Would you give your child a substance that you knew was going to cause them harm? 

The answer from any parent would be a resounding, ‘No!’  

Yet nowadays, even children as young as 11 have access to supercomputers in the form of smartphones. At the same time, mental health issues among the young, such as anxiety disorders, depression, and suicidal thoughts, have risen significantly across the globe. 

It’s interesting that the National Party has banned smartphones in classrooms because of poorer education outcomes. Indeed, smartphones have inhibited students’ abilities to pay attention; they’re distracting, highly addictive, and impact cognitive performance. 

But the problems are deeper than academic issues.  

Since about 2010, rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts in young people aged between 18 and 24 have increased more than 200 per cent. These are the people whose childhoods have been characterised by constant internet connection. Not to mention, they have fewer friends and spend less time with their families. 

Just last week, the US Surgeon General called for tobacco-style warnings on social media because of its effects on adolescent mental health.

We are now seeing that the earlier smartphone use begins, the worse off one’s well-being will be in the future.  

Just last week, the US Surgeon General called for tobacco-style warnings on social media because of its effects on adolescent mental health. Dr Samantha Marsh has suggested that phones should be treated like other addictive substances: kept well away from children, starting with banning phones in schools.  

The sceptic in all of us, though, may whisper, “Will banning smartphones really work? Isn’t it a parent’s job to control the behaviour of their own children?” 

Whatever parents are doing isn’t working. Keeping children off the internet can feel like trying to keep them away from sunshine—almost impossible. When they try to do something, they are met with objection, if not physically aggressive behaviour. 

Jonathan Haidt prescribes using only basic phones (no internet, limited apps) before 14 and no social media before 16.   

So, it may be time for the government to step in. Parents can then tell disgruntled kids, “It’s not me taking your phone; it’s just the law.”  

In his book “The Anxious Generation,” Jonathan Haidt prescribes using only basic phones (no internet, limited apps) before 14 and no social media before 16.   

We already try to keep other harmful substances away from children; why should smartphones be any different? For example, the side effects of Marijuana include depression, social anxiety, thoughts of suicide and suicide attempts, particularly after long-term use. Sound familiar? 

Even if people argue over marijuana being legalised, no one is suggesting we distribute it to children. The same is true for alcohol; it limits our capacities for cognitive function, and the damage is worse when given to children, hence a legal drinking age. 

Sceptics will say again, “How do we know that smartphones are causing this? This is all correlation.” But Haidt argues causation. Even if it wasn’t, wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution?  

If we care for our children’s well-being more than we care about their educational results, action against smartphone use needs to be taken everywhere, not just in schools.