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/

  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    2 months ago

    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….

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      14·
      2 months ago

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

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        ……

        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…

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          14·
          2 months ago

          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@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              14·
              2 months ago

              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@lemmy.worldEnglish
                4·
                2 months ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  13·
                  2 months ago

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

                  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    2 months ago
                    • 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……?