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/
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…….
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.
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.