• pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    This does seem super anti democratic. Banning things for only people of a specific group made up of people who were born into it is pretty gross no matter what it is. If it’s worth banning then it should be banned for everyone. Or no one.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is like Texas when they had dry counties. This didn’t stop people from drinking they just drove futher to buy it. This law is dumb they are now going lose tax dollars to the next towm over.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        How do you stop a Mormon from drinking your alcohol?

        Invite 2.

        I don’t really know Mormons but for some reason I remember that joke.

      • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Effectively banning something for a group of people who had no choice about being in that group. If you can’t ban something for yourself then it shouldn’t be banned for others.

        • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          All I’m reading is the government isn’t banning the sale is a market that has already been exploited.

          • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s a very weaseling way to describe it though. It may hold legal water, but you have to be willfully ignorant to not see how it’s banning a group of people buying something based on the group they were born into.

            • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              It should be banned for everyone. This exception is just allowing the businesses to wind down slowly.

              Did I get a choice being in the group that these people marketed their poison to? What about my rights to have safe products available?

              It’s not anti democratic to make laws against harmful things. Specifically harmful things that make you quickly chemically dependent on it.

              • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                It’s not anti democratic to make laws against harmful things. Specifically harmful things that make you quickly chemically dependent on it.

                I didn’t say it was. Banning only a specific group is what’s anti democratic.

                • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Listen we already have age restrictions on different drugs, this is just progressively raising the age limit on a specific one.

                  The alternative is ban them outright, putting thousands of people immediately out of work, leave small businesses with thousands of dollars of garbage stock, and leave addicts without any supply.

                  Do you think that or continuing unrestricted sales are better options? Go cry more, stop advocating to flip the table.

                  • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    You’re pleasant. That’s very tortured logic to avoid the obvious that they’re banning other people from using something that they aren’t willing to ban for themselves.

      • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        They don’t do it for alcohol. Kids eventually become adults and old enough to make their own choices and decide to buy alcohol not. This law would ban people born too late from ever being allowed to buy.

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Alcohol has an age requirement that stays where it is, if you’re 20, you can buy it in a year. This would be if you’re 23 right now, the age requirement is 24. Next year, you’ll be 24 and the requirement is 25. In 50 years, you’ll be 74 and the requirement is 75, until eventually no one alive is old enough to smoke.

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        This is a law banning current generations and all following them from the product. This isn’t your average, everyday prohibition.

        Not sure if I’m for it or against it, but it is certainly something to pay attention to.