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/

  • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
    8·
    6 months ago

    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).

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      34·
      6 months ago

      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@kbin.social
        3·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          23·
          6 months ago

          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@kbin.social
            3·
            6 months ago

            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.

              • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
                21·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  22·
                  6 months ago

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

  • Shawdow194@kbin.social
    3·
    6 months ago

    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

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      106·
      6 months ago

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

      • RainfallSonata@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        6 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.