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.
This ban is targeted at a specific target, focused on a specific demographic.
This ban hasn’t even been implemented, there’s no evidence of it being effective. Just “the government says it’ll work”
We have similar bans and controls on vaping and tobacco in the U.S. and it barely dents underage vaping and smoking. That’s pretty good evidence that this is gonna fail for the same reasons.
Well-coordinated enforcement of the ban can check the availability of sachet alcoholic beverages. This should reduce accessibility, consumption and related harms among young people.
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.
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.
Actually, No.
https://theconversation.com/nigerias-ban-on-alcohol-sold-in-small-sachets-will-help-tackle-underage-drinking-223136
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:
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.
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.
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.