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/
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.
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.
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.
I bought it directly from the manufacturer.
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.
Ok, fair point, but I think that supports what the article says, which is that PACT is way too vague.