i agree, actually the scenario is this, the customs confiscates it....and there is no way for the seller to get his item back.
- Status
Happened to me. I have this mental image of Customs inspectors taking e-cig breaks with confiscated stuff.
Ok, that was a bad joke... and it dosn't help at all.
snuff was a bad traslation, it is must say tabacco.
Ok, we are 110 millions in Mexico and 10-20 millions around the world... not every one here wants to go to US, they go there to survive, so come on!
I do know: All that motives except the last one.
This federal law has a background, a similar local law was first aproved in Mexico City, after that, this law was copied by the Congres Of The Union (Federal legislators), the law for Mexico City was made about Octuber 2007: "www . eluniversal. com . mx /notas/452667 . html" i remember on july of this year a local legislator of Mexico City used an e-cig inside the legislative assambly this event even hits the news, look at this: "www .el-universal. com . mx/ciudad/90869 . html" you can traslate it with google, i can post links yet :S
This federal law was made a few months ago, it isn't something new, it is "efective" since august 28th of this year, even after that date the e-cigs are been selled on internet on big sites like mercadolibre.com wich is part of ebay, they are selling this stuff even with that law, I think this particular fraction of the law was made in a particual stupid way, the fraction says:
"Se prohíbe comerciar, vender, distribuir, exhibir, promocionar o producir cualquier objeto que no sea un producto del tabaco, que contenga alguno de los elementos de la marca o cualquier tipo de diseño o señal auditiva que lo identifique con productos del tabaco"
wich means:
"It is forbidden to commercialize, to sell, to distribute, to exhibit, to promote or to produce any object that IS NOT a product from tabacco, wich contains some of the elements of the BRAND or any kind of design or AUDITIVE SIGNALS that identifies it with products from tabacco"
So, for some people like the stupid COFEPRIS guys any thing that looks like or sounds like or just have a design similar to a cigarette is banned, ONLY if it is not a product from tabacco AND it is an object... but wait a minute... e-liquid is not an object... but wait a minute... a pen looks like a cigarette and it is not a product from tabacco... but wait another minute... what if i buy the spare parts of an e-cig? (atomizer, battery, mouth piece, e-juice) it dosn't look any more like a cigarette...
I hink this fraction refers to objects that promote a BRAND of tabacco, that's why it saids: "...wich contains some of the elements of the BRAND, or any kind of design or AUDITIVE SIGNALS that identifies it with products from tabacco".
But the COFEPRIS is interpreting (or misinterpreting) it at their way.
I gonna search for the entire law to see in what context this fraction was made, but I'm prety sure that is not a specific ban to the e-cigs as the COFEPRIS stands.
So to all the supliers don't be afraid shipping to Mexico, just use your imagination, don't brand it as an e-cig, sell the spare parts, etc..
I ordered from US on november 17th and get it on november 24th through USPS without issues, the FEDERAL law as I said was "applied" since august 28th and the local Mexico City law was "applied" almost one year ago.
thanks for the info lithium. here are the translate links:
Toughen laws against smoking in the City
Legislator vapes in the assembly to the bewilderment of his colleagues
Please keep us updated on what you can find out !
Toughen laws against smoking in the City
Legislator vapes in the assembly to the bewilderment of his colleagues
Please keep us updated on what you can find out !
Last edited:
Oh God! this is awful!
I'd have spend the whole night doing a research of this matter and i can't believe it, the story goes like this:
Back on the first days of december 2007 the PRESIDENT of the commission of health at the chamber of senators the still Senator Ernesto Saro was promoting the anti-tabacco federal law, his partner the Senator Ricardo García threatened to vote against the law, so Ernesto Saro tried to conviced him saying: "if I got you a cigarette that you can smoke everywhere, in the chamber, in restaurants and in airplanes, would you vote on favour?" Ricardo García agreed to the deal, then Saro gave him an e-cig and both started vaping at the chamber of senators, after that, Ricardo García voted on favour....
This proofs that COFEPRIS is totally misenterpreting the law...
Sadly in this country nobody hear you if you don't have enough money or power...
From: www . elimparcial . com /EdicionDigital/Ediciones/20081203/PDFS/General_5 . pdf
Please download the PDF before they quickly erase it! in that publication you can see both senators vaping at the chamber...
I'd have spend the whole night doing a research of this matter and i can't believe it, the story goes like this:
Back on the first days of december 2007 the PRESIDENT of the commission of health at the chamber of senators the still Senator Ernesto Saro was promoting the anti-tabacco federal law, his partner the Senator Ricardo García threatened to vote against the law, so Ernesto Saro tried to conviced him saying: "if I got you a cigarette that you can smoke everywhere, in the chamber, in restaurants and in airplanes, would you vote on favour?" Ricardo García agreed to the deal, then Saro gave him an e-cig and both started vaping at the chamber of senators, after that, Ricardo García voted on favour....
This proofs that COFEPRIS is totally misenterpreting the law...
Sadly in this country nobody hear you if you don't have enough money or power...
From: www . elimparcial . com /EdicionDigital/Ediciones/20081203/PDFS/General_5 . pdf
Please download the PDF before they quickly erase it! in that publication you can see both senators vaping at the chamber...
not sure i'm following...
senator garcia told senator saro that he would vote against his anti-smoking proposals.
these were for things like banning smoking in restaurants etc.
so senator saro gave him an electronic cigarette.
this persuaded senator garcia to vote in favour of these proposals because he enjoyed the electronic cigarette?
senator garcia told senator saro that he would vote against his anti-smoking proposals.
these were for things like banning smoking in restaurants etc.
so senator saro gave him an electronic cigarette.
this persuaded senator garcia to vote in favour of these proposals because he enjoyed the electronic cigarette?
how is this connected to electronic cigarettes being banned?
