shortcake27

Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.

The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?

If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.

You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.

In 2028, the minimum age to buy cigarettes would be 20.

In 2048, it would be 40.

In 2093 (70 years from now), it would be 85.

So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would basically not exist. It ages people out of smoking. Without the law, the percentage of the population who smoke will remain relatively constant as people who turn 18 start smoking.

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.

The point isn’t to stop that particular age group from smoking; it’s to eliminate cigarettes in the long term (eg 70 years).

I’m just saying that’s how the old systems worked, as that was a limitation of the time.

A modern system doesn’t have to beep. It can tell you what it’s doing, in your language, visually on the dash and audibly. Also, there’s no reason a modern vehicle designed for this type of system needs to cut all power immediately. It could cut power or limit speed over a period of time, allowing the driver to safely pull over. And there’s no reason for it to ever cut power to steering or brakes.

I think a lot of people, yourself included, are having a visceral gut reaction instead of looking at this rationally. The people responsible for the safety of vehicles aren’t going to write a law that requires a vehicle to cut its steering and brakes while the driver is cornering, when there are so many alternatives that would be equally effective but safer. You need to take a step back and apply logic and common sense to the situation.

> the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state

You admit to CATO being biased but you still believe their studies are concrete proof of a hypothesis?

> you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.

I don’t see why it’s relevant to prove the mechanism CATO uses to get its results, when their data doesn’t line up with the real world.

I’m still looking for the exact link which has details/numbers (I’m currently on my phone on patchy 4g) but my counterpoint to CATO is that in Dunedin, either the University or DCC wanted to install surveillance cameras, and after consulting with the students, the number of cameras was reduced. So in this scenario, you have an older generation wanting more surveillance and the younger generation pushing back. This is not only completely opposite to CATOs study, but is also real opposed to hypothetical.

Thank you, I was looking for this but couldn’t find it. My comment has been corrected.

To anyone downvoting my original comment, take a look at CATO, the style of writing used in their blog posts, their other studies, and their mission statement, and decide for yourself - are they trying to accurately represent gen z, or are they pushing an agenda?

It seems like far-right-wing organisations are expending extensive effort in an attempt to discredit gen z as a generation who are happy to have all their rights sold away and/or eroded. Yet if you speak to a young person today, it doesn’t line up.

“I read a study that said X about gen z” isn’t evidence that gen z believes / does those things.

Who decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.

I think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way.

Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?

For thousands of years people have been fixing problems caused by the previous generation. Why does the buck stop with gen z?

What makes you so sure the data in your study is truly representative of gen z?

A few months ago a study was posted on HN which claimed 30% of gen z supported police cameras being installed inside homes to protect against domestic violence.

Meanwhile, in Dunedin, the number of cameras on the street was reduced in consultation with university students (aka gen z).

How can both of these statements be true? The answer is, they aren’t- the study posted on HN was fearmongering, manipulated data, trying to discredit the younger generation, to get older people to vote a specific way.

I’m a millennial but I’m sick of this rhetoric that gen z are stupid / oblivious / complicit etc. They aren’t.

> Drunk driving already has very harsh penalties

There are no penalties if you don’t get caught.

I think the OP is saying that if it’s triggered, you can override it, but a report would be filed with the police so they can investigate.

It would be ridiculous if the car just shut down and stopped immediately. I really shouldn’t have to point out that it obviously doesn’t work this way.

In-vehicle breathalysers have existed for decades. They way they work is they give you a warning that the vehicle will shut off in X amount of time. Eg 5 minutes. The car doesn’t just shut off without warning leaving you without boosted brakes or power steering mid-corner.

With modern technology, most cars could also take over control from the driver when they deem safe to do so.

So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road?