access you either need to convince an adult to give you access (which is always game over) or you need to engage in some kind of future planning, which is a similar skill set as the one necessary to notice that getting addicted to cancer thing might be a bad idea. Stealing uncle Roy's marlboro doesn't work because uncle Roy is generally then going to notice that they're going missing and either start securing them better or deduce where they're going and visit some punishment on the kid.

[Nursie]

I mean what if Roy doesn't care?

We're just optimising for kids with shitty family at this point.

[AnthonyMouse]

If Roy doesn't care then you have a kid with an adult who gives them access, which is the scenario where none of this is going to work. Even if you required government IDs with hourly retina scans, it doesn't work if Roy is willing to let the kids hold the device up to his face whenever they want.

[Nursie]

Sure, I agree.

I only disagree with the just-so notion that kids who have an Uncle Roy are somehow better able to cope with the consequences. Ability to access something is (IMHO) pretty uncorrelated with the ability to cope with the consequences.

[AnthonyMouse]

The original claim wasn't that the kids with an Uncle Roy would be better able to cope, it's that the kids are who can devise another way to get past even if they didn't. Then the latter kids make up a larger proportion of the ones who can get past because they have two paths to do it instead of one. And the former ones are the ones we can't reach regardless.

[Nursie]

Let's look at that original claim -

"As with smoking, alcohol, sex, drugs etc

Children who are smart enough to get access to a given vice without getting caught are more likely to be mature enough to be able to cope with that vice."

There are at least two problems here. The one I've focused on first that you seem so keen to dispel, is an assumption that there are smart kids overcoming a challenge. 'Roy' is an extreme, but there is a whole spectrum of low-oversight conditions that are likely to lead to kids getting access to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, having sex etc, which are nothing to do with smartness or challenges and are much more to do with shitty parenting and neglect.

Then there's the second problem. Let's focus on tobacco but I believe it's likely to hold for other drugs - even if we allow that children getting access to tobacco are 'smarter' than those who don't figure it out, and are overcoming various obstacles, that doesn't actually imply that they'll be better able to deal with the consequences. Just like how a high IQ doesn't always mean someone is necessarily good at crossing the road safely or tieing their shoelaces.

In fact there's a variety of research about nicotine's effect on developing brains and how the earlier people are exposed the more likely they are to be more addicted for longer. This is the opposite outcome to the original claim, kids who start earlier are in fact demonstrably less likely to be able to 'cope' with the vice.

The whole claim is nonsense.

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3615117/ [1] https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-6-addiction/6-...

(edit - I'm not making specific claims about cybersecurity or access to tech here, I just think the analogy is pretty seriously wrong in itself)