[shortcake27]

You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.

In 2028, the minimum age to buy cigarettes would be 20.

In 2048, it would be 40.

In 2093 (70 years from now), it would be 85.

So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would basically not exist. It ages people out of smoking. Without the law, the percentage of the population who smoke will remain relatively constant as people who turn 18 start smoking.

[dragonwriter]

> So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would

... all be criminals.

Prohibiting addictive substances that have a sufficient penetration doesn't eliminate use.

[avgcorrection]

> You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.

No, that’s exactly how I understood it... which is categorically different from laws like a minimum voting age.

[shortcake27]

Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.

The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?

If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.

[avgcorrection]

> Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.

Don’t pivot. You claimed that I didn’t understand the law. Then you explained the law to me (thanks, by the way) exactly as I understood it.

> Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.

> The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?

Oh I see: if the law is implemented and there is no backfire effect for 65 years then how could there be a backfire effect! This is like arguing in 1920 that Prohibition won’t backfire since people in 2020 won’t remember what alcohol being legal was like.

> If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.

Oh give me a break! I am not changing my argument! I corrected your “correction” of how I “don’t understand” the law. That was the whole point of my comment.

You can have your “argument victory” for all I care.