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?

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago
      • It prevented minors from buying. The ultimate goal was to limit the pathways that tobacco and related products can get to minors. There was a greater emphasis on online retail because it was harder to track the age of consumers.

      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………

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          6 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
            0·
            6 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
              0·
              6 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
                0·
                6 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
                  0·
                  6 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
                    0·
                    6 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.