Hacker News Reader

But it’s not arbitrarily discriminating based on age; it’s using age as a (reasonable) proxy for whether or not you might have an existing dependency on nicotine.

Would you consider laws saying ‘drivers who predate the requirement for a licence do not require one’ to be discriminatory?

View on HN

If it was permanent, as this law was intended to be, then yes. I think that when someone born after 2008 hits their country's decided upon age of majority, they should be able to smoke, drink, or take part in any other of societies vices should they so choose.

The problem with smoking in particular is that it costs taxpayers obscene amounts of money compared to the other things you listed, in addition to straining the healthcare system which affects people who didn’t intentionally poison themselves.

Cigarettes are also a public nuisance, littering the streets and affecting other people with smoke. I can’t open the windows in my house due to chain smoking neighbours. These people have a right to smoke, yet I don’t have a right to breathe clean air in my own home - pretty unfair if you ask me.

Preach

Reply on news.ycombinator.com