• mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is illegal. You can’t make a law that discriminated based on age. This would be effective prohibition for some adults and not others.

    • LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      The fuck are you talking about? There are all kinds of laws that make something legal or not based on someone’s age, and they often vary by state or even locale. Hell, there’s a minimum age for running for president for chryssake and it’s well past any definition of adulthood.

    • lightnegative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      What are you talking about? Plenty of laws discriminate based on age. Like, the minimum drinking age, the minimum voting age and the minimum age of consent

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        This doesn’t discriminate based on age. This creates a permant class of adults who may exercise a freedom and those who mayn’t.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            New Zealand likely doesn’t have an equal protection clause in their legal system.

          • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            So the only thing to compare itself to is basically itself. The NZ law that it is emulating is not even a year old, so it hasn’t exactly given any data on that in between generation that hasn’t yet been created. I’m not saying it won’t work, I’m just pointing out that this is the only really comparable law.