Hey sonic check out VaporSearchUSA you may end up having a brick and mortar shop closer than you think.
Glad to see your back
Glad to see your back
California Vapers - Newbie Needs Your Online Purchase Laws/Etc. Input
- Thread starter Soniclight
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Of course they do, (I was being sarcastic, by the way ) And doesn't FDA stand for friggin dumb-a**e*?
) And doesn't FDA stand for friggin dumb-a**e*?
Of course they do, (I was being sarcastic, by the way
They cannot afford to have ecigarettes gain wide popularity. Many State medical programs for the children and the poor are wholly dependent on tax revenues from cigarette taxes. If 40% of addicted smokers kicked the habit the States would lose Billions. Think of the Children!!
(There has to be an FDA acronym that means malicious/lethal/indifferent greed)
Hey sonic check out VaporSearchUSA you may end up having a brick and mortar shop closer than you think.
Glad to see your back
OK, thanks. That's a better search tool than one I used last week that wasn't very useful. While still new to all of this, it was good to see the names of a couple vendors pop up in VaporSearchUSA that tend to be mentioned in postings I've been cruising over here in this long process of researching all of this. That's part of the sleuthing part of all of this... paying attention to names of vendors and products that tend to garner trust and quality, etc.
They cannot afford to have ecigarettes gain wide popularity. Many State medical programs for the children and the poor are wholly dependent on tax revenues from cigarette taxes. If 40% of addicted smokers kicked the habit the States would lose Billions. Think of the Children!!
(There has to be an FDA acronym that means malicious/lethal/indifferent greed)
Oh, let's puhleeeze not go there for this quasi political junkie will go off the rails on the 99% vs. the 1% version of e-cig vs. the big tabacco industry heavy-weights and lobbyists and all of that! - lol That subject is loaded for all of us and should stay in its own threads. I just want to get this purchasing issue figgered out and deal with the politics etc. later.
OK, that's useful info in that I will contact them with inquiry with a copy of what I sent to CASAA as mentioned in my "LATER EDIT/UPDATE" part earlier.
Last edited:
Glad I could help. Good luck and keep us posted, I'm sure a lot of people in CA will appreciate your efforts
Thanks. I'm aware that I can sometimes go into the weeds with stuff like this in part due to my condition (over-worry, over-think) but the upside is that it never hurts to get the facts and be clear on what-is-and-what-is-not-true. And as you mentioned, maybe even useful to other members even if just reading posting without participating (I've learned a lot that way myself here).
In short, even a touch of paranoia and/or being a bit ethic-compulsive can be of value, sometimes - lol.
In short, even a touch of paranoia and/or being a bit ethic-compulsive can be of value, sometimes - lol.
Last edited:
Keep us posted.PM me if you need anything.Take your time and relax.No pressure.I have your stuff packaged and just waiting for your addy when your ready.
Much appreciated and...
this reminds me that I spaced out one thing in my longer reply a while back here:
To thank both you and Salemgold for your overall kinda-sorta mentoring of this newbie for this issue and udderwise
)
OK, folks, here is some official feedback I just got from CASAA a few minutes ago -- and I'm posting this with their permission/suggestion. While in part California-related, it also deals with Federal/FDA so probably of interest to non-California people too.
Definitely some legalese that I have to study and chew on but informative IMO.
___________________________________
Dear Philip,
There are two important facts relating to your inquiry regarding the legality of purchasing e-cigarettes online from California. Please feel free to share this response on your ECF thread to help clarify any confusion with other members.
1. It is not illegal to purchase tobacco products online in California.
- The PACT act of 2009 applies specifically to tobacco (leaf) cigarettes and specific smokeless tobacco products, such as snus and chew. It has not been amended to add e-cigarette products. This Act amends the previously passed Jenkins Act, which requires that "any person selling or transferring for profit cigarettes in interstate commerce, into a state that taxes the sale of such cigarettes, to other than a distributor authorized by the state to distribute cigarettes at wholesale or retail, or who advertises the sale of such cigarettes, must register and file a monthly report, of all cigarette shipments" by "requiring Internet and other remote sellers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to comply with the same laws that apply to local cigarette and tobacco retailers." Sellers of tobacco must obtain a license to sell in California, regardless of whether or not they are based there - which requires online vendors of tobacco to also be licensed in California. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/pact.htm)
- Smokers who purchase cigarettes (or any products) online or by mail-order from out of state are required to disclose that purchase to the State and pay all applicable taxes. (Cigarette & Tobacco Products Internet Program - Frequently Asked Questions - Board of Equalization) The Cigarette and Tobacco Product Internet Program only applies to:
"Tobacco products include, but are not limited to, all forms of cigars, smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, and other products containing at least 50 percent tobacco, except cigarettes. This does not include cigarettes labeled as little or small cigars that are considered cigarettes for tax purposes.
