Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

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

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/

Slippery_Snake874 ,

It's for the same reason you need to show ID if you have alcohol delivered

FlyingSquid OP ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You don't have to sign for a bong.

gregorum ,
@gregorum@lemm.ee avatar

Bongs aren’t electronic. That’s, seemingly, the line in the law.

FlyingSquid OP ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Neither is the vaporizer I bought.

gregorum ,
@gregorum@lemm.ee avatar

The vaporizer isn’t electronic?

FlyingSquid OP ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Nope. Vapor Genie. Look it up.

gregorum ,
@gregorum@lemm.ee avatar

I suppose it’s an oversight in the law then

Shawdow194 ,
@Shawdow194@kbin.social avatar

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 times

Blueberrydreamer ,

Are you seriously complaining about requiring a signature? Why should weed paraphernalia be treated any differently to tobacco?

FlyingSquid OP ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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.

admiralteal ,

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.

FlyingSquid OP ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You don't have to sign for a bong, despite it officially being used for tobacco.

gregorum , (edited )
@gregorum@lemm.ee avatar

But it doesn’t contain tobacco (at the time of delivery) and isn’t electronic.

FlyingSquid OP ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Same with the vaporizer I bought.

gregorum ,
@gregorum@lemm.ee avatar

The vaporizer is electronic

FlyingSquid OP ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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.

gregorum ,
@gregorum@lemm.ee avatar

I understand that. As you can see by the other comment I left, I think it’s just an oversight in the law.

Dkarma ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    insomniac_lemon ,
    @insomniac_lemon@kbin.social avatar

    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).

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    insomniac_lemon ,
    @insomniac_lemon@kbin.social avatar

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    insomniac_lemon ,
    @insomniac_lemon@kbin.social avatar

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I bought it directly from the manufacturer.

    insomniac_lemon ,
    @insomniac_lemon@kbin.social avatar

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Ok, fair point, but I think that supports what the article says, which is that PACT is way too vague.

    RainfallSonata ,

    Porch pirates.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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

    RainfallSonata ,

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    RainfallSonata ,

    Ok, buddy. There's not any indication that's even a law and not just policy from the company selling the device.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    "Recent regulations" means law. Companies don't call their own policies regulations, they call them policies.

    RainfallSonata ,

    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?

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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?

    RainfallSonata ,

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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?

    RainfallSonata ,

    Dude, you're going off the rails...

    WeirdGoesPro ,
    @WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Weed. We all smoke weed.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I was fine saying weed in the body, I just thought it was best avoided in the headline.

    WeirdGoesPro ,
    @WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    It’s customary to call it “sticky icky” in titles. May it ever be thus.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    It’s a product for over 18/21 would you be mad for signing for alcohol?

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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 ,

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    Weed and tobacco have the same restrictions for selling to minors, no? This can be used for both as well yeah?

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    SchmidtGenetics , (edited )

    A cocktail shaker isn’t required to consume alcohol, while cannabis or tobacco need implements….

    I’ve read the article, can you not understand that both are illegal for minors to consume, so going to head shop instead of a Tabacco shop isn’t suddenly going to make it legal to sell to minors dude…..

    Since it’s illegal for Tobacco that extends to other illegal stuff as well, not a hard concept to wrap around dude.

    A vape is a tobacco product, it’s also a cannabis product, who thunk…….

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    SchmidtGenetics ,
    • 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……..

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    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….

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    …..

    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…

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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

    SchmidtGenetics ,
    • 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…..?

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    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?

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    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.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    Can a kid go into a headshop and buy one? Bongs can get there too if it’s an issue, but you don’t see many people hitting bongs on the street, while anyone can “discretely” use a vape and you don’t know what it is, and that can also be another issue.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    A kid can't go into a head shop and buy a vaporizer either. Because kids can't go into head shops. This isn't about head shops. This is about ordering things over the internet. If you order a cannabis vaporizer online, which is less common to imbibe weed with and generally more expensive, you have to sign for it when it's delivered. If you order a bong or a pipe online, you don't. That makes zero sense.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    Because one can be used on the street where it’s illegal to use nicotine and cannabis, while the other is painfully obvious you are breaking federal law if you were to do so.

    Vaping makes it easier to smoke illegally in public, nicotine and cannabis. And now it’s also getting in the hands of minors where they can do both in public and no one would know. Thats the fucking problem. It’s illegal to smoke in public, now minors are involved.

    But officer it’s legal CBD! It’s illegal to smoke in public!!!!!!

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    So you're saying this stops kids from using cannabis on the street (despite the fact that cannabis vaporizers also smell) but in no other way stops them using it? What's the point of that? They just go use it in the park anyway.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    Oil vapes smell like anything you want, lots of dry herb vapes can do both, so that’s not even an argument.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    You responded to a tiny part of my overall post which wasn't especially relevant. That is very dishonest. Please respond to the rest. I will repost it without that part since you have addressed it (not to my satisfaction, but we won't go into that):

    So you’re saying this stops kids from using cannabis on the street but in no other way stops them using it? What’s the point of that? They just go use it in the park anyway.

    AmidFuror ,

    Your article makes clear that the amendment to the PACT Act makes it apply broadly.

    ..."any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device.”

    The article is about how vendors are going to have a difficult time confirming to the new regulations.

    FlyingSquid OP ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes, that was my point. That it was applied too broadly.

    SchmidtGenetics ,

    It’s so they aren’t shipping to minors….

    RainfallSonata ,

    Well, yes, now that OP quit dancing around his vape pen use and provided a source, I see that.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •