• losttourist@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is this supposed to be enforced? In a decade’s time are shopkeepers going to have to challenge anyone buying a packet of fags who looks under 28? And then later it’ll be “sorry mate, can you prove you’re 44?” and so on.

    • bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Asking for ID when buying cigarettes is not exactly an outlandish proposal. It’s already done around the current legal smoking age.

      Arguably, this proposal makes it easier, since there’s a fixed cutoff date of birth instead of calculating their age.

      • Anamana@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it legal to discriminate against people who are over 21 years old in the UK? I think you couldn’t even pass a law like that in Germany.

        • Havald@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Calling it discrimination is quite a stretch. By that logic our gun laws are discrimination, too and why can’t I buy enriched uranium in stores? I’m being discriminated against!!! Muh pearls! Some laws exist to protect people from themselves and I would welcome a law like this in Germany. Cigarettes and vapes don’t do anything that you can’t do in other ways, without harming others. Except maybe get you more breaks at work :P

          • Anamana@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I disagree. It’s not the same, because everyone can buy a gun if they have the paperwork for it (and noone can buy the uranium). It’s not only an exclusive group of old people, people with spots on their skin or people with green eyes. Otherwise it would be discrimination, because it creates differential treatment based solely on age, skin type, eye color…

            We also discriminate against young people to protect their vulnerable health via alcohol, tobacco regulations. But it’s justifiable and ‘good’ discrimination, because they’re not of age yet and need to be protected.

            I’m not smoking or anything btw so I’m not emotionally involved in this argument, I’m just curious about the debate :D

            • Havald@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not everyone can buy a gun, to get the paperwork you need to meet a somewhat arbitrary age requirement and you have to be “mentally stable”. So we are discriminating against mentally handicapped people. It makes sense, I don’t even disagree with it, just saying that it’s the same logic as op’s.

              Okay, maybe a better example: if you’re interested in becoming president you have to be at least 40. Sounds like age discrimination to me :P

              I don’t smoke so I’m not super invested in this either. However, I travel a lot by train and besides the trains always being late what annoys me most are smokers. Smoking is already banned at all train stations and bus stops but the first thing some people do when exiting a train is lighting a cigarette. In the middle of a crowd. Imo the only way to stop them from doing that in crowds is by banning smoking completely & this law is a good way to do that, but it would have to be an EU-wide measure imo. Otherwise it’s too easy to just drive to a neighbouring country and buy a pack of cigarettes.

              • Anamana@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not everyone can buy a gun, to get the paperwork you need to meet a somewhat arbitrary age requirement and you have to be “mentally stable”. So we are discriminating against mentally handicapped people.

                Sure, that’s exactly what we do. And there’s a good reason for that. I’m also not against dropping it, just because it’s discriminatory.

                Okay, maybe a better example: if you’re interested in becoming president you have to be at least 40. Sounds like age discrimination to me :P

                Sure. In this case I don’t see a rightful reason for it to exist though, which is why it has to be abolished.

                I hate second hand smoke as much as every other non-smoker, but I’m not a fan of banning smoking, just because I think it’s annoying. Let people ruin their health if they want it that bad. We live in a time where second hand smoke is almost completely avoidable. At least in Germany. With the vapes it’s even less of a problem now. If I breathe in smoke from some other guys’ cigarette once a month it won’t affect my health.

                However there’s a much much bigger problem regarding breathing in toxic fumes, which we should address immediately: cars.

                • Havald@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It is avoidable overall but it always requires an effort on my part which is the wrong way around imo.

                  Ultimately my stance on it is that it’s annoying but there’s only so much we can reasonably do about it. I don’t expect dB or the police to patrol train stations to make sure nobody is smoking. It’s largely avoidable and if people want to kill themselves then they’re free to do that. We have much bigger problems to focus on, like the one you mentioned: cars. (And maybe if more people used the train instead of cars there’d be more of an incentive make sure most of your customers aren’t being bothered by a minority)

          • KSP Atlas@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, if you have the equipment and chemicals, i think you can buy uranium ores and manually process them for a tiny amount of u235

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • Anamana@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                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.

              • Anamana@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

                  • Anamana@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    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.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not enforceable.

      India is about as united as Afghanistan. We’ll see shops in Delhi follow the law and the government enforcing it.

      Everywhere else probably won’t even know this is happening. If they did, they’ll take is as an opportunity to gauge young people buying tobacco. No law enforcement will occur.