Why Framing Phones as an “Addictive Drug” Is Misleading

Caveat – This article was sparked by a recent online video interview in which a digital literacy and internet safety advocate held up a cellphone with both hands, looked directly at it, and declared, “It’s a drug”.

There’s a growing call from some presenters, parent advocacy groups, and influencers to ban cellphones for kids until the age of 16, based on the argument that phones are like “addictive drugs.” While the sentiment may come from a place of concern, the narrative is wildly disconnected from real science where there is a significant difference between “addiction” and problematic behaviour. Worse, it contributes to what is known as a juvenoic moral panic, the tendency of adults to fear and demonize the tools, behaviours, or culture of youth, especially when they don’t understand them.

We hear the comparison a lot: “Phones are the new cigarettes,” (1) or “Social media is digital heroin or crack cocaine” given its effects on dopamine and the brain. (2) While these analogies sound punchy in headlines or social media posts, they are scientifically misleading. Yes, phones can trigger a dopamine responses, just like exercise, food, or a good conversation can , but equating that with the pharmacological impact of heroin or nicotine is not only inaccurate, it’s irresponsible. Many supporters of the “delay is the way” movement exaggerate the role of dopamine and often misrepresent how it actually affects the brain when it comes to the use of technology by youth.(3)

A 2022 report from the American Psychological Association stresses that calling technology “addictive” in the same way as substances (drugs and alcohol) conflates different types of brain responses and risks oversimplifying the issue. (4) Not every dopamine behaviour is an addiction. If that were the case, we’d also need to ban hugs, sports, and pizza.

By labeling phones as drugs, we create fear rather than understanding, and fear has never been a solid foundation for good parenting decisions. However, it’s effective when you want to push a political agenda. (5)

“Juvenoia” is a term coined by media scholar Dr. David Finkelhor to describe the exaggerated fear that new trends or technologies are harming young people.(6)(7) We’ve seen it before, with comic books, rock music, video games, and now smartphones.

History tells us that every generation of parents and caregiver tends to panic about the habits of the next. Today’s smartphone bans are yesterday’s Walkman bans. The difference? Smartphones can be tools for communication, learning, creativity, and even safety. To deny youth and teen access to age and developmentally appropriate technology and the internet, is to deny them the opportunity to learn how to use these tools responsibly when combined with parental guidance. (8)

Banning phones doesn’t teach digital literacy, it avoids it!

The “delay is the way” crowd loves to say that banning phones until 16 helps “protect childhood.” But in reality, it just delays digital literacy, making kids more vulnerable once they do get online, because they’ve had no experience navigating it under the guidance of trusted adults. (9) It’s how we incrementally “pave the way” that is most important when it comes to youth and teens and their use of technology. (10)

The onlife world is not going away. Our kids will need these tools to thrive academically, socially, and professionally, something that China has fully adopted. (11) Teaching healthy phone use early with boundaries, conversations, and guidance is far more effective than blanket bans.

The push to ban phones often stems from a place of adult discomfort. Phones challenge traditional parenting models. They require ongoing dialogue, monitoring, and adaptation. That’s hard, and some parents are looking for the easy way out: just take the tech away.

However, good parenting isn’t about control, it’s about connection. Banning age and developmentally appropriate phones removes the opportunity to have ongoing conversations about onlife boundaries, values, safety, and self-regulation.

By completely removing phones, we avoid teaching the very skills our children need: critical thinking, emotional regulation, and digital resilience

Rather than fall for fear-based messaging and moral panic, let’s embrace reality:

Start young, start small. Give kids age-appropriate devices with limited functions to begin. (12)

Scaffold digital responsibility just like we do with chores, money, or schoolwork.

Model healthy phone use yourself. If you’re scrolling at dinner, don’t be surprised if your child wants to do the same.

Calling phones an “addictive drug” may sound like a bold, protective move, but it’s rooted in fear, and outdated thinking. What our kids need is not isolation from technology, but mentorship through it. Fear doesn’t teach. Dialogue does.

Let’s stop moralizing the phone and start humanizing the experience. Instead of reacting with panic, let’s parent with purpose. Lets ditch the ban, and embrace the plan when it comes our kids and the use of technology (13). Rather than “delay is the way” let’s “pave the way” to digital literacy.(14)

Related Article: