>It’s an addictive hobby with similar detriments to addictive substances, yet advertising to children is ok.
We lost that battle when states introduced lotteries. Government gambling.
We lost that battle when states introduced lotteries. Government gambling.
Not just the money, but also the amount of their mental energy it comes to capture.
Nobody cares wether the next lottery has a 24 and millions care very deeply about who wins the next sportball cup.
Both allow you to use them as an addiction but one has a far weaker and narrower pull.
I've heard lotteries called a "hope tax," which is pretty morbid.
I personally dislike tobacco and wish people would stop using it, but it would be dishonest to claim that it is as bad as heroine just because they are both addictive.
I don't really buy the argument that if advertising is bright and colorful, it's distinctly targeted to children. Most advertising is bright and colorful. The only decent argument from the smoking / vape wars was Joe Camel because he was a cartoon character, but I didn't know who Joe Camel was until I was ad adult. I think the advertising to children because it contains non-unusual ________ argument is pretty weak.
If you mean advertise where children would be able to see it, absolutely, all over the place.