"For the same reason we don't allow kids to buy pornography, for the same reason we don't allow kids to buy cigarettes, for the same reason we don't allow kids to buy alcohol, we shouldn't allow them to go to stores and buy video games"

In the quote by Rod Blagojevich, the previous governor draws a parallel in between the guideline of specific adult activities and the ease of access of video games to minors. His contrast suggests that simply as society has actually deemed it needed to enforce age limitations on pornography, cigarettes, and alcohol, comparable precautions must be taken with computer game. The thinking behind such guidelines is normally to protect the developing body and minds of children from the possible harms that these adult-oriented products and activities may pose.

The reference of pornography, cigarettes, and alcohol invokes a societal consensus that exposure to these can cause harmful results. For example, direct exposure to porn at a young age may distort children's understanding of sexuality, while cigarettes and alcohol have well-documented health risks and addicting residential or commercial properties that children are especially susceptible to. By conjuring up these examples, Blagojevich recommends that video games could similarly have unfavorable impacts on kids. These results may include exposure to violent or explicit material that could influence children's behavior or emotional advancement adversely.

Blagojevich's point of view likely originates from continuous disputes about whether certain computer game promote violent behavior or desensitize children to violence and whether these video games ought to be available to minors. His comments suggest that permitting unlimited access to such video games might have harmful ramifications, possibly necessitating regulative measures equivalent to those imposed on cigarettes, alcohol, and pornography.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to note that computer game are not a monolithic medium. They vary extensively in content, varying from educational and family-friendly games to those with mature styles. While Blagojevich argues for guideline, there are counterarguments stressing parental obligation and the variability of video game content, suggesting that not all video games necessarily call for the very same level of issue.

Blagojevich's position invites a more comprehensive discussion on the role of government, moms and dads, and society in safeguarding kids from prospective damage while considering the diverse nature of computer game and acknowledging the balances between policy, censorship, and personal duty.