Had to buy a certain product to use a certain substance and there's a really stupid new law.

Mildly Infuriating@lemmy.world – 13 points – 5 months ago

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/

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

How about this? You provide evidence to support the idea that this law was in any way intended to restrict minors from using cannabis. I'll wait.

It prevented minors from buying. The ultimate goal was to limit the pathways that tobacco and related products can get to minors. There was a greater emphasis on online retail because it was harder to track the age of consumers.

A vape is a tobacco product and a cannabis product.

“Related” fits the term for cannabis, both are illegal to sell to minors, and both are usually covered by the same law.

Give your head a shake dude, you think you can buy this just because you want to use it for CBD when it can absolutely be bought and used by a minor if it’s “for cannabis” and not explicitly tobacco….?

The law is to prevent implements to consume to minors, which is illegal……..

Now you're being dishonest. You have no idea what "and related products" means, you're just guessing. I'm not even sure how cannabis is related to tobacco.

That is not evidence to support your claim.

Is tobacco illegal to sell to minors?

Is cannabis illegal to sell to minors?

If the answer to both of these questions are yes, and you are still arguing, you need to seriously re-read cannabis and tobacco laws….

Again, that is not evidence that PACT was intended to restrict minors from using cannabis. It doesn't sound like you have evidence.

…..

Do you seriously want them to make a second law when tobacco already covers the sale to minor part? I’m sure most other people can draw this parallel…

I understand this is your opinion. Opinions are not evidence. And yes, laws are supposed to be very precise, especially when dealing with commerce.

It’s not my opinion, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars when the laws already cover themselves. It’s illegal because it’s illegal for tobacco, and tobacco and cannabis have the same restrictions. So to restrict one with a law, automatically restricts the other, which is an extremely efficient way to make laws and legislation.

I’m sorry you seem to have a misunderstanding of how laws work. Sober up and reread this dude, seriously.

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.

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.

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

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…..?

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.

10 more...