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 Squid@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t think so. A law specifically stopping porch pirates from stealing vaporizers?

    • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  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 Squid@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    8 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.

        • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 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 Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

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

            • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 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 Squid@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    8 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?