3 ms·
A century isn't very long. I guess things have changed somewhat since then, but age isn't a very convincing argument against these regulations imo. Having to up
by kulahan 1y ago
A century isn't very long. I guess things have changed somewhat since then, but age isn't a very convincing argument against these regulations imo. Having to update all of this every hundred years sounds exhausting to me.
- bb88 1y agoFortunately, we pay people who are called "legislators" who pass laws and are paid to pass legislation to fix problems like this and update laws when they become outdated.
- array_key_first 1y agoUpdating laws every 100 years to keep up with technology sounds perfectly reasonable and actually, like, super cheap. I wouldn't expect most things from 1920 to still apply today. I can't smoke inside and I don't have to drink ethanol.
- kulahan 1y agoThere's nothing techy about cigarettes, and you can still vape inside in lots of places, so 100 years really is either too much or not enough anyways. Maybe we shouldn't regulate things that are so flimsy?
- array_key_first 1y agoAh yes, the classic solution: it's slightly challenging so let's do nothing instead and hope for the best. This usually doesn't work out.
- kulahan 1y agoI never said to do nothing, so this is a pretty lame strawman.
- array_key_first 1y agoYes you did, you said "let's not regulate things that are flimsy" and your example was smoking (???) because we have vapes now (???) and so effectively people still smoke inside (???) Really? We can't even regulate smoking? That's too far for you? Jesus Christ. If this isn't "we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" then I don't know what is. Yes, regulations are not perfect and do have to be updated. That doesn't mean theyre worthless and we shouldn't bother. Thats stupid.