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/

  • Flying SquidOPEnglish
    -3•7 months ago

    Sorry, commerce laws are supposed to be vague and apply to things not specified in them? Because that sounds like a really good thing for corporations and a really bad thing for everyone else, especially when the government uses those law loopholes to its own ends.

    • @SchmidtGeneticsEnglish
      4•7 months ago

      The vape is classified as a tobacco and cannabis product. So what loophole are they using and how’s it vague?

      You realize, I only used it for X is a defense that has failed in court countless times, yeah? Theres always precedence and you want to claim ignorance of this. That doesn’t work dude.

      • Flying SquidOPEnglish
        -2•7 months ago

        Where does it say that the vaporizer is classified as something used for tobacco or cannabis in PACT?

        • @SchmidtGeneticsEnglish
          2•7 months ago
          • All electronic nicotine delivery systems (“ENDS”) and substances that can be used with ENDS are held to the same rules as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. All regulations that apply to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products now also apply to all ENDS, which is defined very broadly as “any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device.” The breadth of this language puts manufacturers of vape pens for use with liquid cannabis, CBD, or other non-nicotine liquids in the untenable position of having to try to comply with a statute intended to regulate tobacco products.

          Did YOU even read your own source……?

          • Flying SquidOPEnglish
            -1•7 months ago

            The source is an article talking about the law, not the law itself. The law itself is quoted and does not make it clear that it is also about cannabis, which is the problem.

            Laws should be clear and precise. I’m not sure why people think otherwise.

            • @SchmidtGeneticsEnglish
              2•7 months ago

              It’s covered by the fucking smoking law that covers both. It can be used for tobacco, so it’s has to be covered for all angles, even cannabis, since that’s illegal to smoke like nicotine for smoking laws………

              I’m sorry you can’t comprehend how laws are intertwined, but you’ve also had a dozen people tell you the exact same thing.

              Its not easy to explain to you that your shoe is untied is it?

              • Flying SquidOPEnglish
                0•7 months ago

                Then cannabis should be mentioned in the law. I don’t know why it can’t be.

                • @SchmidtGeneticsEnglish
                  2•7 months ago

                  Why? Because the US congress is a joke, the law would need to be amended, some Jhole is going to put some other legislation with it, or turn it into a crusade so it doesn’t pass. This works.

                  It’s a nicotine product, done.

                  • Flying SquidOPEnglish
                    -1•7 months ago

                    Does it work? Because kids don’t have to sign for a pipe or a bong.