It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do? Seems borderline psychopathic. Kinda sums up democracy in current times though.

If future generations want to smoke, they can change the law as easily as yours passed it.

Running government budgets further and further into deficit, believing that, as a result, your children will, some day, be in a stronger financial position to repay the resulting debt that, until that day, continues to grow at an ever-increasing rate?

That seems psychopathic.

Given the population pyramid, it would be impossible for them to change the law until they are well into old age.

You both have good points.

That's not how politics works, and you probably know it. "Easily passing laws" is not a matter of voting demographics but of political power, and any thinking person knows political power usually does not belong to younger voters.

> It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do?

You do realize that this is what basically every single law in existence does, right?

That my kids, and likely yours, once they're adults, can't drive under the influence, rob a bank, impersonate a cop, lie under oath, exercise medecine without a licence, walk downtown naked, jaywalk, evade taxes, criticize the King?

Well to be fair, it's not that they can't, it's that society is telling them there will be repercussions if they're caught. You can still technically do whatever you want.

Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.

I've seen confusion about this before with people that I know.

You tell them it's against the law to drink, and they'll point out that it's restrictive and controlling. You tell them it's against the law to commit tax fraud, and they'll have no objection.

Why? I think, at least with the people that I know, it's related to what they want to be able to do. They want to be able to drink alcohol, so it feels controlling to tell them they can't. They aren't interested in committing tax fraud, so they're not bothered by that being restricted.

If you check it the other way around, you'll get consistency. Almost everyone that is against taxation is also against restrictions on consuming drink.

If you ask an addict then yeah you'll get some gibberish that enables them whether it fits into a logical paradigm or not.

I think it's also because a lot of people act like laws are passed down by god, immutable.

Reminder that slavery was legal.

you can but they can't. just plain hypocrisy.

I don't think this law is getting voted into existence by smokers, though.

The distinction here is, this law is a do as I say not as I do. Different laws for different dob ( dob not age )

Why would someone be pro-tobacco without a financial motive? What’s your angle on pushing this crap?

People have been using tobacco for many thousands of years. if they want to use it knowing full well the consequences, they should be able to. Unless we also ban things like skydiving, rock climbing, and fast cars and motorcycles, it makes no sense to me.

Why isn't prohibiting something known to cause harm a good thing? Plus, smoking doesn't just harm the individual doing it, its harm extends to those in the immediate (and sometimes not so immediate) vicinity, as well as the environment. There is literally zero good to gain from it.