| > 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. |