|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 17, 2024 11:13:49 GMT
The only rights that differ between different adults are benefits and sentencing anomolies for so called hate crimes. Equality law prohibits different behaviour being allowed/ required for adults of different ages. This is completely untrue! (ref your first line) For example, I can legally fly a plane. You can't. I can only fly a plane if I have a medical. No medical, no fly. (and ref your second line) I cannot fly public transport single pilot once I reach the age of 60. Or 65 for 2 pilot. Very ageist. I need to remember to renew my driving licence when I reach 70. And a thousand other things that give different adults different "rights" depending on various things including age. Naturally their are exceptions related to safety. The law however states that you cannot discriminate on the basis of age. Therefore, 10 years from now, a 24 year old being able to buy nicotine products but a 23 year old not so, would discriminate on exactly this basis, and this basis alone.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 17, 2024 11:16:19 GMT
The only rights that differ between different adults are benefits and sentencing anomolies for so called hate crimes. Equality law prohibits different behaviour being allowed/ required for adults of different ages. This is completely untrue! (ref your first line) For example, I can legally fly a plane. You can't. I can only fly a plane if I have a medical. No medical, no fly. (and ref your second line) I cannot fly public transport single pilot once I reach the age of 60. Or 65 for 2 pilot. Very ageist. I need to remember to renew my driving licence when I reach 70. And a thousand other things that give different adults different "rights" depending on various things including age. Something done under licence is by definition not "a right".
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 11:34:59 GMT
This is completely untrue! (ref your first line) For example, I can legally fly a plane. You can't. I can only fly a plane if I have a medical. No medical, no fly. (and ref your second line) I cannot fly public transport single pilot once I reach the age of 60. Or 65 for 2 pilot. Very ageist. I need to remember to renew my driving licence when I reach 70. And a thousand other things that give different adults different "rights" depending on various things including age. Naturally their are exceptions related to safety. The law however states that you cannot discriminate on the basis of age. Therefore, 10 years from now, a 24 year old being able to buy nicotine products but a 23 year old not so, would discriminate on exactly this basis, and this basis alone. Are so there are exceptions then! And how is a pilot aged 64 and 364 days (who lives a healthy lifestyle), safer than another pilot aged 65 and 1 day (who smokes and drinks too much). It is pure discrimination based on age, there is no science behind it. Edit: wrong way round in my bracketed comments but I can’t be bothered to change it!
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 17, 2024 11:38:33 GMT
Mr Stabby covered your point regarding pilots. The same theory would apply to car licences.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 11:56:05 GMT
Mr Stabby covered your point regarding pilots. The same theory would apply to car licences. No. Agreed you need a car licence to drive a car, but for the vast majority this licence doesn’t need to be renewed. Until you hit 70 that is. There is no science behind it. Someone just decided to make people renew their licences when they hit 70. Pure age discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 17, 2024 12:00:56 GMT
As Mr Stabby expalined, there is no inherent right to a licenced activity. Therefore terms can be attached to a licence which would be illegal for matters which were rights.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 12:13:47 GMT
As Mr Stabby expalined, there is no inherent right to a licenced activity. Therefore terms can be attached to a licence which would be illegal for matters which were rights. There is no right to smoke either, so I don’t really see your point. Permission to smoke is already age related, they are just changing the rules a bit.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 17, 2024 12:21:08 GMT
One wonders how it would be enforced.
Seeing as presumably the age is a moving target will people who are fortunate enough to look younger than they are be targeted by little Hitler (or big Hitler) enforcement agents?
How would a shop owner be expected to know if someone was born before or after 2009?
Both my girls were born after 2009. Neither of them will smoke but it seems odd if their right to do so as adults is curtailed.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 17, 2024 12:22:04 GMT
As Mr Stabby expalined, there is no inherent right to a licenced activity. Therefore terms can be attached to a licence which would be illegal for matters which were rights. There is no right to smoke either, so I don’t really see your point. Permission to smoke is already age related, they are just changing the rules a bit. There is indeed a right to smoke. Once you're 18. No licence is required. Many activities are age limited (adults/ non-adults) but there are no rights which some adults may enjoy, but others may not. Rights, rather than entitlement.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 12:28:12 GMT
There is no right to smoke either, so I don’t really see your point. Permission to smoke is already age related, they are just changing the rules a bit. There is indeed a right to smoke. Once you're 18. No licence is required. Many activities are age limited (adults/ non-adults) but there are no rights which some adults may enjoy, but others may not. Rights, rather than entitlement. Can you point out where this alleged right to smoke is laid down? Obviously if you are prepared to invent your own set of rights and entitlements, you can make it fit the agenda of your argument. But it’s not very convincing. The “right to work” is another one. Some adults have an (alleged) right to get a job, some don’t. How awful! Some workers have a right to go on strike, some don’t. How absolutely not very nice!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 17, 2024 12:47:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Apr 17, 2024 12:48:17 GMT
Never had a desire to smoke(Ido like a little drinky),but I find the idea of totally banning something rather draconian. What will they ban next ? Folks should have the choice,plus I suspect banning smoking will actually make it more desirable for some...county lines gangs with illicit ciggies ? Yes,of course I understand the health issues behind the idea-but I just don't feel comfortable with the total Big Brother' ban.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Apr 17, 2024 13:12:28 GMT
As I see it, only the right to buy tobacco will be curtailed. The act of smoking is not included. Neither is the act of an 'adult' affected in purchasing tobacco for consumption by under age individuals, YET. When there is nothing more serious to discuss in Parliament, or to govern, then close to the terminal days of a parliament are filled out with such relatively trivial nonsense. theresa May's equivalent was the Modern Slavery Act, which hasn't made much difference except giving the lawyers another stick to beat the immigration controls and earn lots of legal aid payments.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 17, 2024 13:31:06 GMT
There is indeed a right to smoke. Once you're 18. No licence is required. Many activities are age limited (adults/ non-adults) but there are no rights which some adults may enjoy, but others may not. Rights, rather than entitlement. Can you point out where this alleged right to smoke is laid down? Obviously if you are prepared to invent your own set of rights and entitlements, you can make it fit the agenda of your argument. But it’s not very convincing. The “right to work” is another one. Some adults have an (alleged) right to get a job, some don’t. How awful! Some workers have a right to go on strike, some don’t. How absolutely not very nice! You have the right to do whatever you like, as long as it isn't illegal. There isn't an automatic right to strike because a worker has traded their freedom to stay at home/ go fishing/ yell moronic repetitive chants whilst burning lots of wood in an oil drum etc. etc., for a salary.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 16:53:34 GMT
Can you point out where this alleged right to smoke is laid down? Obviously if you are prepared to invent your own set of rights and entitlements, you can make it fit the agenda of your argument. But it’s not very convincing. The “right to work” is another one. Some adults have an (alleged) right to get a job, some don’t. How awful! Some workers have a right to go on strike, some don’t. How absolutely not very nice! You have the right to do whatever you like, as long as it isn't illegal. There isn't an automatic right to strike because a worker has traded their freedom to stay at home/ go fishing/ yell moronic repetitive chants whilst burning lots of wood in an oil drum etc. etc., for a salary. As I said earlier, if you want to invent rights and non-rights then you are going to superficially win the argument, but without convincing anyone else. I say that there are no rights nor freedoms, we are all doing exactly what we are instructed to do by the white mice, we just don't realise it yet.
|
|