Social media is such trash, and so much of it is optimized for addiction. You might as well say "They should learn how to handle heroin."

In a world where heroin is normalized, it might be a good idea

A similar question as the European vs American approach to handling alcohol. In Europe (vast oversimplification incoming, big continent with lots of cultures and jurisdictions) it's normal to drink beer the first time by 14, in the presence of your parents, and are typically able to buy it freely at around 16. In the US (oversimplification incoming) you typically have your first experience with alcohol in secret, or binge-drinking once you are 21 and free from your parents. The European version typically results in more alcohol being consumed, but in healthier habits

One crux is that this only works if the parents are actually using alcohol/social media in a healthy way. A heroin addict can't teach their children how to responsibly use heroin

> In Europe (vast oversimplification incoming, big continent with lots of cultures and jurisdictions) it's normal to drink beer the first time by 14, in the presence of your parents, and are typically able to buy it freely at around 16.

You did disclaim about this, but my understanding is that most European countries no longer allow you to buy alcohol before you’re 18 (but with some major exceptions like Germany and Belgium). Culturally, you are however quite spot on.

Is there any safe amount of alcohol?

Well, it’s like epsilon-delta proofs in maths, isn’t it? For any acceptable amount of harm (epsilon), you can find some upper limit on consumption (delta) that causes harm below that threshold based on our current experimental data. Presumably, most people won’t care if epsilon is small enough, for example smaller than the risk of getting cancer from a walk in the park without sunscreen on.

Is there any safe amount of walking down the stairs?

Stair walking isn't a group 1 carcinogen. It's also required in many living spaces.

If I understand correctly, «group 1» says nothing about the probability of getting cancer from exposure, except that we have sufficient data to be sure it must be nonzero?

(FWIW, I don’t drink myself, but I don’t consider cancer risk a motivating reason here.)

Yes, stairs typically kill you through blunt force trauma, not cancer. Your point?

My point is that most everything comes with risks and we trade them off with our desires or needs. The recent push to evangelise that there’s “no safe amount of alcohol” is rather silly in the light of that. There’s no “safe” amount of driving or cycling either but we do them anyway because they satisfy our desires and we judge those to be worth the risk. Alcohol (as long as one is not addicted) is the same.

My point is stair climbing isn't a relevant comparison. It's often required, and usually an activity that improves ones health. Alcohol--even in moderation--appears to have only negative health effects and is entirely optional.

I don't think alcohol is anywhere near as addictive, though. You might be right anyway.

You can't die from heroin withdrawal, no matter how much you might want to.

Addictiveness is a lot more than just how bad worst case withdrawal is.

For every 100 people who take opiates, how many become addicted?

According to this, roughly 1/5th to 1/3rd of heroin users get addicted: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

A lot of the information is from back in the time where opium was legal but most people are not very receptive to opioids. They feel sick and tripping balls and would not repeat the experience if offered.

It is a very particular kind of person who gets addicted right away.

Of course, in a social context where consumption is expected, many more may reach the point where they keep consuming in order to stave off withdrawal.

> You might as well say "They should learn how to handle heroin."

Those were the literal words we used!