A cigarette is defined as a rolled product of any size or shape, intended for smoking that includes any tobacco, flavored or not, and is wrapped in paper or another material."
Note that e-cigarettes are not included in the definition. They would, however, be subject to the State Use Tax.(Voluntary Disclosure of Use Tax for In State Consumers - Sales and Use Tax - Board of Equalization)
2. E-cigarettes are not officially recognized by any government body as a tobacco product.
- While Judge Leon, in Smoking Everywhere et al. vs, FDA, issued an opinion (not a ruling) that the FDA could not regulate e-cigarettes as new drug delivery devices, he suggested it should instead regulate them under the FSPTCA because "electronic cigarettes as marketed by plaintiffs, are the functional equivalent of traditional cigarettes." However, in order to do this, the FSPTCA would need to be amended to add e-cigarettes, which has not yet happened.
- Additionally, while the FDA "said in a letter to interested parties that it intended to propose rule changes to treat e-cigarettes the same as traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products" and "intends to develop regulations for electronic cigarettes" it has yet to actually propose those rule changes or develop e-cigarette regulations. So, e-cigarettes remain in a limbo - they are not drug delivery products (absent any health claims) and they are not yet "officially" tobacco products.
- E-cigarettes have been included in some indoor smoking bans in one state and a few cities/municipalities (include some in California) when those communities amended their smoking ordinances to include e-cigarette use in their definition of "smoking." However, this does not affect the ability to purchase and use the products, only use in public spaces where smoking is also prohibited.
Therefore, CASAA believes California residents, of the legal age to purchase tobacco, are not prohibited from purchasing e-cigarettes online.
Sincerely,
Kristin Noll-Marsh
Vice President
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
Web: http://casaa.org
Forum: Welcome to CASAA - Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/casaamedia#!/pages/CASAAorg-The-Consumer-Advocates-for-Smoke-free-Alternatives-Association/158188647867
"Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives."
Definitely some legalese that I have to study and chew on but informative IMO.
___________________________________
Dear Philip,
There are two important facts relating to your inquiry regarding the legality of purchasing e-cigarettes online from California. Please feel free to share this response on your ECF thread to help clarify any confusion with other members.
1. It is not illegal to purchase tobacco products online in California.
- The PACT act of 2009 applies specifically to tobacco (leaf) cigarettes and specific smokeless tobacco products, such as snus and chew. It has not been amended to add e-cigarette products. This Act amends the previously passed Jenkins Act, which requires that "any person selling or transferring for profit cigarettes in interstate commerce, into a state that taxes the sale of such cigarettes, to other than a distributor authorized by the state to distribute cigarettes at wholesale or retail, or who advertises the sale of such cigarettes, must register and file a monthly report, of all cigarette shipments" by "requiring Internet and other remote sellers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to comply with the same laws that apply to local cigarette and tobacco retailers." Sellers of tobacco must obtain a license to sell in California, regardless of whether or not they are based there - which requires online vendors of tobacco to also be licensed in California. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/pact.htm)
- Smokers who purchase cigarettes (or any products) online or by mail-order from out of state are required to disclose that purchase to the State and pay all applicable taxes. (Cigarette & Tobacco Products Internet Program - Frequently Asked Questions - Board of Equalization) The Cigarette and Tobacco Product Internet Program only applies to:
"Tobacco products include, but are not limited to, all forms of cigars, smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, and other products containing at least 50 percent tobacco, except cigarettes. This does not include cigarettes labeled as little or small cigars that are considered cigarettes for tax purposes.
A cigarette is defined as a rolled product of any size or shape, intended for smoking that includes any tobacco, flavored or not, and is wrapped in paper or another material."
