847
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
847 points (100.0% liked)
World News
39110 readers
2567 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
Let's hope it will turn out like you said, I'm all for it.
Discrimination has an actual legal protected definition, it doesn't just mean I want to do something and I'm not allowed.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why not right now? Waiting 20 years is such a ridiculous and unnecessary scenario
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.
I think you answered your own question.