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 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are there any examples that increase by one year every year?

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes - New Zealand introduced this policy first.

[–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago

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