Note that e-cigarettes are not included in the definition. They would, however, be subject to the State Use Tax.(Voluntary Disclosure of Use Tax for In State Consumers - Sales and Use Tax - Board of Equalization)
2. E-cigarettes are not officially recognized by any government body as a tobacco product.
- While Judge Leon, in Smoking Everywhere et al. vs, FDA, issued an opinion (not a ruling) that the FDA could not regulate e-cigarettes as new drug delivery devices, he suggested it should instead regulate them under the FSPTCA because "electronic cigarettes as marketed by plaintiffs, are the functional equivalent of traditional cigarettes." However, in order to do this, the FSPTCA would need to be amended to add e-cigarettes, which has not yet happened.
- Additionally, while the FDA "said in a letter to interested parties that it intended to propose rule changes to treat e-cigarettes the same as traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products" and "intends to develop regulations for electronic cigarettes" it has yet to actually propose those rule changes or develop e-cigarette regulations. So, e-cigarettes remain in a limbo - they are not drug delivery products (absent any health claims) and they are not yet "officially" tobacco products.
- E-cigarettes have been included in some indoor smoking bans in one state and a few cities/municipalities (include some in California) when those communities amended their smoking ordinances to include e-cigarette use in their definition of "smoking." However, this does not affect the ability to purchase and use the products, only use in public spaces where smoking is also prohibited.
Therefore, CASAA believes California residents, of the legal age to purchase tobacco, are not prohibited from purchasing e-cigarettes online.
Sincerely,
Kristin Noll-Marsh
Vice President
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
Web: http://casaa.org
Forum: Welcome to CASAA - Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/casaamedia#!/pages/CASAAorg-The-Consumer-Advocates-for-Smoke-free-Alternatives-Association/158188647867
"Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives."
Last edited:
For those interested in the above FYI, here is my follow-up reply with her response to my inquiry on something stated at the end of the above...
_____________________________________________________
Hello Kristin,
Thank you for such a prompt response -- and I indeed shared it at my thread at ECF within minutes of my receipt from you. I'm sure some of it is old hat to veterans there but useful to others for sure.
The only thing that kind of mildly jumped out at me was this closing sentence:
"Therefore, CASAA believes California residents, of the legal age to purchase tobacco, are not prohibited from purchasing e-cigarettes online."
I am aware that this whole e-cig industry and its rise is occurring in state of legal flux due to its relative novelty, so the use of the verb "believes" is understandable.
However the more not-a-lawyer lawyer in me is thinking..."A belief is one thing akin to interpretation, not necessarily a fact -- which is another." In this sense, we have no legal precedents (yet) so perhaps that's all CASAA can say at this juncture.
And/but I'd welcome your feedback on this small nit-picking quibble of mine
Sincerely,
~ Philip S. Knight
__________________
Her reply:
Dear Philip,
CASAA is an non-profit, educational organization, not a licensed law firm. CASAA's statement is not to be taken as legal advice or official legal interpretation, as it is simply an informed opinion based on the facts of discovered legislation.
Therefore, based on the fact that e-cigarettes have not yet been legally defined or regulated as tobacco products by any government body (only officially "acknowledged" as such by the FDA), they would not be included in legislation specific to certain tobacco products at this time. Based on the fact that California has regulations and rules specific to the sale and taxation of tobacco products sold online and nothing posted about prohibiting the practice, there is no evidence supporting the claim that the online purchase of tobacco products is actually prohibited in California.
Based on these facts, there is no evidence that the purchase of e-cigarettes from an online source is illegal in California.
If you would like an official, legal opinion that online e-cigarette purchases are legal (for adults) in California, we recommend you contact the State of California Attorney General and inquire of them directly the legal status of online e-cigarette purchases in California: Contact Us | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General
Sincerely,
Kristin Noll-Marsh
Vice President
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
_____________________________________________________
Hello Kristin,
Thank you for such a prompt response -- and I indeed shared it at my thread at ECF within minutes of my receipt from you. I'm sure some of it is old hat to veterans there but useful to others for sure.
The only thing that kind of mildly jumped out at me was this closing sentence:
"Therefore, CASAA believes California residents, of the legal age to purchase tobacco, are not prohibited from purchasing e-cigarettes online."
I am aware that this whole e-cig industry and its rise is occurring in state of legal flux due to its relative novelty, so the use of the verb "believes" is understandable.
However the more not-a-lawyer lawyer in me is thinking..."A belief is one thing akin to interpretation, not necessarily a fact -- which is another." In this sense, we have no legal precedents (yet) so perhaps that's all CASAA can say at this juncture.
