★ 挪威的船舶驾驶执照与代际法律

The Norwegian Maritime Authority:

If you were born in 1980 or later and plan to operate a recreational craft of more than 8 metres in length or with an engine power of more than 25 hp, you need a boating licence. The boating licence is a certificate permitting you to operate Norwegian recreational craft of less than 15 meters in length (49.21 feet) in Norwegian territory.

That’s an interesting example of generational law. It kind of sucked, I’m sure, if you were from a family of mariners and were born in 1980 and your sibling was born in 1979. You got stuck having to qualify for a license and your sibling did not. But: this is very different from an outright ban on those born after a certain year. It’s a relatively gentle change, and the cutoff had to apply somewhere. (The state of Missouri has a similar law with a birth cutoff of 1984.)

This whole topic of generational law is fascinating. I’ve gotten more emails from readers — around the world — about my post on the U.K. ban on tobacco sales to those born in 2009 or later than just about anything I’ve written about recently. Lots of amazing feedback — including a note pointing me to the above Norwegian law. I’m replying to a bunch but can’t reply to them all, and but I’m thankful for every one.

What makes the Norwegian boat licensing cutoff unobjectionable to me is that it’s not binary. It’s not saying those born in 1979 can pilot a boat and those born in 1980 cannot. It’s only saying that there’s an additional restriction on those born in 1980. A generational restriction feels fundamentally different from a generational ban. A bunch of readers who support these generational tobacco bans point to other laws with age cutoffs, like when the age for buying alcohol changed from 18 to 21. I’m sure that sucked if you wanted to drink and were 18, 19, or 20 when the limit was raised to 21 in your state. (Or if you were 17, and went from being one year away to four years away with the swoop of your governor’s pen.) But everyone turns 21 eventually. Adults putting additional restrictions on the young feels to me entirely different than adults banning the young from ever partaking in something that they — the current adults who are imposing the restriction — can continue to do in perpetuity. It’s not just a violation of the idea that all adults are equals, but to me it’s just blatantly hypocritical.

If you tell me I’m not permitted to do something, but others are, it makes me want to do that thing. And it really makes me want to give the finger to whoever is imposing the restriction. Fine for you but not for me? Fuck you.

Also, grandfathering devices (old cars don’t need to meet new emission standards) or buildings (new buildings must have elevators for accessibility, but existing buildings aren’t required to add them) feels fundamentally different from grandfathering people.

To be clear, I support the intention of these tobacco laws, but I am highly dubious about their practical effect in addition to my objections to their fairness. Some people have a tendency to focus solely on intent and not on the practical effects of the law. That if the intent is good, the law must be good. I think laws are only good when their practical effects are beneficial. A well-intentioned law with no practical benefit is needless bureaucracy; a well-intentioned law with adverse practical effects is a bad law.¹ I can’t help but think everyone who supports these generational smoking bans is stuck thinking of those below the age cut-off as the 17-year-olds they currently are. But they’re all going to be 40, 50, 60 years old eventually. It’s absurd to think about a 60-year-old man who needs to ask his 61-year-old friend to buy him smokes.

My spitball idea for a generational law to keep more young people from ever starting a tobacco habit — and thus, nicotine addiction — would be through scaled taxation. Require everyone, no matter what age, to present ID when purchasing tobacco. Set the tax rate on the year they were born, with significantly higher taxes the younger they are. But with no wild fluctuation from someone else who is a year or two apart in age. Start with the highest rate for 21-year-olds, and lower those taxes by a point or two for every additional year old someone is. In this structure, no adult would be forbidden from buying tobacco, but someone who is 21 would pay significantly more for a pack of cigarettes than someone who is 65 — but only slightly more than someone who is, say, 22 or 23. Keep increasing the base rate for everyone, every year, so that everyone, no matter how old, has to pay slightly higher prices year after year. Thus the starting price, for newly-turned-21-year-olds, would escalate annually. That feels fair, should reduce the demand for a black market, and I think would have the practical effect of decreasing the number of young people who ever start — while also minimizing the punitive costs for older adults with decades-long addictions.