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.

          • 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
              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.