this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
837 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39145 readers
3674 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Discrimination has an actual legal protected definition, it doesn't just mean I want to do something and I'm not allowed.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 4 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.