• Anamana@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Care to share it? I’m quite sure it’s applicable in this case.

    Allowing the future 45-year old to smoke, while making it illegal for the future 44-year old, sounds like text book age-based discrimination to me. And the health based age argument (protecting the youth), which is the main reason for smoking/alcohol regulations, doesn’t make sense here, cause they’re not teens anymore.

    • drekly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      By the time they’re 44 hopefully they’re not such crybabies and have learned to accept a law that’s been there their whole life. Or they just get someone else to buy them.

      Either way it limits access and I think that’s good, even if not perfect.

      • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagining a 70 year old hanging around a store for some 80 year old to come by to ask them if they could buy them some cigs.

      • Anamana@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s such a ridiculous and unnecessary scenario. Just make it illegal in 20 years and be done with it. Why put so much money and effort into such a badly designed solution?

        • drekly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why not right now? Waiting 20 years is such a ridiculous and unnecessary scenario

          • Anamana@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because people need some time to adapt. Make it 5 if you want. I don’t think we should get rid of a transition phase however.