[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?