What is this? Some sort of ‘protect the children because they’re totally not using apples and soda cans’ bullshit?

Why is this in any way necessary or even useful?

Edit: Just discovered this was about tobacco, making this even stupider since this product isn’t for tobacco, it’s for cannabis. https://dclcorp.com/blog/news/pact-act-impacts-vape-industry/

  • @RainfallSonata
    link
    English
    4
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I mean, if enough vaporizers have to be re-shipped because they were stolen before they’re received, yes, of course. You’re not going to expect to pay a second time for something you never received. The insurance company (I assume this is medical use?) or the supplier doesn’t want to pay a second time. Of course they’re going to make you sign. It’s not a law to stop porch pirates, it’s a law to reduce costs.

    • @SchmidtGenetics
      link
      English
      68 months ago

      It’s so they aren’t shipping to minors….

      • @RainfallSonata
        link
        English
        28 months ago

        Well, yes, now that OP quit dancing around his vape pen use and provided a source, I see that.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      English
      -18 months ago

      It’s not a medical vaporizer but yes, it is for medical use. The ‘certain substance’ is definitely the issue here considering the stupid drug war.

      • @SchmidtGenetics
        link
        English
        6
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It’s a product for over 18/21 would you be mad for signing for alcohol?

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          English
          28 months ago

          It’s not weed itself. It’s also never been a regulation before this year.

          Would I be mad signing for alcohol? No.

          Would I be mad signing for a cocktail shaker? Yes.

          • @SchmidtGenetics
            link
            English
            58 months ago

            If alcohol needed an implement to consume I would have no doubt it would be controlled as well.

            Headshops aren’t suppose to sell to minors, since they were skirting the law, now new laws have come out to handle it.

              • @SchmidtGenetics
                link
                English
                5
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Weed and tobacco have the same restrictions for selling to minors, no? This can be used for both as well yeah?

                • Flying SquidOP
                  link
                  English
                  -48 months ago

                  Did you even read the article? The law is called PACT, which stands for “Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking.” It has absolutely nothing to do with cannabis.

                  Incidentally, you can also use vaporizers for CBD products, and there are no legal age requirements for CBD in many states.

                  • @SchmidtGenetics
                    link
                    English
                    6
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Do you not comprehend this can be used for stuff illegally for minors, so hence the need to sign to prove not a minor…?

                    Tobacco/THC doesn’t matter, it can be used. Great you can use it for potpourri or cbd, doesn’t mean it’s not an implement to consume other products illegally if you’re underage.

                  • AmidFuror
                    link
                    fedilink
                    48 months ago

                    Your article makes clear that the amendment to the PACT Act makes it apply broadly.

                    …"any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device.”

                    The article is about how vendors are going to have a difficult time confirming to the new regulations.

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          English
          -28 months ago

          I was fine saying weed in the body, I just thought it was best avoided in the headline.

      • @RainfallSonata
        link
        English
        38 months ago

        Ok, buddy. There’s not any indication that’s even a law and not just policy from the company selling the device.

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          English
          -28 months ago

          “Recent regulations” means law. Companies don’t call their own policies regulations, they call them policies.

          • @RainfallSonata
            link
            English
            38 months ago

            That doesn’t mean the law says signatures are required. It could only be how the company chose to respond to the law. Got a citation?

              • @RainfallSonata
                link
                English
                48 months ago

                Take off your tinfoil hat. Maybe set down the vape. Lying? I was responding to incomplete information. Not everything’s a conspiracy. This is an old law now being applied to new technology. Nothing infuriating about it.

                • Flying SquidOP
                  link
                  English
                  -28 months ago

                  I have a tinfoil hat because you were the one claiming that a site saying that there were new regulations requiring something was a lie?