I think something is lost in translation.
it seems to me that senator saro agreed to the anti-smoking proposals because after seeing the electronic cigarette, he realised that he liked it so much that he would use one instead and the anti-smoking proposals would not matter for him.
It seems these two senators are in favour of electronic cigarettes, though from what you mentioned before, they are banned in mexico under the same law that probably bans cigarette shaped candy ?
I think something is lost in translation.
it seems to me that senator saro agreed to the anti-smoking proposals because after seeing the electronic cigarette, he realised that he liked it so much that he would use one instead and the anti-smoking proposals would not matter for him.
It seems these two senators are in favour of electronic cigarettes, though from what you mentioned before, they are banned in mexico under the same law that probably bans cigarette shaped candy ?
Last edited:
They are banned because the bad interpretation of the COFEPRIS on a paragraph in the law that these senators aproved, according to the COFEPRIS interpetration any thing with a shape, signs or sound that connect an object to a product of tabacco is ilegal, wich is NOT the intention on this paragraph, the intention is to forbide the use of promotional objects or music like the m34boro theme with the cowboy that is so caracteristic.
The point is Saro promoted that law and he gave an e-cig to García as a present, so his intention wasnt ban the e-cig, but COFEPRIS is banning it anyway under they own interpretation of the law.
And yes, according to the stupid COFEPRIS interpretation on that paragraph, those candys should be banned...
The point is Saro promoted that law and he gave an e-cig to García as a present, so his intention wasnt ban the e-cig, but COFEPRIS is banning it anyway under they own interpretation of the law.
And yes, according to the stupid COFEPRIS interpretation on that paragraph, those candys should be banned...
Last edited:
thanks I think I understand. So it is ironic that a law that Saro proposed and was agreed to by Garcia is being used against electronic cigarettes in a way that it was not designed and these two senators actually like electronic cigarettes. they must be aware of this. perhaps someone could write to them and they might be able to help.
It is suspicious that electronic cigarettes were able to banned so quickly and due to the egregious misinterpretation of a law. I wonder if COFEPRIS are heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry in the decisions they make.
Are there pharmaceutical factories in Mexico?
It is suspicious that electronic cigarettes were able to banned so quickly and due to the egregious misinterpretation of a law. I wonder if COFEPRIS are heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry in the decisions they make.
Are there pharmaceutical factories in Mexico?
It is and always as been up to the person ordering to know the laws of their OWN country. If they knew it was illegal then thats the chance they took.
Of course, a lot of them
Some supliers from china send a new product if it got confiscated in customs, and this make sense to me, from a bussiness point of view.
Lets say a suplier gets a DSE901 starter kit by $25 dollars and s/he sells it about $50, the revenue is a 100% if s/he saves a 5% to replace the products confiscated by customs (not every package gets confiscated) s/he's getting a good revenue anyway, if the product gets confiscated and s/he dosnt replace it I lose $50+shipping and s/he lose a client, but if instead s/he resend me the product a second time and it pass the customs s/he don't lose anything, just the revenue, but s/he keeps a really happy client for future buys.
Last edited:
Secretary of Health is looking for the sale of e-cigarettes and CHOCOLATES with cigar shape in the state of Tabasco, Mexico:
Translated version of http://www.oem.com.mx/elheraldodetabasco/notas/n997504.htm
Translated version of http://www.oem.com.mx/elheraldodetabasco/notas/n997504.htm
this is madness, they ban everything that looks like a cigarette except cigarettes. pencils will be next, followed by taquitos and carrots.
Is there a chance they would allow an electronic cigarette that does not resemble a cigarette/cigar ? I don't think so. I fear they will say the vapour replicates cigarettes too similarly. I am sorry for the mexicans.
Is there a chance they would allow an electronic cigarette that does not resemble a cigarette/cigar ? I don't think so. I fear they will say the vapour replicates cigarettes too similarly. I am sorry for the mexicans.
Ban on candy cigarettes on the state of Guanajuato, Mexico
Translated version of http://www.am.com.mx/Nota.aspx?ID=242451&strPlaza=Leon&IDPlaza=1
People are laughing at this stupid law, please read the comments.
Translated version of http://www.am.com.mx/Nota.aspx?ID=242451&strPlaza=Leon&IDPlaza=1
People are laughing at this stupid law, please read the comments.
No fiction writer could get away with something so absurd. Citizen money is being spent on an all-out search for that dreaded health menace -- the chocolate cigar? This is beyond ludicrous. We've got ebola in the Phillipines and bird flu killed a Chinese girl yesterday ... forget it. Find those chocolate cigars!
But, believe it or not, the antis in the US want a similar prohibition to cover candy cigarettes and bubble gum cigars. And they'll probably get that ban.
But, believe it or not, the antis in the US want a similar prohibition to cover candy cigarettes and bubble gum cigars. And they'll probably get that ban.
Last edited:
Yes, this is so ridiculous, how could a candy incentives MORE to smoke than a REAL cigarette?? because candy cigarettes/cigars and any object that resembles a cigaerette are COMPLETELY banned BUT REAL CIGARETTES aren't completely banned.
This has nothing to do with public health because if public health was the matter then maybe a better idea would have been to allow EVERYTHING that resembles a cigarette BUT ban the REAL killers products from tobacco.
The antis have a similar way of thinking, that is why in europe the antis don't want the electronic vaporizers, they are too similar in design to real cigarettes.
This has nothing to do with public health because if public health was the matter then maybe a better idea would have been to allow EVERYTHING that resembles a cigarette BUT ban the REAL killers products from tobacco.
The antis have a similar way of thinking, that is why in europe the antis don't want the electronic vaporizers, they are too similar in design to real cigarettes.
Last edited:
- Status
