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/
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 and tobacco have the same restrictions for selling to minors, no? This can be used for both as well yeah?
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.
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.
So can cocktail shakers. So is there a need to sign for a cocktail shaker?
And, again, read the article. This is about tobacco. It’s very clear.
Your article makes clear that the amendment to the PACT Act makes it apply broadly.
The article is about how vendors are going to have a difficult time confirming to the new regulations.
Yes, that was my point. That it was applied too broadly.
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?
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.
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?
Dude, you’re going off the rails…