4 ms·

I can't support any legislation that so blatantly discriminates against a whole class of people. People should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

by LanceH 5y ago

lostlogin 5y ago
And yet they aren’t in a large number of ways. Driving, drinking, voting, gun ownership, the ability to consent to various things, the ability to own some things.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  This is different. 'You can't vote because you are currently 17' is VERY different than 'You can't vote now or ever because you are 17 right now.' Or 'You can't drive because you are currently 14' is VERY different than 'You can't drive now or ever because you are 14 right now.'
r00fus 5y ago
A drug preference ins't a "class of people". It's just a preference (or an addiction).
- dgfitz 5y ago
  How many upper-middle class people do you know who smoke cigarettes?
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    A lot of them surely snoke hookah or vape, and laws rarely make difference between that and smoking.
- LanceH 5y ago
  People born after a certain year is a class of people. Born on one side can smoke, born on the other side can never smoke. But it's good for them! Sure. They also speak about smoking being a problem for the Maori. Maybe they should start by banning them from smoking. They aren't banning a drug preference. They are banning it from a specific group of people. This is fundamentally broken. There has to be a better way of accomplishing it than setting terrible precedent of yanking privileges for life from a group which can't even vote yet.
Angostura 5y ago
It's certainly unfair that the older generation end up with worse health because they aren't protected by this law, it's true.
- LanceH 5y ago
  Whether the law is well intentioned or not, it discriminates against those born after a certain year. If it is truly necessary to ban people born after 2007 from smoking for their entire lives, this law should not create two groups, it should ban all people smoking at any age.
bloak 5y ago
I think lots of countries have changed their pension rules in a way that treats people born after a certain date differently from people born before a certain date, whether or not they express it in those terms. Is that fundamentally any different from the proposed smoking rule?
- LanceH 5y ago
  Theoretically that is based on actuarial data which says people are living longer and can work longer. If you can find one where people born before a certain year get a pension and people after it will never get one, then it's a like to like comparison.

I can't support any legislation that so blatantly discriminates against a whole class of people. People should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

by LanceH 5y ago

I can't support any legislation that so blatantly discriminates against a whole class of people. People should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

lostlogin 5y ago

And yet they aren’t in a large number of ways. Driving, drinking, voting, gun ownership, the ability to consent to various things, the ability to own some things.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
This is different. 'You can't vote because you are currently 17' is VERY different than 'You can't vote now or ever because you are 17 right now.' Or 'You can't drive because you are currently 14' is VERY different than 'You can't drive now or ever because you are 14 right now.'

r00fus 5y ago

A drug preference ins't a "class of people". It's just a preference (or an addiction).

dgfitz 5y ago
How many upper-middle class people do you know who smoke cigarettes?
- thriftwy 5y ago
  A lot of them surely snoke hookah or vape, and laws rarely make difference between that and smoking.
LanceH 5y ago
People born after a certain year is a class of people. Born on one side can smoke, born on the other side can never smoke. But it's good for them! Sure. They also speak about smoking being a problem for the Maori. Maybe they should start by banning them from smoking. They aren't banning a drug preference. They are banning it from a specific group of people. This is fundamentally broken. There has to be a better way of accomplishing it than setting terrible precedent of yanking privileges for life from a group which can't even vote yet.

Angostura 5y ago

It's certainly unfair that the older generation end up with worse health because they aren't protected by this law, it's true.

LanceH 5y ago
Whether the law is well intentioned or not, it discriminates against those born after a certain year. If it is truly necessary to ban people born after 2007 from smoking for their entire lives, this law should not create two groups, it should ban all people smoking at any age.

bloak 5y ago

I think lots of countries have changed their pension rules in a way that treats people born after a certain date differently from people born before a certain date, whether or not they express it in those terms. Is that fundamentally any different from the proposed smoking rule?

LanceH 5y ago
Theoretically that is based on actuarial data which says people are living longer and can work longer. If you can find one where people born before a certain year get a pension and people after it will never get one, then it's a like to like comparison.