• MariaRomanov@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Not surprising. You can’t expect a company like Mastercard to open themselves up to that kind of liability.

    • Baby Shoggoth [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      What liability? These are in government-licensed facilities regulated by the same government institutions which regulate the sale of alcohol, which require you, just like a bar or liquor store do, to verify your identity and that you are an adult with a government-issued ID, where all products are subject to government testing and taxation.

      This isn’t about liability, it’s about outdated federal regulations which remain in place only because alcohol producers continue to pay off / “donate to” congresspeople to prevent a different inebriant, consumption and usage of which is demonstrably safer for both the direct consumer and the general public, from affecting alcohol profits.

      • Spacemanspliff@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        it’s about outdated federal regulations

        That’s the liability, the feds can theoretically go after it still even if the state has allowed it.