> 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?