this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
13 points (58.2% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35509 readers
944 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating"
Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined.
Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Lemmy Review
2.Lemmy Be Wholesome
3.Lemmy Shitpost
4.No Stupid Questions
5.You Should Know
6.Credible Defense
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
It’s a product for over 18/21 would you be mad for signing for alcohol?
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.
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.
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.
Weed and tobacco have the same restrictions for selling to minors, no? This can be used for both as well yeah?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where does it say that the vaporizer is classified as something used for tobacco or cannabis in PACT?
Did YOU even read your own source…..?
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.
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?
Then cannabis should be mentioned in the law. I don't know why it can't be.
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.
Does it work? Because kids don't have to sign for a pipe or a bong.
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.
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.
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!!!!!!
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.
Oil vapes smell like anything you want, lots of dry herb vapes can do both, so that’s not even an argument.
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):
Your article makes clear that the amendment to the PACT Act makes it apply broadly.
The article is about how vendors are going to have a difficult time confirming to the new regulations.
Yes, that was my point. That it was applied too broadly.
Weed. We all smoke weed.
I was fine saying weed in the body, I just thought it was best avoided in the headline.
It’s customary to call it “sticky icky” in titles. May it ever be thus.
Ok, buddy. There's not any indication that's even a law and not just policy from the company selling the device.
"Recent regulations" means law. Companies don't call their own policies regulations, they call them policies.
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?
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?
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.
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?
Dude, you're going off the rails...