And/but I'd welcome your feedback on this small nit-picking quibble of mine
Sincerely,
~ Philip S. Knight
__________________
Her reply:
Dear Philip,
CASAA is an non-profit, educational organization, not a licensed law firm. CASAA's statement is not to be taken as legal advice or official legal interpretation, as it is simply an informed opinion based on the facts of discovered legislation.
Therefore, based on the fact that e-cigarettes have not yet been legally defined or regulated as tobacco products by any government body (only officially "acknowledged" as such by the FDA), they would not be included in legislation specific to certain tobacco products at this time. Based on the fact that California has regulations and rules specific to the sale and taxation of tobacco products sold online and nothing posted about prohibiting the practice, there is no evidence supporting the claim that the online purchase of tobacco products is actually prohibited in California.
Based on these facts, there is no evidence that the purchase of e-cigarettes from an online source is illegal in California.
If you would like an official, legal opinion that online e-cigarette purchases are legal (for adults) in California, we recommend you contact the State of California Attorney General and inquire of them directly the legal status of online e-cigarette purchases in California: Contact Us | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General
Sincerely,
Kristin Noll-Marsh
Vice President
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
Last edited:
All I know is this: I am on SSI/SSD. I live in the North Bay in CA. I have pkg's sent to me regularly from various vendors and have never had a problem. We have a local brick and mortar e cig store in our city. So in my opinion from my experience I say ~ if you really want to try an ecig go for it!! I did and haven't regretted it one bit
Tasty Vapor is out of Oakland, Not Cigs is in Central CA, Clouds of Vapor is in CA., just to name a few (off of the top of my head). There are alot of vendors in CA
Tasty Vapor is out of Oakland, Not Cigs is in Central CA, Clouds of Vapor is in CA., just to name a few (off of the top of my head). There are alot of vendors in CA
Last edited:
OK, thanks for your reply, vikki59. I know I'm a bit over-worrying here in one sense, but I approach a lot of major decisions when money and spending is involved like this due to fixed income: a lot of research first and the intuition finally kicks in and I make the move or decision. My dad was a journalist, I majored in journalism for the short while I was in college. I must have some investigative reporter genes or somethin' )
)
Research is good ~ now the research is over ... Time to get an ecig Soniclight ... It may just save your life.. If you read the new posts, there are 2 diff posts where ppl have recently lost their lives to lung cancer/disease.. It brings our "hobby/obsession" back to the reason for vaping in the first place.
... Time to get an ecig Soniclight ... It may just save your life.. If you read the new posts, there are 2 diff posts where ppl have recently lost their lives to lung cancer/disease.. It brings our "hobby/obsession" back to the reason for vaping in the first place.
Sonic,I can tell you 2 things for sure.
#1.I am a member of CASAA and
#2.Kristen is very well informed and would not steer you wrong.She is a wonderful person and a huge asset to the ecig community.
#1.I am a member of CASAA and
#2.Kristen is very well informed and would not steer you wrong.She is a wonderful person and a huge asset to the ecig community.
Well, that's nice to know and just from her prompt and detailed responses, I agree. Here's my closing response to her and my parting comment reflects what you say about her being an asset.
_________________________
Hello Kristin,
Thanks again for rapid response and I have also added it to the EFC thread with your first informative reply. And I understand your position as clarified.
I may contact the California Attorney General's office as suggested since I've gone this far in my inquiry into this -- a way to nail down the facts even more. I'm also awaiting a response from my online inquiry at PHLP/Public Health Law & Policy that was suggested at the thread I created on this issue at ECF. I essentially sent them a minimally edited version of what I had sent you.
That said, your input alone has loosened my concern or anxiety on the matter; I feel in a position to give myself permission to let go of the fear of being hauled off to jail and losing my SSI/SSA benefits and sole income for buying some e-juice
_____________________________________________
OK, that's pretty much it and thank you again for your help in this. And of course for you and CASAA standing up for us all - for whatever our political affiliations, it is another one of those "we of the 99% vs. the 1%" issues...
No reply necessary.
Sincerely,
~ Philip S. Knight
From what I understand, the FDA lost 4 times to classify nic as a drug so they settled for tobacco product. How that affects us I'm not sure yet. Though I'm sure it means taxes at some point.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
