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/
Are you seriously complaining about requiring a signature? Why should weed paraphernalia be treated any differently to tobacco?
Since it requires me to be at home when I’ve never had to for this before? Yes.
And it should be treated differently because the law is about tobacco. if they want to make it about weed, they should specify that.
I think you may be forgetting that weed is illegal, federally. The product you’re buying is for tobacco – officially – because if it weren’t it would be a federal crime to ship it across state borders.
You don’t have to sign for a bong, despite it officially being used for tobacco.
But it doesn’t contain tobacco (at the time of delivery) and isn’t electronic.
Same with the vaporizer I bought.
The vaporizer is electronic
I think I’d know whether or not the thing I bought was electronic. Especially since it was a replacement for the same thing which I bought once before.
I could see it in the specific case of a cheap (steam) vape pen purchased without debit/bank card off of a general store site. They check the mail and pocket it, get vape juice from somebody. Charge+fill and it’s ready in a pocket or backpack etc. Similar for concentrates, portable dry vaporizers (or something like dynavap) maybe a bit less.
A $100+ desktop dry vaporizer purchased from a dedicated website seems like it’d be harder to hide unless parents are really inattentive. Miss the credit/debit record, miss the delivery at the door, then them carrying it in (+branded boxes), a dedicated spot in their room where it’s plugged in, and an almost ritual to properly heat up the glass/material that might give it away (glass clinking, balloon bag filling, fan on/off etc).
Yep. It was a dry vaporizer. From Vapor Genie if anyone is curious. It is definitely not intended to be used for tobacco. I think it would just burn the tobacco rather than vaporizing it.
I think it would just burn the tobacco rather than vaporizing it
I mean if the temperature is set low enough (also convection) it should prevent combustion(/harmful byproducts) for most materials. Like under 200C especially.
Although I’m not sure vaporizing tobacco intended for smoking would taste all that great and smokers generally don’t seem to care anyway. Sounds gross to me, then again so does nicotine in general.
In this particular case, it’s not an electronic vaporizer, it uses a butane flame as the heating element, so the temperature would not get low enough. Works great for cannabis though.
I saw that after posting. I’m not sure if the shipping law depends on the product but I got an Extreme Q from Arizer years ago and just checked: there is no mention of a required signature (though being a desktop unit and twice the price, it is a different product).
So maybe you could’ve just bought from somewhere else, assuming this is the seller being overly cautious and not a wide-sweeping law.
I bought it directly from the manufacturer.
My point is, going by the language in what you linked, the manufacturer you went with sells neither electronic devices nor devices that facilitate the use of any liquids/oils. So it does seem like their dumb policy/cautiousness not them being forced, though I am not a lawyer. Even being strict, if there was a device they sold that fell under the law I think it’d be the torches, as you said if someone has a lighter and material+paper or anything else that’s all that’s needed for smoking.
I was pointing out another manufacturer (quite popular/known and they only do electronic stuff, but AFAIK nothing for liquid/oils) and they have not bothered with this policy at all. They do allow the customer to request a signature check, but that’s all I see.
Ok, fair point, but I think that supports what the article says, which is that PACT is way too vague.
I know tobacco laws in this country (USA) are archaic. It seems like this ties into tax laws more since tobacco regulation and taxing is determined by locality. And by restricting federal handling they can push this closer to the localities instead of a federal blanket of laws
Also notice this line; "…aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device.”
They know it might be used for cannabis. It’s just like how non-alcoholic beer falls under alcohol regulations even though it should be treated like normal beverages. Good examples of old laws not properly reflecting the current timesdeleted by creator
Porch pirates.
I don’t think so. A law specifically stopping porch pirates from stealing vaporizers?
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.
It’s so they aren’t shipping to minors….
Well, yes, now that OP quit dancing around his vape pen use and provided a source, I see that.
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.
It’s a product for over 18/21 would you be mad for signing for alcohol?
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.
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.
Except it turns out that this law is about tobacco and not weed at all- https://dclcorp.com/blog/news/pact-act-impacts-vape-industry/
So making me sign for this cannabis vaporizer will definitely have a big impact on the tobacco industry.
Weed. We all smoke weed.
I was fine saying weed in the body, I just thought it was best avoided in the headline.
It’s customary to call it “sticky icky” in titles. May it ever be thus.
Ok, buddy. There’s not any indication that’s even a law and not just policy from the company selling the device.
“Recent regulations” means law. Companies don’t call their own policies regulations, they call them policies.
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?
Sure. I just added it in an edit.
https://dclcorp.com/blog/news/pact-act-impacts-vape-industry/
I really don’t know why you think they would say that recent regulations require a signature if it wasn’t true that recent regulations required a signature. Just lying for the hell of it?
It’s for the same reason you need to show ID if you have alcohol delivered
You don’t have to sign for a bong.
Bongs aren’t electronic. That’s, seemingly, the line in the law.
Neither is the vaporizer I bought.
The vaporizer isn’t electronic?
Nope. Vapor Genie. Look it up.
I suppose it’s an oversight in the law then
