This is a particularly lazy article. I expected Friedersdorf to engage at least perfunctorily with drug laws or seatbelt laws, but no, just a bunch of trying to troll the libs.

Here's something else that's argument-destroying: the ban doesn't apply to the people born after 2009, it applies to anyone trying to sell them tobacco or vapes. This falls under the aegis of regulation (can't sell heroin either) and applies to all sellers regardless of race, age, sex, etc, so it's not even discriminatory. Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet.

But finally, Friedersdorf talks about the dignity of making choices and dealing with the consequences. I'd love to see him make this argument to people dying slowly of COPD and emphysema, people with mouth, throat, and lung cancer, people who will die before meeting their grandkids, etc. Just, chilling detachment from humanity.

▲

mytailorisrich 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A pack of cigarettes in the UK has a huge warning that smoking kills/causes cancer/etc with a shocking picture of a potential actual outcome, too. That's in addition to all the public campaigns about the risks of smoking.

The argument that smokers were victims who didn't know hasn't held any water for decades...

▲

vrganj 11 hours ago | parent [-]

They're addicts. Whether they know it's bad or not is irrelevant.

If you ever struggle with addiction, you'll know that decision making is no longer well-reasoned or thought through. Such is addiction.

▲

mytailorisrich 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No, the addiction is irrelevant because you need to go over and ignore the anti-smoking campaigns and what's on the packs to become an addict in the first place. That's the point. It is a personal decision to start and it is a personal decision to continue (although it is of course not easy to stop once you are "addicted")

	▲	vrganj 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To start is a dumb decision one did at some point in the past. To continue is one that is no longer in your control once the addiction has taken hold. It's not a personal decision to stay addicted. Let me tell you from experience. I wanted to stop. Yet, the cravings didn't let me until I had external forcing factors. Why should we deny other addicts that same help?

▲

troad 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Here's something else that's argument-destroying: the ban doesn't apply to the people born after 2009, it applies to anyone trying to sell them tobacco or vapes. This falls under the aegis of regulation (can't sell heroin either) and applies to all sellers regardless of race, age, sex, etc, so it's not even discriminatory. Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet.

This is a terrible argument. Imagine a law that prohibited ALL vendors, regardless of age, race, sex, etc from selling to people of a certain race. Would you claim that such a law is not discriminatory, because it affects vendors of all races equally?

> particularly lazy article

> just a bunch of trying to troll the libs

> Here's something else that's argument-destroying

> Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet

> Just, chilling detachment from humanity

I don't agree with CF on many things, including this smoking ban, but I'd point out these kinds of flourishes do nothing but weaken your overall point.

▲

camgunz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> This is a terrible argument. Imagine a law that prohibited ALL vendors, regardless of age, race, sex, etc from selling to people of a certain race. Would you claim that such a law is not discriminatory, because it affects vendors of all races equally?

This isn't the same thing; race is a protected class; "birth year" isn't. Also is this a flourish: "This is a terrible argument"??? I welcome you to the land of polemics and hyperbole, united against the soul-eating bland vomit of AI compositions.

	▲	troad 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What you said is "it's not even discriminatory". Now you're moving the goal-posts to "protected class" (ie illegal discrimination versus legal discrimination). I note that the US concept of "protected class" has absolutely no relevance to the UK; the British parliament is sovereign and not bound to care at all about whichever random characteristics are enumerated among America's "protected classes". (The roughest European equivalent is the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination "on any ground", making the idea of protected classes even more redundant in this conversation. The British Equality Act explicitly does mention age. Of course, none of this is really relevant. The British parliament has the power to make its laws as discriminatory as it wants, unlike in the US, under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.) A law that imposes a general obligation to discriminate against a specific group is obviously discriminatory, and no amount of juvenile word games makes it not so. The question isn't whether this is or is not discriminatory - it clearly is - the question is whether this discrimination is justified. In thirty years, if this law stands as is, we'll have forty-seven year old men and women who cannot legally buy a product, and forty-eight year old men and women who can. We've not really had many laws like this before, so it's worth considering whether this discrimination is justified (or even workable). It's a good question, and one I don't have an answer for. It is also the question engaged in by CF in TFA, and a much more interesting question than the relatively much less sophisticated arguments you've very bombastically put forward. > united against the soul-eating bland vomit of AI compositions This seems like a total non sequitur to me. AI exists, so you don't have to comment in good faith? AI exists, therefore you get to couch bad arguments in overheated rhetoric? AI exists, therefore you get to deepen the partisan divide by lazily dismissing CF as a 'token conservative', when he's not even talking about a left-right issue?