Comment by kombookcha
6 hours ago
I believe that in marketing something to children, you become co-responsible for the usage situation you are promoting, even as parents share that responsibility. Marketing cigarettes, gin or tablets to children would be immoral in deeper ways than doing the same to adults. I stand by that.
For the record I think the gin industry should in fact be regulated from marketing their product as a pacificer for kids. I find it very difficult to believe that you don't.
Nobody is marketing a "toddler pacifier" to children. The intended audience is PARENTS. Or do you actually know toddlers with enough financial power to buy their own tablets/whatever? C'mon, the cope is getting really hilarious. I don't really understand where this reluctance to make parents responsible for their decisions comes from? Is it a knee-jerk reaction of actual parents? Why is it so hard to accept that YOU are responsible for most of the things happening to your child until a certain age?
Nobody is saying parents aren't responsible for their choices, only that trying to influence them to make harmful choices via marketing is immoral and bad for society. The parents are supposed to give this thing to their kids as a pacificer, that is literally the proposed use case here. If you are trying to make money by encouraging people buying your cigarettes for their children, you are morally complicit in that outcome, regardless of all the purchases still being made by adults.