[Daviey]

> Why not just pass a law that says people born after 2008 have to pay higher taxes, and work longer hours for less pay? People should be equal under the law.

We already do this, the UK State Pension age is currently rising from 66 to 67 for those born on or after April 6, 1960.

This change affects, for example, those born between April 1960 and March 1961, who will have a pension age of 66 plus a set number of months.

When I was young, it was 65 for men and 60 for women (from the 1940s until 2010)

[scoofy]

I mean, that's a practical and relatively small adjustment where the far-and-away majority of the voting populous are the people who are affected by the change. Yes, if you wanted to nitpick there, you could, there is a very small injustice there, but this is completely different.

My point here is that this is under 18s currently have no representation, and they're passing laws that will forever treat them as a kind of underclass, "for their own good." It's genuinely ridiculous that it's allowed to happen. In doing this, the UK -- for all it's progress a creating a mostly symbolic nobility -- will now allow a new kind of class system to emerge, where the young can be overtly dominated and discriminated against by the old. It's ridiculous. People should be equal under the law.

[OkayPhysicist]

See, that at least affects a big enough swath of voters that they could, if mattered to them, vote everyone involved out. This smoking ban is specifically designed to not affect a single voter.

[Daviey]

I can't agree with this. When they become voters, if enough people of that age bracket wanted to reversed it then they could elect a party that has it in their manifesto.

For example, some parties have a cannabis pledge and not enough people have wanted it as yet.

My son is 16, and will be impacted by this ban. He is constantly exposed to the temptation to smoke and vape. As a responsible parent, I want to do everything I possibly can to protect him and not become addicted.

We know that nearly all smoking starts before 26.

  - ~90% of daily smokers first tried cigarettes by age 18
  - ~95% had their first cigarette by age 20-21 (American Lung Association)
  - 98% first smoked by age 26 (National Cancer Institute)

So the probability of starting smoking after 21 is roughly 2-5%. If someone hasn't started smoking by 21, they almost certainly never will. The brain's decision-making capacity isn't fully mature until ~25. People are getting hooked before they're neurologically equipped to properly evaluate the risk. People do not start smoking when they are grown-ass-adults.

We owe our young people this protection, and I am a liberal.

But to take your point to full conclusion, Brexit was decided by the people that it impacts the least. And, "Since the Brexit referendum, 4+m voters have died (mainly Leavers), while almost 5m have reached voting age (overwhelmingly Remain), There is now a 1.6m majority for Remain - without anyone needing to change their minds". - https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/anti-brexit-britain-has-reache... - June 2023

[scoofy]

Then ban smoking under 26 for everyone under 26. That would be a sensible law.

What is proposed is something very different in kind.

[Daviey]

Yeah, that seems a sensible compromise.

[scoofy]

Compromise, sure. I'm an ex-smoker, we can make smoking completely illegal for all I care. Again, I just think it's absurd that a government can think it is in any way legitimate to pass a law that only affects one class of people and passes it only when that class of people have no representation in government. That is a kind of tyranny, we shouldn't pretend it's not.

[HDBaseT]

I predominantly agree with your comment, although framing the way the legal system works as just "elect a party who says they want to remove it" is fairly short sighted in my opinion.

It is much easier to pass new laws, then to remove old laws. Parties also tend to not get elected because of promises for law adjustments, its primarily based upon policy adjustments and most people aren't single issue voters, the want to smoke might be a consideration for some people but even the most diehard smokers probably have 20 other things more important on their mind when at the voting booth.

[IshKebab]

> they could elect a part that has it in their manifesto

You can't seriously be naive enough to think that's how party politics works?