The CA Legislature Strikes Back

[g0zen]

So you never played guns or anything that you saw on TV? I'd find that hard to believe.

Guns? No, not really. Lasers, perhaps, but not really guns. I did play alot with sticks and such as swords and axes. However, my parents made it clear that under no circumstances was I to hurt anyone while playing, and that doing so was bad and would lead to punishment.

Also, I didn't play with the swords and axes because I wanted to hurt people or that I thought hurting people was 'fun'.

[Joust Williams]

"However, my parents made it clear that under no circumstances was I to hurt anyone while playing, and that doing so was bad and would lead to punishment"

Did they also make it clear that smoknig was bad and would lead to punishment too? If so, then why have that law? Good parenting is great, but a law in place as backup that doesn't prohibit free expression is nice.

[Tracer]

"However, my parents made it clear that under no circumstances was I to hurt anyone while playing, and that doing so was bad and would lead to punishment"

Did they also make it clear that smoknig was bad and would lead to punishment too? If so, then why have that law? Good parenting is great, but a law in place as backup that doesn't prohibit free expression is nice.

Tobacco is pretty much a narcotic, videogames are not. The laws that ARE there are lax. Smoking, given the weight of evidence against it, should be illegal. It would help more than harm, so why not? However, the phsyiological effects of videogames are neither as intense or even factually proven to be a root of violence amongst youths (and I'd see this law passed to help prove that point). Smoking is understood to be detrimental to the users and others as well as the environment and provides no signifigant reward to the user (and I smoke actually). Videogames do not. Nor do movies, nor books nor music. Violence in its depiction in anyway will affect those already prone to violence. The affects to others are inconsequential.

[Joust Williams]

Violent videogames don't have any benefit on impressionable youth, though.

"Smoking, given the weight of evidence against it, should be illegal."

I agree...but since it isn't, the reason why it's illegal for kids is the issue here. The argument against this law: "parents need to be responsible". So what really is the difference? Responsible parents teach kids about violence and not smoking.

[Tracer]

I can agree to this. This being the first line.

The let the parents parent argument isn't a terrible one but it's not one to base against this particular legislature. I'm argueing that the same standards for substances should not be the same standard for media, since it's entirely diffrent on a fundamental level. I have no beef with not selling M-Rated games to minors. Not from the point of view of someone interested in the growth of the industry or from care for the well being of kids (on the whole).*

My only complaint is the reasoning for it. It's not sound. "I don't have to smoke cigerretes to know it's not heathy," for starters is inane - the man has an agenda methinks and it's not to save the kiddies from the brainwashstation 64.

*Kids on the whole, I belive with some exceptions, aren't adversely effected one way or another by violent videogames.

[Mman]

"However, my parents made it clear that under no circumstances was I to hurt anyone while playing, and that doing so was bad and would lead to punishment"

Did they also make it clear that smoknig was bad and would lead to punishment too? If so, then why have that law? Good parenting is great, but a law in place as backup that doesn't prohibit free expression is nice.

Video games do not equal smoking. Any comparission is rediculous. Show me the thousands of people dying from video games. In fact, who me 10.

[Joust Williams]

I'm not saying they are equal. But you can either look at the smoking law two ways:

a) Kids with responsible parents might want to smoke, and the law is a back-up

b) We want taxpayer money, so we need you to get old so you can pay them


"the man has an agenda"

With me, though, the agenda is irrelevant. The end result is what I care about. And when there's a law proposed that I don't agree with, I'll put my foot down.

[Mman]

Yeah, and are argument is that video games are not harmful enough to warrant being backed up by the goverement.

[Joust Williams]

If that's the case, this will pass eventually.

[sethsez]

There is proof that cigarettes are harmful, and there's no grey area about this. There are no cigarettes that only imply smoke, cigarettes that deal with tobacco in a mature and intelligent manner, or cigarettes that have gratuitous tar for satirical purposes.